| | | | < ~~ Lay Patronage ~~ The Veto> | | | These things are an allegory: ~~ The King is the Tory party of | Great Britain in Church and State; the captain of fifty and his fifty | are the Court of Session and the House of Lords, declaring the law | of Patronage; the man of God is the Church of Scotland; the | hill-top is the principle of Non-Intrusion; and the fire from heaven is | the | That fervid soul scorched | the Bishop's Church in olden times, and burnt to cinders its costly | furniture of Popish mummery and priestly pretence: clerical pride | was laid in the dust, and the simplicity of primitive piety restored. | For all this, religion was much the better: but there still remained | one offence, and not a small one; the Erastian usurpations of | Popish and Episcopal times were too strong to be shaken; and the | keys of the Church, which, of divine right, belong to the Church | itself, were left in the hands of an ugly heathen door-keeper, | commonly called the lay-patron. | The Church of Christ was first popular, then sacerdotal, then | secular. It is now striving to recover its pristine purity, and become | popular again; but as lay-patronage is and was the great instrument | of its secularization, so it cannot advance a single step in the path | of regeneration, without throwing off this encumbrance, or, at | least, rendering it nugatory. Hence the great watchword of the | Church in the present day must be ~~ | Independence of the office-bearers of the Church from extraneous | secular influences; for, notwithstanding all the recent and | plausible phrases that Church-Toryism will use, the people that | have no right to choose their own governors, and the Church that | has no right to choose her own pastors, are Slaves. | Many persons are afraid of the uprising of the spirit of | Church-independence in these times and seem to think that a revival of | zeal for popular privileges in the church is only a delicate synonyme for | the revival of clerical bigotry and priestly intolerance. But | ecclesiastical history shews plainly that the clergy were the most | intolerant when the people had no share in the administration of | church matters. To the same date belongs patronage ~~ a cold, | stony crystallization, (for the spirit is evaporated,) bequeathed to us | from those times when the soul of human activity had a body with | only two hands, the baron and the priest; but now we are Briareus: | there is a people, and the people must have their rights. | The clergy of the Church of Scotland have declared manfully, that | they will no longer submit to have spiritual pastors thrust upon the | Church, by an extraneous secular despotism. Here the true popular | spirit of Presbytery is revealed; and we see plainly the difference | between a Phillpotts and a Chalmers. Though we may not (like a | certain orator) have | yet, as genuine Scotsmen, we are | entitled to have a quarrel with the secular habits and the sacerdotal | despotism which have always characterized it; and we are entitled | to rejoice, and publicly to profess our exultation, in the fact that the | Presbyterian Church, as it is in its constitution essentially | republican, and originated out of a strong and general popular | movement, so it lives only in the people; and with popular | sympathy, and by popular influence, it must stand or fall. We are | entitled, also, to say, that the present movement in the Church of | Scotland (whatever blundering and trickery may be in the details) | is, in principle, natural, healthy, and in the most perfect harmony, | as well with the philosophical idea as with the historical | development of Presbyterianism; and we speak the language which | every friend of civil and religious liberty feels compelled to adopt, | when we say to the great ringleaders and agitators in ecclesiastical | changes, | |

~~ Go on and prosper; for, so long as you wrestle for the rights of | the Christian people, there is no danger that the supremacy either | of the Pope or of King Henry will be restored. And remember, that | you have a battle to fight that mere words, and synodical | babblement, and solemn declarations of abstract principles, will | not win. The Assembly of 1736 declared the principle of Non-Intrusion: | but how did they act? They tied a golden collar about | their neck, and said that they ought not to be chained. Beware of | the golden collar! for that hue has a | glamour in it that blinds even sainted eyes. If you wish to be | virtuous, dare the deeds of virtue. The hero's crown was never won | by quibbling.

| We said that the Church of Christ was first popular, then | sacerdotal, then secular. This is a historical proposition; and on the | clear perception of its historic reality, the merits of popular | election in the Church, and the demerits of lay-patronage, in a | great measure, depend. To set forth the principle moments of this | historical reality, shall, accordingly, be the main object of the | following remarks. We may allow ourselves, however, in the first | place, to ask a single theoretical question ~~ Can any natural and | obvious reasons be given why the Church of Christ, like any other | society instituted for a responsible and peculiar purpose, should | not elect its own office-bearers? ~~ for | the onus probandi, here, as the lawyers | say, plainly lies with those who support patronage. In every such | case, the presumption is against extraneous government. Literary | societies, academies of the fine arts, political conventions, | mechanics' institutions, masonic brotherhoods, all themselves elect | themselves, and why not the Church? Let us rather say, the Church | a fortiori; because the Church is the most | peculiar and singular association that is to be found among men; it | altogether unique and | sui generis, independent of human authority, isolated from | the common secular relations; spiritual, as opposed to temporal; | in the world, but not | of the world. And if the Church be collectively, in its | members, the Church of God, is it not a strange thing to say that | the head of this spiritual body shall be of human institution; and | that a bishop, like a king, shall, in St Peter's phrase, be | no-one denies: that it remained | voluntary during the first three | hundred years of its birth, infancy, and lusty youth, is equally | clear. But when we assert that the Church was originally and | essentially popular, we enter at once | upon debateable ground; and a whole host of mitred dignitaries, | from Bancroft (1388) down to | Hook and Pusey, | (1839) take the field against our intolerable heresy. Nevertheless, | we speak a fact the simplest and most certain that ecclesiastical | history testifies, that church government was first Congregational, | then Presbyterian, then Episcopal, then Metropolitan, then | Papistical. That the Christian hierarchy was not constituted by | Christ as an essential part of the Christian Church, but grew up | gradually, by the necessary and favourable circumstances of the | times, is the conclusion to which the searching erudition, and the | Catholic philosophy of Planck and Neander have arrived. | But there is no necessity for German spectacles to | inspect this matter. A man merely requires a little common sense, | and freedom from sectarian prejudice, to see how the case stands. | So long as a man is thinking mainly and habitually of his own sect, | and the canonization of its peculiarities, there is, of course, no hope | that things will be seen in their natural relations. If it be a principle | of your Church, that the Spirit of God is duly transmitted only | through an uninterrupted line of church dignitaries, of a superior | rank, called bishops, as electricity passes only through proper | conductors, you will not want scraps of evidence, both in the Bible | and the Fathers, to dress out your orthodoxy. But if you are not | sworn to a sect ~~ an open hearted, honest Christian, rejoicing in | the Catholicity of the Gospel ~~ you will bethink yourself calmly, | that, as an ingenious pleader makes the best speech when there is | least direct proof, (there being more room for conjecture,) so an | advocate of the divine right of any | particular Church hierarchy can always be the more consistent in | this theory the less opportunity church history affords of proving | its inconsistency. Because it cannot be proved to be inconsistent | with what we certainly know, he straightway assumes its absolute | certainty; and in this way the Apostolical succession of Henry | Exeter is excellently proved, and also the supremacy of the Pope. | Truly this age hath not been entertained with a more venerable | bubble than that of Apostolicity ~~ | | | How solemn, how dignified, how godly grand | does a learned prelate not show, when setting forth these things! | And yet what is it? The Practice of the Ante-Gregorian or | ante-Nicene Fathers. Suppose it were the practice of the apostles. Do | the apostles lay down, as an Imperative rule, everything that they | mention incidentally as a practice? The apostles gave ordination by | laying on of hands. Well; they borrowed this custom, like many | others, from the Jews, and used it, like sensible men, without | thinking whether it was bad or good. But they did not say that, if | you please, you may not ordain by giving the Presbyter a Bible, as | sasine is taken by delivery of earth and stone. A symbolical | ceremony of this kind is all very well as symbolical ceremony, | (though, with advancing civilization, it is apt to become ludicrous:) | but when you make mystery and magic of it, you make yourself a | trifler; and the sign which was intended to promote the reverence, | becomes the practical caricature of the thing signified. | In the same manner, if the complete body of the English hierarchy | could be demonstrated | in the Epistles of St Paul, we | are not advanced a single step in the proof of its apostolic sanction. | The necessity of those times might demand an oligarchical | government for the Church; the necessity of the present times (as | we verily believe it does) may demand a Republican or popular | government. Surely it is the sheerest puerility of intellect to seek | for any philosophical or religious necessity, in adventitious and | ephemeral matters of this kind. But Oxford is, and has been, the | nursing mother of all church superstitions; and, after Froude, we | must not be surprised at any ghost of a sickly idea that, out of those | musty and monastic shades, (not the less silly because mantled in | much Greek,) may wander forth ( | ) into the broad light of substantial day. | Apostolical succession is, in no sense, of divine right; not in an | extraordinary sense, because to no direct apostolical institution can | Episcopal monopoly be traced ~~ and because apostolic practice in | such a matter (if it could be proved) is very different from | apostolic law; not in an ordinary sense, because Reason and the | Light of Nature utterly scout the idea. Popular election, however, is | of divine right, both by the law of Nature, which | declares the right of self-government inherent in every separate | and independent society; and by apostolic and ante-Nicene practice | ~~ if such practice could confer it. The English Apostolicals and | Episcopalian exclusives pretend to deny this practice; but a cloud | of witnesses is ready to contradict them. Of these we shall proceed | to examine a few. First, with regard to the constitution of the | Church in the apostolic age, so far as can be gathered from the few | documents that remain, one thing is certain; Christ did not separate | any caste of priests for the service of this | Church, or endow any class of its ordinary ministers with mystical | and monopolizing gifts of grace; but the Christian Church, in the | New Testament, means the congregation of the faithful, and the | brotherhood of the saints. The mission of the apostles was not an | episcopizing of geographical dioceses, (or parallelograms, as Dr | Chalmers phrased it,) but a codenization of human hearts. It was | not lawful for any of the first Christians to call his brother lord; | and he who aspired to be greatest among them, was ordered to | make himself least. This the Pope knew well, and therefore he | always styled himself "servus servorum;" | under words of the profoundest humility, after the true | sanctimonious fashion, concealing thoughts of the most aspiring | ambition. But the "servus servorum" had a | meaning in the apostolic times; and therefore, St Paul, even with | his extraordinary gifts, never endeavours to lord it over the | consciences of the brethren, (as our modern bishops do,) with a | statutory orthodoxy; but he addresses them freely and familiarly ~~ | | And as to a caste of priests, or a separate order of | clergy, whose services were considered | indispensable to the idea of Christianity, we see no trace of | such a thing in the New Testament. The apostles, on the contrary, | seem anxious to explain to the brethren that, in the Christian | Church, there is neither king nor priest, but all are kings and priests | unto God; and presbyters, evangelists, and other teachers and | rulers of the Church, are ordered to be respected, not because | hands had been laid on them, or because they had the exclusive | privilege of laying on of hands, but because of their labour in the | Lord, and their abundance in good works. There is no proof | whatever that the office of teaching or of ruling the Church, in | apostolic times, was confined to any particular order of men. The | clergy, in our modern sense, with all their distinguishing rights, | and distinguishing prejudices, did not exist, could not exist, in | those days. Clergy then | <1 Pet. v. 3> was synonymous with Church | and meant people. The Fathers themselves admit this; | and when we consider what strange conceits of sacerdotal | importance began to haunt the imaginations of the clergy even | before the days of Cyprian and Tertullian, we shall see the value of | this testimony. Hilary (quoted by Neander) says ~~ | | | | Tertullian says the same thing. De Baptism: | and Planck shews clearly that the tremendous penalty | of excommunication, with which the Pope enacted such | magnificent tragedies, was originally exacted by the whole | brotherhood of a Christian congregation, and by them pronounced. | These things being so, it will appear only rational that | the election of its own office-bearers should, from the beginning, | have been recognized as a right inherent in the Church, | congregation, or brother-hood of the faithful. So it appears in the | well-known passage of the Acts of the Apostles, touching | the election of deacons: ~~ If this is not | popular election, and by divine right too, (so far as divine right can | be by apostolical practice,) we know not what is. The people | ( | ) and the apostles confirm their choice by | the solemn imposition of hands. The substantial right is in the | hands of the people, and the mere form of confirmation is | exercised by the apostles. And this, too, in the election of mere | deacons! | was the | maxim of later days, and in later days still, King | Henry's bishops told him that an arbitrary tyrant, by his own kingly | right, might make deacons, priests, and bishops, and all together. | But the bishops now say that no man can make a priest but a | bishop; and, after he is made, by their mystical rite of | ordination, they send him abroad into the | world to sneak into some snug rectory, by venting bitter bile | against the Roman Catholics, to please the prelates, and turning | smooth words to the taste of the secular powers that be, to please | the patrons. Now, it is a curious fact, which every student of the | New Testament and the primitive Church knows, that the word | which we translate ordination, means neither more nor less than | "election by universal suffrage." | bears its own lineage on its brow, and is | properly explained by the | (choice) of the passage just quoted from the Acts. But this did not | please the ambition of the clergy; and they soon contrived that | should mean only the laying on | of hands; and that, when a presbyter was elected with this | ceremony, the ceremony should be the main thing in which the | power of nomination and election might be fitly merged, while | nothing was left to the people but to stand quietly by and cry | (Worthy! Worthy!! Worthy!!!) | three times, when they were bid. So, at least, the ceremony of | election to the Presbyterial office is detailed, in the pontifical of the | Greek Church; and the apostolical constitutions shew at | length the early practice in which this originated. We may quote | the passage: ~~ | There is here, it will be observed, something more than a | form of popular election; but the manner of | managing the business is evidently one which would very naturally | degenerate into a form. The nomination seems to have been in the | clergy; they proposed the candidate, and arranged all matters for | his ordination; it is not wonderful, in this case, with their immense | and, in those days, well-merited influence, that, notwithstanding | the necessary consent of the people, they soon contrived (and | prescription has done greater wonders) to have everything their | own way. Centuries, however, elapsed before the idea became | confirmed that the ordination | or election to the exercise of spiritual functions, was a matter of | episcopal and not of popular right. There is a famous letter of St. | Cyprian to the Spaniards, which states in pretty strong terms, the | power of the people in the matter of electing bishops in | | the middle of the third century. It may gratify the reader to see this | passage also at length. After congratulating the clergy and people | of Spain on their having deposed two idolatrous, and elected two | orthodox, bishops; the Bishop of Carthage proceeds to assign this | reason why the people (plebs) should be particularly zealous to | watch over the orthodoxy of the bishops, | namely, that | he goes on to say, | These phrases, it will be allowed, are pretty strong, | and from a High Churchman, too, as the writer was, (though no | Papist;) but they only repeat what we find in Clemens Romanus | <1 Epist. Ad Cor. 44,> who speaks of the apostles appointing | teachers to the Church, | | | At the same time, it cannot be denied, that the procedure here | detailed by Cyprian is very far removed from the liberty of the | apostolic times, set forth in the election of deacons. Not only the | presiding and directing power, but the substantial right of election, | seems early to have been usurped by the clergy; or, rather let us | say, freely and easily conceded by the people, partly out of any | easy confidence, partly out of a foolish superstition. And thus | matters went on from bad to worse, till, in Italy, the Pope declared | himself sole and supreme elector of bishops; and the Church (now | the clergy) fell a victim to the corruption which is inherent in all | self-elected corporations. In Scotland, a different spectacle was | exhibited. The clergy handed themselves into a close conspiracy | with the landed aristocracy; they were more concerned to be a | respectable and a gentlemanly than to be a free and a pure church. | A main means to secure this was manifestly to secure to the Crown | and the country gentlemen the absolute and unconditional right of | presenting to benefices; while the people's right of consent or | dissent was systematically reduced to a mere form; and the laity | had, in fact, nothing to do but to swear to the Confession of Faith, | (which indeed most of them believed more honestly than their | teachers,) and to hear dull discourses read before the people | ( presentit plebe! ) by men who had not the | heart to speak to them. | Presentation to a benefice, and ordination to the priest's office | generally, or to a special cure of souls, are, in modern language, | two very different things. The one is properly, an incorporeal right, | as the jurists say ~~ the subject of the vulgarist traffic, and the | most mercenary compact; the other is a solemn church-rite, | conferring a certain spiritual character on the man; or it is the act | of sacerdotal induction by a Church Court, or Church dignitary | thereto authorized, introducing a spiritual man to the special cure | of certain souls. In the primitive times this distinction could not | exist. The setting apart of a person to the sacred office was entirely | a spiritual act, and consisted, as we have seen, of two parts ~~ the | election by the people, and | the imposition of hands by | the presiding office-bearers who might happen to be present. How | the growing power of the clergy inverted the natural order of this | spiritual act, assuming to themselves the election as a part of the | imposition of hands, and leaving the people only a general | approbation of their doings, or, at most, a right to state positive and | tangible objections, we have also hinted. Those who wish to see | the progress of this corruption developed in detail may consult | Planck's admirable work, above quoted. We may only indicate | shortly a few main points in this sacerdotal metamorphosis of the | Church. In the first place, as the primitive clergy did not stand out | in a distinct shape as opposed to the people, these latter had no | cause to look upon the actings of their spiritual guides with the | jealous watchfulness of men who have reason to believe that their | just rights may be encroached on. | | was the instinctive feeling of the primitive Christians with regard | to the deeds of their presbyters. The bishop was the perpetual | representative of the people, into whose hands they willingly | committed the exercise of rights which, in strict order, they ought | to have exercised themselves. Churchmen (even primitive | presbyters) are fond of power; and everything that the people did | not positively refuse, they were willing to take. In the second | place, the original bishops, Titus, Timothy, Clemens, Ignatius, | Polycarp, etcetera. were strong | captains and bold witnesses to the truth, | standing in the van of danger. They literally created in many cases | the churches which they ruled. The wisdom and the virtue of | Christianity was pre-eminently incarnated in them. The unlimited | confidence which was placed in them could not be more than they | deserved. The Church was helpless, the bishop gave it strength; the | Church was distracted, the bishop breathed into it, even by his | silent presence, the spirit of unity and peace. The primitive pastors | were fathers, not masters; the masters that came in afterwards | could have no right superior to that of fathers, for the right of the | father is supreme. His commands might be the same, yet the | manner of commanding was different. The spirit of love was gone; | and the people, who had rejoiced in the obedience of sons, now | found themselves groaning under the yoke of an intolerable | slavery. In the third place, the brotherhood which were originally | scattered and independent began | | ~~ partly from the natural effect of increase, partly for the sake of | mutual protection and the enjoyment of religious fellowship ~~ to | club together into dioceses and provinces; in which clubs the | bishops of the diocesan and provincial towns naturally acquired, | first a directory, and, by degrees, an official superiority. The | bishop of the diocese, with his college of presbyters, in the third | century, was a very different thing from the stray isolated | congregations of the apostolic times. In these congregations, the | people naturally exercised (for there was nobody near to interfere | with their exercising) all the rights peculiar to a society of brethren | in the Lord Jesus: but when a regular army of bishops, presbyters, | deacons, acolyths, lectors, and exorcists, was organized for the | management of the ecclesiastical associations of a large cumbrous | district, it was natural that the more important affairs of the Church | should be conducted mainly by men whose situation rendered them | peculiarly fitted for comprehending the spirit, as well as arranging | the detail of all Church matters. Hence, when a bishop was to be | elected, instead of the universal suffrage ( | ) of the congregation, which would now, in some | instances, have been impossible, and, perhaps, in other cases, have | given rise to heats and commotions; the presbyters of the diocese | assembled, and, with the aid of the clergy of the cathedral church, | managed matters quietly among themselves; and merely called out | the people, by way of formality, to give public concurrence to their | choice. We are not to suppose, however, that they paid no regard | whatever to the known wishes of the congregation. In those days, it | was the interest of the priests as much as of the people to have a | zealous and a talented bishop. Such men, of course, were not to be | found everywhere in days of persecution. People and priest, for the | most part, marked and knew the favoured individual beforehand; | and thus a formal voting might, in most cases, be dispensed with. | All these circumstances worked together to change the popular | leaders of the Church into oligarchic rulers; everything, as yet, | perfectly innocent, perfectly natural, and perfectly proper. But | motives of a low and selfish kind also interfered. First, no doubt, as | we have hinted all along, there was positive ambition, spiritual | pride, and the Old Adam, on the part of the clergy. Nevertheless | they were under a very pious delusion. They sincerely believed | themselves to be under the continual guidance of the Holy Spirit in | a way different from vulgar mortals; and with this axiom all their | passions were sanctified, and every smallest act that they | performed, in a ministerial capacity, was straightway magnified | into a miracle. Baptism, for instance, the simple sign of spiritual | purification, became baptismal regeneration; the bread and wine, in | the Lord's Supper, the expressive commemorative symbol of the | Saviour's death, became, by virtue of the priest's prayer, the actual | body and blood of God; and the imposition of hands, as we have | seen, became also a great mystery | , a sacrament; a magnetic virtue was supposed to | stream from the ordainer's hands; a sign became a reality; and | | was said, without blasphemy, by men who believed the Church | (that is, the clergy) inspired, and the councils of the Bishops | infallible. As for the people, how could they refuse to believe what | their best friends, most faithful councillors, and wisest teachers | taught them? Who was learned enough among the mass of | Augustine's congregation, in Hippo, to distinguish what Augustine | invented, out of his pride or subtilty, or what St Paul preached by | divine commission? Augustine himself knew no Hebrew, and little | Greek. In times of darkness, a sacerdotal caste was almost | unavoidable: they who actually were the only learned, seemed to | possess an exclusive divine right to teach and to elect those who | should teach after them. The people had no confidence in | themselves, and they readily yielded themselves up to those who | were able and willing to guide them. Christianity gradually | assumed the form that it exhibited in the middle ages. The | Christians of the first century were the companions of the apostles; | those of the tenth, the bondmen of the clergy. | In addition to the ancient authorities above quoted in support of the | original freedom of election in the Christian churches, we may be | allowed to quote two modern authorities, which cannot fail to have | their due weight with all impartial men; Blackstone and Gibbon. | says the great English authority, | ~~ | Gibbon speaks in strong terms: ~~ | Milman endeavours to take away the point of this passage by a | note from Planck, to the effect that, in the imperial residences, the | emperors, immediately after they had taken the Christian Churches | under State protection, put the Christian | bishops under State patronage: But this is | in no wise subversive of the truth with regard to the first three | centuries; nor does it affect the practice of the Church in remote | provincial dioceses, where, the same Planck assures us that, so late | | as the sixth century, the people asserted their right of electing | bishops. Gibbon, indeed, was too much of a philosopher not to see | that secular patronage was a thing as inconsistent with the idea of | Christianity as with the practice of the primitive Church. Church | and State, according to the genuine Christian philosophy, might | enter into many contracts and special arrangements with one | another; but still they remained essentially distinct and | independent; of all Erastianism incapable, without instant | destruction. So he says, admirably, in another passage of the same | book ~~ | This language might well be adopted by Dunlop, Chalmers, | Candlish, and others, who are, at present, so manfully defending | the spiritual independence of the Church; for, though an | established church is too generally hampered and clogged in many | ugly ways, (besides that it hampers and clogs other people,) yet, | that any Christian Church may properly be styled a mere | creature of the State, (except the monstrous | Church-making of King Henry VIII.,) is a mere lawyer's idea, and | ought to have no wider circulation than the walls of the Parliament | House. | If anyone now says, that all | that we have hitherto adduced is | irrelevant to the modern question of lay-patronage, because the | practice of the Christian Church voluntary can be no law to the | Christian Church established; we ask that person what sort of a law | shall we consider that to be which is at variance, not only with the | allowed practice, but with the expressed principle of the Church, in | the purest and most glorious age? | If patronage be an essential part of an establishment, then, without | going into any further argument, establishments must drop. The | Church, which is the Israel of God, dare not act Esau, and sell her | freedom and independence for a mess of pottage. Ebenezer Erskine | saw this a century ago, like a seer, and acted upon his knowledge | like a hero. The present Veto-men, if they are consistent, ought to | canonize him, and place his bust above the Commissioner's head in | the General Assembly. | But what shall we say to the English Apostolicals? If the ante-Nicene | fathers be infallible guides in such sacerdotal fooleries as | Episcopal ordination, baptismal regeneration, and the like, why | shall not these persons dictate our practice in the matter of | popular election? Froude was a philosopher | here. says he, | Froude had but one idea; but he had worked out that | idea into a marvelous and poetical consistency, of which your | sensible men have no conception. He was no Romanist; he could | not swallow the Council of Trent at a gulp, with all that went | before and all that might come after it: but he lived in the | monastico-sacerdotal Christianity of the middle ages; and he saw | plainly that an Apostolical Church, whose highest office-bearers | are elected by secular influence, in this country by a political party, | (who may be Whigs,) was a contradiction in terms. If the Whigs | had not come into office, however, it is questionable if the poor lad | would ever have seen so clearly on this point. | Let us now ask what immediate effect had the establishment of | Christianity, by Constantine, on the freedom of the Christian | people? Two new things came into the Church; endowments and | lay-patronage; and with these the secular | metamorphosis of the Christian Church began. The endowment, | however, worked admirably, not only in secularizing the minds of | the clergy, but in rendering them altogether independent of the | people in the last and most necessary ties that had bound them. The | isolation of the priests, as a separate order, became now complete. | But the clergy paid a high price for this independence. At the | outset of their alliance with the State, there was no Pope to lead | them; the consequence was, that, having loosened themselves from | the bonds of living connexion with the people, they came | immediately under the power of the prince; for there was no other | power in those days ~~ and the prince was supreme. Two things | happened. The kings of the earth assumed the right, first, of | confirming the election of bishops, and, by degrees, of taking that | election into their own hands. This seemed, indeed, but a fair | equivalent for the protection which the early emperors afforded the | Church against its persecutors. Again, Christianity now knew, for | the first time, what it was to become a | fashionable or Court religion; the | doctrines of fishermen were believed by Aulic councillors; and the | gospel of the poor found every Graf and Heersog in the Holy | Roman Empire willing to signalize himself by munificence to the | clergy, and promoting schemes of church-extension; and not | merely fashion, but real piety and warm | devotion were at the bottom of these things. Church and State | worked amicably together, and almost seemed identified; | innumerable churches were built at the private cost of pious | landholders; and when the builder claimed the right of presenting a | priest to his own church, he only seemed to be claiming his own. | The original patron, or pious lord of a manor, founding a church | and endowing a priest on his own territory, never could appear as a | usurper of church rights; he was himself a part | | of the church general, and, at the same time the most active and | influential member of that congregation whose priest he | nominated. So far from viewing him with suspicion, both priest | and people had every reason to look with gratitude, reverence, and | pleasant acquiescence on the doings of patrons. But gratitude is apt | to forget itself. The heir was the same person in law with the | defunct; but he might be, and often was, a very different person in | reality. So soon as the right of the original patron passed into the | hands of an ungodly successor, the whole relation of patronage | was changed; the blessing became a curse; and the Church of | Christ found, but found too late, that a man who submits to be | patronized one moment, may, by the same right, be persecuted the | next. Induction into the holy office of the ministry now became a | matter of vulgar merchandise; and the cure of souls was familiarly | and most appropriately denominated a living. | But the spirit of the clergy was too high in the middle ages to | tolerate such appalling Erastianism as the counsels of the moderate | party made dominant through the Church of Scotland in later | times. Private patronages, when once constituted, were allowed to | remain, (for the law could recognize no spiritual equities;) but a | bold stand was made against imperial usurpation; and whereas | there were only two luminaries in the public heaven of those times, | the Pope and the Emperor, Gregory VII. made it out successfully | that the Pope should be the Sun, and the Emperor only the Moon. | There can be no question that Hildebrand was right in this matter. | Nicholas II., under his direction, held a council at Rome, (anno | 1038,) wherein he declared that the accustomed confirmation of | the papal election by Emperor, should not be held necessary to a | legal election; and that, henceforward, the head of the Church | should be elected by a conclave of the prime dignitaries of the | Church, the College of Cardinals; and that election be held just and | legitimate in itself, without imperial interference. The same high | principle of ecclesiastical independence was asserted by | Hildebrand, when he came to the Popedom, against Henry IV. The | collision between Church and State, in the matter of investiture by | ring and crosier, and the barefooted and bareheaded penance of the | German Emperor, before the wintry walls of the Tuscan palace, are | known to all readers of history. In England | (as Blackstone will | have it,) Archbishop Anselm carried out the spiritual theory of | church election, against Henry I.; and the Church was triumphant | again, till, as the same Blackstone says, King Henry VIII. restored | the ancient right of nomination to the Crown. But this ancient right | was, as we have shewn, a mere usurpation. The | never could | extend to spiritual matters by any other law but by the law of | robbery. Our Protestant writers, indeed, were accustomed to | declaim against Hildebrand, (whom they pun into Hell brand) and | to laud the changes of Henry VIII. as a great Church Reformer. But | this is mere party prejudice. Pope Gregory, in the matter of | investitures, acted consistently with the theory and with the early | practice of the Church. Our modern Presbyterian Veto-men act | exactly upon the same principle, and that principle is | Independence. The only difference is, that Dr Chalmers claims | independence for the Church ~~ that is, the people; while Gregory | claimed that independence for the Church ~~ that is, the clergy. | But the difference is merely the difference between the eleventh | century and the nineteenth; in the great and inviolable idea of | Church supremacy in Church matters, Dr | Chalmers and Pope Gregory are at one. There is nothing | unchristian in the mere idea of a Pope; the Church of Christ, | throughout the world, may as consistently be ruled by one Pope, as | by two Archbishops in England; and so long as neither Chalmers | nor Gregory pretend to lord it over things temporal, we have no | quarrel with them. Unfortunately, however, Gregory did attempt | also to lord it over things temporal, (whether certain Protestant | Popes have not virtually done the same | thing, we do not at present inquire;) but bating this offence, so long | as the Pope's supremacy identifies itself with Church | independence, we are much obliged to the Romanists for their | exertions in this matter, and acknowledge them as fellow-workers | in the same cause. Was it not, indeed, a noble heroism with which | Father Campian, under Elizabeth, and the Carthusian monks under | Henry, withstood, to the death, the new-fangled royal orthodoxy of | the English Reformers? Truly, if the Church must have a head | upon earth, the Pope was a much more likely | one than the King! ~~ and it stands a monument of indelible | disgrace to English Protestantism, that so many eminent men | should have died martyrs for refusing to take an oath which, to a | calm philosopher, appears monstrous absurdity, and, to a pious | Catholic, could not appear anything less than blasphemy. But we | shall say nothing more of this; as it is not allowed a Christian | virtue, in any Protestant, to praise a Papist. Only, we assert, (and | that strange creature Froude, saw this also,) that the | Elizabethan Protestants, in bringing in | into spiritual matters, | were acting most inconsistently, not only with Protestantism, but | with the whole spirit and idea of a Christian Church. The Papists | and the Puritans both claimed | in ecclesiastical | matters, and both consistently; so far as that claim related to | Church government, we disallow both; so far as it related to | Church independence, both are right. When Pope Gregory, by his | party in Germany, made a new Emperor, he sent him a crown, on | which was inscribed the verse ~~ | | | This was absurd enough; for Peter had no commission to give | diadems; but was it less absurd in Henry to convert his palace into | a manufactory for articles of faith, and turn Protestant Courts of | justice into Councils of Catholic orthodoxy? Doubtless, the | absurdity of creed-making here reached its climax. Only we cannot | pass this censure on our fellow Protestants without mentioning its | palliation. The Pope was formidable in those days: he had a sword | as well as a crosier; and, unless the Protestants were content | quietly to be cut down, they must needs have some champion | equally well armed to fight for them. Now there was no champion | that could dispute the ground with the Pope but the Magistrate; it | was, therefore, the policy of all Protestants to win over the Princes | of the earth to their side; without this, indeed, they would have | been utterly extirpated: and as the Pope, to his Episcopal crosier, | had added the King's sword; so the Protestants, to the sword of the | King, added the Bishop's crosier. Thus the adverse champions | were fairly met. | But this was merely a concession, and a temporary one. The true | principles of Protestantism were essentially opposed to all | mongrelism of Church and State; much less could they allow the | monstrous Erastianism of Henry. This important point (for the | whole veto question hinges on it) will be made most clear, by a | reference to the Augsburg Confession, and other public and | authentic protocols of the Reformation; to which great world-revolution | (as the Germans say) the course of inquiry now leads us. | The Augsburg Confession was composed by Philip Melanethon, | and presented to the Emperor Charles V., in presence of the orders | of the empire, in diet assembled, anno 1330. In the chapter | "De Potestate Ecclesiastica," we read ~~ | This declaration was pointed principally | against the usurpation of temporal power by the Bishops. | Melanethon, who was a wise and a politic man, took care, on this | delicate occasion, to say nothing about the other grievances of the | Papal times, the usurpation of ecclesiastical power by the princes. | This principle of distinct and separate jurisdictions, however, when | consistently carried out, leads necessarily to the condemnation of | lay-patronage and the restitution to the Church of her ancient | power of electing her own office-bearers. Accordingly, the | Helvetic Confession speaks more plainly out on this subject ~~ | ~~ This | clause clearly cuts at lay-patronage; but it so expressed as to allow | of that abuse; and, indeed, it was impossible for the public | confessions of any Protestant church to declare against a right | which the law of every Protestant state more or less recognized. It | was the wisdom, therefore, of those who framed these documents, | to touch on this matter as lightly as possible, or to let it pass | altogether. Our Westminster Confession says nothing more than | that the Church possesses a government within herself, distinct | from that of the Civil Magistrate; and nothing more could be said, | so long as patronage was the recognized law of the land: but what | the true sentiments were, both of the Helvetic Church, the Dutch | Church, and all the sister churches that sprung from Calvin, may | very easily be shewn. Calvin discourses at length on this subject, in | the fourth book of the Institutions, His main idea seems | to be, that the substantial right shall be in the people, according to | the texts in the Acts of the Apostles, above quoted, while the | Presbytery exercise a controlling and directing power. | | On the subject of lay-patronage, Beza, the second great doctor of | our Church, is quite furious: ~~ | From this learned | Dutchman it was our original intention to have given some details of | the principles and practice of the Dutch Church two hundred years | ago, in the matter of sacerdotal election; but the fear of being | tedious has kept us back. We may only state shortly, that though | Voet holds, with Calvin, that the Presbytery has a directing, | deliberative, and judicial power in the election; he nevertheless | maintains, most sturdily, that the conduct of the people | bona fide given, to be held | | as an essential element into the consideration of the Presbytery. To | secure this, a precognition of the popular | mind is to be taken by the Presbytery, as an essential part of the | election. And to show how important the Dutch divine esteems | popular assent; in answer to the question, whether the candidate | who is preferred by the great majority of the people is to be elected | solely because of this majority, he answers ~~ | Yes! as the general rule; but special exceptions may occur, in | which a right of interposing and ejecting is left to the Presbytery. | We need not add, that, with these sentiments, Voet is a decided | enemy to lay-patronage, which he denounces as a thing altogether | foreign to the Reformed or Calvinistic Churches, and of which | Grotius and the Arminians had undertaken the hopeless advocacy. | In this opinions of Calvin and Voet, we seem to find the germ of | the juste milieu system, between absolute | patronage and popular election, which Dr Muir had the credit of | proposing in the General Assembly. But we warn the Christian | people to beware of this scheme; for though both Calvin and Dr | Muir propose it with the best intentions, and though it looks very | wise and orderly upon paper, it has one great fault: ~~ in practice it | won't work. Unless the clergy were angels, indeed, they could not | be intrusted with such a loose and vague equity as is here set forth. | Either the people must elect positively by a "Call," or refuse | absolutely by a Veto. Their power of electing the man they like, or | rejecting the man they dislike, must be absolute; otherwise the | election is not in them substantially, and their power of consent | little better than the Queen's consent to an act of Parliament that | has passed unanimously through both Houses. For the bringing | forward of positive objections to a man's temper, character, or | gifts, is always invidious; and therefore, unless Dr Muir can | embody in his measure some tangible guarantee that the | free consent of the People shall be the principal | thing considered by the Presbytery in all inductions of presentees, | his scheme must fall to the ground. The fact of the matter is, | that the vague right of Presbyterial direction and supervision in the | admission of ministers, was the very thing that deprived the people | of all voice in the matter. They were allowed to state | reasonable objections; and the Presbytery | judged of the rationality. What this procedure would end in, with | such an ambitious thing as human nature, need not be said. By | suffering this, in the first three centuries, the people played the | whole election into the hands of the clergy; and by suffering this in | the Scottish Church, (under the "wise and enlightened policy" of | the moderate Presbyteries,) they made the right of the patron | absolute. It is not to be doubted, however, that Calvin (though a | stout assertor of Church power) meant something more than a mere | name, when he discoursed, at length , on the "Calling" of Christian | ministers by the Christian people. The Reformers of the 16th | century were too fresh from the many mockeries of Romanism, to | bring out any new-fangled, decent, and solemn Lies of their own. | They knew very well that the form of a | call existed in the Romish Church, and was to be heard daily in the | ordination of presbyters. Neither Martin Luther nor | John Calvin were men who, with an air of dignified solemnity, | would discourse seriously of what they knew to be humbug. | Accordingly, we find that John Knox and our early Scottish | Reformers, fresh from the Geneva atmosphere of liberty, express | themselves very strongly and pointedly on this matter of popular | election. In the Second Book of Discipline, (the Book of Policy at | present recognized by the Church of Scotland,) we find the | following passage: ~~ | | This strong declaration of opinion on the | part of our early Reformers was agreed upon in the General | Assembly, anno 1378, and inserted in the Registers of Assembly, | anno 1381. There can, therefore, be no doubt what the original | historical doctrine of the Church of Scotland is with regard to lay | patronage. It was considered as one of the | and as such, is catalogued | in the Book of Discipline, under | The "Paip", | in those days, was the incarnation of Antichrist, and had, of course, | to bear the blame of all iniquity. But the real cause of patronage | was, as we have shewn, the inordinate lust of the clergy after | perpetual endowments. But what did the State say to all this | ratiocination? Presbytery was established in the year 1592; and, by | the act of Establishment, was given to the | and | to popular election, principally, the Lie Direct. | Thus patronage, or secular election to the great | Church offices, became the law of Scotland, and remained so, till | Charles I., with that foolhardiness of purpose which characterises | religious Toryism, endeavouring to carry the Anglican doctrine of | the King's supremacy into practical effect in Scotland, by vaulting | ambition, overleaped himself; and an old woman with a stool | overturned the divine right of most religious and gracious | sovereigns for ever. Honour be to the staunch and true-hearted | Presbyterians of those days! The civil magistrate has power to call | synods, and to dismiss them; the Confession of Faith says that, and | therefore we must suppose it orthodox; but synods have also power | to call and to dismiss themselves; and, on this principle, the | "rebellious" assembly of 1638 acted. But rebellion against | usurpation is a sacred right. The King of England had usurped the | right of legislating for the Church in religious matters; against this | usurpation the Church of Scotland rebelled; and, by that rebellion, | founded our liberties upon a rock which never can be shaken. By | that "rebellious" Assembly of 1638, bishops were banished, Royal | Liturgies excommunicated, and Lay Patronage interdicted. It was | publicly declared to be, and to have been from the beginning, a | principle of the Church of Scotland, that no person should be | intruded into any Church office, contrary to the will of the people | over whom he was called to preside. And so strongly had this | principle been asserted, under the Commonwealth, that | (notwithstanding the intervention of Charles the Second's bloody | supremacy) William and Mary, at the glorious revolution, found it | necessary to abolish Lay Patronage altogether. | What they introduced instead thereof, was indeed a very | different thing from pure popular election; but it was, in any view, | a manifest triumph of Presbyterian independence, and a | vindication of the genuine principles of popular liberty in the | Church for which Calvin wrote and John Knox battled. In | reference to the present state of public opinion on the subject, it | will not be unimportant to quote the words of King William's act: | ~~ Here, if the Presbyteries exercised | their legitimate power with a conscientious regard to the | bona fide will of the people, things were | certainly not a little improved; but, what an imperfect act this is, so | far as popular rights are concerned, requires no eagle's eye to | perceive. The absolute monarchy of the lay patron's right under the | old system, is here changed into an aristocratic and clerical | supremacy. For what have heritors, qua heritors, to do with a | Christian church? A man may be an heritor, (nominally and | externally a Presbyterium too,) and, all | the while, remain as complete a practical Heathen as ever was cut | down by Charlemagne. But more; these heritors might be, and | many of them were, Epicopalians; in | these times, the sworn enemies of the Presbyterian Church, and, in | all times, inclined to favour monarchical and aristocratic influence, | to the prejudice of the rights of the people. The secret tendency of | this act was to create a permanent over-riding Episcopalian | influence to control the free movements of the Presbyterian people; | for the politicians of those days | | knew well that Presbytery was, and always had been, a thing | essentially republican. And, it is to be lamented that (with the | laudable wish, no doubt, of peace and conciliation, after such | troublous times) the ministers of the Presbyterian church, in the | Assemblies that followed on the Revolution, displayed a want of | zeal for true Presbyterian principles, altogether inconsistent with | their office, and with the necessities of the time. Latitudinarianism | on principles of Church government, in the year 1840, may be only | another name for charity and philosophy; but, latitudinarianism, in | the year 1689, was plain indifference in things esteemed most | sacred, yea, manifest treachery. Accordingly, it is impossible to | approve of the conduct of the General Assembly, in 1694, in | instructing their commission | But of vital concerns compromised and accommodated nothing | could come but evil. The direct and necessary consequence of this | was to fill the church with secret Episcopalians; and, we are verily | persuaded that the moderate party, which ruled so long the | councils of our Church Courts, had no other origin than this. | Episcopalians they were, undoubtedly, if we look to the soul that | animated their proceedings, and not to the mere name. They were | Episcopalians in doctrine; Arminians, as the famous Marrow | controversy, compared with the contemporary case of Professor | Simpson, sufficiently shews. They were Episcopalians in Church | government; for, however loose they might be in doctrine, they | were strict and tyrannous enough in matters of discipline; and held, | with the Episcopalians, that all substantial ecclesiastical power is | to be exercised by the clergy mainly, as opposed to the people. | They were Episcopalians in secularity; | their sturdiness in defence of lay patronage claims clear kinship | with the royal appointment of bishops in England. David Hume | (who was in close friendship with many of them) called them the | "Court party;" they have been also called "Herodians;" and it is | certain that, having no apostolical succession to boast of, they | made as much as they could of State authority and acts of | Parliament. They were Episcopalians also in the zeal with which | they cultivated the aristocracy, and the great desire with which | they were possessed to appear "gentlemen." Their style of | preaching, also, was exceedingly smooth, and polished, and | decent; altogether gentlemanly, and altogether Episcopalian; but | they were destitute of pith, and fire, and freedom, and earnestness; | for these are qualities that, so far from being necessary to | constitute a gentleman, rather seem to mar the fine nicety of his | decoration, and the prim propriety of his movements. Be these | characteristics, however, as they may, it is certain that the | moderate party swayed the councils of the Church of Scotland | almost continuously, from the Revolution down to the year 1830, | when all titled things of ancient pretence were summarily cast off. | The first great proof of this preponderance was given by the | passing of Queen Anne's Act, in 1712, restoring patronage in its | ancient hated absolutism; for, if the popular party had had any | sway in the Church Councils, it is not to be imagined that the | government of those days would have had strength to bring back a | measure so abhorred by all true Presbyterians. But | might, here, as on many other occasions, | triumphed over right. Patronage was | restored; and | by virtue of the act of Queen Anne, is | the law of the Church of Scotland, even at the present hour. | It is not to be supposed that the Tory party, who restored the | ancient law of patronage, would want a plausible pretext for so | doing. They declare, in the preamble, that | and, to prevent those heats and divisions, everything | was henceforward to be managed by the quiet despotism of the | patron. The Council of Laodicea had taken | advantage of similar circumstances to abridge the liberty of | popular election. But, alas for the wisdom of Toryism! Whether in | Church or State, it is a very short-sighted thing; for, even as the | Pope, honestly intending, no doubt, to secure for ever the | unity of the Church, had declared himself | infallible, and thereby caused the reaction of freedom, and the | innumerable divisions of the Reformation; | so the moderate party, by excessive caution against the | petty "divisions" incident to popular election, | caused the great division of the Secession; | in comparison of which, all the paltry squabbles of this or the other | foolish congregation, are very dust in the balance. The

"wise and | enlightened policy"

of the court party in the Church of Scotland, | caused the great Secession. If that schism was a sin, the guilt of it | lies at their door. This is never universally admitted and | universally lamented. And what was the Secession? ~~ Was it a | small thing? Yes, even as a grain of mustard seed, when it began; | but it grew up into a tree whose greatness has overshadowed the | land. Is it a small thing that the rich shall belong to one Church, | and the poor to another? No; rather, say this is the greatest curse | that can befall the religion of any country; for, if there is one place | on this vain and titled earth where rich and poor may meet | together, and know themselves to be brethren, that place is the | Church. But the moderate party wished to have a Church of | "gentlemen;" and they have had their desires. The mass of the poor | people, in our towns, do | | not belong to the Church; have no connexion with the ministers of | the Church, except in paying them compulsory stipends; and this | by the fault of the Church itself, and its vain flirtation with | Episcopalian dignities, and fleshly harlotry with the smiles of court | favour. In the year 1712, when patronage was established, the | Church should have taken a decided position. The principle of | Non-Intrusion and popular election should have been declared | then. The desertion of a few gentlemen's | families from the front galleries of the parish churches, would have | been a loss repaid tenfold by the sure root that the Church would | immediately have taken in the affections of the whole body of the | people. Then, as now, it might well be said to all who are | contented to remain in the Church of Scotland only so long as | patronage makes it aristocratic ~~ In | such unceremonious fashion should our Popular Church have | treated its Episcopal patrons and Episcopizing members; but | Mammon was too strong in those days and the people were too | weak; and Ebenezer Erskine was, after long and laborious | wrestlings with his righteous soul, obliged to leave the communion | of the Church; of which, we presume, the men who are now

"the | prevailing party in the Church,"

allow that he was the worthiest | member. As for ourselves, we care comparatively little about | Churchmen and Dissenters, voluntary and established; it is the | Church of Christ, and the liberties of the Christian people, that rule | our sympathies; and, so far as the present question of popular | election is concerned, we consider Dr Chalmers and Dr John | Brown as equally members of the Church of Scotland. With this | fraternal feeling, let us proceed to cast a glance, very hastily, at the | recent doings of the Church towards her spiritual emancipation | from the bondage of lay patronage. | In the year 1830, the noble example of the French set the whole | world agog, much to the annoyance of the Tories, whose | philosophy is a dead sea of eternal stagnation. Under Tory | influence the Church had long been dead. After the passing of | Queen Anne's Patronage Act, the people still continued to assert | their ancient right of consenting to the appointment of the patron. | This they did in the form of a call; a well-known document in | Church style, of which the form is given below. But it | is quite plain that this invitation, on the part of the people, could | have no legal effect in opposition to the patron's wish, declared on | the presentation, so long as the right of patronage remained | absolute and unqualified on the face of the statute book. This was | manifest to common sense. It was not, however, manifest to the | strong Presbyterian feelings of the Scottish people; the high | principles maintained by the genuine old Presbyterian party still | existing, though in a fatal minority, in the Church. The people, | therefore, and the popular Presbyterians, kept up the call; and | many questions of disputed settlement, arising out of that part of | the clerical induction, were brought up to the General Assembly; | and sometimes, if either in the Assembly or in its standing | Committee (the Commission) the popular party happened to be | strong, and had a very strong case, they might be successful; at | least, to appearance. But the moderate party were too determined | in their principles, and too systematic in their policy, to tolerate | anything like a regular or well-organized opposition to the law of | patronage. Besides, they had the law on their side, and were (to | give them all due praise) great masters of management. They, | accordingly, continued, partly by the point of the bayonet, and | partly by finessing and clever card-playing, to put down the voice | of the people altogether; and reduce the call to, what we have seen | it was under the papacy, a mere form. They could not kill the | snake, but they starved it; and there it stood, and there it stands, as | pretty a preparation as ever was seen in an anatomical museum. | But, unfortunately, it tells a tale. All forms are but the shell of a | substance; and every dead body you stumble on in the street, is a | witness that there was once a living soul there. So the existence of | the call, though as a mere form, was a daily monitor to the | Evangelical party, that popular election (which the call plainly is) | had once been in the Church; and the consequence was, that no | sooner, by the influence of the Reform Bill enthusiasm, and a large | influx of city elders, had they regained their long-lost majority in | the General Assembly, than they publicly declared the principle of | Non-Intrusion to be, and to have been, a sacred and irrevocable | law of the Church; and, in conformity with this declaration, passed | an act, (commonly called the Veto | | Act, 1836,) making a call a thing substantial, and giving to the | male heads of families, in full communion with the Church, an | absolute veto on the presentation of the patron. Now this was not | only a very decided and bold act, in assertion of High Church | principles, but it was also very cautious and very cunning, and | meant to be so. The Church was led by lawyers, and great lawyers, | in this matter; and she also conferred with the officers of the Whig | government then in power, and received their nod of approbation. | But, nevertheless, as the event has shewn, the Church was led into | a bog; for the lawyers who led them were strong party men in the | Church; and the law officers who gave the nod had no power | beyond hopes, uncertain hopes and promises. And, accordingly, | when the Veto Act came into operation, and questions of disputed | settlement arose out of it, it was found, first in the Court of | Session, and then in the House of Lords, that the same was | altogether illegal; and that the Christian people of Scotland, so | long as the Patronage Act remained unrepealed, had no voice | whatever (except always by bringing forward tangible objections | of notorious and gross faults) in the election of Christian ministers. | Lord Brougham and the Lord Chancellor were unanimous in the | decision of this matter; and they both said that they had seldom | come to the decision of a more simple and easy case. The | advocates of the Veto Act pretend to say that the English judges, | by so speaking, only shewed their conceit; and their utter | ignorance of the Church law of Scotland. But this is an old and | foolish objection to the House of Lords as a House of Appeal for | Scotch cases; and, at all events, if the English judges lost anything | in knowledge, by never having been members of the General | Assembly, they certainly gained as much in respect of impartiality. | The patronage question, indeed, is, like many others, one which the | talk of lawyers can only serve for a season to confound; its merits | after long legal discussion, are plain, as | before, to every unprejudiced mind. The | framers of the Second Book of Discipline, (as we have seen | above,) saw clearly, and expressed themselves plainly, that the | The Auchterader Case had not arisen | then, and no learned pamphlets had been written to confound their | simple perception of right and wrong. An unconditional right in me | to elect a person, out of a certain number of persons qualified in a | certain known way, is altogether inconsistent with an | unconditional right in you to reject that person. You may have a | right, doubtless, to make certain special objections as to the | qualifications which, by public law, are known to be | necessary in the person elected; but to call your own absolute | and arbitrary will a qualification, is the greatest sophistry. There | can be no question, therefore, in the mind of any reasonable man, | that the law of patronage, in reference to the Auchterader Case, | was rightly decided by the House of Lords. Even supposing there | had been any doubt originally as to whether Queen Anne's Act | absolutely abolished the right of "call," or popular consent; was it | not most portentous in the General Assembly, after giving the act | its fair construction for more than a hundred years, and insisting | most peremptorily on that construction being carried out, to turn | round now and attempt to give a different construction, quibbling | away the bona fide meaning of the statute, | and giving their own proceedings, in the face of men, the lie | direct? It is perfectly true that popular calls were reduced to a mere | formality by the moderate party; but then it can never be forgotten | that the moderate party were acting, not only in consistency with | their own principles, but with the known law of the land, in its | plain and honest meaning. Moreover, the moderate party was The | Church; patrons could take their construction of the law of | presentations from no better authority than the Church; and by the | actings of the Church, where third parties are concerned, the | Church, as much as any other public body , is bound. We cannot, | therefore, imagine that the Church acted wisely, we scarcely think | she acted honourably, at least not very heroically, in passing the | Veto Act; but letting this pass as a doubtful point on which the law | of Christian charity calls on us to pronounce the mildest judgment, | we think the conduct of the Church, in openly resisting the law of | the land, now publicly declared, a matter altogether preposterous, | and altogether unjustifiable. | How ought the Assembly to have proceeded, after the Veto Act | had been declared illegal? Three ways were open. They might | rescind the act, and proceed upon the old plan. This was the plain, | manly, and consistent course to pursue: but it implied a public | "peccavi;" and this is a word which it is | contrary to the etiquette of public men and public bodies to | pronounce. Therefore the General Assembly would not say | peccavi. Or, secondly, the General Assembly | might throw up the alliance between Church and State, and declare | themselves voluntary. This was also a plain, manly, and consistent | course; and, in fact, with respect to each individual parish, where | the legal presentee being veto'd, stands upon his presentation, the | Church has declared itself voluntary. Or, thirdly, the General | Assembly might split the sentence of the Civil Courts in two ~~ | temporality and spirituality; and leaving the temporality to the | State, offer "passive resistance" to any decree attempting to coerce | the spirituality. This is a very plausible plan; and, in the necessity | of the case, seemed imperiously to recommend itself to the Church. | It is the plan which the Church has adopted, and on which they are | now consistently and manfully acting; it is a plan which has been | ably defended by Dr Alexander Dunlop, advocate, in a pamphlet | which places him at the head of the Church lawyers of the day. | But, looking at the matter impartially and philosophically (as we | have all along endeavoured to do,) we cannot help expressing | serious doubt | | as to the propriety of this conduct. That passive resistance is | lawful, and, in some cases, a sacred duty, it is impossible for any | person who holds the supremacy of right above law, to deny; but | have we a case for passive resistance here? Resistance of any kind | to the law of the land is only lawful in cases of gross iniquity and | manifest oppression; and in cases where the party complaining has | nothing like compensation or benefit for the evil he endures; where | it is all burden on the one side, and all privilege on the other: in | cases also wherein a man is commanded to do a thing, either | actually contrary to the plain laws of right and wrong, or what he | may reasonably feel as grievous to his conscience. Now, the | Church of Scotland, so far as we can see, stands in none of these | positions; for, if the Church of Scotland has been oppressed, she | has oppressed herself. The law of the land, as now declared, is | what she, a century ago, and, by the continuous | actings of a hundred years, declared to be her law; and, by | this declaration, drove Ebenezer Erskine out of the Church. | Moreover, she has a manifest compensation for any privilege she | may have surrendered. For patronage she has endowment. As for | conscience, the pretence is ridiculous. The Church made a contract | with the State, which she is bound to fulfil: she submitted herself | to certain laws, which, as declared in the Supreme Courts, she is | bound to obey. If she has a conscience, (and Mr Gladstone may say | whether she ought not to have one as well as the State,) let her | shew it here, in acting consistently with her solemn obligations. So | long as the law of the land is the law of | the land, and you yourself derive manifest and great advantage | from that law, and have, moreover, homologated that law by a long | course of serious and deliberate actings, obey it. There is but one | course: so long as you are an Established Church, act as an | Established Church; and do not covertly smuggle in Voluntaryism, | unless indeed you wish (realizing in the spirit, a phrase of Lord | Gillies') to prove that the Church is as selfish as any vulgar | "corporation," and that saints are only sinners in a sanctified | direction. | In answering the question, What ought the Church to | have done, we have also answered the | Question, What ought the Church to do. | Obey the law, and petition Parliament for the abolition of | patronage; or, at least, (as an instalment,) for the confirmation of | the Veto Act. As to the first part of the present duty, though what | the world calls consistency may be a very pretty thing in secular | men, and consorts well with the inclinations of the Old Adam; yet, | for spiritual men, it may be a better rule, that the sinner who | repents, even at the eleventh hour, is accepted. As to the second | item, the petitioning of Parliament; though prospects may be sad at | present, yet the parable of the importunate widow is nowhere more | applicable than here. Did not O'Connell, by agitation, annihilate | ten bishoprics in Ireland? (which made the Oxford Pusey | gentlemen become semi-Voluntaries;) and shall the Church of | Scotland, with that mass of popular sympathy which this question | will command, not be able to coerce the landed legislature of | Britain into a concession, great indeed, but not so great as the | Catholic Emancipation Act? We have not the slightest doubt that | the Church of Scotland will carry her point, provided she act | openly and honourably. And let her act boldly too, and not attempt | to stand against the law by quirks and evasions, more worthy of | lawyers than of Christian ministers. | Such a demand should the Church make of the State; and in this | straightforward, manly attitude, the Non-Intrusion principle would | plant itself strong in public opinion, like the spear of Pallas, | | Let the Church consider further, that it is utter vanity | and a lie, for any Presbyterian Church, being (as all Presbyterian | churches are) essentially Republican, to lean upon the Tories. The | conduct of the titled boy Ramsay at the Assembly may shew her | what she has to expect from that quarter. The Church of Scotland, | we repeat, is and was, both historically and in principle, a Popular | Church. She never can enter into a consistent alliance with | Toryism in any shape. The secular Avatar of Christianity has been | amply developed in the English Church; a considerable party in | that Church (the Puseyites) have recently attempted, and with no | small public approbation, to revive the monastico-sacerdotal | Christianity of the middle ages. These things are all very well in | the Protean drama of things that are; our vocation is nobler ~~ to | struggle for what ought to be: a Church truly popular and truly | congregational, according to the undoubted practice of primitive | Christianity. Not that church-officers and church-government are | to be thrown away. ~~ | | Only, from secularizing or | sacerdotalizing influence must Christianity be purged at all risks. | Let the Church of Scotland, therefore, beware how she identifies | herself with the selfish interest of a sister Church, whose manifold | abuses have rendered the name of Church odious among a great | majority of thinking men in this country. Above all things, let us, | as Scottish Churchmen, beware how we extend our sympathies to | that | the Irish Church. Let us at least have so much | practical Christianity as not to call that hierarchical absolutism | right in respect of Ireland, which we | protested with the sword, to be wrong | when applied to ourselves. Let us be tolerant and kindly to | Episcopalians in Scotland; let us frequent their chapels; aid their | Christian charities with our contributions; take a lesson from them | in learning, in sobriety, and in what may be called the calm | Wordsworthian poetry of a cheerful devotion: but never, never let | us sanction, by one word of even tacit assent, the open iniquity of | the Irish Church, that plague spot of Christianity in these Isles; that | mockery of Protestantism, whose mere existence | | furnishes the Papists with more solid arguments than the logic or | the "sword" of a thousand McNeiles can refute. Again, we repeat, | we have a peculiar vocation from Heaven to be a free, and a | popular, and also a united Church; for | there is no reason why the present quarrel between Voluntaries and | Establishment men should be irreconcilable; or if that quarrel be | indeed a wound not to be healed, then let us be united in soul at | least, if not in the outward body of a Church. St Paul had no | thought of a Pope or of an Establishment when he preached | Christian unity to the Ephesians. There will not be much mention | of Churchman or Dissenter in the Day of Judgment. But of two | things there will be mention; Purity and Love: Purity, in freedom | from Church secularization, which is Lay-Patronage and | Mammon; Love, in freedom from sectarian bigotry and sacerdotal | despotism, which is the Devil.