Meeting to coramemorate the re .'^- toration of civil
and religious liberty, Edinburgh, Dec. 80, 1838
Report of the great public meeting

MM42.

YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

f^^eVvn^ Vneid to c>orr.vv.er^<,^o^t-«
T'he Viais'^ow Q-Sii«wb{y of t43a ,

REPORT ^/^^^

OF THB

GREAT PUBLIC MEETING

HELD IN THE

ASSEMBLY BOOMS, EDINBURGH,
ON THURSDAY EVENING, DEC,. 20, 1838,

TO COMMEMORATE THE

RESTORATION OF CIVIL AND RELIGIOUS LIBERTY,
AND OF
PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH GOVERNMENT,

AS SEC ORED ET THE

GLASGOW ASSEMBLY OF 1638.

TAKEN IN SHORT-HAND BY MR SIMON MACGREGOR.

EDINBURGH :
THE EDINBURGH PRINTING AND PUBLISHING COMPANY,
12, SOUTH ST DAVID STREET :
JOHN ANDERSON, JUN., 55, NORTH BRIDGE STREET.
GLASGOW: W. COLLINS; M. OGLE & SONJ JOHN SMITH & SON; AND JOHN M'LEOO.
ABERDEEN : BROWN & CO., AND LEWIS SMII^E.
M.DCCC.XXXVIII.

GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY, 1638.

*' We talie God to witness,; that religion is th^ only subject, conscience tlie motive, and reformation the
aim,of our Aesigas."—Inf(}jyjiation tq a^l good C/irijtians, 1639.
The proceedings of this celebrated Assembly,, curious even as a piece of history, derive
additional interest frora the position at present occupied' by the Church of Scotland in re
lation to the civil povtrerc whicb strikingly coincides in some respects with that in which she
stood exactly this time two hundred years;ago. A brief sketch of theiliistory of this'Assem-
bly, prepared with a view to the meeting to be held in Edinburgh, on tlie. 20th 'December
18.38, for the. purpose of unfolding' its principles iand- proceedings, will,! it is hoped,'* 'be 'as
acceptable to the public asjfc is seasonable.
The Scottish Church, from the earliest dawB of the Reformation, was distinguished fbr
the simplicity of her constitution, both in point of discipline and worship. While England,
following in the wake of her princes, remained only half reformed, Scotland, under the aus-
, pices of ber noblemen, gentry,:and commons, leagued together in one holy cause, exhibited
to the world the only National Church, (for Geneva was but a presbytery,) reformed in all
> points according to ' the apostolic model. The lordly hierarchy of Rome was reduced, by
our fathers at one blow, to the primitive order of pastors, elders, and deacons— the man
agement ofthe Church was placed in her own councils, composed of her parochial' bishops
and presbyters, — and the idolatrous ritual of Bopery, the monstrous compilation of the
dark ages, was discarded for a form more befitting the rational and spiritual simplidty of
the New Testament.
Clean and searching as this reform was, it was far from being characterized byj the reck
lessness of popular innovation. With a prudent regard to the existing destitutiOniof the
country, superintendents were at first appointed to supply the place of presbyteries, till these
were regularly organised; the churches, so far as they oould be spared from the first ebul
lition of popular vengeance, were devoted to public worship , a book of common prayers was
adopted as a guide and help to the ministry in that duty; and a portion ofthe church reve
nues, rescued from the rapacious > hands of the nobles, was appropriated to the erection :of
seminaries of learning, and the maintenance of a working clergy. But the pride and glory
of the Church of Scotland was her General Assembly. ¦ To this supreme court, ministers
and people looked up with veneration, as the guardian of the liberty and purity of the
Church, the badge and security of her Presbyterianism; and so long as its freedom was
respected, as it was legally secured by the act 1392, they were less careful about minor
arrangements. So tolerant, indeed, were our reformers to the ancient dignitaries, that they
were allowed to retain their titles, and even a share of their emoluments, during their lives.
To this much abused lenity may be traced, in a great measure, the subsequent troubles
in which the Church was involved. The avaricious Morton, and after him the vain-glorious
James, anxious to secure the wealth ofthe Church, and disliking her discipline, made these
nominal dignities thepretext for overthrowing her liberties; and, by a series of disgraceful
measures, alternating between trick and violence, James at last succeeded in suppressing
her General Assemblies, banishing her faithful ministers, and substituting a set of minions,
under the name of bishops, whom he found infinitely more useful and tractable in carrying
forward bis arbitrary designs.
Matters continued in this state till the accession of Charles I., whose gloomy bigotry,
directed by the counsels of Laud and other high-churchmen, suggested still moreexteiisive
innovations. Having resolved on bringing the English Church into a nearer confonmity with
that of Rome, a Book of Canons and a new Liturgy, drawn up by Laud, were' enacted

for Scotland, on which, with aingular fatuity, they chose to try the first eSperiinent. In
this Liturgy, which was imposed by royal authority on the whole country, before a single
copy of it was sent down, the worst errors and most obnoxious ceremonials of Popery
were revived, — the book being an aliro>t literal and undisguised transcript of the Romish
Missals. Ihus, wiihout (he concert of Gtiitral Asunbly or Parliament, but solley by
virtue of the royal prerogative and the authority of the prelates, the entire system of
I'resbyterian doctrine and disci]}line was threatened with subversion, and the consciences,
as well as liberties, of the nation, were laid at the foot ofthe throne. When to this we add
the dread, ihen generally and not unrea^onably entertained, of a design to re-establish the
reign of Popery, we need not he surprised at the trtmendous revulsion produced throughout
the country. 1 he alaim was soundtd ficm the pulpits, and pervaded not merely the com
mon people, but the gentry also, and with a few exceptions, all the ancient nobility of the
realm. At the first atleirpt made to introduce tbe Service- took, in 1637, the public indig
nation burst forth inlo open and tumultuous resistance ; and Charles soon found that he had
awakened a spirit which would be quelled neither by menace nor manoeuvre. The feelings
of Scotsmen, reverting into their ancient channels, the National Covenant of 1 580 was renew
ed in February 1638, with the addition of an article, abjuring tbe recent innovations as con
trary to Scripture and the ancient constitution of their Church. The spectacle of a whole
nation renewing with tears of joy the oath of their fathers, struck terror into the bishops and
their underlings, who Hed in dismay from the tottering edifice which tbey bad at once reared
and undermined ; and the Archbishop of St Andrews is said to have exclaimed, " Now all
that we have been doing these thirty years, is at once thrown down ! "
In this predicament, Charles found himself obliged to give his royal sanction to a free Gene
ral Assembly, and to emit a declaration, discharging the use of the Service-book, Canons, High
Commission, and Five Articles of Perth, and subjecting the prelates to the censure of the
Assembly. This long and ** passionately-desired'* Assembly met in the Cathedral Church of
Glasgow, on Wednesday, 21st November 1638. Never, perhaps, was a deliberative meeting
convened under circumstances of more intense and absorbing interest. The eyes of the whole
nation were dii ected to the proceedings of the first General Assembly of the Church that had
taken place during the long space of thirty-six years, — for the six corrupt and packed Assem
blies, which had been held from 1606 to 1618, were unworthy of the name, and were after
wards declared null and void. Never, perhaps, was the good city of Glasgow so honoured or
so crowded. Commissioners thronged in from all quarters of the country ; noblemen and
gentlemen came attended by large bodies of their friends and retainers — a rumour having
spread of a design on the part of the Court to intimidate the Covenanters.
The Assembly was opened wilh solemn fasting, and a Sermon by Mr John Bell, the oldest
minister in the bounds. The Marquis of Hamilton appeared as Royal Commissioner ; and
after " a tough dispute" with his grace and his council, which lasted a whole day, the cele
brated Alexander Henderson, then Minister of Leuchars, wa? unanimously chosen moderator.
Mr Archibald Johnston, after another struggle, was elected clerk. At a long table, in the
middle of the Church, were seated Rothes, Montrose, Eglinton, Loudon, Balmerino and the
other Lords of the Covenant, with the other elders, amounting in all to nearly a hundred.
On benches rising up around this table, were arranged the ministers from the several presby
teries, to the number of one hundred and forty. The moderator sat at a smaller table oppo
site the Commissioner. A temporary gallery was erected for the relations of the nobility,
and the vaults above were crowded with spectators of all ranks, male and female, eagerly
watching the proceedings.
It soon became apparent that Charles, though he bad found it expedient to allay the fears
and suspicions of the penple of Scotland, by indicting " a free General Assembly," had no
real intention of allowing such a meeting to proceeed to business. His declaration was
worded in such terms as to admit of exceptions being nii.de to it, if not constituted according
to his pleasure. The Commissioner, acting according to his instructions, sought, in various
ways, to embarrass them at every step, and to tind a pretext for dissolving the Assembly. This
was soon afl['orded by a declinature, which was presented in name of the bi!.hops who had been
cited to attend, to answer numerous charges which were brought against them. In this
declinature, the bishops, after various objections, which amounted fo a begging of the whole
question in dispute, refused to acknowledge the Assembly as a competent tribunal, on the
ground that it was partly composed of what they termed lay-elders, — alleging that it waa
absurd to require archbishops and bishops to submit to be judged by a mixed assembly of pres
byters and laics, — an assembly, too, of which the primate was not allowed to be moderator.
These objections were ably refuted and overruled; but, on the moderator proposing the
question, " Whether or not the Assembly found themselves competent judges of the bishops,
notwithstanding their declinature?" Hamilton rose up snd declared, that ifthey proceeded

to put this question to- the vote, " he behoved to be gone." In vain did the moderator
remind him that tho AssLuibly had been called by the King, and constituted according to
the ancient order in Scotland,— ^the Commissioner, after some wrangling, dissolved the As
sembly, in the King's name, and forbade any further procedure.
To have separated, in obedience to this insulting and unconRtitntiorial mandate, would
have been a practical acknowledgmt-nt of the royal iiupremacy in the Church, and of the
episcopal authority, which the Covenanters had solemnly abjured. Ihe spirits of our fathers
shrunk from a step which would have involved them in perjury and disgrace. Friends as
they were to monarchical governmeni, and loyal to their prince in all civil concerns, they
chose to "obey God rather than man," and considered this as a noble opportunity, pre
sented to them in Providence, for asserting the prerogatives of the King oi Zion, and the
spiritual independence of his Church. The Earl of Rothes immediately presented a protest,
which was read while the Commissioner and his council were in the act of retiring, — and
which bore, that '* if his Grace should withdraw, and leave the Church and kingdom in its
present disorder, notwithstanding his dissolut on, it was lawful and necessary for the Assem
bly to sit still, and continue their meetings, till they had tried and censured all the bygone
evils, and their authors, and provided a solid course for continuing God's truth in the land
with purity and liberty." The moderator addressed them in an encouraging speech j in
which, wilh admirable dexterity, he lurned the secession of the Commissioner into an argu
ment for their remaining steady at their post. " All who are present," said he, "know how
this Assembly was indicted, and what power we allow to our sovereign in matters eccle
siastic : but though we have acknowledged the power of Christian kings for convening
assemblies, and their power in them, yet that must not derogate from Christ's right, for he
hath given warrant to convocate asstmblits, whether the magistrates consent or not. There
fore, seeing we perceive his Grace to be so zealous of his royal master's commands, have
we not good reason to be zealous toward our Lord, and to maintain the privileges of His
kingdom? It becometh us not to be discouiagcd at our being deprived of human authority,
but rather to double our courage in answering the end for which we are convened." Lord
Loudon, and others, followed in the same strain j and such was the impression produced,
that, at a moment when the defection of one might have proved ruinous, all remained firm,
— and some who were previously undecided were induced to declare themselves. Among
the rest. Lord Erskine, son of the Earl of Mar, a young nobleman of great promise, came
forward, and craving audience ofthe Assembly, professed his grief at his former indecision,
and besought them, with tears in his eyes, to pray for his forgiveness, and receive him into
their covenant and society. " "We all embraced him gladly," says Baillie, '* and admired
the timeousness of God's comforts and mercies towards us." A more important accession
was made in the person of the Earl of Argyle, who was afterwards honoured to seal the
cause with his blood.
Having taken their ground, the Assembly now proceeded to exercise those spiritual pow
ers which, as a court of Christ, they considered themselves bound to vindicate and uphold.
After defending the constitution ofthe Assembly from the objections of their opponents,
and explaining the covenant, they disclaimed the Five Articles of Perth, — which enjoined
kneeling at the Sacrament, the observance of certain religious holidays, confirmation, pri
vate baptism, and private communicating condemned the Service-Book, Canons, and High
Commission Court; annulled the six preceding corrupt Assemblies; and declared Episco
pacy to be abjured in (he ancient Scottish Confession, and therefore to be removed out of
the Kirk.
Episcopacy being thus renounced, the Assembly proceeded to censure the bishops. These
dignitaries, w hom tliey regarded as the authors of all the evils and distractions which pre
vailed, had been served with libels by the various presbyteries in which they resided, charging
them with having transgressed the caveats of iormer Assemblies, which they had under
taken to observe — with various acts of tyranny and oppression — with having taught Popish
and i>rminian tenets, togetherwith a great many privale vices, to which some ofthem were
notoriously addicted. /' fter long and tedious processes, which indeed were hardly necessary
to establish facts so publicly known, the two archbishops and six bishops were excommuni
cated, four were simply deposed, and Iwo, on their making humble submission to the Assem
bly, were only suspended from their ecclesiastical functions. '* I do verily think," says
Baillie, "that not three ofthe fourteen would have been unwilling to have laid their bishoprics
at our fyet, and, after any penance we had enjoined, returned to their old ministry, had not
fear of (he king's wrath, and hope of oui overthrow by the king's forces, holden them back.**
The duty of carrying this awful judgment of the court into effect devolved on Henderson,
who, after a sermon on Ps. ex. 1, — The Lord said unto my Lordt Sit thou at my right
hand, until I make thine enemies thyjootstool, "in a very dreadful and grave manner,*'
pronounced the sentence of deposition and excommunication against tbe bishops.

6
To secure the Church, in time tfotnihg,' agaWst Episcopal usurpation,^ and to promote its
genetal usefulness iri 'afler-ages, several points of our ecclesiastical polity were then enacted.
Kirk-sessions, Presbyteries, and Assemblies, wfere; by an express act, restored to their primi
tive integrity. Presbyterial visitation, and the residence of the elergy, were strictly enjoined ;
it was ordained that none should be intruded into the ministry without admission by the
Pre-sbytery, or contrary to the will of the congregation; and, in fine, this Assembly was
the first which enacted the system of Parochial Schools, which has since conferred such .1
boon on the natives of Scotland.
After declaring that, by Divine, ecclesiastical, and civil warrant, the Church of Scotland
had power to convene in her General Assembly as oflen as necessity might require,^jafter
appointing the next General Assembly to meet at Edinburgh in July 16.39, if the king
should not call it to meet at an earlier period, and enjoining a thankful commemoration by
all the members in their families, congregations, and Presbyteries, of the great and g'ood
things which God had done for them, the moderator dismissed the Assembly, on the 20th
December 1638, in an eloquent speech, which was followed with prayer, singing the 133d
Psftlm, and the apostolical bltesing. After wbich, Henderson, in a solemn tone, exclaimed,
" 'We have now cast down tke walls of Jericho. Let him that rebuildeth them beware of
the curse of Hiel'the Betheltte 1"

REPORT, &c.

On Thursday Evening, December 20, 1838, a meeting was held in
th« Assembly Rooms, Edinburgh, for the purpose of commemor
ating thfe Restoration of Civil and Religious Liberty, and of Pres
byterian Church Government, as- secured by the celebrated General
Assembly at Glasgow in 1638. The great room was not merely
crowded, but litei-ally crammed, and numbers were obliged to go
away without obtaining, admission. The Chair was occupied by
Sir George Sinclair, Bart., M.P., who was supported by Sir
Andrew Agnew, Bart., Sir James Spittal,. Cap|;ain Trotter of Balleu-
dean, Alexander Dunlop, Esq., Alex. Earle Monteith, Esq., James
Moncreiffy Esq^, Advocates; Bailies Stark, and Ramsay; Convener
Clark; George Brown, Esq.; Rev. DrD. Dickson, Mr Guthrie,
Mr Cunningham, Mu Liddell, Mr Glover, MrM'Crie, Mr Begg of
Libberton, Mr Browin, Mf Doig of Torryburn, Mr Cunningham of
Prestonpans, Mr Thorburn of Leithj Mr Jamieson of Currie; James
Bridges,, Esq., W.S., R. Johnston, jun., Esq., &c. &c.
The Chairman,-:— Ladies and Gentlemen, I am persuaded, that it
is not less congenial', to your own feelings,, thaq conformable to the
practiccrof our venerated ancestors, that a meeting such, as the prer
sent should be opened with pi'ayer and. ppaise.; I have^therefore to
request Dr Dicksouito conduct the, service.
Dr David Dickson of StCuthbert's then gjive out the 44th Psalm,
which was sung with, striking ¦ effect, the whole of the vast assem^
blage devoutly joining; and the reverend gentlemap then offered
up a piayer suiMble to.the occasion.
The Chairman itheni rose amidst enthusiastic cheering, and said,
Ladies and Gentlemen, to preside, upon such, an occasion is au ho
nour, which I had neither presumpfion enough to exppct, nor humility
enough to decline. It , would,, doubtless,, have exonerated me from
no small degree of responsibility, and might have proved highly ad
vantageous, to the meeting, if thisv place had. been occupied by some
individual, more gifted with talent, more distinguished by eloquence,
and more prorainent in importance as a public character; but it did
appear to me neither anomalous nor unseemly, that the chair should
be taken by one tof Scotland's national representatives (loud cheers)
at tbe present national solemnity, (renewed cheers,) in the proceed
ings of wjhiich I am persuaded,, that a vast majority of the people of
Scotiand will take a lively aud thankful interest. (Cheers,)

We are assembled, my friends — as you know — for the purpose of
awarding our tribute of admiration and respect to that General
Assembly which met at Glasgow in November 1638, and was
dissolved, or rather dissolved itself, on the 20th of December of the
same year. That crisis, my friends, has justly been termed the
Second Reformation; and I almost feel inclined to assert with re
gard to it what the prophet said of the second temple, " that its
glory was greater than that of the former," (cheers ;) for then it
was that through the faithfulness and courage of her pastors, the
zeal and piety of her nobles, and the sympathy and exertions of her
Christian people, the rights of our church were more clearly defined,
its principles more fully developed, its liberties more firmly secured,
and its defects more completely purged away. (Cheers.)
There is one pararaount consideration which, in despite of severe
indisposition, has compelled me to address you at this time; and that,
my friends, is a lively, enthusiastic, and increasing attachment to
our venerated Establishment. (Cheers.) In proportion as I become
better acquainted with the systems, the principles, and the workings
of other churches, I become daily more thankful for our own. My
veneration for it is grounded not merely on a general appreciation
of its excellencies, but on a personal experience of its blessings. I
recognise not only the inestimable benefits which it has been the
instrument of conferring on the State, but the sacred and sanctify
ing infiuences, which it is the means of imparting to the soul.
(Cheers ) I admire not only the simplicity of its forms, but the
soundness and sanctity of its faith. In short, I love every thing
about the Church of Scotland except its abuses. (Cheers.) Against
those I may venture to assert, that I have never ceased or hesitated
to raise my voice. They are all just so many departures from the
principles maintained in 1638 — a year which was to our religious
freedom what 1688 was to our civil liberties. (Cheers.) I consi
der, that I best discharge my duties, either as a private Christian,
or as a public man, by exerting myself in every place, and in every
way, to promote the usefulness and increase the efficiency of the
Church of Scotland. (Cheers.) I think, my friends, universal
seat-room of more importance to the well-being of my countrymen
than universal suffrage. ( Loud ch ers.) But, however anxiously
disposed to contend for the extension of the Church, I must say,
there is another principle of which I am still more tenacious ; and
that is, its unfettered and entire independence with regard to all
matters pertaining to sacred and spiritual jurisdiction. {Loudchcers.)
If any one should propose, that we should barter this pearl of great
price for gold, I for one would indignantly exclaim, " Thy money
perish with thee." (Cheers.) In reference to this vital and funda
mental right — a right coeval with her origin, essential to her
honour, interwoven witb her prosperity, and even indispensable to
her existence, a necessity is laid upon the Church of Scotland, in
deference to our ancestors, and in justice to our posterity, neither
to capitulate nor to usurp. I, my friends, for one, as an office-

9
bearer of tliat Church, am equally determined never to compro
mise, and desirous never to encroacli. In the season of power, I
should scorn to urge any claim that was unju.st, nor would I in
the hour of peril submit to any concession that was degrading. —
( Cheers.) Having thus briefly stated my sentiments of reverence for our
National Church, as well as my determination to promote its
extension, there are two considerations connected with the sub
ject upon which I am anxious to dwell ; — considerations whicli
almost seem to follow as natural and necessary corollaries from
the writings published, the speeches delivered, and the conduct
pursued by many zealous friends of establishments: but in neither
of which I can by any means participate. In the^rs^ place, I
am not prepared to contend, that attachment to the principle of
Church Establishment, or a willingness to vote public money for its
extension, constitute an essential element in the character of a
genuine Christian. Every human institution must be managed by
human agency, and consequently must be more or less under the
influence of human infirmity and human corruption. Let us sup
pose, that a sinner, who has long been altogether indifferent in mat
ters pertaining to religion, is at last, through the providence and
grace of God, awakened to a sense of their importance ; when he
proceeds to contemplate in succession the past annals, or even the
present condition of all the various Established Churches through
out Christendom, he may find much that will perplex, and mortify,
and confound him. Suppose he were to begin with the Church of
Rome, which at least has the pre-eminence both in antiquity and in
extent, he will discover that it is a festering mass of corruption ; he
will see, that most of the great truths of the gospel are either grossly
disfigured or positively denied; whilst falsehoods of human inven
tion, and figments of debasing superstition, have been substituted
for the pure and holy doctrines ofthe Bible. History will tell him,
.that through the arts, and the agency of this church, kings have
been hurled from their thrones — siiints consigned to the flames —
the wickedest men exalted to the highest stations, the nations of the
earth enthralled in ignorance, their plains and cities deluged with
bipod. He may next turn his eyes to the Church of England ; and
there he will at least find a sublime and scriptural liturgy ; and
.articles which, though perhaps here and there worded in language
of studied ambiguity, contain all that it is essential either to prac
tise or to believe, and he will see enrolled among the dignitaries, and
clergy, and laymen of that church, a large proportion of the ablest,
and most eloquent, and most illustrious defenders of our common
faith. But will he not also be grieved to discover, in how many of
her pulpits the fundamental doctrines of the Bible are either alto
gether excluded or imperfectly set forth ? pluralities and non-resi
dence, long tolerated almost without remonstrance, and even now,
as far as we may be permitted to form an opinion, imperfectly guard
ed against, and inadequately abridged ? Have those meii been the
B

10
chosen objects of royal favour, or of episcopal patronage, whose
worth and whose writings we, at least, have learnt most to venerate
and admire ? Has not the dominant party in England employed the
word evangelical as a term, not of honour, but of reproach ? Do
we find Charles Simeon, or John Newton, or Thomas Scott, or Legh
Richmond, numbered amongst the prelates or deans of the sister
church? or rather, are not their names cast out as evil, and their opi
nions condemned, by not a few of their high church brethren with un
mitigated scorn and aversion 'i Our enquirer may, perhaps, next look
to the Church of Scotland— -the many excellencies and advantages
of which I have already endeavotired, however feebly, to pourtray.
But here, too, he may look back to a time, (and that by no means a
distant one,) when the bayonet was often resorted to instead of the
Bible, for the purpose of forcing unfit and unpopular ministers upon
the Christian people; — he will be unable to deny that presbyteries haye
been inexcusably supine in the duty of mutual superintendence, and
oftein more concerned for the temporal interests of one of their
own number, than for the spiritual welfare of the people confided
to his charge, by wiiiking at the carelessness or heterodoxy of some
ministers, and tolerating the jealousy or the avarice of others, when
repudiating the aid of an assistant for the discharge of those paro
chial duties which they themselves were incompetent to perform.
If, again, he looks to Germany, what will he find there ? Professors
of divinity, ministers of the gpspel, endowed and appointed for the
purpose of expounding the fa,ith once, delivered to the saints, disre
garding the sacred obligations of their office, trampling under foot
the articles which they themselves have advisedly subscribed, deny
ing the inspiration of the scriptures, impugning the divinity of
Christ, and all the vital doctrines of his gospel, and treating his boly
word with such a levity of profaneness, and such a hardihood of
forced interpretation, as they would neither wish nor venture to
apply to ally systepa of human philosophy. (Hear, hear.) I am
aware that, by 'fearlessly propounding these unpalatable but honest
opinions, I must prepare foi* encountering much obloquy, on the
part even of many friends whom I respect and love ; but I would
say to them, with, every fee|ling of affectionate deference, " Am I
therefore become your ,enemy because I tell you the truth ?" Is it
not the right, and I may even say the duty, of a friend, to raise a
voice of seasonable warning, in ol"der tbat those on whom the super
intendence of establishments devolves, may more vigorously apply
themselves to the removal of those defects whicb, if tolerated or co6-
' nived at, must be the germ of fresh defections, and like so many
consuming cankers, may at length prove fatal to the church's very
existence ?
But I have said that tbere is another sentiment against all parti
cipation in which I wish explicitly to guard myself. It seems to
be a current opinion with many, that attachment to the principle of
a church establishment, and zeal for its extension, are either A sure
indication of personal piety, or may be regarded as supplying its

11
place. Alas ! my friends, I, spea|k ft'om my own tpqst reluctant ob^
servation, and shall, doubtless, b^ borpe out by that of many ^bler
and wiser men whom I have the happiness to see around me, when I
assert, that it is by no means impossible to be a friend to the church,
and, at the same time, an enemy to the cross. I have known some
adherents of both churches, who are rather tenacious of their
blemishes, than enamoured of their beauties, who only tolerate
what is good for the sake of what is bad — and are most inclined
to respect and encourage such pastors as depart the most widely
from the soundest and most scriptural standards in their own
weekly discourses. There are many ardent champions of esta
blishments and endowments, who never ^sk God's blessing at their
meals, or assemble their families for his worship, who take a
lead in all the haunts of dissipation and frivolity, and whose tu
telary saint is St Leger rather than St Luke. How many of
them have often been heard to blaspheme, and never seen to
pray! Their charity, in regard to places of worship, neither be
gins nor ends at home. The God, whose temples they assist in
erecting, is an unknown God to them. They profess an extreme'
anxiety about building churches for others ; but they themselves are
never seen within their walls, or avowedly go there for the sake of'
example, without any recognition, or any consciousness, of their
personal dependence, or their personal guilt. It has given me in
expressible pain to see such persons confirmed in their supineness
ahd security, by being invited to take a prominent place among the
supporters of the church at public meetings, — meetings, where I'
grieve to see, that wealth is more courted than worth, and rank~
more regarded than religion. On the grounds which I bave de
veloped, whilst dwelling on these two last important considerations,
I can neither, on the one hand, admit, that piety is synonymous with
zeal for establishments, nor, on the other, adopt any principle which
would lead me to erase from the register of true Christians, such il
lustrious men as Robert Hall or Andrew Fuller, and a host of cnljght,-
ened champions of divine truth in former times. Nay, why should
I scruple to do justice to living merit, as well as to departed worth ?
Nothing would induce me to impugn the Christianity of such a man
as Ralph Wardlaw, to whom 1 myself am personally unknown, but
who has triumphantly stood forward in the field of polemical con
troversy in defence of the fundamental doctrine of the Lord's atone
ment. 1 should think, too, that I committed an offence both agffinst
God and against justice, if I did not implore and expect a divine
blessing to rest upon the pastoral labours of my valued friend,
Christopher Anderson, the first, who, in our day, has enforced the
necessity of fulfilling a plain and palpable duty, which I regret that
the Established Church has for ages been neglecting, — I mean that
of communicating Scripture knowledge to the Irish, not in an ^' un
known tongue," but through the medium of that " in which they
were borti." (Cheers.) ,
Having taken the liberty to discuss these preliminary point's, the

12
next point on which I shall briefly dwell is the nature ofthe connexion
between Church and State. I at once admit that the supreme civil
authority has an unquestionable and inalienable right to deal with
the temporalities ofthe ohurch. They may, ifthey please, (which may
God in his mercy prevent,) transfer them either to Prelacy or Popery,
or to any denomination which they may think proper to select. But
our ancestors chose the Presbyterian system of doctrine, worship, and
discipline, as most conformable to the scripture model, and the most
consonant with the feelings of the nation, and I trust that it will be the
Established Church of Scotland at the appearance and the coming of
its Lord and Master. [Cheers.) But these wise and holy men regarded
the civil and ecclesiastical powers as co-ordinate and distinct, and
never questioned the supremacy of the church's jurisdiction in matters
that were of a sacred and spiritual character. The interchange of
equivalents between the church and the state is, that of adequate
endowment on the one hand, for sound scriptural instruction on
the other. With regard to the system of patronage, my senti
ments have been long before the public. Most heartily should I
rejoice to see this parasitical exotic, which mars tbe beauty and
impairs the vitality of the stem aiound whieh it entwines itself,
cut down both root and branch. {Loud cheering.) Admitting,
however, or rather contending, as I always have done, that if
such an auspicious enactment should ever become the law of the
land, the patrons are fully entitled to receive a fair indemnity for
the loss of that patrimonial interest, which the law has sanctioned,
and the church acknowledged. Opposed as I am to patronage,
I would not get rid of it by a side-wind ; and, therefore, if the
General Assembly were to declare that ministers should be in
ducted, if agreeable to the people, without the indispensable legal
preliminary of the patron's presentation, such a step would be a ma
nifest infringement of tbe law of the land, and would be justly stig
matized as contumacious and indefensible. But the church is, and
ought to be, the only judge of the spiritual and literary attainments
which its licentiates ought to possess. The presbytery can, when
a candidate presents himself for examination, at once judge of all his
qualifications, with one exception, to which I shall advert in a few
minutes. Now, let us suppose that a patron has encouraged a steward,
or a political supporter, to educate a son for the church — that a va
cancy occurs when the young man is about to pass his trials — and
that the presbytery rejects him on the ground of an inadequate ac
quaintance with Greek and Hebrew, the patron would perhnps fly
into a passion, and say — " All this is folly and nonsense. You are
intended for a Highland parish. Gaelic is more necessary for you
than either Hebrew or Greek. 1 won t have my right interfered
with. I will present you in spite of all the presbyteries and synods
in Scotland." Now, if such a patron were to grant a presentation
to bis protege, and bring the matter before the Court of Session, I
believe that venerable tribunal would find, though perhaps by a nar
row majority, after a careful consideration of condescendences, and

13
a solemn hearing in prp^ence, that the church alone had a right
to define tbe qualifications indispensable to her licentiates; and
they would give their decision against the patron, and perhaps also
against the grain. But there is, as 1 have already stated, owe qua
lification of far greater importance than a knowledge of Greek and
Hebrew, which cannot be ascertained until after the presentation
has been issued — a qualification at all times deemed essential by all
the standard authorities of our church — namely, the fitness of the
presentee for the particular church to which he is nominated, and
whether he is acceptable to the congregation over which he is to be
appointed. Now, is it to be endured, that because the church can
not sit in judgment on this point wben the minor qualifications are
scrutinized, or, in other words, till a presentation be actually issued,
it shall be deemed an infringement of the patron's right to insist
upon giving effect to the privilege of the Christian people, and upon
not being compelled, at the fiat of ore man, vvho may be no mem
ber of the church, and perhaps is an enemy of the gospel, to dis
pense ih any instance with one of the most important requisites
which a pastor can possess, or which a church can insist upon ?
The philosopher or philanthropist, who merely contemplates the
putward structure of our church, so simple and stately in its out
line and proportions, he may well be led to exclaim, like the apostles
when they surveyed the Temple at Jerusalem, " See what manner
of buildings are here !" But how ardent must be the aft'ection, and
how cordial the thankfulness, of those who can call this edifice their
own; who find, in the well regulated economy of its internal ar
rangements, all that is most conducive to their comfort and their
happiness, provided without money and without price; who are
permitted, nay, entitled and invited, to dwell within its hallowed
precincts, and go in and out and find pasture ! Have we not, then,
done well in meeting together this day, to pay the homage of our
veneration to the memory of those illustrious master builders, who
repaired, and beautified, and strengthened, and completed this glo
rious edifice in 1638, pulling down, with unsparing hand, the gor
geous and glaring ornaments with which Popery had disfigured it,
and which Prelacy scrupled to remove? No architect cculd ever
devise a structure so adapted to the tnstesj, to the habits, to the
wants, and to the feelings of the Scottish people : its arrangements
come home (to use an expression of Lord Bacon's) to their business
and to their bosoms. When our Seceding brethren — for as such I
account all amongst them who love the Lord Jesus Christ in sin
cerity — departed, and I admit not without just grounds, from the
pale of the Establishment, they erected another building on precisely
the same plan, because no other would have equally commended
itself to their own hearts and understandings; and if our church
had not remained, during more than one generation, in a state of
laxity and supineness — if its Assemblies had listened to the warn
ings, and I may even say, in some cases, followed the example of
those who disclaimed every feeling of hostility, and who would

14
gladly, if paflpable abuses had beert seasonably, nay, tardily recti
fied, have retumed to that communion, which they reluctantly
abandoned, the Secesfeion would long ere now have ceased, and, at
least, as a term of reproach, (a use to which I lament that it should
ever have been converted,) the name of Voluntary would have been
unknown. Why, my friends. Our own illustrious Chalmers is the great
est Voluntary now alive — he hAs been honoured as the instrument,
in the Lord's band, for' causing more Voluntary churches to be
built than had been erected during many years of supineness and
indifference — he has accomplished as much for the extension of the
church, as Henderson achieved far her independence — he has
kindled a flame of zeal which, I trust, shall never be quenched, but
continue steadily to burn with more intense and brilliant lustre.
I shall proceed 'to notice some objections made to our church in
very recent times ; and I deeply lament the necessity of alluding to
such subjects. But I cannot pass them over in silence; for one of
the first duties which we owe to our churchj and to the memory and
services of the champions who vindicated its rights in 1638, is to de
fend that church from the objections which are taken to her constitu
tion, however much respected 'in some instances the parties may be
from which theseobjections proceed. We are told by certain divines in
the sister country— I mean those who, at a celebrated university, are,
I fear, making rapid strides towards Popery, and who recognise
the apoStolicity of the Church of Rome — that the Church of Scot
land is not 'apostolical. I should be glad to knove what is intended
by that term? If ithe meant that our pastors do not work mi
racles, or raise the dead from their graves, then I admit that our
Church is not apostolical.' But I should be glad to learn, in what
Church these' miraculous powers remain ? I would say to our High
Church opponents, without questioning their rights as churchmen,
or impugning thdi' merits as Christians, what do ye more than
others ? — what are ye' more than others ? Some writers have de
signated the Church of Scotland as Samaria. I have no objection
to that term, if it be applied in the same sense in which High Priests,
and High Church Pharisees of the day, addressed the glorious and
only Head of our Church, when they exclaimed, " Thou art a Sa
maritan, and hast a devil.''' I would say, there is no Church
which comprises within its precincts a greater number of " good
Samaritans,'' than the Church of ^ Scotland — who have not only
a lively feeling for the infirmities and sufferings of their fellow-
creatures, but pour into the wounded spirit, and the agonised con
science of the sinner, the oil of spiritual gladness. (Cheers.) I
would tell them also, that in Scotland there are many " women of
Samaria," to whom the omniscient Head of their Church has
" told all things that they ever did ;" and has then enabled and en
couraged them to draw livings waters out of the wells of salvation.
I wbuld tell them, that, in the Church of Scotland, thei'e are many
sueh Samaritans'as be wasi who, after being cleansed of his leprosy,
fell W his fade and glorifi'ed God,' while the nine, who were not

13
Samaritans, went away unconverted and unluoved. (Cheers.)
Where is tbere a Church in which apostolical doctrine is more
purely preached? — apostolical %eal more fervently exemplified?
Amongst those, who insist on apostolical derivation, there are not a
few, who would scarcely admit to their pulpits even St Paul him
self, were he to rise from the dead, and who carefully exclude
many of his doctrines from their own pulpit ministrations. What
I am now about to say may, perhaps, offend many who hear me —
but I honour all such Dissenters, as are so concerned for the wel
fare of their souls, that, when an establishment places a hireling
where she ought to station a shepherd, they refuse to hear the voice
of a stranger, and rather purchase wheat at their own cost, as the
necessary food of their souls, than receive gratuitously that chaff
wbich the church would offer in its stead. I recollect to have
heard a clergyman whom Oxford would have greeted as an aposto
lical successor, who held three livings in the country, and two cha
pels in London. His sermon was for the most part intended to
caution bis flock against reading tbe writings of the apostles. Those
writings, he said, however good in thenfisel'ves, contain many things
Iiard to be understood ; andj upon the whole, he advised the con
gregation to confine their attention to the gospels. This was a man
who often employed the leisure of his Sabbath evenings in railing
against such laborious dissenting ministers, as at that vqry moment
were preaching to sinners the doctrines of free grace, iwhilst he
was refreshing himself, at a gorgeous repast, from the fatigue of
having delivered a twenty-minute afternoon homily, as frigid as
the ice, in which his champagne was cooling whilst he preached
it. I also recollect being in a country church in England, and
I heard an excellent discourse. I asked, if it was the rector
who bad preached ? Oh ! no, was the reply ; that's not the rector
— 'tis only the curate. The rector officiates here once a-year on
a certain anniversary, wben a sum was left for the special pur
pose of having a sermon preached ; and we never see him at any
other time. Take, too, the case of Henry Mar.tyn, as we find it
described in his Memoirs. We at least venerate hlta as an aposto
lical man, of whom the world was not worthy. NoWj after his ar
rival at Calcutta, he preached one forenoon to a congregation of his
countrymen, whom he had not been sent to convert ; but of whom
many stood as much in need pf conversion as the professed hea
thens around them. In the afternoon, oue of those, whom Oxford
claims as tbe ex,clusive successors of the apostles, preached from
the same pulpit; and Henry Martyn went to hear the discourse. I
shall give you an account of what passed, in bis own words : — ....
" preached, and spoke with sufficient plainness against me and my
doctrines — called them inconsistent, extravagant, and absurd — he
drew a variety of false inferences from these doctrines, and thence
argued against the doctrines themselves — to say ' (now mark ihis,
my friends) " that repentance was the gift of God," (and remember it
is an apqstle who says so,) " was to induce men to sit still, and
wait for God — to teach that nature was wholly corrupt, was to

16
lead men to^ despair — and that men thinking the righteousness
of Christ sufficient to justify, will account it unnecessary to
have any of their own. This last assertion moved me con
siderably, and I started at hearing such downright heresy. He
spoke of me as one of those, who understand neither what they say,
nor whereof they affirm, and as speaking only to gratify self-suffi
ciency, pride, and uncharitableness." 0 ! my friends, it was well
for the illustrious and holy Martyn, that he could find refuge from
the scorn and the sneers of such an " apostolic successor" as this,
in the bosom and the sympathy of such fellow Christians and fellow
labourers as the " woM-apostolic" Carey and Marshman — men
whose Christian affection was as overflowing as their intellectual
powers were exalted — men whom I shall never cease to venerate,
as burning and shining lights of the Christian church — however
loudly they may be branded as schismatics, or considered to be as
heathenish as the heathens amongst whom they ministered, by those
who seem to thiuk, that not to use a liturgy is perhaps a greater
siu than not to pray. And yet these are the men who, intrenched
in their stalls, and arrayed in their phylacteries, pour contempt
upon the Church of Scotland ! They, my friends, are the true
schismatics — "these bo they, which separate themselves" — shunning
even such of their own brethren as follow not their pernicious ways,
and excluding from the pale of the Lord's church, which he has
purchased with his own blood, those Dissenters who trust in that
blood, as the only ground of their hope. According to their prin
ciples, the devout and overflowing congregations, who listen, in a
Presbyterian chapel, to the faithful eloquence of a Cumming, or are
edified, in a Dissenting place of worship, by the affectionate piety of
a L.'ishman, are not much better employed, or perhaps even worse,
than if they devoted their Sabbath evenings to the orgies of a
brothel, or the revels of a beer-shop. I am aware that there are
many friends of our Church amongst the members of the Church
of England. I have seen our ministers received by some of its
most evalted dignitaries, not with coldness or condescension as in
feriors, but with kindness and cordiality as brethren, though I must
add, that some who have not rejected us as schismatics, rather con
demn us with faint praise, than acknowledge us as fellow Christiaus.
I shall leave to other speakers the more ample exposition of the
principles established and vindicated in 1638 — a time when our an
cestors evinced as much loyalty to their earthly sovereign as was con
sistent with their allegiance to the Kingof Kings. This was the predo
minating feature of their character. This has been the character
of the Church of Scotland throughout all ages and generations, un
less when goaded into justifiable resistance by regal despotism, and
priestly usurpation. It must be admitted that the Church of Scot
land has never found much favour in courts, and has of late been
coldly looked upon by the great. They do not seem to regard our
simple forms of worship, or to receive with approbation our un
sparing expositions of Christian truth. We would be glad to see

\1
oftener in our worshipping assemblies the descendants of the
Rotheses, .Montro.ses, Argyles, Lindores, Eglintones, Balmerinos,
and those other nobles, and " barons of note," who, in 1638, " put
their necks to the work of their Lord's." We should doubtless, had
we lived under the ancient dispensation, have prayed even for such
monarchs as Ahaz or Jeroboam, but we could not have described
them as " most religious and gracious,'" however gladly such terms
might have been employed in the case of a Jehoshaphat or an Asa.
We could not, when consigning to the grave the remains of a man
who had lived an atheist and died a blasphemer, have expressed
ourselves in precisely the same language, as if we were assembled
round the grave of a missionary or a martyr. The prayer which
the Holy Ghost inspired Agur to put up, in his own behalf, has
been graciously realised by her adorable Head in the case of our
National Church. He has given to her, in his mercy, neither po
verty nor riches ; our clergy are most happily exempted from the
evils connected with the one, without being exposed to the temptations
belonging to the other. But I fear, that tbe sister establishment com
bines the inconveniencies and anomalies of both — that riches, though
sometimes well earned and well employed, are toooften enjoyed by the
few who do little, while penury, and all its concomitant anxieties,
are the lot of the many who do much- Neither Demas nor Dio
trephes would have taken orders in our church : we could have ten
dered no wealth to the cupidity of the one, and conceded no pre
eminence to the ambition of the other. We can acknowledge
nothing primitive in purple, and nothing apostolic iu palaces ;
but we desire not to meddle with your splendour, or encroach ujion
your wealth. We claim not iu our own behalf what we cannot
concede to you —for ourselves we deprecate nothing but exclu.sion —
as to you, we deny nothing but monopoly, — and although you scorn
to enter our temples, we scruple not to worship in yours. In Scot
land, a man may, according to the old adage, be born to be a poet ;
but he cannot, as on the other side of the Tweed, be born to be a
pluralist. We witness little or none of that pati-imonial predesti
nation, which, in the case of family livings, so often awards the
spiritual superintendence of unborn generations to younger children,
yet in their cradles, however much they may, when they them
selves reach years of maturity, be found incompetent or disinclined
for the ministry of Christ. But let me not be misunderstood. I
never shall cease, notwithstanding its defects, to stand forward in
upholding the Church of England. I never have concurred in
voting for the elimination of her Bishops from the House of Peers.
I never will consent to the alienation ofthe smallest fraction of her
revenues, from strictly ecclesiastical purposes, or contend for any
change in their distrihution, than what the church itself originates
and demands.
I shall only further notice the assertions so frequently reiterated,
that our church has no bishops. Now, whilst at once admitting that
we have no prelates, I contend, on the contrary, that we are, one
c

18
and all of us, genuine and apostolical Episcopalians; and, in fact,
we may be said to have a thousand bishops in Scotland ; for I have
a right to turn round to my reverend friends, and say to the Pres-
hyt^rs , of E,4inburgh, what Paul said to those of Ephesus,
" Feed the flockjg pver which the Lord has made you Bishops,"
I look upon the Bishop of St C<uthber^'s to be as genuine a suc
cessor of the apostles as the Bishop of St Asaph. But it cannot
be denied that, though we have great cause for thankfulness and en
couragement, -we have also some grounds for alarm and disappoint
ment. We have seen those from whom better things might have been
expected, leagued agairist ns with papists and infidels. We have
found the love of many friends waxing cold, because we have
ventured- to assert the indefeasible independence of our establish
ment in matters of spiritual jurisdiction ; biit permit me for a
moment to personify our venerated church ; and to suppose that
she were to address tp us, who are here assembled this night,
the same tender an,d affectionate (Expostulation wbich her gloripus
and only Head addressed to his disciples when on earth — " Will
ye alsp go away?" O! is there any one now present, who has
been placed under such ministers as I see around m^, pastors who
feed their flocks with knowledge and .understanding, and has
under their guidance been fed 'with the sincere milk of tbe word,
who would not join with his whole heart and soul in rjCsponding,
" To whom shall we go ? thou hast the words of eternal life." In
thy sound and scriptural standards, we have been taught all tbat it
is essential to believe, and necessary to practise— all that is condu-
pive to our present peace — all that belongs to our everlasting felici
ty. Within the hallowed pale of thy communion, we have found
it a happiness to live, and shall account it a privilege to die. En-.
treat us not to leave thee, or return from following after thee \
Thy faith shall be our faith ! ,Thy hopes shall be our hopes I Thy
perils shall be our perils ! Thy triumphs shall be our triumphs \
Thy people shall be our people ! Thy God shall be our God ! —
[The Honourable Baronet resumed his seat amidst loud, long, and
enthusiastic cheering.^
The Rev. Charles John Brown.— I have the honour, Sir, to
submit to this meeting the following motion : —
" That it has been on many opcasipns, and especially at tbe period
ofthe Second R,eformation in 1638, the great glory and peculiar
privilege of the Church of Scotland, that she has faithfully contend
ed for Christ's sole headship over his Church; for the government
established by Him in the hand of church office-bearers, distinct
from the civil magistrate ; and for the consequent power of the
church, derived from him, and therefore never to be abandoned, to
regulate all spiiitual affairs according to the word of God."
The subject. Sir, to which our attention is drawn in this resolu
tion is no mere strife of words. It is no question bejdnging to this
world's shifting politics. It is not a question of mere ecclesiastical
expediency. It is not the mere question, what were, in point of

19
feet, the principles of our forefathers, who might be wrong, oi what
is the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which is also not be
yond the reach of error. It is a far higher question than all this. The
subject of this resolution, as I hope to be able to show before I sit
down, is one involving principles of the Word of God, never to b«
relinquished, — principles which no change of circumstances can in
the slightest degree modify or change, — principles for which our
forefathers did not more manfully than rightly and dutifully con
tend, even unto death, — principles not so much connected with
the rights and privileges of the Cliristian church, as with the sacred
and inalienable prerogatives of the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of
Zion, the King and Head of the Church.
I appeal at once. Sir, in the face of this Protestant Assembly, to
the Word of God. I am to maintain from that word, that the Lord
Jesus has appointed a government of His church in the hand of
ecclesiastical office-bearers, altogether distinct from the kingdoms
of this world, — which they may do homage to him, indeed, and hon
our to themselves, by ratifying and supporting, biit wbich subsists in
the church wholly independent of their authority and will, — and
which the church may never, under any circumstances, resign or
surrender up into their hands. (Cheers.) It was maintained by
Erastus, a continental physician of the sixteenth century, that the
Christian church does not possess any distinct and independent go
vernment of its own, — that the Church and the State are not two
distinct and independent societies or communities, but different
branches merely, or departments of the one great community of the
nation, — and that, consequently, the government and discipline of the
church belong to the state, and, by whatever functionaries more
immediately exercised, depend upon thewillof the supreme civil power.
These opinions, to a very large extent, were adopted in the sister
country of England, and became the foundation of that extensive
authority which the crown enjoys over the Church of England in
spiritual affairs. The Church of Scotland, it is well known, rejec
ted the Erastian opinions with extreme dislike, and contended tor the
opposite principle whicli I just now laid down. One striking ex
ample occurred in the General Assembly of 1638, which continued
its sittings in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in virtue of
the powers of government derived from him, after the royal com
missioner, in the name of his master, had dissolved the Assembly.
Sir, my motion assumes that the Church of Scotland has faith
fully contended for this principle. What it affirms is this — that
it has been her great glort/ and peculiar privilege to contend for it.
We are thus brought at once to the Word of God. If the church
contended, I care not how manfully and heroically, for a mere whim
or fancy of her own, this was uot her glory — as a Christian chureh
it was her shame. Nothing but the authoritative revelation of this
principle in the Word of God, could even justify the ground which
was taken by our fathers in its defence. And I beg. Sir, to add

20
fhe expression of my humble, but very clear and decided conviction,
that the Church of Scotland still must take her stand upon tlie
Holy Scriptures, — must take her stand not so much upon the mere
fact of her constitution, as upon the authority of that constitution
in the Word of God, if she would go through with the struggle on
which she has so nobly entered, — if she would immoveably and
successfully maintain her ground there, — if she would show herself
worthy to commemorate, or worthy to perpetuate and hand down the
testimony of those noble men who adorned the Assembly of 1638.
Let me ask you to hear the following words of Christ, in Matt.
xvi. 18, 19 :— " And I say also unto thee. That thou art Peter, and
upon this rock I will build my church ; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall
be bound in beaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven." Here Christ, styling the church the " kingdom
of heaven," speaks of the keys of that kingdom, that is, obviously, the
government ofit, the power of opening and shutting the church. He
promises to give those keys, that government of the church, into the
hands of the apostles, (we shall immediately see it was not Peter
alone, but the apostles at large, together with their ordinary succes
sors after them in every age.) And he declares that whatsoever, in
the due exercise of this authority, they should binder loose upon
earth, should be ratified, should be bound or loosed in heaven.
Carrying this passage along with us, I read these further words of
Christ in the eighteenth chapter of the same Gospel ; — " Moreover,
if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell his fault be
tween thee and him alone : if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained
thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one
or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every
word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them,
tell it unto the church i but if he negleet to hear the church, let
him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say
unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loos
ed in heaven." Here you recognize the very same words re
specting the power of binding and loosing which we had in the
other passage. The expression, "the keys" ofthe church, does not
occur, butit is manifestly implied ; the power of binding and loosing
is the same thing. But what is of more consequence to be observed
is this. Christ here gives the power of government to the whole of the
apostles — " Whatsoever j/e shall bind, whatsoever yf shall loose."
He further declares the power to be, not that of mere teaching, but
of government also, and discipline; the case referred to is one of
church censure — " let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a
publican." And still further, he virtually at least declares the power
to belong, not to the apostles alone, but to the church by its minis
ters in every age, since he is laying down rules about a matter of

21
permanent and universal application ; — since he does not say,
"if the offender shall neglect to hear them, tell it to the apostles,"
but ' tell it unto the church," " unto the church," aword belong
ing, of course, to every country, and to every age ; — and since, also,
he immediately subjoins a promise of the widest and most unre
stricted kind : — " Again, I say unto you. That if two of you shall
agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be
done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or
three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them.'' — iMatt. xviii. 19, 20. If, however, there could remain any
doubt, whether this power of government, this power of " the keys,"
were given to the apostles alone, or were designed by Christ to go
down to the ordinary and standing office-bearers of the church in all
ages, that doubt would be entirely removed by the apostolic epistles,
where it will be quite enough to remind you, with scarce a single
word of comment, of such texts as the following : — " Remember
them which have the rule over you, who have spoken to you the
word of God." " Obey them which have the rule over you, and
submit yourselves." " Salute all them that have the rule over you,
and all the saints." " Know them that labour among you, and are
over you in the Lord." "Let the elders that rule well be counted
worthy of double honour." "A bishop" — a presbyter, that is — "must
be blameless, one that ruleth well his own house ; for if a man know
not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church
of God ?" " God hath set some in the church ; first, apostles; se
condarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; — \\ti\^s, governrnents." "He
that ruleth, let him do it with diligence." "Do not ye judge them
that are within ; therefore put away from among yourselves that
wicked person." " Sufficient to such a man is this punishment,
which was inflicted of many." I may observe, on this passage, by
tbe way, that the apostle evidently does not refer to a judgment of
pi-ivate christian discretion, (in that sense they judged those who
were without, as well as those within the church,) but to a public
ecclesiastical judgment, an act of church government, whereby a
scandalous member was cut off from the visible body of Christ. So,
in Timothy, " Against an elder receive not an accusation but before
two or three witnesses,'' — a precept of course implying regular for
ensic proceedings, and presupposing a power of ecclesiastical go
vernment. So also in Titus — " A man that is an heretic, after the
first and second admonition, reject," repudiate, cast away. And
once more, not to multiply examples further, I remind you of the
words of Christ to the church of Thyatira — " Notwithstanding I
have a few things against thee, because thou sufferesl that woman
Jezebel to teach and to seduce my servants, to eat things sacrificed
to idols." Sir, we have been so long accustomed to the exercise of
all these powers in the courts of our Scottish church, that I can
imagine some of my audience, deeming it a very superfluous matter
to prove what, as they suppose, no body would ever think of disput
ing. Nobody, certainly, would ever think of disputing this — that

23
the Church of Scotland does in point of fact possess and exercise
these powers. But, Sir, what I think I have proved, (thougH
I have not yet done with the proof,) is this— and I am greatly
deceived if we live long, ere we all see the importance of hav
ing it thoroughly and irrefragably proved -that, independently
of all civil authority and sanction whatever, the Lord .Jesus
Christ, as King and Head of the church, has committed the
keys of the church, the complete power of regulating and go
verning all spiritual affairs, into the hands of ecclesiastical office
bearers; that there lies upon those office-bearers a corresponding
indispensable duty and obligation to govern those affairs aticording
to his laws; and, consequently, that, Without his express permission,
which nobody ever ventured to allege, they may never deliver up
this power ahd duty, in whole or in part, into the hands ofany civil
authority upon the face of the earth. Venturing to believe, Sir,
that this mode of stating the matter may sufficiently for the present
indicate the importance of it, perhaps I may be allowed to add a
word or two more in demonstration of its truth ; and then I shall
hasten to a conclusion, by simply and very briefly applying the ge
neral statement to one or two matters of immediate practical im
portance. (Cheering.)
We found Christ styling the church " the kingdom of heaven ;"
and that he speaks of the church there as a. visible organized society
or community is quite plain, because, in the same 'breath, he speaks
of giving the keys of it into tbe hands of men. Erastius tells us
that the church and the state are not two distinct, independent king
doms or communities, but different branches merely of the one
great community ofthe nation. Christ expressly ^yles his church
a kingdom — " the kingdom of heaven" — a spiritual heavenly king
dom—one altogether distinct and different from the kingdoms of
this world — spiritual in its origin, its whole structure, peculiar ob
jects, office-bearers, government, discipline, sphere of action, instru-
mentsof operation, privilegcsand immunities, conquests, and ultimate
triumphs and glory — " Upon this rock will I build my church — and
I will give untp thee the keys of the kingdam of heaven." So in
those words before Pilate, " My kingdom is not of this world." Here
he not only again styles the church a kingdom, (which even by itself
were enough to overthrow the whole fabric of Erastianism, because
it were preposterous to style the church a kingdom, if it were
either a mere branch of the state, or its government at all subor
dinate to the will of the state,) but he expressly declares it a
kingdom wholly distinct and different from tbe kingdoms of the
world, — " My kingdom is not of this world." Sir, I must beg
particular attention to this, not only because it demonstrates a
distinct and independent government of the church, but affords at
the same time a complete answer to the only plausible objection
Erastians ever urged against this doctrine, — an objection we are
still hearing every day, and I suspect shall hear a good deal more
of ere long. They tell us that tbis doctrine involves the monstrous

23
anomaly of a government subsisting within the heart of a govern
ment — the inevitable effect of which, say they, must be the conflict
of the two powers, and the subversion of the one or of the otber.
Indeed ! Then what becomes of a father's government of his
children, or a master's of his servants, — governments both sub
sisting within the heart of the state, yet no way interfering with
it, and for this very obvious reason, to which I beg attention,
that they are totally different from it in tbeir nature, in their ob
jects, and in their manner of administration. [Cheers.) Well, Sir,
the difference in the case of the church is unspeakably greater and
wider than in either of these cases. And you will find that tbat is
just the ground taken by our blessed Lord himself, in his answer to
Pilate's question, " Art thou a king ?" He owns that he is ; but
adds — " My kingdom is not of this world : if my kingdom were of
this world, then would my servants fight that I should not be de
livered to the Jews; but now is my kingdom not from hence." I
have given my servants the keys, as if he had said, but not the sword, —
" the sword of tbe Spirit," but not the civil sword. 1 have made
them stewards, administrators, governors, in my house. But there
is nothing whatever in the character of that stewardship, that govern
ment, that can possibly interfere with the just claims and rights of
civil rulers. The two governments are entirely differentj the one
from the other, — different in tbeir origin, — different in their nature,
^different in their sphere of action, — different in their instruments
of operation, — different in their special and peculiar objects and
ends, — " My kingdom is not of this world." I beg leave to add
here, in a single sentence, that Voluntary churchmen altogether
miss the import and scope of this statement, when they say that it
forbids all alliance between the church and Christian states. Our
Lord, indeed, declares the church a kingdom independent of the state;
but he does not say that there may not be an alliance between these
kingdoms, for mutual benefit, just as there may be between two in
dependent civil kingdoms, such as Britain and America. And
as for the difference which he states between 'the church and the
commonwealth, — that the one is spiritual and the other civil, — why
that is the very thing that fits them for an Alliance, because it is
just the difference which alone enables them, under any circum
stances whatever, to act harmoniously and without collision, in
following out their respective objects and ends; Only, if there
is to be an alliance, (and this brings me back from this brief digres
sion,) it must be upon equal and independent terms. It must ever
be held a sacred principle, that the church, within her own spiritual
sphere, is a free and independent kingdom. If the state be to aid ,
the church, the only return it must look for, is the still more pre
cious aid which the church, by her prayers and her labours, can
give to tbe state. Should the state madly and tyrannically demand
more, — demand the sacrifice of the church's freedom — the destruc
tion of her essential character as a free and independent kingdom, —
then it becomes her to remember those words of her Lord, for

24
which he died a few hours after he had uttered them,—" mv kinir-
dom," — and to refuse an alliance that would sink her into a mere
branch and fragment of the kingdoms of this world. The govern
ment of the church subordinate to the state I Why, Sir, into what
monstrous consequences would this immediately land us ? Then were
the church's whole spiritual character at once thrown to the winds.
Then might the chief government of the church on earth — (a Pope,
Sir, were better theology than this, though I daresay worse policy,)
— the chief government of the church might be in the hands of a
female, though the apostle will not suffer a woman even to speak in
the church. At all events, it would perpetually be in the hands of
persons clothed with no spiritual function whatever, — peivsons, at the
very best, mere private members of the church, and possessing no
higher qualifications for ruling it, than those required for taking
the oaths of civil office in a christian land. No, no, Sir, let raere
politicians dream as they will about the church's government being
the creature of the state. The civ'd establishment of the church is,
doubtless, the creature of the state ; but the power of the key.i, —
the power of regulating all spiritual affairs, according to the word of
God, is inherent in thechurch, — belongs tober, apart from all human
authority, in virtue of the mere naked word and will of the Lord
Jesus Christ. It is not even within the power of the state to con
fer any spiritual authority whatever. It may ratify privileges already
possessed; or it may confer additional civil ones of the most im
portant kind. But all ecclesiastical power, properly so called,
whether of doctrine, of government, or of di-scipline, flows from
the Lord Jesus Christ alone, and belongs to the church intrinsi
cally and inalienably, by virtue of immediate grant from his hand.
(Cheers.) I must beg your indulgence, Sir, for a very few moments more,
while I state one or two conclusions manifestly arising out of the
principles laid down.
1. The first ofthem is this, — that whensoever the question arises,
what is spiritual and what civil, — what belongs to the sphere of
the Church, and what to the sphere of the State, — what to the
things that are Ca;sar's, and what to the things which are God's —
the church may not acknowledge any civil tribunal upon earth as
the judge of that question- This conclusion, the importance of
which is quite well known to all acquainted with the present posi
tion of the Church of Scotland, is clearly and undeniably involved
in the principle of a co-ordinate and independent church govern
ment. Sir, it is to give up the whole question, — it is to resign the
entire government of the Church into the hands of the State, — to
acknowledge, I do not say a subordinate tribunal of the State,
but even the State itself, speaking by its highest possible organ,
as the arbiter of the question, whatis spiritual? Of course, the
State, upon the other hand, is not bound to acknowledge the Church
as the arbiter. But there is an arbiter above them both.
2. My second conclusion is this, — that the Church of Christ has

25
the intrin.sic power and right of c ynvoc .ting her own assemblies, as
often as she may see fit and necessary, even though the civil magis
trate withhold his consent. It is quite manifest that this also is
involved in the very idea of a distinct and independent government.
And so exceedingly jealous has the Church of Scotland felt upon this
matter, that the General Assembly which approved the Westminster
Confession in 1647, was not satisfied even with that clear but gene
ral statement of the 30th chapter, that "the Lord Jesus, as King
and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in
the hand of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate. To
these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaveu are committed. '
But, conceiving that a passage about the calling of councils, which
occurs in the 3 1st chapter, might be liable to misapprehension, the
Assembly expressly declared, in the act approving the Confession,
that they understood- that passage, without prejudice to the church's
inherent power of calling her own assemblies. The Church of
Scotland has ever acknowledged the magistrate's civil right of con
vening an ecclesiastical assembly, to consult and advise with on
matters of religion affecting the welfare of the State. But that right
is cumulative, as divines say, not privative ,- — it is one additional to
the right of the church, not destructive of it. I am quite aware
that the Act of Assembly just referred to was not ratified in the
Revolution Settlemen't 1688 along with the Confession. But not
to say that even the Confession itself, taken as a whole, is suffi
ciently clear, ofcour.se the church stands upon her own ecclesiasti
cal act, aud the authority of Gods word sanctioning and requir
ing it. And should the attempt ever be m.ade to thwart her in this
most vital of all matters of church government, not only has she
the example of a triumphant Assembly, like 1638, to guide and to
animate her, but she has the recorded sentiments and feelings of her
sons, who, at a prior period, made the very same noble stand, with
different success, but who, in the midst of bonds, and impri.soii-
ment, and death, could express themselves in such words as these
of the eminently holy John Welsh of Ayr — he writes, when in
prison !it Blackness, for taking part with the Assembly held at
Aberdeen in 1605, after the king had discharged it from meeting, —
" Who am I, that he should first have called me, and then consti
tuted me a minister of the glad tidings of the gospel of salvation,
these years already ; and now, last of all, to be a sufferer for his
cause and kingdom ; to witness this, tbat Jesus Christ is the King
of Saints, and thai his church is u mast free kingdom., yea, as free as
any kingdom under heaven, not only to convocate, hold, and keep her
meetings, and conventions, and assemblies, but also t .judge of all fter
affairs, in all her meetings and conventions among her members and
subjects. These two points: First, that Christ is the Head of his
church ; secondly, that she is free in her government from all other
jurisdiction, except Christ's ; these two points, 1 say, are the special
causes of our imprisonment, being now convicted as traitors for
-naintaining thereof: We have ever been waiting with joyfulness to
D

26
give the last testiraony of our blood in confirmation thereof, if it
should please our God to be so favourable as to honour us with that
dignity ; yea, I do affirm, that these two points above written, and
all other things which belong to Christ's crown, sceptre, and king
dom, are not subject, nor can be, to any other, but to his own alto
gether. So that I would be most glad to be offered up as a sacrifice
for so glorious a truth ; but, alas ! I fear that my sins, and the abuse
of so glorious things as I have found, deprive me of so fair a crown ;
yet my Lord doth know, if he would call me to it, and strengthen
me in it, it would be to me the most glorious day, and gladdest
hour, I ever saw in this life; but I am in his hand to do with me
whatsoever shall please his Majesty." (Great cheering.)
3. The only other conclusion, which I draw from the principles
laid down is this, — that the whole system of Church Patronage
is contrary to the word of God. The Church is a free and in
dependent spiritual kingdom— .that proves it. Only put the case of
two distinct civil kingdoms. Suppose that America had the power
of nominating the rulers of Great Britain, would Great Britain
any longer be free ? Would she any longer deserve the name of a
kingdom at all ? And is it to be for a moment borne, that in the
Church, the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, a foreign power
shall step in and say— this man and that man shall rule you — at the
very least, if you shall not be obliged to have tlfe man whom I offer,
yet you shall have none but a man whom I bave first selected and
approved. If this is to be borne, then what becomes of those vvords
of Christ — " I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of hea
ven," — "my kingdom is not of this world?'' What sort of a king
dom is that which another prince may enter, and say who shall rule
it — what men are the best qualified to fill its various offices ?
They tell us, forsooth, that the State, by endowing the Church, ac
quires the right of nominating her ministers. If I believed that to.be
necessarily involved in endowments, 1 should say, let them all go to
the wind.s. But I do not believe it ; and there is not even a sha
dow of ground for asserting it. The State receives much more
than an ample compensation for all the aid it gives the Church, in
the aid which the Church returns to the State. Why, the very end
of an endowment is defeated, and the State utterly stultifies its own
act, when, in exchange for an endowment, it insists on crippling,
fettering, despoiling the Church of her liberties. Sir, the prin
ciples laid down go all this length, that a mere Veto will never
do. It is doubtless a highly important privilege, compared with the
want of it. But so long as a foreign power can step at all into the
spiritualia ofthe Church, — so long a.s a patron can say, though not,
indeed, you shall have the man whom I choose, yet you shall not
have the man whom you yourselves might wish and deem it best to
have. — so long as any one vestige of the patron's power remains,
the Christian Church is not, and cannot be, what we have this night
seen her in her own prr per natui'e to be — a free, distinct, and in
dependent spiritual kingdom, Sir, " It bas been on many occasions.

27
and especially at the period of the Second Reformation in 1638, the
great glory and peculiar privilege of the Church of Scotland, that
she has faithfully contended for Christ's sole headship over his
Church; for the government established by Him in the hand of
church office-bearers, distinct from the civil magistrate; and for the
consequent power of the Church, derived from him, and therefore
never to be abandoned, to regulate all spiritual affairs according to
the word of God." (Enthusiastic cheering.)
Mr A. Dunlop, Advocate — I rejoice to second the mojtion con
taining the proposition which has now been read by my revered
friend, it would have gladdened ray heart to address some few ob
servations in support of it ; but, feeling that I could add nothing
material to the adrairable exposition of principle which we have re
ceived, knowing tbe many subjects which are still to be brought
under your observation, and seeing the time that has already elapsed,
I do conscientiously feel that I will more consult the interests of
the cause we are met to advocate, by contenting myself with most
cordially, earnestly, but with these words alone, seconding the mo
tion. The Rev. Thomas M'Crie. — I feel conscious. Sir, in entering on
the topics embraced in this resolution, that I have undertaken a
task to which, considering its magnitude and importance, I have
neither time nor power to do adequate justice. In one respect,
the task is an easy one ; for the facts here taken for granted are so
clearly substantiated in the page of Scottish history, tbat few who
have any character for candour and veracity would choose to forfeit
it by attempting to controvert or conceal them. But, Sir, it is al
most impossible to step on the debateable land of church govern
ment, much less to take up such high and decided ground as that
adopted in this resolution, without encountering a host of prejudices
— national, educational, sectarian, and latitudinarian — the very pros
pect of which is apt to deter a much more practised polemic than I
pretend to be.
Among all these hostile elements, tbere is none we have more
reason to dread than the last, which assumes the garb of charity,
philosophical indifference, and liberality. O, say some good people,
why should Christians bite and devour one another about forms of
government ? Let every one adhere to his own as stiffly as he pleases,
but let him not impugn or seek to supplant those of his neighbours.
And theu comes the old rhyme, to help out the reason —
" For forms of government let fools contest,
Whate'er is best administered is best."
It is strange that this prejudice should only operate in regard to
church government; for in regard to civil government, if we may
judge from the zeal with which they prosecute their views, one
would conclude that tbey consider the salvation of the country at
least, if not their own, involved in the struggle. But, Sir, it is a

28
suspicTdus faet,. that the same mode of reasoning was adopted by the
advocati?s of prelacy, both in England and Scotl;ind, at the very
time when they were employing every art, and resorting to every
species of violence, to obtrude their obnoxious system on a reluctnnt
and long-suffering population. At the very time when, at the in
stigation of Archbishop Laud, royal missives were sent down to
Scotland, requiring the whole naticn to submit to be thoroughly
episcopized on pain of horning and rebellion, after having swamped
her General Assemblies, exiled or gagged her faithful rainisters, at
the very raoment when the executions of the Star Chamber were
going forward in England to strike a terror into the breasts of the
Scots — ^while Bastwick, Prynne, and Burton, three eminent Puri
tans, were standing in the pillory, after being publicly whipped,
their ears cut off, and their cheeks branded — all for having written
against the impositions of certain ceremonies by Laud and his bi
shops— at this very time the prelates came forward and said to our
fathers — Why make such a pother about a few ceremoniss ? W hy
convulse tbe whole nation about a question of such subordinate im
portance as whether the church shall be governed by bishops or by
presbyters ? Surely you will not disobey the king, and prove rebels
for such points as these !
There is a closer connection than is generally supposed between
these loose notions regarding religion, and the principle of slavish
subjection to the arbitrary will of man. And both of these are, ge
nerally speaking, adopted merely to serve a turn, or because tbey
happen to smile propitiously for the time on the favourite system of
the individual.
This reminds me of an anecdote I have read somewhere, relating
to a noted high church doctor, who had raade himself famous in the
end of Queen Anne's reign for preaching up, with equal ignorance
and zeal, the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, which
was then so much in A'^ogue. Two gentlemen, members of Parlia
ment, in the reign of George I., paid a visit to this doctor, witb the
view of amusing themselves by drawing him out on his favourite
topic. This was easily done, and he launched out into the most
extravagant declaraation on the divine right of kings. One of the
gentlemen, thinking to puzzle him by putting cases, asked him.
Whether, if the king should demand his wife, he would think him
self obliged to yield her up ? Yes, Sir, replied he, the fault would
be his, not mine. But, says the other, if the king should order you
to turn Papist, would you obey him ? Yes, >ir, said he, I would.
What, continued the gentleman, if he should order you to turn
Mahometan ? Sir, said the doctor, I do not know but 1 might.
The gentleman found he was on the wrong tack ; but at last he hit
the nail on the head. Pray, doctor, says he, what if tbe king should
order you to turn Presbyterian, would you obey him in that? This
put the doctor to a stand, and having weighed the puzzling case a
feifi- moments, between the credit of his doctrine and the odious
idea he had formed of a Presbyterian, tbe last proved too much for

29
him, and, setting his hands to his sides, he exclaimed with solemn
vehemence — " The devil take my soul then !"
It is astonishing to observe how sensitive and touchy people are
on the subject of church governraent. Some years ago 1 happened,
from an ob.scure bastion in the tower of periodical literature, to pub
lish a paper iji defence of Presbytery, in which I ventured to assert its
divine ri^ht, or scriptural authority. Immediately, I was assailed
on the right by an Independent lay-preacher ; on the left received
^ buffet from a Scots Episcopal ; aud this was followed up by a
blow from behind from a Roman Catholic. I am extremely averse
to controversy, and was disposed to exclaim. One at a time. Gentle
men ; but. Sir, backed as I am to-night, I feel raore courage; and
so confident am I of the goodness of our cause, and of its success,
wben such hands have been raised in its defence, that, in the name
of Old Scotland, 1 may venture to defy all the three ; and do not
think, as John Knox said, that we have , reason to be " affrayed
above measour."
But though I must assert the liberty of contending for the form
of government which Christ has instituted in his kingdom, as part
of " the faith once delivered to the saints," I mean to confine my
observations to the first part ofthe resolution, leaving the other to the
gentleman who is to follow me. It might have been easily shown,
that the Church of England, even as she now exists, is still liable
to the censure pronounced on her by the Earl of Chatham — that
she has " Calvinistic articles, a Popish liturgy, and an Arminian
clergy. * Our fathers, at a subsequent period, joined with the
people of England in their attempt to reform that Church — an at
tempt vvhich was defeated by the folly and extravagance of the sec
taries. But at the period to whicb we refer, they did not seek to
meddle with the Church of England ; and their only desire was,
that the Church of England should not meddle with them. I do
injury to that Church when I say so; for it was merely a faction in
it, with Laud at its head, to which Charles unhappily lent the au
thority and influence of his name, that sought to obtrude on Scot
land a form of policy which they disliked, and a form of worship
which approximated much more nearly than the English liturgy to
that Popish idolatry which they dreaded and abhorred.
How it came to pass 1 shall not stop to explain, but somehow or
other, Scotsmen have never been fond of bishops from the com
mencement. They were intruded upon Scotland from the first,
without the con.sent ofthe Church, by one Palladius, who was sent
from Rome for that purpose, armed with authority, about the middle
of the fifth century. Before that time, neither the power of the
Pope nor the jurisdiction of prelates was acknowledged in Scot
land ; the Church was governed comjnuni consilio Presbyterorum,
by a common cmincil of Presbyters, in which one of the oldest and
gravest of their number, called a Superintendent, presided for the
sake of order, just as the Speaker presides in the House of Com
mons ; and down to the twelfth century, the Presbyters claimed the

30
right of governing tbe Church, in conjunction with the Bishops.
Nay, if we are to credit our historians, and among others Archbi
shop Usher, the best and most moderate of Episcopalians, it was
by these ancient Scottish Presbyters that the first bishops or pastors
of the English Church were ordained. It is well known, too, that
when Spotswood and our Scottish bishops went up to England to
receive consecration, they refused to be re-ordained as Presbyters,
maintaining that they had already received this order from thehands
of the Scots ministers. This was conceded; so that the order of
Presbyter, which, according to them, constitutes the basis of all the
rest, was not only acknowledged as valid, but its validity is essential
to the true ordination of all their successors. So that our modern
Episcopalians, who are so fond of tracing their apostolical pedigree,
may find their Adam and Eve in the ancient Presbyters of Scot
land. No sooner had Scotland emancipated herself from the yoke of
papal domination, than she reverted to the primitive simplicity of
her discipline and government. It is beyond all dispute that Scot
land, as it is expressed in the Articles of Union, was " reformed by
Presbyters," — tbat Presbyterianism is the form laid down in her
Books of Discipline, — and since that time, whatever may have been
done by arbitrary monarchs, servile parliaments, or packed assem
blies, prelacy has never been acknowledged by the Church of Scot
land. There is a striking similarity between the manner in which pre
lacy vvas obtruded on tbe Church of Scotland, and the manner in
which it was first introduced into the Christian Church. In both
cases, the process was gradual, — in both, the pretexts were exceed
ingly plausible, — in both, it was opposed in its progress by the
Presbyters, — in both, it was for a time successful, and followed by
the subversion of the liberty and prosperity of the church. For the
first three centuries the bishops were all parochial ; there were often
many pastors over one flock, but such a thing as one pastor over
many flocks was not heard of. Very soon, however, one of these
pastors was elected by his brethren to preside, and to him they gave
the name of Bishop, — an expedient which Jerome informs us was
intended to prevent schisms, but which, to use James Melville's
phrase, was " the very needle which drew iu the episcopal thread."
For, when the Roman empire became nominally Christian, this
parochial bishop, whose flock formerly congregated in one place,
pretended to hold jurisdiction over the whole city and neighbour
hood over which it had been formerly scattered, and appointed
others to officiate under him as subordinate pastors. Then the
city bishops claimed the precedence over the country bishops —
bishops of large cities rose above those of smaller cities into metro
politans, — the metropolitans were overtopped by the patriarchs, —
and after a struggle between tbe two patriarchs, the Pope of Rome
succeeded in reaching the climax of episcopal dignity.
From this brief sketch, you will see the reason why our fathers

31
resisted the inroads of prelacy ; they held it to be " the stirrup by
which Antichrist mounted into his seat." Then mark tbe parallel.
At first, James VI. only proposed that some ministers should be
appointed by tbe Assembly to consult with him and his council
about the affairs of the church ; this seemed very reasonable, — then
they must have a voice in Parliament, — next, they must be constant
moderators in church courts, — and, lastly, exalted to all the dignity
of prelates in the times of papacy. And all this under the pretext
of advancing tbe honour, and preser'vdng the peace and unity of the
church, — a pretext through which tbe more sharp-sighted and sin
gle-hearted of the ministers easily saw what was intended. In vain,
however, did they lift up their voice against it. Overborne by ar
bitrary power, the people of Scotland beheld, with profound but
silent indignation, their beloved church robbed of her liberties, and
her best rainisters silenced or driven into exile. Despairing of suc
cess, they at last sunk into a state of apathy which they afterwards
bitterly lamented, and from which they were soon thoroughly
awakened. The circumstances attending tbe imposition of the ill-fated Ser
vice Book, with the reception it met with at Edinburgh, and the
revulsion of feeling which immediately followed, are well known
facts. But the peculiar character of that book is not so generally
understood. Many suppose it to have been nothing more than the
English Liturgy, with a few inconsiderable variations; and that
the repugnance shown towards it by the Scots arose from their
aversion to read, and their love to what are termed extempore
prayers. Nothing can be more unfounded. This, indeed, was the
light in which the bishops attempted to place it ; and they had
even the hardihood to maintain- that the alterations that had
been made were introduced to suit the humours of the Scots. But
what are the facts ?
In the first place, it deserves to be remembered that before this
period Laud, Pocklington, and others of their school, had published
sentiments both on doctrinal and ecclesiastical points, very similar
to, if not worse than, those which are now emanating from an Eng
lish University, and well known by the designation of Oxford
Popery. They not only taught the grossest Arminianism, but
showed, in every possible way, their leanings towards Popery.
Tbey denied that the Pope was the Antichrist of Scripture — main- •
tained that he was the successor of St Peter — and held that it would
be nothing to the disadvantage of England to submit to his jurisdic
tion as they did in France and Spain — always providing, that his
Grace of Canterbury should be Patriarch of the British Islands.
They openly inculcated the adoration of the altar — of the commu
nion elements, of images, relics, and crucifixes. They condemned
the reformation . in England as having been rash and indiscreet —
they vindicated purgatory and prayers for the dead — the invocation
of the Virgin and of saints — and, in short, held the Sacrament of
the Supper to be a true sacrifice, in which the body and blood of

32
Christ were pffered by the priest. These doctpisies were openly
promulgated, under the sanction of the king, and were producing.
the utmost a.larm and commotion in England as well as in Scotland.
And then the circumstiiince of the Queen being a Papist, and a
powerful body of that persuasion being still in the north under the
Marquis of Huntly, with a great influx of Jesuit^ audi seminnry
priests into the country, increased the apprehensions entertained,
that it was intended tp deliver up the nation into the hands of the
Roman Pontiff.
It was under these circumstances that the Book of Canons and
Service Book made their ominous appearance in Scotland. The
former contained rules for the clergy, and referred to the c<institu-
tion of the church, leaving it to be entirely modelled by the King
or the Archbishop at pleasure, without consulting Church or Par
liament. The Service Book, which was the invention of Laud, in
troduced an entire revolution in the form of divine worship — a de
partment which the Scottish bishops bad prudently left untouched.
In this book the worst errors of Popery, which had been cai'efiilly
expunged from the English Liturgy by tbe reformers, were regularly
replaced — uublushingly translated from the Romish Missal or Mass
Book. — [Here the reverend gentleman introduced several quotations
from the Service Book of 1637.] Need we wonder after this that
the people of Scotland, noted in all ages for their shrewdness, their
piety, and abhorrence of superstition, should have regarded such a
book as this with peculiar aversion ? Or can we sufficiently wonder
at the infatuation of those who imagined that a service, whicb was
too popish even for England, could, by virtue of a simple mandate
of royal authority, be received by the Presbyterians of Scotland?
The commotion it excited, and which has been so much ridiculed
and reprobated by certain historians, appears, when its object is pro
perly considered, an expression of righteous indignation; and we see
there was more propriety than some suppose in the term which the
celebrated Janet Geddes applied to it, while in the act of launching
her stool at the head of the Dean, " Villain, how daur ye say the
mass at my lug?"
^ut it may be said. What connection has all this with present
times and things ? Why, my friends, it has this connection with
them, that truth is eternal; and if the principles on which our
fathers acted are founded on truth, they are worthy of everlasting
remembrance. There is this connection between them, that there
is every reason and fear (1 speak the judgment of men wisej- and
better than myself) that Popery, which is raising its head higher
than even it has ever done since the Reformation, may yet reach
an ascendancy in our land littie dreamt of by those who are fur
thering its designs, and that Presbytery will be found still, as it has
been iu times past, the most efficient rampart against Papal usurpa
tion. There is this connection betvveen them, that as in these
days, so now, Popery is emanating, in its gloomiest form, from the
cloisters of the English Church; aud I have in my handa pamphlet,

S3
written by a professor in Oxford, in which he not only, like the
Parliament of Charles II., denounces the period of 1638 as a rebeU,
lion, but speaks of " the Revolt of 1688," and mourns over the de
position of the Popish James, and the bringing in of King William,
as a national sin, which has brought down judgments on the church
and the country ! And, Sir, there is this connection between what
we have been stating and present times, that there is strong dispo
sition on the part of certain modern Episcopalians to assume the
same tone they did in the days of Laud, (whose life, by the bye, ,
has been lately written in the highest strains of eulogy,) and to adopt
those high notions of Apostolical succession which would virtually
unchurch not only the Church of Scotland, but all the reformed
churches in Europe and America, except their own. We have even
heard of a certain personage who, with no small parade, was lately
proclaimed Bishop of the diocese of Edinburgh ! We might smile
at this as quite harmless, for to us it sounds as somewhat on a
par with the boast of the renowned iSancho Panza, governor of
the whole island of Barataria. But, when accompanied by the
published sentiments to which we allude, and which, so far as I
know, have never been disavowed by the leaders of that church,
really, Sir, it becomes serious, and we can no longer remain silent.
Let them know that, if they arouse again the spirit of Scottish
Presbyterians, they will find it as firm and unflinching as ever.
The Church of Scotland, when her zeal is once more awakened for
the honour of her heavenly King, will pay but small regard to theii*
earth-born and self-anointed dignities. She has already set her
foot on the neck of the Pope, and proclaimed him to the world as
Antichrist; she has deposed and excommunicated bishops ; and she
has said, on more than one occasion, " I will speak of thy testi
monies before Kings, and will not be ashamed !"
We here declare that, independently of all the circumstances to
whicb I have referred, " the General Assembly of 1638 was fully
justified in abolishing the Episcopalian government and worship,
and restoring Presbytery as alone resting on the authority of Scrip
ture." Without anticipating what may be said on this part of the
motion, I may be allowed to say, that, believing as we do that Pres
bytery is the only form countenanced by the Scripture, it must be
our desire, prayer, and endeavour, that all other churches should
be not only almost, but altogether as our owu, except the afflictions
to which she may be subjected, or the corruptions that may still
cleave to her. And my own fixed opinion is, that the Churches of
England and Ireland will never be popular churches — will never
thrive in godliness — will never succeed in thoroughly christianizing
the land — will never survive the shock of that immense mass of dis
sent which is now mustering its scattered forces to effect her
ruiu — until they have discarded the cumbrous appendages of pre
lacy, once solemnly abjured by these lands, and exchanged it for a
discipline, government, and worship, less conformed indeed to " the

31
vain pomp and glory of the world," but more congenial to tbe spirit
of the meek and the lowly Jesus.
If I may be allowed, before sitting down, to express my feelings
in regard to the general object of this night's meeting, I would say
that they arc those of mingled sadness and joy. I lament. Sir, that
the cause we have met to honour is still so little understood and so
much opposed. I lament that so many, even in the national church,
are still unprepared to adopt, to their full extent, the principles for
wbich we contend. But I lament still more, (and here I would not
desire to add a single drop of gall to the waters of strife already
sufficiently embittered,) that so few of my brethren ofthe Secession
sbould have seen it tbeir duty to join with me in hailing this oppor
tunity of asserting the principles of 1638 — a period to which it was
once their boast to refer, and from which, indeed, tbey dated their
testimony against the Church of Scotland. But, Sir, I hope we
shall see better and brighter days ; and I cannot but rejoice in any
symptom, however partial, of a desire to return to the principles
which I have vowed to advocate and maintain. I was going to ask.
Where are our noblemen and barons who graced tbe period of the
Reformation to which our attention is this evening directed, and to
whom Henderson, in his closing speech at the end of the Assembly,
made such a beautiful allusion ? We cannot now boast of such
sympathy and support. But it is perhaps intended to remind us
that the work is to be accomplished, " not by might nor by power,
but by the Spirit of the Lord ;" and we ought to feel as our fathers
did in that Assembly, who declared tbat, if they had been deprived
of human influence and authority, " their cause would not have
been on that account the worse or the weaker." This, however,
will not make us feel less obliged to you, Sir, for the countenance
you have shown us, nor will we less admire the fortitude and good
principle which has led you to appear on this, as on former occa
sions, when the interests of truth and religious liberty were in
volved ; — an appearance which, I make bold to say, redounds as
much to the credit of your character, as it does to the honour of
the meeting to which you have lent tbe sanction of your presence.
(Great cheering.)
The Rev. Mr Candlish then rose, and was received with gjreat
applause. He said, — Mr Chairman, — My friend who bas made: the
motion, devolved upon me a very difficult task, when he said he left
me the latter part of this resolution to support. That resolution is
as follows — (Here Mr Candlish repeated the second resolution.) —
You will observe, Mr Chairman, that according to what has been
devolved upon me, I bave no quarrel in particular with the Oxford
men of the present day — that I have no quarrel with the arbitrary
power put forth by James and Charles — that I have no quarrel with
the Popish liturgy which they enforced on the consciences of Scotch
men; but I have a quarrel with Episcopacy altogether, and I am

85
called upon to say that I rejoice in the stand made by the Asserably
of J 638 for Presbytery, not as opposed to Popery only, but as op
posed to prelatic gov^ernment and worship altogether. [Cheers.)
Now, Sir, even although it were true that what first of all excited
our forefathers of old to make that noble stand for religion and
liberty which issued in the calling of the Assembly of 1638 — even
if it were admitted that what first excited them to form the tables
and sign the covenant was, immediately, not prelatic government
only, but a Popish liturgy, still our forefathers themselv^es have left
it on record, that when once they were compelled to protest against
the danger of Popery, they saw it to be their duty to go to the very
root of the matter, and to root out from the land the very seeds of
that system which then fully blown had been enforced upon them.
[Cheers.) I shall take the liberty of reading one passage frora an
account given of the Church of Scotland in 1640 concerning this
important matter, in a letter addressed to the Helvetian Church, in
which they say — " It came to pass that the estates of the kingdora,
whose patience was for a long tirae benumbed in bearing with the
bishops, being awakened with the news of this liturgy, did take
counsel concerning extirpating corruptions, and restoring their an
cient purity. Therefore they insisted by many supplications, en
treating, beseeching, and exhorting his most serene highness the
king and his honourable council, that they would succour the af
flicted church, and call the bishops to an account, who were the
authors of so great mischief. But while they perceived that no re
dress was given them, and that no answer was returned unto their
petitions, and that their demands were not regarded, they entered
more deep within their own hearts, searching into the recesses of
their souls, and the remembrance of their breach of covenant did
sting, wound, and pierce through their consciences; wherefore, being
moved with serious repentance, they resolved to renew their covenant
or national confession, which vvas at first signed with all their hands,
(viz. of the general meetings or estates of the kingdom;) then a solemn
fast being appointed, it vvas publicly ratified in the churches, by
swearing with their right hands lifted up with deep groans and tears."
Their patience, they tell us, had been long benumbed in bearing
with the bishops. The best and the bravest of their nuraber had
been either silenced, imprisoned, or banished; a few of the weaker
and more worthless were either persuaded or compelled to conform
— while others long and patiently waited in the hope that God would
turn the hearts of their rulers, and cause their sovereign to relent.
But " when their patience, which had been long benumbed, was at
last awakened," they did not stop short by merely protesting against
arbitrary power and a Popish Liturgy, but they solemnly enter
tained the question regarding prelatic government and worship alto
gether — and these are the men who made and put in writing the
sentence I have just quoted, vvho began with searching deep into
their hearts, whose consciences pricked them on account of their
sins and backslidings, in having long borne so patiently with the

36
bishops, who called to mind their sins against God, in having broken
the original covenant wbich had secured the pure establishraent of
their church in all simplicity and freedom. ( Cheers.) And here I
cannot but remark in passing, that the men who accomplished this
Second Reformation in 1638 were not abot-hcaded set of men, who
acted from tbe impulse of sudden thought, or who hastily ran into
one extreme because their rulers were running into another — but
tbey were men of prayer and self-examination, who searched their
ovvn hearts ; and it is interesting to note, in answer to those who
B])e;ik of the forms of church government and church worship as a
minor and insignificant thing, that their efforts to restore the church
to its original purity were peculiarly blessed of God. It is import
ant to remark, that there is a remarkable agreement, in point of
time, between the signing of the Covenant and tbe sitting of this
Assembly on the one hand, and, on the other hand, that remarkable
outpouring of the Holy Spirit in many parts of the land, as at
Irvine and the Kirk of Shotts, which led to those signal revivals in
the church, which, may God in his own good time grant to us again.
[Cheers.) It seems to prove that the moment the chnrch put herself
in tbe position of seeking to restore the purity of God's house, that
moment, by prayer and fasting, and searching of their hearts, the
people of Scotland obtained a blessing from on high. [Applause.)
I cannot enter at any length upon tbe scriptural argument of this
subject. The resolution bears, that " our forefathers were fully
justified in abolishing Episcopalian government and worship, and
restoring Presbytery, as alone resting on the authority of Scripture."
I could have wished to have followed the example of my brother
who opened the proceedings, in bringing the Word of God to prove
that Presbytery alone has its foundation there ; but it will be enough
to say, that in this proposition we retort uponour brethren in our sister
church the charge which they bring upon us ; and when they ask us
where is your authority for preaching the word and dispensing ordi
nances — where is the proof of your Episcopal ordination, and your
Apostolical succession? — we ask them on the other hand, "Where
within the limits ofthe Word of God will you find your bishops at
all?" [Loud cheers.) Bishops they will undoubtedly find exercis
ing the functions which they ascribe to their bishops ; but the same
bishops are called in the same Word of God presbyters or elders,
and you will see the same powers which they say are limited to
bishops expressly conferred upon presbyters too. Thoughout the
whole Word of God there is not a single clear passage, or a single
passage which, by straining, almost can be made to yield a clear
testimony to the existence of an order of bishops -an order of men,
not pastors of congregations, but pastors of pastors. If an appeal
be made to the early existence and institution of Episcopacy in the
Christian church — apart altogether from the able argument of my
friend who proposed this resolution— our forefathers saw, and saw
very clearly, that the same argument founded upon expediency, the
advantage of unity and order which tends to uphold bishops above

37
presbyters, will alsso uphold archbishops above bishops, till they
reach to the holy father the Pope himself. [Great applause.) But
I cannot enter fully on an argument like this, which would re
quire to be discussed at great length. I may simply refer to the
general principles which we hold to be established, by the authority
and example of the apostles, as their practice may be gathei'ed from
the brief hints and notices given in the New Testament, regarding
the churches which they formed. The system which they adopted
is not in any part of the inspired record fully unfolded — and per
haps it was not alvvays ui^iforin. But certain leading features may
be traced throughout. Thus, the institution of deacons, charged
with the care of the poor and the temporal concerns of the church,
is placed beyond question by the fact recorded in the sixth chapter
of the Acts. There, in addition to this office of a secular character,
we find repeated mention made of another order of office-bearers in
all the churches, called " presbyters" or " elders," as being men of
grave authority ; " bishops" or " overseers," as having the spiritual
oversight of the flock, and described as having rule over the Chris
tian people, and watching for souls as those Who must give account.
And the only distinction which we can recognise in this last class
is between the elders or presbyters who merely " rule," and those
who, besides ruling, "labour in word and doctrine;" (1 Tim. i. 17,)
a distinction which seems to lay a foundation for the difference
which we make between the ruling elder and the teaching elder or
pastor, as holding separate offices, or rather separate branches of
the same office. Beyond this simple order, we can discover nothing
in Holy Scripture, regarding the early government of the Chris
tian society, excepting only the extraordinary powers exercised by
the apostles themselves, and evangelists specially coramissioned by
them, not as settled superintendents of particular dioceses, but as
agents employed at large in forraing and organizing new churches,
in all different parts of the world. But in this simple order, we
have full warrant for the ordinance of a standing ministry, autho
rised by Christ himself to rule his people, and to confer their own
office on others, by solemni mposition of hands. We consider also
that the New Testament gives evidence of a union between differ
ent churches and their office-bearers, and a control vested in coun
cils of these office-bearers over particular churches and their mem
bers. Thus we maintain, in the words of the illustrious M'Crie,
that the leading principles of Presbytery rest on the authority of
God, and that its subordinate arrangements are supported by the
general rules of Scripture. They are simple, and well calculated
to preserve order and promote edification, equally opposed to arbi
trary and lordly domination on the part of the clergy, and to popu
lar confusion and misrule ; establishing an efficient discipline in
every congregation, and preserving that unity which ought to sub
sist among the different branches of the Church of Christ.
I would gladly, if time and the occasion permitted, enter some
what at length into the proof of these statements. But I shall rather

38
go on to remark, and in this I shall surely carry with me the sym
pathies of my audience — " That we have much reason to be thank
ful that, since that time, except during the period of the persecu
tion, Presbyterianism has been the established form of Church
Gov^ernment in Scotland." I may remark here, that our fore
fathers, in 16.S8, and indeed before tbat time, at the time when
they first ratified and confirmed Presbytery, and again when the
Second Book of Discipline was confirmed in this very city, and
also at the time of the Second Reform.ation — I may remark that
the church stood in a noble position.
If you will allow me, I will contrast our church at the period of
the Reformation with the sister church in England. The Church
of England, it is well known to every reader of history, has never
been in the position — if we except the period of the Westminster
Assembly — of calmly and fairly discussing, on the ground either of
scriptural argument or of ecclesiastical order, the great questions
of government and worship. It always took its tone from circum
stances and events; it never was in the position of forming the
constitution of the church for the country. Rather, it suffered the
history of the country, and the course of events, to form a constitu
tion for her. From the Reformation dowTiwards to 1638, our
church was in the very reverse position. The men of our church
alone were at liberty fairly and calmly to consider the scripture
ground of the question, as well as the ground of expediency, so as
to find out the very best form of church government and worship.
They were not compelled to suit their system to the times, but they
made the times to bend to their system. (Loud cheers.) Hence
resulted the inestimable advantage which our church possesses over
the sister Church of England, in being a church not reformed by
arbitrary power, but by her learned ministers — men whose learn
ing puts to shame the lore of these degenerate days. (Hear, hear.)
By those learned men — while tbe whole nation, kings, princes, and
people, waited for their decision — and to those men, under God,
may we in great part ascribe the fact that we were able, in establish
ing our church constitution, to make the appeal directly for the
support of it to the Word of the living God.' And we have reason
to be thankful, that, since 1638, that constitution has been pre
served. It is true, that never, since the period of 1638 — never, I
may say, has that constitution had altogether fair play. (Hear, hear.)
For a brief period after the rising of that Assembly, the church
enjoyed prosperity, and it may be in part abused it. It is possible
that success, sudden success, after long trial, may have led to some
excesses ; which men, with no soul for entering into the noble spirit
breathing through these times and transactions, may point out in
their petty cavils, and try to hold up to scorn, while they might
rather cast a veil over such minor blemishes, and thank God for
the great work done. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) After this period
of prosperity came a period of persecution— godliness was well
nigh suppressed in the church, by the arm of arbitrary power, and

39
corruption in manners, spread and increased by the example of
royal and noble profligacy — the Sabbath was desecrated, and the
inferior orders of the clergy had, in a great degree, lapsed into lati
tudinarian sentiments and imraoral conduct. At the period of the
Revolution, it will hardly be maintained now by any that the
system of our church, as our wise and pious forefathers framed
it, was fully realized. The settlement of that era by no means
perfectly embodied the fair image which they had conceived. A
leaven of Episcopalian corruption, as affecting both the manners of
the people, and tbe doctrine and conduct of the ministers, still
reraained, and the state undoubtedly stretched forth its hand, in
the manageraent of spiritual affairs, beyond its legitiraate province.
Then came the union of the crowns, the influence naturally exerted
by intercourse with our richer and more powerful neighbour, and
the gradual alienation of many of the upper classes, by their
southern education, and transference of the parliament, as well as
the court, to London. I need not remind this meeting of the cir
cumstances which have since hindered the full and fair play of the
constitution of the church — the obstacles interposed by the arbi
trary enactment of patronage, in the reign of Queen Anne ; and,
worst of all, by the secession of those men of old, who had too good
cause indeed for leaving a tyrannical church, but who, had they
foreseen these two things — on the one hand, the extent to which their
descendants would go, in disowning this church altogether ; and, on
the other band, the revival with vvhich it has pleased God to bless
our church in these latter days, — would, I earnestly believe, have
borne more patiently their tribulations, and continued to witness
within our church, rather than to witness against it. (Tremendous
cheering.) However that may be, I mention this thing merely
as shewing that the constitution of 1638 never had full and fair
play. But yet, on the whole, we have reason to thank God that
the constitution of Presbytery has been in the main preserved ;
as, notwithstanding all these obstacles and hindrances, our country
owes a deep debt of gratitude to Presbyterian government, inso
rauch that in the heart of a leal and true Scotsman, Patriotism and
Presbyterianism are synonymous and identical. (Loud applause.)
Now, Sir, let me just remark, how much cause we have for thank
fulness to God for such a system as this, not only as viewed in re
gard to its being founded on the Word of God, — and the nearer,
surely, we approach the Apostolic model, tbey more readily may we
expect the blessing of God, — but as a system under which the coun
try has flourished since 1638 — flourished, notwithstanding many
drawbacks, and hindrances, and interruptions, in spite of much vio
lence without, and much unfaithfiilness within,~as a system which
admirably answers all the ends for which a church is constituted,
for which ministers are ordained, and men are called in this world
to be a peculiar people in the Lord. I might run through many
features of this system of Presbytery. Let us just glance at one
grand feature which is presented to us this night. Let us just look

40
at the Assembly which this day two hundred years ago finished its
sittings at Glasgow, and let us just ask what this country would
have been, what any country would be, were the Assembly of 1638,
instead of standing out as an isolated thing, a single fact in history,
to be a thing, a fact of every-day occurrence, which, but for the
hindering of men, it might and would have been. In that Convo
cation, or Assembly, there was, on the one hand, a class of ministers,
learned, as I have already remarked, beyond the learning of these
our times, — ministers coming fresh from their every-day work in
their parochial cures, — men bronght into contact with all classes of
society, — men entrusted with the full confidence of their brethren,
with whom they were wont freely and equally to confer on the very
matters with which they were called on to settle. (Cheers.)
Such were the ministers ; not men who kept aloof from the every
day life of a pastor's walk, and who had no sympathy with the peo
ple; but men engaged in the heat and burden of the Lord's work,
who had come up to confer and decide on matters concerning the
glory of God, and the welfare of those whose every thought they
knew — with the pulse of whose heart they had the fullest fellow-
feeling. (Cheers.) The other class of men of whom the Assembly
was composed was elders, not laymen, in any invidious sense, in
which some might think to stigmatize and brand them, — but spirit
ual men, ecclesiastical men, — still men engaged in the ordinary
avocations and business of tbis world, — men whose common sphere
might be the camp, the court, the cabinet, or the place where mer
chants most do congregate, — men of war, men of policy, men of
trade and comraerce, — these two classes of men coming together,
not at the call of an earthly king, but at the call of the Lord Jesus
Christ, the King of Kings, and uniting together harmoniously, and
unanimously, placing themselves under the guidance and modera
tion of that right-hearted and right-minded man in whom they all
placed the fullest confidence. I ask you, is not this a meeting,'- — is
not this a convocation which throws all others — every chapter, and
convention, and conclave — into utter insignificance, however gor
geous these raay be vvith the trappings of outward rank, sitting,
however, apart from the stir of life, and away from the sympathies
of the people, — a meeting this, indeed, full of wisdom, full of prayer,
on which it is no matter of wonder that it should have pleased
the Almighty Lord to bestow his blessing. (Great clieeringi)
That vvas an Assembly to which men might freely and fearlessly
entrust their dearest interests — a holy convocation to which might
fearlessly bc committed even the cause of God — a meeting combin
ing those two essential requisites, the fullest freedom and equality
of discu.ssion, and the utmost promptitude and energy of decision —
an Assembly combining all the advantages of the monarchical sys
tera, with a man of their own choice at their bead, to whora they
could commit the business vvhich they had to transact, and at the
same time all the benefits oi the republican system, in a free inter
change of thought, and in their pouring out of united prayer to God;

41
— for in, that Assembly there was no lack of counsel, no lack of
prayer, no lack of wisdom and decision, while Henderson was at'
their head. ( Tremendous applause.) Now follow these men at the>
rising of this glorious Assembly to their own homes. Let us follow
them, not to those retreats in which they might sit apart and transact
tho affairs of the church, but to the every-day life of a pastor of
God's people. Let us see them — these very men, fit tobe entrusted
with a nation's weal — fit to be entrusted with the cause of God —
these very men going from house to house visiting their people ;
Sabbath after Sabbath preaching. the word of eternal life; The
nobles, too, the gentry, and the commons, who had sat and as
sisted in their meeting, strengthening in the parishes the hands of
these holy men, going round to gather the funds of their mi
nisterial labour, and sitting with them to determine the causes
which arose between men and men in their own neighbourhood.
This is a system which will surely stand a comparison (with all
deference I say it) with the much vaunted system of our sister
church — that system in which her ministers in their several cures
may almost be said to have the disadvantages of independency and
arbitrary power, with none of the advantages of either— these raen in
their several parishes stand aloof and apart from one another, so far
at least as the arrangements of the church are concerned. They are
independent of their equals, and between the rainister and the
people there is no such intermediate orders, as in our good old
Presbyterian plan, tends so thoroughly to blend in one comraon
Christian sympathy the hearts of the teachers and the taiight, the
governors and the governed. Thus isolated from one another, and
left to act in many things too independently of their equals, they
are in a situation fitted to invest them wilh too arbitrary a power
in their own particular parishes. Each is practically left alone in
the government of his flock — without the counsel of his fellows —
subject himself also to an authority that may easily become too
lordly and too tyrannical. Now, compare with this a system which,
bringing up from the lowest of the people all interests and causes
that can concern their welfare, either in this life or in "that which
is to corae, by a gradation of free and equal courts, with an Assembly
over all, brings thus to bear upou each case, and upon the welfare
of each person, the united and concentrated wisdom of practical
raen from all parts of the land, so that, in very truth, each person
has the benefit of all the counsel which the ministers and elders of
all the parishes in the country can unite to give. But I must close,
and I do so with one remark— I hold the question of church govern
ment, and church policy, and church worship, to be one of vital con
sequence, and not to be set aside as beiiig minor or unimportant.
Even if it could be maintained that these outward matters are not
so expressly and explicitly settled in holy scripture, according to
any one plan, as to warrant us in condemning every deviation, in
some particulars, as anti-christian, still I fully believe that the
nearer she can come to the scriptural model, the better it will be

43J
for any church, and the more right will she have humbly to cX~
peet the blessing of the great Head. But I at once admit, that,
in comparison with the question of right doctrine ; and, above all,
with the presence of the Holy Spirit of God, it is a very subordi
nate matter indeed. I admit, that even if the constitution of our
Church were perfect — that even although it were a perfect realiza
tion of the bright visions anticipated by the men of 1638 — (and a
better constitution could not be devised, than one which should but
realize that vision ;) but I admit that even tbis would not prevent
the Church from backsliding or deadness. I am far from holding
that prosperity in any Church is secured by the soundest system of
discipline and worship. There is another essential element — the
element of the presence of the Spirit ofGod. The purest Churches,
in respect of polity, have lost, and may lose, that essential ele
ment. The Spirit of God may be withdrawn in righteous visita
tion, on account of sins in the actual working and administration
of that polity. But I have one remark to make in regard to Pres
bytery. If in any case in which the Church of Christ should be
deserted by God's Spirit, because of her sin, then deadness, and
then coldness and heartless formality ; if such a blight should come
over any Church, as tbe blight did come over both the Scotch and
English Churches, towards the end of the last and the beginning
of the present century ; and if at any tirae it should please God
again to stir up a revival of religion in the midst of that Church ;
I ask whether the Church under Presbyterian government, or one
such as our sister Church, would be in the best position for securing
and improving that outpouring of the Spirit of God ? It is quite
manifest, that, according to principles which might be easily ex
plained, if in any case such a revival does take place, it will com
raence among the working ministers, and not among the higher
dignitaries of a church — among the men who sit apart, and mix
not in the strife and work of a practical and rainisterial life — no, it
will not be on the bench, but in the parishes of England, that a
revival will take place — among the Venners and the Simeons,
the working raen of the Church. (Great cheer. ng.) Now, just
consider how long it may le before a revival thus begun tells
effectively upon the outward actings of the ecclesiastical body —
how slowly it will ascend from what is called the lower, but what I
call the higher classes of the clergy — (henr, end cl eersj— how long it
will take before it tells on the management of ecclesiastical affairs,
and the votes of the Prelates in the House of Peers. I can con
ceive a case in which the church, to a great extent, is experiencing
the outpouring of God's Spirit, and a great and glorious revival,
and yet the outward and official actings of the church marked still
by a spirit of indifference, if not of hostility, to the cause of Christ
and of his evangelical truth— its rulers tolerating error— perhaps
even suffering Popery to corrupt, at its very fountain-head, the
whole Christian education of tbe church and of the land. (Cheers.)
I can conceive a case of a church, in which, when a petition comes

43
Mp to its dignitaries from the working ministers, to be allowed to
adopt a method of instruction which shall better suit the case, and
more closely reach the hearts of their perishing fellow-sinners, it
shall raeet with a cold denial from the authorities of that church,
or, at the best, with a civil evasion. (Hear, hear.) But we re
joice in a church where liberty and purity remain, and where every
man's opinion tells for what it is worth. In such a church, let a
revival begin amongst tbe working ministers, in their daily minis
trations, and instantly it will be seen operating upon the outward
and official actings of the church, either in the way of the adop
tion of sound principle, or in the way of testifying against those
which are unsound. (Great applause.) I do trust that the re
vival of which I have been speaking, but of which I shall not
boast, — for we have still cause for self-abasement, — but I trust that
that revival is about to spread itself; and I do hope and believe, that
if the revival of sound doctrines, and spiritual and evangelical
religion, goes on in England, it will very shortly lead to the adop
tion of something which, if not Presbyterianism itself, will be as good
a substitute for it as the laws of Episcopacy will permit. (Cheers.)
At this very moment, it is well known that the ministers of the
sister church, wheresoever they care for the souls of men, have, at
least in many cases, been fain to employ the assistance of lay
agents, as they call them — have indeed been compelled, out of a
regard to the destitution of the people — to call in such auxiliaries,
not only without ecclesiastical sanction, but in the face even of the
fulminations of their ecclesiastical superiors — a miserable substitute
indeed, but the best which they can have for the efficient eldership
of our Presbyterian church. And if this work of revival goes on,
they must unite together in demanding that their voice shall be
fully heard, not merely in the way of" humble petitions, but in
the way of free and equal discussion and debate, in some Assem
blies, sitting under the presidentship, it may be, of their Bishop or
Archbishop, yet with freedom to state their own views, and to con
sult together on the glory ofGod and the good of souls. I heartily
wish. Sir, that such a tirae may arrive; and, whether they call it
Presbyterianism or not, I shall rejoice to see such efficient instru
ments of a new life put into the hands of the ministers of the
sister land. (Cheers.) I trust, Sir, I have uttered nothing offen
sive or injurious to that church in what I have now said. I shall
simply conclude by seconding the raotion ; aud, while giving thanks
for what was done in 1638, venture to express a hope that still bet
ter and brighter days than we have seen since that tirae are in
store for the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which has
hitherto been, is still, and I trust will continue to be, altogether
and exclusively Presbyterian  (Mr Candlish sat down amidst the
universal applause of the meeting.)
The Rev. Mr Cunningham was received with very great cheer
ing. He said, — Before proceeding to advert to the motion which I

44
am about to submit to the meeting, I take the liberty of expressing my
entire and cordial concurrence in the resolutions which have already
been adopted, and in the train of argument by which these resolu
tions have been supported. (Cheers.) I cordially concur in the
principles which have been set forth as to the spiritual independence
of the Church of Christ,^ — her exclusive right to regulate all eccle
siastical affairs in accordance with the word of God, and subject to
Christ alone, — and the divine and scriptural authority of Presbyte
rian church government. I believe these principles to be true. I
believe them to be important, not merely as every thing about which
there is information given in the word of God is important, but be
cause they have an important influence on the interests of vital god
liness. I believe that their being set before us is eminently season
able in the circumstances in which we are at present placed. (Cheers.)
My motiou'brings us back, in sorae degree, to the independence of
the church ; not, however, to the <juestion of the church's inde
pendence- in the abstract, but to the connection that ought to subsist
hetween the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and to the relations
which ought to be formed between them. It is to this effect: —
" That these great men who were instrumental in effecting the
Second Reformation ofthe Church of Scotland, held sound scriptu
ral views in regard to the proper relation of the civil and ecclesias
tical authorities; that they acted upon these principles, and embodied
them in their public standards ; and that, notwithstanding the con
tradictory objections by whicb, in different ages, they have been
assailed, we still regard them as founded upon the sacred scriptures,
and pointing the true path of the church's duty." You will observe
that it sets before us a subject of great importance in the relations
that ought to subsist between the Church and tbe State — a subject
that ought tobe thoroughly understood and rightly applied by all of
us, since a proper adjustment of this matter is fitted to exert a ma
terial influence on the welfare of the community, and on tbe pros
perity of religion. The sum and substance of the principles which
Presbyterians hold on this point, of what was asserted and enacted
by the Assembly of 1638, and what is embodied in the standards of
the church, is just this,— that by the authority of God's word, it is
the imperative duty of nations, as such, and of civil rulers in then-
official capacity, and in the exercise of their civil authority, to aim
at the promotion of the true religion and the welfare of the (. burch
ofChrist; but that Christ having conferred upon his church certain
powers and privileges, it is equally the duty of the State to leave
the Church in the full enjoyment of those rights and prerogatives
which Christ bas conferred, especially the free regulation of all
eccle.siastical matters, according to the standard which he has pre
scribed,— that both the civil and the ecclesiastical powers ave ordi
nances of God,— that they have, each of them, a distinct and sepa
rate sphere, within which each has suprerae and exclusive jurisdic-
ticn,-.-tliat both of them are instituted and appointed to promote
God's glory, — that the civil and ecclesiastical powers must come

45
much into contact with each other, — that they are capable of mate
rially aiding or obstructing each other's designs ; — and that, on these
accounts, and on account of their mutual independence, there ought
to be an alliance between thera, as between two independent co-
equals, to aid and assist in promoting their common object of the
glory of God. These arc substantially the principles laid down in
the standards of the church as to the relation betvveen the civil and
ecclesiastical authorities. Our forefathers maintained both these
principles — of the duty of civil rulers and the independence of the
church. We are also pledged to maintain them both. We be
lieve that they both rest upon the authority of the Scriptures,
and that, of course, they are quite consistent with each other ;
or, in other words, that civil rulers can discharge the duty,
and the whole duty, which the word of God imposes on thera in
supporting and countenancing the Church, and yet leave that
C hurch untouched in relation to its spiritual independence. I can
not enter fully into the grounds on which we hold both these opi
nions, and maintain their consistency with eaCh other. I believe
the mere statement of them will commend itself to the understand
ings of a large portion of those who now hear me, as sound and
rational, and in perfect accordance with the views which God has
given us in his word regarding both the State and the Church.
This, without entering fully into the discussion, raight be raade
to appear more palpably, by contrasting our principles with the
other theories which are held and maintained on this subject. I may
remark, tbat there are three other theories held in relation to this
matter. There is, first, what may be called the Popish doctrine —
the principle of the superiority of the ecclesiastical over the civil
authority — that the Church alone has the right of deciding what
men are to believe, and how they are to worship God; and that
after the Church has settled that, then it becomes the duty of rulers,
without examining the matter for themselves, but simply on the
authority of an infallible Church, to enforce her decisions and de
crees by pains and penalties, and even by the persecution and murder
of those who presume to differ frora them. That is the Popish the
ory, and as a consequence of this superiority of the ecclesiastical over
the civil authority. Papists claim an exemption of all ecclesiastical
persons from the jurisdiction of civil tribunals, on every question
affecting their persons and property. These are the leading and
fundamental principles of the Church of Rome on this point. The
second is what may be called the Erastian theory, which has been
already explained by the able statement of my friend Mr Brown,
and vvhich consists in substantially asserting the superiority of the
civil over the ecclesiastical authority. Erastians assert the right of
civil rulers to regulate or control ecclesiastical matters, on the
ground that Christ has not appointed a government in his Church,
distinct frora the civil power, in the hands of Church officers, to re
gulate ecclesiastical affairs. This is the Erastian theory, which I
lament to say is exhibited more or less in many of the Protestant

46
Churches of Europe, and wbich stains to a large extent the Chureh
of England. In former times, when this question was much better
understood, and more thoroughly discussed than it is now, Eras
tianism was put in a more palpable and offensive form than at pre
sent, by denying that Christ had appointed any distinct and inde
pendent government in his Church. But the Erastians of the pre
sent daj', and there are some of them in our own Church, do not
go so far, although that is the only consistent Erastian position,
but content themselves with putting forward vague and indefinite
assertions, that there ought to be a power placed soraewhere to con
trol and regulate all other powers. But the Erastian principle in
volves this, that, in some shape or other, civil rulers are to have a
control over ecclesiastical judicatories, even when engaged in the
performance of ecclesiastical functions. Against the third theory
we are equally called upon to protest; and this is the Voluntary
theory. (Cheers.) It is substantially this, that there ought to be
no friendly connection or alliance between the civil and ecclesiastical
powers; tbat they ought to be kept absolutely and entirely separate.
This is the Voluntary principle, and it may be iraportant to explain
in a sentence or two the true distinction hetween us, and those who
aim at the subversion of the Church. They put forward, in
illustration of what they call the Voluntary principle, a great deal
of iraportant Christian truth, which is undeniably contained in
God's word, but which we hold as honestly and decidedly as they
do. (Lmtd cheers.) They are in the habit of saying — it was lately
said in this very place — that the " Voluntary principle was the
principle of love to God and to Christ," and the statement was
plainly intended to convey the impression that that was the true
distinction between us and them. This is a gross iraposition, a
most shameless misrepresentation ; and I raarvel that any man
could dare to assert it. The distinction between us and them is
this — we assert that the duty of promoting the true religion attaches
to every man, both in his private and in his official capacity — that it
is the duty of every man, with all his faculties, in tbe discharge of
all his offices, and in the exercise of all his influence, to aim at the
glory of God, and the interests of reli^on. We hold this princi
ple without liraitation, while the Voluntaries would come in and
limit it. [Cheers.) They say that men individually, and in their
private capacity, are bound to do this ; but tbat civil rulers. In
their official capacity, are not bound to do it. That is the precise
distinction between us ; and it is important to remember that the
Voluntary principle, in the only sense in which it constitutes a
difference between us, is a raere negation— that it is just a denial
that it is the duty of civil rulers, as such, to aim at the promotion
of the cause of Christ. (Loud cheers.) That is the true distinc
tion between us ; and we are willing to meet them on this ground,
and to assert and maintain that the Word of God does impose this
duty, without limitation, on all men, in all situations in which they
may be placed. (Cheers.) After having stated their different

47
theories, I have just again to appeal to you whether the Presby
terian principles, which impose on rulers the duty that, in the
exercise of their civil authority, they are to aim at the glory of
God, and the interests of true religion, but at the same time inter
dict them frora any direct interference in ecclesiastical matters, be
not in accordance with those principles, concerning church govern
ment and civil magistracy, which are set forth in the Scriptures. It
is important to remember that, when these principles were asserted
by our forefathers in 1638, and when, soon after, they were em
bodied in the Westminster standards, the leading objection adduced
against them was, that they were disloyal and Popish principles ;
that those who maintained them withheld the obedience which was
due to civil rulers, and that the extravagant claims put forth on
behalf of the church corresponded with tbe principles of the
Church of Rorae. In replying to these objections, they marked
out clearly and distinctly the grounds of difference between
them and the Church of Rome ; they disclaimed all superiority or
usurpation over the civil power, all right to interfere in civil mat
ters, but they maintained that the two powers were equ.il, and that
each had a supreme and independent jurisdiction in its own sphere,
which ought to be preserved and upheld ; and that, in acting upon
these principles, they were giving to rulers the whole obedience to
which ihey were entitled by the Word of God. It is true — and as
insidious atterapts have recently been made to represent Church
men as friends of passive obedience, it may be stated — that Scot
tish Presbyterians, in every age, have held most liberal views in
regard to the origin and foundation of civil government ; by which
I mean substantially this, that they have ever brought very promi
nently forward, as the end of government, the good of the com
munity. — that they have always scouted the idea of the divine and
indefeasible right of any man or faraily to govern a nation, without
any regard to the welfare of that nation — that they have ever con
sidered the best security for good government to bc, in the com
munity itself having a considerable influence in regulating its
affairs ; and that, in extreme cases of oppression and tyranny, a
nation is entitled to secure for itself the blessings of civil, and espe
cially of religious freedom, even though it should be done by force of
arms. These principles were held by Scotch Presbyterians as early
as the time of John Knox, when he, in the presence of Queen Mary,
asserted his right, as a free-born Scotchman, to censure her adminis
tration, and to oppose the schemes in which she was engaged. These
principles were held by the Assembly whose meeting we are now
commemorating, — they were maintained at the Revolution as opposed
to Popery and arbitrary power, — and they have found their ablest
and most learned defenders in the Church of Scotland. If these
principles are disloyal, 1 am afraid we shall not be able to vindicate
our forefathers from that charge ; but we shall willingly share the
blame with them, for we hold them also. (Loud cheers.) But they
willingly admitted the supreme and exclusive jurisdiction of civil

48-
rulers in all civil' matters, and while they answered the objections de
rived from Popery, they were able to retort upon their Erastian ad
versaries the charge of supporting Popish principles, and to show that
their system gave the King domination over the conscience, which
the Church of Rome gave to the Pope, whereas we ascribe it to none
but to Him who made the conscience ; for our standards declare that
God alone is Lord of the conscience. In support of the views now
given of the principles of our forefathers, I shall refer you to one or
two passages. As far back as 1582, the General Assembly com
plained —
" That his Majesty, by advice of some councillors, is moved to take
upon him that spiritual power and authority which properly belong
eth to Christ, as only Head and King ofhis Church, the ministry and
execution whereof is only given to such as bear office in the ecclesiasr
tical governraent of the same ; so that in his Majesty's person some
men press to erect a popedom, as though his Majesty could not be
full king and head of this commonwealth, unless as well the spiritual
and temporal sword be put in his hand ; unless Christ be robbed of
his authority, and the two jurisdictions confounded, which God hath
divided ; which directly tends to the wreck and overthrow of all true
religion." 'There is another vrell known passage, where the same principles
were asserted to King James by Anrirew Melville. I read from, the
Life of Melville, by the illustrious biographer of Knox. ( Great
cheering.) " The deputies were admitted to a private --udience of the King.
They had agreed that Jaraes Melville should be their spokesman on
account of the courteousness of his address, and the superior degree
of respect which his Majesty had uniformly expressed for him. But
he had scarcely begun to speak, when the King interrupted him, and
in a tone of irritation challenged the meeting held at Cupar as illegal
and seditious, and accused them of infusingunreasonableandunfounded
fears into the minds of the people. James Melville was preparing to
reply in his mild manner, when his uncle, unable to restrain himself,
or judging that the occasion called for a different style, stepped for
ward and addressed the King. His Majesty testified the strongest
reluctance to listen to his discourse, and summoned up all his autho
rity to silence him ; but Melville persevered, and taking hold of the
sleeve of the King's gown in his fervour, and calling him God's silly
vassal, he proceeded to address him in the following strain, perhaps
the most singular, in point of freedom, that ever saluted royal ear.*,
or that ever proceeded from the mouth of a loyal subject, who would
have spilt the last drop of his blood in defence of the person and
honour of his prince : — " Sir, we will always humbly reverence your
Majesty in public ; but since we have this occasion to be with yonr
Majesty in private, and since you are brought in extreme danger both
of your life and crown, and along with you the country and the church
of God are like to go to wreck, for not telling you the truth and
giving you faithful counsel. We must discharge our duty, or else be
traitors both to Christ and you. Therefore, Sir, as diverse times

49
before I have told you, so now again I must tell you, there are two
kings and two kingdoras in Scotland : there is King James the head
ot this commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus the King of the
church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and of whose kingdom he
is not a king, nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. Sir, those whom
Christ has callel and commanded to watch over his church, have
power and authority from him to govern his spiritual kingdom both
jointly and severally ; the which no Christian king or prince should
control and discharge, but fortify and assist ; otherwise they are not
faithful subjects of Christ and members of his church. We will yield
to you your place, and give you all due obedience ; but again 1 say,
you are not the head of the church : you cannot give us that eternal
life which we seek for, even in this world, and you cannot deprive us
of it."— Vol. I. p. 390-2.
These were the principles adopted and acted on by our forefathers.
They were also declared and practised by the Assembly of 1638. On
that occasion, when the bishops gave in their declinature of the juris
diction of the Assembly, and matters were approaching to a crisis, by
the King dissolving them, Alexander Henderson, the illustrious
Moderator of that Assembly, addressed them in a speech, of which
the following are extracts : —
" It hath been the glory of the reformed churches, and we account
it our glory in a special manner, to give unto kings and magistrates
what belongs to their places.
" There is nothing due to kings and princes in matters ecclesiasti
cal, which shall be denied by this Assembly to our king. What is
ours let be given to Caesar, but let God, by whom kings reign,
have his own place.
" Let Christ Jesus, the King of Kings, have his own prerogative,
hy whose grace our. king reigneth, and we pray that he may reign
long and prosperously over us."
And on a subsequent occasion the Assembly made the following
declaration : —
" We ought ever to remember, as a fundamental maxim, the dis
tinction made betwixt civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the word
of God, and largely explained in several acts of Assembly, especially
in the first and tenth chapters of the Book of Policy, where we find
the difference clearly stated- As to the persons, manner of govern
ment, matters treated, md form of proceeding, all is ecclesiastical, and
only ecclesiastical, in the one; and all civil, and only civil, in the
other ; their very principles and rules are different. In the one civil
laws are the rule, but in the other the word of God is the only rule.
They are independent of one another in their own jurisdiction ; and as
an Assembly cannot prescribe rules to the Parliament in civil mat
ters, no more ought the Parliament to prescribe to tbe Assembly in
ecclesiastic." — Stevenson's History of the Church and State in Scot
land.— Pp. 543-5-5'J.
There is another brief extract to the same effect by the illustrious
Samuel Rutherford, who was appointed by the General Assembly to
attend the Assembly at Westminster: — g

50
" When the Lord shall be pleased to grant that to us, which con
cerns religion, the beauty of his houSe, the propagating of the gospel,
the government of the Lord's kingdom, without popery, prelacy, un
written traditions and ceremonies, let his Majesty try our loyalty with
what commands he shall be pleased to lay on us, and see if we be
found rebellious."
I shall give only another extract, in which this matter is also dis-
tiiietly explained. It is taken froin Gillespie's " Aaron's Rod Blos
soming." He also was one of the Commissioners to the Assembly of
Divines at Westminster.
" The civil sanction added to church government and discipline, is
a free and voluntary act of the magistrate. That is, church govern
ment doth not necessitate the inagistrate to aid, assist, or corroborate
the same, by adding the strength of a law. But the magistrate is
free in this, to do or not to do, to do more or to do less, as he will
answer to God and his conscience : it is a cumulative act of favour
done by the magistrate. The magistrate ought fo add the civil sanc
tion, hic et nunc, or he ought not to do it. It is either a duty or a
sin, it is not indifferent. But by meaning is. The magistrate is
free herein from all coaction, yea, frorii all necessity and obligation,
other than ariseth from the word of God binding his conscience.
There is no power on earth, civil or spiritual, to constrain him. The
magistrate himself is his own judge on earth, how far he is to do any
cumulative act of favour to the church : Which takes off that calum
ny, that Presbyterial government doth force or compel the conscience
ofthe magistrate." — P. 182.
Thus you see the ground on which our forefathers proceeded ; and
the only objection that was then made to them was, that they with
held the obedience which was due to civil rulers, and acted on Popish
principles. These objections were also urged in the Westminster
Assembly, when certain divines were sent from the General Assem
bly in Scotland to consult with their brethren in England on the set
tlement of the church. In that Assembly an unprincipled combination
Was exhibited between the Erastians and Independents to oppose the
sound Presbyterians ; and it is curious to observe, that so eager
were the Independents to find a plausible ground of objection to the
Presbyterians, that they concurred in the Erastian statements, of their
withholding the obedience due to civil rulers, by asserting the church's
spiritual independence, and so unflinching were the Presbyterians at
that time in the assertion of this doctrine, that tbe Independents were
in the habit of saying that the Presbyterians went farther in exclud
ing the interference of civil rulers in religious matters than they did
themselves, of which we have a proof in the following passage : —
" And if the magistrate's power (to vvhich we give as much, and,
as we think, more than the principles of the Presbyterial government
will suffer them to yield) do but assist and back the sentence of
other churches," &c  Apologetical Narration, p. 19.
These, then, were the principles for which they contended, and
the leading contender for them was George Gillespie, one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, whose name I have already mentioned.

51
There is an interesting anecdote on record of what he did on that
occasion. When the great debate on ecclesiastical order took place in the
Westminster Assembly, it e-xcited the deepest interest, and attracted
the attention of both nations. On that occasion, Selden, a raan of
great talent and prodigious learning, acted as the leader of the Eras
tians, 'and made a long and elaborate speech in support of their prin
ciples. While he was speaking, Gillespie, who was still a young
man, but who by publishing, at the age of 22, his 'Dispute against
the English Popish Ceremonies obtruded upon the Church of Scot
land,' had given a most astonishing proof of precocious talent and
learning, was observed to be writing. A venerable friend went to
his chair, and asked if he had taken notes, but found that he had
written nothing, except these words frequently repeated, ' Give
light. Lord, and direction.' He, however, urged him to answer,
addressing him in these words : — ' Rise, George, and contend for
your principles, your Church, your country, and the kingdom of
your God. Rise up, man, and defend the right of your Redeemer
to govern the Church which he purchased with his blood.' Gillespie
complied, and answered Selden in such a way, as to convince the
great majority of the Assembly of the anti-scriptural character of
Erastianism, and forced Selden himself to exclaim with astonishment,
' This young man, by his speech, has swept away the labour and the
learning of my life !' "
Our forefathers held the sarae principles through all their seasons
of danger and of difficulty, and embodied them in their standards,
which received the sanction ofthe State in 1688, and have ever since
formed a part of the public profession of the Church of Scotland.
These were the Presbyterian principles as to the relation between the
eivil and ecclesiastical authorities, which were carried away by the
Seceders when they left the church, which have been erabodied in
all their standards, and which occupied an important place in their
testimonies. The only objection which they then brought against
the Church was, that she did not act suffi-ciently upto her standards,
and that she practically violated Christ's headship, and the inde
pendent jurisdiction of the church, by subraitting to the Eiiastian
encroachments of the civil rulers. This was the only objection
then taken by thera. But recently, in the Voluntary controversy, we
have been assailed with an objection precisely the reverse of all this,
and the changes are perpetually rung on the allegation that the
principles contained in our standards subjected the church to the civil
magistrate. It would be strange that -our forefathers should have un
derstood their own principles so ill, as to prepare their standards
in such a way as to leave them open to these contradictory objec
tions ; but the truth is, that there is no more foundation for the one
objection against these standards than for the other. They had
ever adhered faithfully to the golden Scriptural mean upon this
point, maintaining, on the one hand, that civil rulers had exclusive
jurisdiction in their own sphere, and had a duty iraposed by God
upon them ; but, at the same time, that the church was altogether free

52
from their control, and equally supreme and independent in its own
sphere. I would not vindicate altogether the views of these men,
in regard to the toleration of Dissenters ; that matter was not quite
so well understood then as it is now ; though, even on this point,
their views, so far as embodied in our standards, substantially
amounted to this, that there were certain objects which civil rulers
pught to have ever at heart, and to aim at, without distinctly spe
cifying the means by which they were to carry these objects into
effect. Without entermg fiilly into this point, I may read a sentence
from the Testimony of the Associate Synod of Original Seceders,
( Cheers,) which will at once recommend itself to the approbation of
every man who has investigated the subject with care and impar
tiality. " Whatever sense may be imposed on some expressions in it, taken
by themselves, yet, upon a fair and candid interpretation of the whole
doctrine which it lays down upon the subject, the Westminster Con
fession will not be found justly chargeable with countenancing perse
cution for conscience sake, with subjecting matters purely religious to
the cognizance of the civil magistrate, or with allowing him a supre
macy over the church, or any power in it." — P. 65.
What good ground, indeed, need there be for this objection ?
We go forth to civil rulers, and we explain to them the duty,
which, in God's word, they are called upon to discharge. But,
at the same time, we set forth the testimony contained in God's
word, to the spiritual independence of the Church of Christ, as
being just as clearly revealed, and just as important to attend to ;
and it is just as easy to convince them of the principle of the indepen
dence of the Church, as it is to convince them of what the duty is to
the Church which they are called upon to discharge. There is no
reason why they should not understand and act upon both principles ;
and cases have occurred in which civil rulers have been made to un
derstand right principles on these points, and to act upon them. Nay,
even the members of this Glasgow Assembly succeeded in convincing
Charles, or at least in getting him to profess sound views on this
point. In 1641 Charles sent a letter to the Gfeneral Assembly, con
taining a statement well deserving of attention. In the meantime, to
be sure, the King had witnessed an army of Covenanters across the
Borders, encamped on Dunse Law, bearing on their banners, " For
Christ's crown and covenant ;" and that, with other matters, had con
tributed materially to clearing his views regarding his own preroga
tives and the privileges of the Church.
" 'We intend, also," said the King, "to consider ofthe best means for
helping the schools and colleges of learning, especially of divinity, that
there may be such a number of preachers, as that each parish having a
minister, and the gospel being preached in the most remote parts of
the kingdom, all our subjects may taste of our care in that kind,
and have more and more cause to bless God that we are set over
them. And, finally, so tender is our care, that it shall not be our
fault, if the churches and colleges flourish not in learning and reli
gion. For which royal testimorty of our goodness, we require ¦nothing

63
ow your part, but that which God hath bound you unto, even
you be faithful in the charge committed to you, and care for the souf,^
of the people,"
Here is the true Presbyterian principle — that for which our fore
fathers contended, and which they succeeded in getting the King at
least to profess. In 1642 a similar letter from Charles was received.
After promising the Assembly ample assistance in support and money,
he says : —
" And how what we again require of you, but that which other
wise you owe unto us as your Sovereign Lord and King, even that
ye pray for our prosperity and the peace of our kingdom, and that ye
use the best means to keep our people in obedience to us and our laws."
If the King was induced then to profess these principles, whether
he was convinced of them or not, and if the Assembly conld adduce a
scriptural ground both for the duty which he had promised to discharge,
— the endowment he had promised to give, and at the same time for in
terdicting him from interfering in the regulation of ecclesiastical af
fairs, from demanding any thing in return but what was already iti-
curnbent on the Church by the Word of God, why might ¦we not hope
and aim at the same objects still, by inculcating these principles, by
pressing them upon our rulers, in the hope and expectation that they
may see it their duty, on the authority of God's word, to do what
King Charles promised to do — to aid the Church with all their power,
and to supply her with endowments, and yet to leave her to the free
exercise of those rights which Christ has conferred upon her in regu
lating all ecclesiastical affairs.
But the Voluntaries talk on this matter as if the Established
Church had nothing to do with this great principle of the Church's
spiritual independence, as if they liad a monopoly of this great
and glorious truth, and as if we had no right to assert it, and no
right to act upon it. But this truth is contained in God's Word,
and God has made his Word common property. Our standards
have contained these principles from the earliest periods — they held
a place there before the Secession and before Voluntaryism ex
isted ; and I am persuaded that they will still hold their place in these
standards when both the Secession and Voluntaryism shall have come
to an end. {Loud cheers.) I should like to know what portion of
the Christian Church has more interest in this truth, or a better right
to proclaim it ? and I should like to know what Church has done so
much, or half as much, to assert and maintain it, as the Established
Church of Scotland? (Cheers.) It is in the writings of the men of
t}ie Glasgow and the Westminster Assembly, that we are to look for
the fullest and clearest explanation ofthe doctrine of the Church's in
dependence — it is to their exertions that we owe its triumph over the
British isles, and it is to these men we are to look as the most learn
ed and devoted champions of this great and important principle. The
Church of Scotland introduced sound views on this principle, even
among the English Presbyterians ; for they were generally willing
to acknowledge the King as supreme governor in all causes, ecclesi
astical as well as civil — the Scotch would allow him to be supreme

54
over all persons, but not over all causes ecclesiastical. I trust thai
on these grounds the Church of Scotland will continue to maintain
as she has done for ages, the spiritual independence ot the Church o»
Christ, who is her only Head, while at the same time she asserts,
with equal zeal and diligence, the obligation which is imposed on
civil rulers to aim at promoting the cause of Christ; and contends,
in opposition to Voluntary objections, that an alliance between
Church and State does not necessarily involve the subjection of either
the one or the other. We also contend that, e.tcept in the abomina
tion of lay patronage, which I hope will soon be swept away — .
(Cheers,) — our church has successfully maintained and secured her
independence, having full liberty secured by law to proclaim the
whole truth of God, to perform all the duties which Christ imposed
on his church, and to administer all the ordinances which he has
appointed, and which he has promised to bless. They were sub
stantially these principles which occupied the attention of the last
General Assembly. They were then called to advert to this great
truth of the Church's independence, and they did it in the true spirit
of their forefathers, by asserting these principles in all their fulness ;
and by declaring their determination, come what might, to adhere to
them. The following was the declaration which last General Assem
bly adopted: —
" That the General Assembly of this church, while they unquali
fiedly acknowledge the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts, in re
gard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law to the church,
and the ministers thereof, and will ever give and inculcate implicit
obedience to their decisions thereanent ; do resolve, that as it is de
clared in the Confession ot Faith of this National Established Church,
that ' the Lord Jesus Christ is King and Head of the Church,
and hath therein appointed a government in the hand of church offi
cers distinct from the civil magistrate ;' and that in all matters touching
the doctrine, government, and discipline of the church, her judicatories
possess an exclusive jurisdiction founded on the Word of God, which
' power ecclesiastical (in the words of the Second Book of Discipline)
flows from God and the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not
having a temporal head on earth but only Christ, the only spiritual
King and Governor of His Kirk:' And they do further resolve, that
this spiritual jurisdiction, and the supremacy and sole Headship of
the Lord Jesus Christ on which it depends, they will assert, and at
all hazards defend, by the help and blessing of that great God, who,
in the days of old, enabled their fathers, amid manifold persecutions,
to maintain a testimony even to the death, for Christ's Kingdom and
Crown : And, finally, that they will firmly enforce obedience to the
same upon all office-bearers and members of this church, by the exe
cution bf her laws in the exercise of the ecclesiastical authority where
with they are invested."
Thus they served themselves heirs of the principles of the illus
trious Assembly of 1638, and they have set forth, in a plain and
emphatic way, the principles by which, come what may, they are
determined to be guided. (Loud cheers.) Since these things are

57
feo, and since the independence of the Church occupies so prominent
a place in all the testimonies of the Secession, and since the Seceders
had long complained that this had not been done before so fully as it
ought, we might have expected tbat they would have rejoiced at this
manifestation of sound principle on the part of the Church of Scot
land, and this noble assertion of the Church's independcTice ; and it
is undoubtedly true that all honest Seceders did rejoice ; but then
Voluntaries and Seceders are very different persons. ( Cheers.) We
find that the Voluntaries, in place of rejoicing, cannot bring
themselves to speak of thu proceedings of that Assembly with any
thing like calmness, and that the subject is no sooner introduced than
they lose their temper. It is true some of them affect to rejoice, be
cause, as they pretend, the Church, by her conduct on that occasion,
is going to ruin herself. (Laughter.) But then, if they are so glad
that the church is going to ruin herself, why should they, at the same
time, be so angry about it ? ( Continued laughter.) Why do they vilify
and calumniate the assertors of this independence ? and why do they
praise and encourage the opponents of this principle in our own body,
against whose principles and proceedings in ecclesiastical matters the
whole Secession Testimony was one continued protest? (Cheers.)
The reason is too obvious to be doubted. Whatever they may pre
tend, they know in their own consciences that, by asserting the prin
ciple oflndependence, and by determining to adhere to and to enforce it,
the Church is acting in a manner the best fitted to secure the blessing
of the great Head of the Church, and the cordial affection of the
people of Scotland. They know this, and therefore they are angry ;
but we know it too, and therefore we are deterrained to persevere in
the course on which we have entered. {Gi'eat cheering.) Ihave
to apologise for detaining you so long. (Loud cheers.) I shall
now advert very briefly, by way of conclusion, to the importance of
''¦your understanding these matters aright, and applying them to regu
late your conduct. My motion says, " that they point out the true
path of the Church's duty."
It is, indeed, quite evident that you can have no right notion of the
duties at present incumbent upon you as honest and sincere friends of
the Church of Scotland, unless you understand and act on these princi
ples. All these principles are now brought under discussion, and
form subjects of controversy, and, according to the view which men
take of them, will be the side they espouse, and the manner in which
they will exercise their influence in the contests that are now going
on. Our forefathers understood the question thoroughly about the
relation between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and on this
subject I may read a striking testimony from the writings of an oppo
nent. Bishop Burnet, when Professor of Divinity in Glasgow, was
one of those who were sent out by Archbishop Leighton, about 1670,
to reconcile the people to Episcopacy, and the following is his testi
mony as to the state of their knowledge and feelings, -which seems to
have greatly annoyed and astonished the bishop :
" W'e were, indeed, amazed to see a poor commonalty so capable of
arguing upon points of government, and on the bounds to be set to the

56
power of princes, in matters of religion : upon all these topics they had
texts of Scripture at hand, and were ready with their answers to any
thing that was said to them. This measure of knowledge was spread
even among the meanest of them — their cottagers and their ser
vants." — Burnet's History, p. 196, &c.
Now, the people of Scotland then understood these principles so
well, because their ministers fully explained them ; and their ministers
were at pains to inculcate scripture principles on these points, just for
this reason, because the knowledge of them was necessary to settle
great and important questions of present duty, and especially the
grand question, whether they should submit to the tyrannical and
arbitrary exercise of royal authority in overturning Presbytery, and
comply with the Erastian system of Episcopalian church govern
ment which had been imposed. It was just because our forefathers
understood and believed those truths, as resting on God's word, that
they manifested that stedfast and devoted attachment to the Presby
terian Church of Scotland, and to the Westminster standards,
which twenty-eight years of horrible persecution, such as could
be paralleled only in the annals of the apostate Church of Rome,
wbich is drunk with the blood of the saints, could neither quench
nor eradicate. It was the knowledge of those principles that en
abled them intelligently, as well as conscientiously, to submit to
the severest sufferings, and to count not their lives dear unto them,
but, with their latest breath on the scaffold in the Grassmarket, to
bear testimony to Christ's sole headship and the authority of his
Church. {Loud cheers.) They adhered to those principles ; and,
in 1688, they were sanctioned by the civil authority. Well, theo,
if your forefathers, even cottagers and servants, were so well ac
quainted with these principles, and could prove them from scripture,
why sbould you not understand them, and be able to give a reason
for the faith that is in you ? It is as necessary in your case as it
was in theirs, that you should thoroughly understand them, that you
may know the duty you owe to the Church. You will be met, as
they were, by many assailants, who will seek to undermine your faith.
The Voluntaries will assail you, and will try to prove that the spiri
tual independence of the Church is inconsistent with the principle of
a national establishment ; but you will be able, by being grounded in
these principles, to answer their objections, and to tell them that both
these principles are scriptural, and therefore they cannot be inconsistent.
You will tell them farther, that you are not responsible for the con
duct of any Church but your own ; — that you are not responsible for
the mistakes which ci'vil rulers may have made in the discharge of their
duty, by supporting error in place of truth, or stretching too far their
power in religious matters ; and by explaining on these principles
what civil rulers should do, and what they should not do, you will
he able to demonstrate the perfect consistency between the two,
and you will be strongly confirmed in the belief that they are
consistent, by the fact that our illustrious forefathers, who had
deeply studied the question, and many of whom shed their blood for
the rights of Christ's crown, and the independence of his church, not-

57
withstanding the strong temptations they were under to deny all ex
ercise of civil authority about religion, since they suffered so much
from its abuse, as applied to their case, {cheers,) held both principles
with equal firmness, and were as ready to suffer death for the one as for
the other. Others may assail you upon a different and opposite ground
— or, perhaps, the same persons, for they had already shown their in
consistency in this raatter — and might attempt to prejudice you against
the cause of the independence of the church, and the proceedings of
the last General Assembly, representing them as acting on Popish
and disloyal principles, refusing the obedience due to civil rulers, and
making undue claims for the church. But you will be able to show
the folly of objections like these, and you will be able to mark out
the true Presbyterian principles as clearly and essentially distinct from
every thing like Popery or disloyalty — to show that you contend for
nothing hue the authority of Christ, and the rights of his church; and
you will be naturally led to take far deeper interest in the independ
ence of the church, on account of what your forefathers have done and
suffered on its behalf. You will also be led to regard it as a proof of
God's peculiar favour to the church, that the last Asserably of 1838,
when the spiritual independence ofthe church was only threatened, and
not actually infringed — were led, in the truespiritof their forefathers, to
make a bold and explicit declaration of their principles, and of their
determination to adhere to them. And if the time should ever come,
as it probably may, when we shall be called upon to contend, as in the
days of old, for Christ's sole right to govern his house, the knowledge
ofthese principles, and the conviction that they rest on Scriptural
authority, will constrain you, and will constrain the people of Scot
land, to countenance and support the church in the struggle which
seems now to await her — to stand by her as their forefathers did in all
her contendings — to bear her up by their prayers and exertions araid
every difficulty and danger, and to persevere in the contest till, under
the guidance of the great Captain of your salvation, you bring it to a
glorious and successful issue. (Loud and long continued cheering.)
I shall only say farther, that I am sure it is needless for me, in setting
forward these principles, to disclaim all political motives, any regard
to the schemes and objects of political partizanship  We are contend
ing for the faith once delivered to the saints — for Christ's crown, and
for the best interests of the country. It is necessary for us to incul
cate these great truths, whether men will hear, or whether they will
forbear ; and we must go on, aiming at the practical accomplishment
of these objects, whatever obstacles, the relations of political parties,
or any other cause, may put in our way. We cannot regulate the
objects we aim at, or our raanner of seeking them, by a regard to any
political party whatsoever. The prosecution of one church object,
such as church extension, raay give offence to one party in the state,
the prosecution of another church object, the independence of the
church, may, for aught I know, give offence to another party in the
state. But we are not to be influenced by these considerations ; we are
determined to prosecute church objects on church grounds, whatever
political parties we may please or offend. {Loud cheers.) It is
H

58
enough for us to know that, in this way, we do not offend the Lord
Jesus Christ, the great and only Head of the church ; but that we
take the best means to gain his favour, and to draw down his blessing.
It is enough to encourage us to proceed, and to animate us under all
our difficulties, to remember that he is the King of Kings, and Lord
of Lords, — that he is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever — and
that he must reign till all his enemies are put under his feet. {Loud
cheering.) Mr James Moncreiff, Advocate, seconded the motion.
Mr Begg rose, amidst loud applause, and said, — Mr Chairman, —
The resolution which has been committed to my charge is as fol
lows : — " That while we rejoice in the assertion of the great scrip
tural principle, in regard to the intrinsic power of the Church of
Christ, and the Presbyterian parity of her Ministers, made by the
General Assembly in 1638, we rejoice no less in the efforts made by
that Assembly for the universal Christian instruction of the people of
Scotland ; and more particularly in its efforts to secure unblemished
and efficient parish Ministers, and the establishment of those schools
in every Parish from which our country has since derived so many
advantages." I shall not, at tbis hour, detain you, by making many
observations on this resolution, important though it be. Allow me,
however, in the meantime, to say, that 1 most cordially concur in
all the principles which have this night been stated, and, advocated
so eloquently in your hearing. It is a peculiar advantage to the
Church of Scotland, tbat, in prosecuting her work of reformatio^,
she does not require to adopt new principles, but only to bring back
her practice to the ancient model. All the reforms that are spoken
of in the Church of England are merely approximations, and slight
ones, to what was actually achieved in Scotland more than two
hundred years ago. In England and Ireland, some speak of abolish
ing pluralities; we scarcely ever had pluralities. They speak of
abolishing the non-residence of clergyraen ; we never had non-resi
dence. They speak of casting out unworthy ministers ; this has been
done in every period of the history of our Church in which she did
not relapse from her primitive puiity. But one of the mo.st iraport
ant and peculiar features of the Church of Scotland has ever been,
her national system of education, which was prosecuted more than
two hundred years ago, and had the effect of making even the poor
est of our people more than raatches for bishops, and men learned in
the knowledge and practice of Church government. You are aware
that it was one of the glaring evils of the Popish Church, amidst the
great mass of its corruptions, that its clergj', instead of endeavouring
to promote even the improvement of the people in external decency
— I do not say their religious improvement, for that was impossible,
under such a system — regarded iraraorality with indifference. The
clergy were, many of them, at the period of the Reformation, men
of blemished and odious character. The reformers, on the contrary,
were men not only of sound practical doctrine, but exhibited models

59
of the energetic discharge of every part of itiiiiisterial duty. What
more noble instance have We of this than the case of Jbhn Knox?
{Cheering.) And, in speaking of him, and others since his time,
vvho laboured in this city, I would remark, that, if Edinburgh be
not a city eminent for its Christianity, it canuot be because it has
not been signally distinguished by the possession of the most eminent
ministers ofthe Church of Scotland, from the first day 'of the Refor
mation till now. {Loud cheering.) For from the tirtie of Knox,
including Henderson, (of whora Baillie says, that his name shall be
sweet in Scotland, as long as free General Assemblies eiist, which,
he hopes, will be till the second coraing of the Lord,) Gillespie,
Thomson, {great applause,) and a multitude more, you have had
ministers and elders of the Church of Scotland always eminently
distinguished in every glorious Christian enterprise, in John Knox,
you see a man who put forth his whole mighty strength, not merely
in demolishing the fabric of monstrous idolatry and superstition, but
in preaching the everlasting gospel, in bringing souls to Christ, and
toiling at the daily task of a parish minister. I shall read an extract
from a letter addressed by that eminent man to the General Assem
bly, when lying on a bed of sickness, even in the immediate expecta
tion of death. I quote from " The Booke of the Universali Kirk of
Scotland," which is now in the course of publication, and which all
of you should secure and read. He says — " Now, brethren, because
the decay of natural strength threatens unto me certain and sudden
departure from the misery of this life ; of love and conscience I ex
hort you, yea, in the fear of God I charge and command you, fhat
ye take heed to yourselves, and to the flock over the which God has
placed you pastors. To discourse of the behaviour of yourselves, I
may not ; but command you to be faithful to the flock, I dare iiot
cease. Unfaithful and traitors to the flock shall ye be before the
Lord Jesus, if that with your consent, directly or indirectly, ye suffer
unworthy men to be thrust into the ministry of the Chilircli, under
what pretence that ever it b6. Remember the Judge before whom
ye raust make account, and resist that tyranny as ye Wbuld avoid
hell fire." Then come to Henderson, who was translated to Edin
burgh by the Glasgow Assembly. He laboured in catechizing,
and in visiting in the lanes and closes of Edinburgh, and in
preaching to the people, at the very time that he kept com
pany with the peers and nobles of the land, and was the prirae
mover in tho mighty agitations of that important period. And
if you look now to the labours of the ministers of the present davj
you will find the same conjunction realized. Who are the raen
to whom you can point at this moment as most zealous and efficient
parochial ministers? Are they not the men who maintain vigor
ously tbe principles for wbich the early reformers struggled and poured
out their strength? Are they not the men who sit before you on this
platform ? {Loud cheering.) Are tbey not the men of Glasgow,
who are ever to be found in the front of all the great and momentous
battles of the Church ? ( Continued cheering) Are they not just the
men who are to be found to-morrow, and the next day, and every day,

60
labouring from house to house to establish schools and multiply
elders, and on the Sabbaths to instruct the people in the knowledge
of Christ and his kingdom ? This should silence the objection that
sound views are not connected with the vigorous discharge of the mi
nisterial duties. The man who holds one part of the word of God
will hold all the rest. The man who gives up maintaining the rights
of the Redeemer ceases to discharge his own duty ; for it is impos
sible that any man can have a conscientious regard to the authority
of his great Master, if he be not zealous in the discharge of all the
duties which have been devolved upon him, nor is the reverse of the
proposition ever realized.
In regard to schools, the main matter set forth in the resolution,
a school is just a small church, and the teacher a minister for the
young ; whilst we are ministers for children — shall i say. — of a larger
growth. {A laugh.) The two men are equally teaching immortal
souls only in two stages of their existence. It is with immortal souls
they are dealing, and if they train them up to godliness, that is profit
able for all things, having the promise of life that now is, as well as
that which is to corae. It was the device of Satan's agents in diffus
ing popery and superstition to draw the veil of thick darkness around
the world. Like the sorcerer, who sits in his gloomy chamber, care
fully excluding the light of day, that he may practise his deceptions
on those whom he deceives. Only open the windows and let in the
light of day, and the sorcerer will be paralyzed, and the wand will
fall powerless from his hand. So was it with the sorceress of Rome,
which mingled with poison the cup administered to her victims, drug
ging them with the cup of enchantment. But our ancestors opened
tbe windows and let in the light, and exposed and dispelled the vile
abomination. {Loud cheering.) Hence it was the desire of the re
formers to fill all Scotland with the knowledge of the truth. They
nobly solved the problem that has been perplexing statesmen of every
age, the problem of how the world may be filled with peace. They
based- the stability of government, the peace of the people, the obedi
ence of laws, the happiness of neighbourhoods, the comfort of man in
time, and the glorious hope of immortality, — they based all these upon,
and secured them, by the universal scriptural instruction of the people
of Scotland. {Continued cheering.) You are aware that John Knox
propounded those very plans in regard to education which were after
wards more thoroughly matured, and, soon after the period of the
Assembly which we are now met to commemorate, to a certain ex
tent carried out all over Scotland. But still these plans were not
perfect in themselves, and for a long period, and even down till this
hour, they have never been carried into accomplishment to the full ex
tent of Knox's anticipation. What did he advise? Not only a
school for every parish, but a grammar school for every town, and a
college for every notable town — an endowment for the payment of
teachers, that poor men might have their children instructed for no
thing, so that when genius was found in the youth of the lower ranks
of life, (for genius is not confined to palaces, but is found as often in
the cottages of the poor,) it might be trained through every stage.

61
lind devoted to the good of the Kirk and Commonwealth. These
glorious plans have never been carried into full accomplishment, even
to this hour. We stand here neariy 280 years after Knox put forth his
glorious plan, and yet we have not our grammar schools in all our towns,
our colleges in all our notable towns ; and our schools, such as they
are, in country parishes are as yet miserably endowed, and standing
in want of many improvements. You vvill be astonished to find that
so late as the year 1752 the average remuneration of parochial
teachers in Scotland was about Zy.l6 a year. So little support was
given even then, notwithstanding the toil of ages, to that which had
ever been the peculiar glory of our native land. Look now at the
great imperfection of this plan even if it vvere thoroughly carried
out. What is a school to a parish that may contain even a far scat
tered thousand, far worse if ten or twenty thousands ? In such parishes
it is necessary that we should have many schools. We should have
an endowed school for every 500 of the population of Scotland,
whether in town or country. (Loud cheers.) Two things are es
sential to make the plan successful. The first thing is, that every
system of education be based on the word of God — (Cheers) — the
whole unmutilated, unaltered word of God. Some will tell you that
it is necessary only to enlighten the people, and the object will be ac
complished. Now, if information was all that was necessary, if talent
was all that was necessary, Satan would have always been the best
subject of this kingdom — (Laughter) — for he has more talent than
is within the four corners of this room — than is to be found in the whole
British Parliament — he, instead of knowing a mere fraction of history,
knows all history, for he has the experience of nearly 6000 years, at
least, in observing men, manners, and the changes of empires. One
would have thought then that he would have become the most quiet,
peaceful, manageable, and excellent subject any king could desire.
(Laughter.) Instead of this, all his knowledge has not altered, and
cannot alter, the notoriously base dispositions of that fallen Spirit.
Now, it is the stern doctrine of Scripture, confirmed by all experience,
that every man by nature has a disposition precisely similar to that
of this great Spirit of Evil — that every man by nature like him is an
eneray to God, and there is just one power by which that enmity can
be slain, one book which can destroy this enmity, and regenerate men,
and make them the friends of God ; and unless this vvord, as the sword
of the Spirit, is wielded, the enmity will remain in all its entireness.
If I were a king knowing this, and did not wish to make a rebellion
among my subjects, I would either keep them as ignorant as possible,
or I would give them the book of God, which alone can make them
wise unto salvation, and by which they can be made good subjects,
good neighbours, good men here, and be filled with tbe prospect of
glory in the world to come. I rejoice that the Church of Scotland
has always stood up for this, and I trust she never will flinch from
this high position. ( Great applause.) As she stood up against all
her opponents in former times, and spoke to kings in that glorious
cause., I trust she will stand up now in the face of all governments,
and demand for herself and for her children, and for the whole children

62
of the British empire, the entire word of the lord in all the schools of
the land. ( Continued cheering.)
The second point which I come to consider, and just as important
as the other, is, that schools raust be planted according to the paro
chial system. This is a great ground of offence to some thoughtless
people. They say, ' You are for a sectarian principle in education,
and we are against that.' No matter what they call it, we consivler
it, and experience has proved the parochial system to be the only one
which ean provide the whole people with a sound Christian education.
The Church of Scotland has a right to speak on this subject, for up
to this raoraent most of the schools have been t^tablished in Scotland
by her or her people, and are under her control. I have a report in my
hand of the examination of a vast proportion ofthe schools in Scotland,
with the exception of those in the presbytery of Edinburgh, and it
gives this result, that the great majority of schools, of whatsoever
kind, whether private, public, parochial, or otherwise, are Schools
belonging to the Church of Scotland, or taught by her sonS, with
the few exceptions alluded to, and which I will enumerate. There
are just 232 teachers amongst all the multitude of schools examined
within broad Scotland (Edinburgh excepted) that belong to any other
denomination than the Established Church ofour native land. ( Great
applause.) It is no matter of pride to us to superintend schools, for
whoever has undertaken it must have found that it is sometimes a most
painful task to go from house to house and beat up for children to at
tend schools, like recruiting sergeants. . {A laugh.) But if a minister
does not use his influence among parents, they will neglect to send
their children to school.* In my own parish there were two schools
taught on adventure, and now I have both these schools under my own
charge ; and the result has been, that instead of tbeir being but twelve
children at the one, and twenty-five at the other, sixty attended the
one, till of late, there being a small falling off in consequence of a va
cancy, and seventy or eighty attend the other, whilst the parish
* The following resolutions were adopted on this subject by the Synod of Fife, to
which Henderson had belonged, and in whicb Rutherford was afterwards famous, only nine
years after the Glasgow Assembly, They are most comprehensive and admirable.
" Overtures adopted by the Synod of Fife, April 1647.
" I. Forthe effectual training of children of schools; that ministers in their doctrines press
frequently the duty of parents to train up their children at schools.
" 2. That ministers, in the course of visiting families, take up a complete roll of children
above five, and under ten years of age.
" 3. That parents frequently be exhorted in the course of visitation to send children to
school upon their own charges if they be able, and where they are not able to entertain
them, that the Session provide for the best remedy, and in case of slackness, that the pa
rents of the one or other condition be threatened with processes, (i.e. before the Kjrk-Ses-
sion.) " 4. That masters of schools be charged to give notice to the minister or session from
time to time of the withdrawing of any children put to the school before their proficiency,
and that under pain of censure, as the session thinks fit.
" 5. That ministers do frequently visit the schools, and take trial if the number of chil
dren put to schools be according to the roll taken up in visiting families, and such-like
the trial of masters' diligence and pains upon the poor ones.
"6. That masters of families be exhorted to use means for learninir their servants to
read.

63
school, instead of falling off, has increased in attendance. {Ch-eering.)
I know many instances of this. A decent man once expressed bis
wonder to me that a school, wbii-h one of the ministers bad built, was
filled, although the old school was nearly empty, with an abundant po
pulation. 'Ihe reason, 1 said, was, that this minister devoted liimself
to visitation ; and, with an army of elde-rs, beat up f'or children to at
tend the instructions of the teacher. There is all the difference in the
¦world between the man who contents himself with merely providing a
school, and the man who labours from house to house endeavouring to
press children into the service. Here, then, we are to take our stand*
We must have a scriptural education, and a parochial education.
{Cheering.) And I would say to the Church, do not wait on the Go
vernment, but take a lesson from John Kno.x, and the men whose
memory we have this night met to commemorate and revere. They
did not wait a day on the Government, or the King, — they planted
their ministers without being deterred by kings ; and after they plant
ed their ministers, they asked and oblained an endowment for them.
{Loud, cheers.) They placed their teachers in the same way through
out the whole country, and brought the King to understand the im
portance of such an establishment, it might be against his inclination,
but they could turn tbe voice of the people like a whirlwind against all
opposition. They spoke respectfully, but most firmly and decidedly ;
and the result was, that th'ey received a stinted compliance with their
righteous demands. {Cheering.) It will be so with ua. Let us plant
schools thickly, and we shall have a willing people to co-operate with
us in securing endowments for them, and thus we shall have every poor
man's child instructed in the things that belong to his peace and eter
nal welfiire.
It is of tbe utmost importance that you should ponder the eloquent
addresses which have been made to you this evening. The subject
of Presbyterian church government is one that vvill soon be discussed
in the British empire again. The Church of Scotland was assailed
as being connected with the State. The assaults thus made upon her
had the effect of causing her to examine into the grounds of that con
nection, and to clear out the old foundations ; so also the assaults made
on her Presbyterianism will have the effect of stirring her up to ex
amine the scriptural foundation on which Presbyterianism rests. Are
not a portion ofthe Church of England at this moment, though many
of her clergy are excellent and devoted men, and though some of her
bishops are inen of piety, and preach the gospel when they do preach,
are not a portion of the Church of England labouring to expel the
Church of Scotland from Canada, although the Act of Union secures
to her equal rights and privileges in all the colonies of the British
empire ? ( Great cheering.) Do we not find in the only great asso
ciation that represents the Church of England, the Society for Pro
moting Christian Knowledge, that an attempt was made to have a re
solution passed to unchurch the Church of Scotland ? {Hear, hear.)
This resolution was quashed by one of the prelates ; and in what way
was it quashed ? It was quashed by this prelate waiving the question,
whether the Church of Scotland was a church or not ? {Laughter.)

64
And has not a divine of the Church of England, who occupies the po-^
sition of Chaplain to the Queen, preached a sermon, which has gone
through nearly thirty editions, in which before her Majesty he reviled
the Church of Scotland, declaring her to be a community of Presby
terians, and declaring her establishment to have altogether a political
manoeuvre ? {Hear, hear.) In addition to all these astounding facts,
we are vilified from day to day by what are called the Oxford Papists.
It becomes us then to examine into the principles on which our
church rests ; and if we are compelled, let us do what our fathers did,
take up the covenant again, {great applause,) and band otirselves to
gether in defence of our spiritual and religious privileges, and in
struct the Church of England, as I think we can, for doubtless we are
far more pure than she is, to lay aside all the parts of her system
which are not in accordance with the word of God, and set up an As
sembly at Westrainster from year to year, over against the Parlia
ment, and endeavour to induce our legislators to use every effort for
spreading religious truth among the people.
You have all heard of the National Covenant of Scotland, but per
haps some of you have not seen it. I have an original copy of it here,
as it was signed after the famous Assembly which we are met here to
comraeraorate. Some of you may wish to see it. Here it is. (The
Rev. Gentleman exhibited the document amidst loud and long con
tinued cheering.) There is a gentleman on the platform who has
distinguished himself in maintaining the cause of Sabbath observance,
whose ancestor of the same name subscribed this very document with
his own band. (Applause.) I trust and believe that his excellent
descendant will continue to distinguish himself in maintaining the
same good and excellent principles. This is undoubtedly a most noble
deed; it exerted a most powerful influence when first adopted, and
it is still fragrant in the memories of all Scottish people. ( Cheering.)
And should it be ever necessary that we should unfurl the banners of
the covenant, it will be nothing to have built the tombs of the pro
phets, and garnished the sepulchres ofthe righteous — to profess to be
the children of our fathers, unless we iraitate their deeds. (Great
applause.) Let us search out the corruptions of the church as with
lighted candles, and expel them from every corner of the sacred edi
fice, whether it be the yoke of patronage, or the insufficient number
of parochial ministers, or a totally inadequate amount of schools, or
whatever it may be, let us set our shoulder to the work, and endea
vour to diffuse abroad among all people the knowledge that can alone
save them, that the glory of universal knowledge and universal holi
ness may have their habitation in our land, as long as sun and moon
endure. — (The Rev. Gentleman sat down amidst loud applause.)
Rev. Mr Guthrie — Mr Chairman, There is an act ofthe General
Assembly against the intrusion of ministers, and I am not to blame
that there is not an act of this meeting against ray intrusion. It is
with great reluctance that at this late hour of the night I have been
compelled by my friends around me to rise and address you, and I can
assure you of this, that I shall skip over a great deal of the ground—

65
{Cries of " No, wo.")— and come to a rapid conclusion. The resolu
tion I have the honour to propose is to the following effect : — " That
while the Church of Scotland is called upon to be humbled on account
of all her shortcomings in the work of Reformation, and to thank God
for his great forbearance, that she has also much reason to rejoice in
the tokens of His returning favour, and ia imperatively called upon
to aim at having the great principles ofthe Second Reformation more
fully and faithfully applied, and the practical regulation of all her af
fairs brought into a more entire conformity with the Word of God."
This resolution speaks of the shortcomings of the Church of Scot
land. I feel that it might have been more strongly expressed. In
past times, during a great part of the last century, the Church of
Scotland not only came short of, but acted in direct violation of, some
of the principles of the Second Reformation. It is one thing to come
short of a principle, and another to fly in the face of it. I have heard
of a minister preaching to his people on the duty of following. He
told them there were various ways of following, and would endeavour
to describe them ; and first, says he, there are some who follow be
hind. Secondly, there are some who follow before. And, thirdly,
and in the last place, there are some that follow by standing stock-
still. (Laughter.) Now, the course which the Church of Scot
land pursued during the last century was not certainly following be
fore ; she did not outstrip the men of 1638 ; hor was it following be
hind ; she did not even lag behind them in the race, nor had she the
merit of standing stock-still.'; if she had stood by the principles of 1638
she would not have been where she is now. (Cheering.) Like a ves
sel, as it were, driven out to sea, she abandoned the principles of our
forefathers, and the position to which they had brought her : And
when I think of the shameful — ^for I stand here as a father confes
sor, and shall deal with her failings as delicately as I can 
when I think of the shameful and sinful course which she in many
things pursued during the last century, and how she threw overboard
the principles for which the best blood in Scotland had been shed,
no wonder at all that she has been tossed in the tempest, and brought
iato deep waters, and danger ; when I think of her desolate parishes,
and her scattered flocks, and the feelings of her Christian people, torn
and trodden down by the heel of despotism, — I say it is a wonder to
me that she has been preserved alive to this day. (Cheering.) There
were two objects which the men of the Second Reformation had in
view — one was to purify the church of unworthy ministers — I intended
to speak to this at great length ; — (Cheering) — but I will press on to
the second object, which was to plant the church with worthy mini
sters. In this point the church has abandoned the principles of the
men of 1638. They declared that no minister should be intruded on
a parish against the will of the congregation. The number of dis
senting chapels scattered over the country (and which are now turned
into so many hostile batteries) give woeful evidence of the red-hot con-
tempt that was poured on the feelings of a conscientious people by
the intrusion of unworthy or unacceptable ministers. I have read of
one who sowed serpents' teeth, and they grew up into armed men,
I

66
and, in yqn host of opponents, bound togfther by.no tie but hostility
to the church,, we are reaping what our fathers spvved. X^^se are the
sweet fruits of patronage. — You, Sir, spoke pf the ba,yonpJ; glancing
at an ordination — 1 have hea^d of a minister being scjttle^, by the crew
of a revenue cutter. , Was npt that an infamous spectacle ? and I say
it was a degraded position foj^ any probationer to be in, walking up
between ilines of armed men, and over the .hearts of a Christian people,
to take possession ofhis pnlpi.t. Peqpl^ may tell me that the qhurch
did not summon these forces to the settlement. Very true, but, IJke
Saulj she was consenting to the death,^she held the clothes, ^nd
other men did the deed; and when, instead of standing ibetvfeen the
patron and the people, and telling the patron and the presentee jthat
they must walk over her body before tliey reached their prey, she
gave up the cause of religion to b? crucified. I say that no water on
earth will wash away that sin, and ,the language befitting her is the
language of the prophet : " O that my head were waters, and mine
eyes a fountain of tears, that I might weep day and night for the
slain ofthe daughters ofmy peopj^."
People may say, What could the Church ha,ve done ? Shp shoulij
have done .what she is doing now-^deolareii ji^jhajt ^e have now (Jer
clared — We haye told the patron that we wjll suhmituQ linger tpiur
trUsion, we will not stand tamely by, and see a man thrust dow9 the
throat of an up,willing people. ( Great cheering.) ^s tell hini more,
you may imprison our ministers,— we will snbmit to tb^t j ypu may
spoil us of our goods, — we will su'bRiit to that ; you way abolisli our
establishment if you can, and we will subn)it tp that ; but we >vill not
submit that you pull down the banner that we haye set up with the
freedom oy the people emb((izoned 'upon if. (^Great pfpplatise^ If
the patron can get a prison big enough to hpld us all, I hold him to
he an unworthy minister of thp church that v^puld not rejoice to
go itherje for th? cause of Christ, As for mjfsplf, I wpuld ao-
CQunt ita higher, honour to be sent to the Calton Hill jail for
the cause of a, Christian people than to he installed IVIpderatpr of
the Cfcneral Assembly  (Cheerir^g (ind laughter.) Xh^Y talk of
prisons I Let them talk of prisons to cowards and tTaitprs ; talk
of prisons to women apd children ; talk of a prison tp, spme hyugiy
ipreacher, who seeks the priest's pfficp foi- a bit of brgad ; l\ut talk
not of prisons tP men in whose veins flows |he h.lpp4 of the Cp-
venanters — (cheering)-— 'ihR heads of whosp fsithera have; Tplled on the
bloody scaffold, and bleached above your city gates fo^. many a long
year and day — (contimied eheerfyjp.) I say, then, y^e tpll the patron
that we will not .submit that ministers be, forced on an unwilling peo
ple, on a reclaiming parish. We haye tak;en a ^pjojir ; we have
blazoned on it the rights ofthe Christian people ; ^e have nailed, it
and clenched it to our very, mast head, and; there at this moment it
flies ; and,if Godinhisproyidenc.e sees meet, that thp PhuJCchr— the Ark
of Scotland — shall sink below the waiters, thpn we shaU go, dov^n, IpiPr
fore the storm and down into the deep ; bvt the last thJhg lihat th?
world shall see ofthe Church of Scotland s^iaU hpthe blfUe banner of
her Covenant as it dips into the wave — (immense cheering.) But I

67
have no fears of such a result. There is a gldf ious day breaking on
the moun taifas of Scotland, arid we haVe rekson torejbice in the
tokens of God's returning favour. There are various kinds of omens.
I was reading the other day that, when James Guthrie came In at the
West Port df Edinburgh'to sign the Covenant, the first man he met
was the hangman; He said. Well, that is an omen that I must lay
down my life for" the deed T am goin^ tb do, but I will go forward
bravely and firmly to do it — (cheering.) The omens are all in our
favour. Look at the Church aS she was sixty oi-' severity years ago,
and look at her' novv. Look at' our four great Schemes— (cAeers.)
The Voluntaries tell us that she is an old, dyin^, 'To^ien tree. It is
very like a rotten tree, to be sure, tb be sending foirth four such beau
tiful, flourishing, vigorous, glorious branches — (greclt applause) —
branches loaded with fTmt\— (continued applause.) One branch
shadowing the Highlands, another stretching over upon Canada, and
a third, like the bough of a goodly cedar, sprfefeiding afar, above the
plains of Hindoostan. This' is veiry like a rotten tree 1 Then look at
the youth in our halls and colleges. I always thoiigfht it a bad sign
of Rehoboam's kingdora, that, while his grey-haJrted councillors were
for reform, the young men of the council were against it ; it is a good
and glorious sign of the Church that it is otherwise with her^the blPod
of our youth is sound, if some of our grey-headed men are indifferent
to reform, our young men are all keen for reformation. Theh look at
what we have done to rend the shackles of patronage. I remember
when Mr Dunlop, and Mr Cunningham, I think, ¦ broiight out from
the dust and rubbish of sonie forty years the anti-patrpnage banner,
and unfurled it, and shook it in the fdce of the Assembly'; thirty- three
good men and true were all who mustered around it, and I had the
honour to be one ofthe number. The next time it was displayed
there were forty-two of ua, and they called us in scotn the 4 2d High
landers— (cAeerm^' and laughter.) I remember being oh the plat-
foi^ni at Arbroath, calling upon the' people to send up ' petitions
again.st patronage, and I told them that they called us the 42d High
landers last year, but that I thought we would be the 92d this year,
and I was nearly passing for a prophet — I was someway like the man
who said he had very nearly got a prize of L. 1 0,000 — the number of
the prize was 1000, and his number was 999. (Laughter.) I never
was nearer getting the character of a prophet, for 1 think my 'guess
lacked but ohe ofthe numbei-. When that question is brought for
ward again, we shall have an increasing minority — we will continue
to grow as we go, like a billow of the ocean, and the day 'is not far
distant when we shall sweep all before us. ( Great applause.) Seven
times they compassed the walls of Jericho, seven times the trumpets
ofthe Lord were sounded against them, and it noay not need many
more than seven assaults to crown with success our attack on patron
age. (Applause.) Sooner it may be than we suJDpose. May we stand
upon its ruins, and say with Henderson, as he closed the memorable
Assenibly, " We have now cast down the walls of Jericho, and let
hira who would rebuild them remember the curse of Hiel the Bethel-
ite." ( Great cheering.)

68
Another good token is to be found in our Synods restoring sy*
nodical and our Presbyteries presbyterial visitations. I know that
some people don't relish these at all. There are some good men
oppose them, and I marvel at their opposition, but it is no won-
¦ der at all that some others are loud and fierce against them — they
can no more like them than a lazy horse can like the rowels of a
spur — (laughter) — they can no more like them than can the drones
of the hive the day when they are shouldered out — they can no
more relish the visitation of a presbytery, than can the spiders and
the flies, and other such vermin, the visitation of a brush in their cob
web corners. (Laughter and great applause.) As we know so little
now-a-days of Presbyterial visitations, if it is not trespassing too much,
upon your time, I will give you an account of one which I have read
in the books of the Presbytery of Arbroath, and you may judge for
yourselves whether there is any thing in a Presbyterial visitation from
which a faithful minister has occasion to shrink. The record begins
by stating, that on such a day the brethren met at Inverkeillour for
a visitation of the parish. Mr John Rait, the minister of the parish,
preached before them ; and when they had heard him preach, then the
names of the elders and deacons being called, these parties appeared
and answered to their names ; then the elders were sworn, and the fol
lowing, or something like the following, questions put to them : Does
your minister preach twice every Sabbath day ? Does he preach plain
practical discourses ? Does he regularly catechise his people? Does he
visit his parishioners once a-year? Is he attentive to wait on the sick
and dying ? Does he maintain a pure and godly and sober walk and
conversation ? And these questions, the record goes on to say, being
all answered in the affirmative, Mr John Rait was commended by
the brethren, and exhorted to continue painful and careful in the Lord's
work. (Cheers.) Then, Sir, having disposed of the minister, they
next took up the elders — having tried the minister by the elders, they
next tried the eldership by the minister ; and thereafter they proceeded
to question both minister and elders on the state of the parish, and
put such questions as the following : Were there any dishaunters of
ordinances in the parish? Were there any profane swearers? Were there
any drunkards? Was there any Sabbath profanation, any going of
mills or bleaching of claes upon the Lord's day ? ( Cheers and laughter.)
Thereafter they examined into the state of the school and the efficien
cy of the schoolmaster ; and, like the trunk of an elephant, which can
either turn a cannon or pick up a needle, there seems to have been
nothing too great and nothing too little for these visitations to do.
They began the trial with the minister and they closed it with his man,
by putting on his trial that little great man of every country parish,
the beadle — and some of our beadles now-a-days would be all the
better of a sraart visitation, (laughter.) Now, Sir, the men of 1638
were alive to the importance of such visitations — they stand to reason
and common sense. I lately showed an Edinburgh assembly that
there was something like the parochial system in many departments
of the State, and so could I show that there is something correspond
ing to Presbyterial visitations among the men of the world, who are

-69
wise in their generation. How often do you read in the newspapers
of a general oflicer being sent to inspect the accoutrements and effi
ciency of a regiment; and, as no colonel with his staff of captains and
lieutenants is left to have his regiment in good or bad order, just ac
cording to his own good pleasure, no more should a minister with his
staff of elders and deacons be left to have his parish in good or bad
order, just as he pleases. Why, there is a surgeon of the navy, the
bodies of 500 men are committed to his charge, is he left to kill or
oure, neglect or attend them, as it suits his own fancy ? (Cheering.)
Ah, the children of this world are wise in their generation ; he must
keep a book ; in that book he must enter every case, every dose of
medicine, the whole history of a patient's attack, to his recovery or
to his death, when he is committed to the deep ; and then, when the
ship returns to her port, that book is inspected, and tells for or
against him ^ and I say, when a man has committed to his care, not
600 living bodies, but 500 or 5000 immortal souls, should he be left,
as he chooses, to kill or cure, to neglect or attend them ? {Cheering.)
Why, Sir, if a bank in Edinburgh establishes an agency at Inver
ness, do they send gold and silver and bank notes to the north, and
leave their agent to deal them out as he likes ? No ; the bankers of
Edinburgh are wiser in their generation. I know something about
banking; — and up to Edinburgh, every week or every month, the
agent of the ^r north must send a state of his transactions ; and
some day, perhaps, when he is mending his pen, and little expecting
such a visitation, the steam-boat delivers herself of some two or three
Edinburgh directors, who take account of his bills, and his books,
and his cash, and make a thorough visitation of their northern agency,
{great cheering and laughter ;) and when it is not the interests of
pounds and pence that are at stake, but the interests of eternity, and
the interests of immortal souls, I say there cannot be too much care
taken that every minister in every parish of all broad Scotland is
faithful in the way of duty. (Cheers.) No man should be left to
watch or sleep as he chooses. The Duke of Wellington never plant
ed sentinels, but he sent men to see that they were awake upon their
post ; the very watchmen of our streets are visited by inspectors, to
see that they are on their beat. Let a sentinel be found sleeping,
and they shoot him ; let a watchman be found drunk, and they break
him ; and is it not an outrage upon common sense that ministers —
tbat the men who ought to be the watchmen of Zion- — should be left
to fie up in their manses, or cultivate their parishes, just as it suits
their humour ? (Applause.)
We have heard of Episcopacy, but without Presbyterial visi
tations ; you cannot iace an Episcopalian, for he can point to)
the Bishop visiting the churches of his diocese, aye, and as we;
had a remarkable instance of lately, smartly lecturing an offiandU
er, in the presence of all his brethren. Without these visita
tions, you cannot face the Voluntary; if his minister grows lazy,
he knows how to manage him ; he holds the purse-strings in: his
hand ; and the Voluntaries can do with a useless minister as the
House of Commons with a useless ministry, get rid of them, by de-

70
nying the supplies. (Immense cheers.) I have heard a story that
illustrates this: — When the veto act was passedi ah, says a Church
man to a Voluntary, we are Upsides with you now ; we can keep out
a minister we don't like as well as you. Aye, says the Voluntary,
but you are not upsides with us yet ; true, you can keep out a minis
ter you don't like, but you can't put out a minister you don't like as
well as we. Why, what can you do ? replied the Churchman. Ohj
said the Voluntary, if we don't like a minister, if we Want to get rid
of him, we can hunger him out. {Enthusiastic cheering and laughter.)
Now, Sir, I cannot approve of this plan of hungering, ont a minister.
It were more merciful to dispatch the man at once; and, besides,
they may hunger^ out a good man as well as a bad ; butj if we are to
deny to the people the power of hungering out the man, or hunger
ing him into activity, we must have Presbyterial visitations to en
courage andistreogthen the hands of our faithful = ministers, to spur
up the lazy, and rid the hive of all its drones, and to take care that
they are clean who hear the vessels of the sanctuary. ( Cheeringf)
Now, Sir, for thisj for the Uberties of a Christian people, wherewith
Christ hath made themi free, for churches without price, open to the
poorest ofthe poor, as I tell Mr Begg, without any seat rents ataU,
and for the propagation of a saving, gospel both at home and abroad,
for all these, and more than these, there has sprung up a spirit which
is growing and spreading, and which affords the most glorious evi
dence, that notwithstanding: all our sins and shortcomings, God is
again smiUng on the church of our martyred fathers. The progress
of reforra in the last seven years has been as astonishingto the friends as
it has been terrible to the foes of our church. Every year, every As
sembly the work of a Third Reformation has been advancing — :it is
coming like > the sea tide on our island shores^— there has been no go
ing back, every wave that has rolled in has carried the waters higher
up the beach, and I 'tell our enemies that they may try to stop our
progress, and they may stop it for a little, but there is a -growing and
a gathering pressure, and away out at sea there are billows coming on,
which shall vbreak over and sweep away all their opposition. (Im
mense cheering:)
Never can I believe, that when, with Dr Muir at our head in the
Church, and 'Sir Andrew Agnew in the country,, we are standing up
for the sacredness of the Sabbath day, and amid' the strange silence
of other sects are lifting np a trumpet voice against its profanation —
never can I believe, that when, with Mr Cunningham and Mr Dun
lop at our head in the Church, and you. Sir, at our head in Parlia
ment, we are manfully contending for the liberties of a Christian
people — never can I believe, that when, with Duff, we are -bearing
onward the banner of the cross in India, and, with Chalmers, we are
labouring to evangelize our neglected and cruelly abandoned popula
tion at home — (cheering) — never. Sir, can I believe that a church
which has. shaken off her slumbers, and has arisen with such giant
strength to the Lord's work, is destined to perish by the hands of
these opponents.
People tell us, that the liberties of our Christian people, and the

71
independence of our spiritual courts, and free churches, and church
extension, are things that we should let alone — that we are sure to
bring down ruin on our heads — if so — we cannot be ruined in a better
cause ; we cannot fall in a better battle-field. 1 say. Sir, with Esther,
when she risked her life to plead the cause of her devoted people, if
I perish, I perish ; let us go forward with her, in the confidence of
faith, in the power of prayer, strong in the goodness of our cause, full
of the spirit of our fathers, and I, for one, beUeve, that God will yet
answer the prayers that were offered for our church, by many a dy
ing martyr, on many a bloody scaffold, and that from all these storm-
clouds she will shine forth fair as the moon, clear as the sun, and ter
rible as an army with banners /
The bursts of applause which followed the termination of this ad
dress were loud and long continued.

The Rev. Mr Moody of St Luke's Parish, closed the meeting by
giving out the 122d Psalm, and pronouncing the Apostolic benedic
tion.

Edinburgh Printing Company, l2, South St Oavid Street.

- 877166
Mami/aclumHy
SAYLdRD BROS, ll
Syracuse, N.Y. ""
 Stockton, Calif.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

9002 03720 9781

i|ri,i , y