declared that all they had said had been shown to be true; that the Non-intrusionists never could, in an Established Church, obtain the freedom and power which they sought, and that if they did, the Church would become an intolerable tyranny.1

Notwithstanding Lord Aberdeen's failure, the Duke of Argyll resolved to make an effort to give peace to the Church. On the 6th of May 1841, he introduced in the House of Lords "An Act to regulate the exercise of patronage in Scotland." Its leading provisions were substantially the same as those of the Veto Act. The mere dissent of the parishioners was to be enough for the presbytery to reject the presentee, unless it should be proved that their opposition proceeded from factious or causeless prejudice. It extended, however, the right of dissent beyond male heads of families, to all male communicants who had attained majority. Being read a first time, its farther consideration was deferred till the General Assembly should pronounce upon its merits.

When the Assembly met it had more than enough of business on hand. At the time the Non-intrusion agitation was begun there were very few anti-patronage men in the Church, but during the eight years which had since elapsed the party had gained immensely in courage and strength. The fierce controversies regarding the veto had naturally led to this result. Many, hopeless of ever being able to untie the tangled knot, wished to cut it at once. Besides, was not patronage the cause of all the Church's troubles, and why should it not be got rid of entirely? The Rev. William Cunningham, who was the leader of the most advanced party in the Church, brought the subject before the Assembly. He argued that patronage was not only a grievance to the Church, but that it was contrary to Scripture, and ought therefore to be abolished. Dr Chalmers gave a qualified support to the motion; and many others declared that though they were not yet quite prepared to vote for the total abolition of patronage, they would be driven to that step if the Church did not soon find another escape from its difficulties. That was the direction in which parties were drifting. But when Mr Cunningham and his friends maintained that patronage was anti-scriptural, they laid themselves open to the taunt: why then did you accept of presentations? Why for a moment hold livings which you obtained in an unscriptural and sinful way? Dr

1 There is abundant proof of this in the Dissenting and Voluntary literture of the day.

Cook moved that the overtures anent patronage should be dismissed, and his motion was carried by a majority of three. It was the last victory he ever obtained in the ante-disruption Church.

Dr

Next day the Assembly entered upon the consideration of the Duke of Argyll's bill. Mr Candlish moved a series of resolutions asserting the principle of Non-intrusion, and approving of the bill inasmuch as it embodied that principle. His speech was more calm and conciliatory than usual, and this tended to give a conciliatory tone to the whole debate. Hill, son of Principal Hill, who had so long and with such admirable tact and temper ruled the Moderate party, opposed the resolutions. He was a rather tall, straight, dark-visaged man. He had no brilliancy of mind, but he had good sense and good feeling. His voice was melodious, but his elocution was monotonous, and he was sometimes called the eight-day clock of the Assembly, both on account of his personal appearance, and the pendulous regularity of all his movements; but it was always good-naturedly, for he was esteemed and honoured by all. He moved that the Duke's bill was not fitted to heal the Church's dissensions, and that they should, for the attainment of that end, rescind the Veto Act. He argued that though he and his party had been prepared to accept of the bill, which they were not, there was not the slightest chance of its ever becoming law. The opinion of the great majority of the peers was known to be decidedly hostile to it. Mr Candlish's motion was carried by 230 against 105.

It was scarcely to be expected that the Moderates should have given up their traditionary principles, and accepted the law from their ancient enemies. It was scarcely to be expected that the peers of parliament, in the midst of a fierce conflict, in which the Church appeared to them to have assumed the attitude of rebellion against the law, should have agreed to pass a bill which would legalise all that the Church had done. And yet it must ever be regretted that the Duke of Argyll's bill did not become law. The veto had confessedly worked well. All that it wanted was a parliamentary sanction; and had that sanction been obtained, the troubles of the Church would have ceased, the delirium of the fever would have passed away, the Secession of 1843 would have been prevented, and the Church of Scotland been at this day one of the strongest national Churches in Christendom.

But the chief interest of this Assembly gathered round the

Strathbogie case, as there is always a more living interest connected with persons than principles. The suspended ministers appeared at the bar accompanied by their counsel. The libel was a long and elaborate one. It set forth that according both to God's Word and the Confession of Faith the Lord Jesus Christ was the only Head of the Church. It charged the seven not only with having denied this truth by having applied to the civil courts for interdicts against the ecclesiastical courts, but with having violated their vows of obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors. "By the making of which application," it proceeded, "you did deny the truth of God's holy Word, and did disown the Lord Jesus, in so far as regards His authority as only King and Head of His Church; and contrary to the Word of God and Confession of Faith foresaid, and to your solemn vows and engagements before mentioned, did acknowledge the powers, committed by Him to Church officers alone, to be vested in a secular Court, having no rule or government in His house, and did acknowledge the said secular Court to be supreme in matters spiritual over the judicatories of this Church, and to obstruct, stay, and subvert the same." So greatly has religious thought widened since 1841, that it is now scarcely credible that such a charge, couched in such language, should have been brought against clergymen whose only crime was obedience to the law as declared by the ordinary law courts.

In the debate which followed it was urged, on the one side, that the Strathbogie ministers, by their own confession, had been guilty of disobedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, and that notwithstanding their solemn vows of obedience made at their ordination. If such disobedience were tolerated, all subordination [would cease, and the government of the Church be impossible. It would not do to plead that they had acted up to their conscientious convictions, for as a Church Court they had nothing to do with the conscientious convictions of individuals; they must, in spite of these, maintain their laws. It would not do to plead that the accused were bound by their oath of allegiance to do as they had done; for the oath of allegiance required them only to render to Cæsar the things which were Cæsar's, and certainly not the things which were God's. It would not do to plead that they were compelled by the law to follow the course which they had, for the Church Courts must look to their own law which had been broken, and to their own authority which had been despised, and they could

not acknowledge secular law or secular authority within the sacred domain of the Church. The very urging of such a plea was an aggravation of guilt. The accused had denied in every possible way the Headship of Christ, and therefore they might even have been convicted of heresy, and most justly deposed.1

On the other side, it was maintained that, while according both to Scripture and the Westminster Confession, Christ was Head of the Church, this was true not of the Church of Scotland, nor of any national Church, but of the one universal Church, which consisted of all Christian men and women over all the world. Of this true Catholic Church Christ, and not the Pope, was the head. And though it was true, in a sense, that Christ had appointed a government in the Church, as he had appointed a government in the State, it did not follow that by resisting that government, when it was wrong, you resisted Christ. All government was a divine ordinance, and yet resistance to government was sometimes not a crime but a duty. In many instances the civil ruler had over-ridden ecclesiastical Synods and Assemblies, as in Scotland itself at the Reformation, and there was scarcely any atrocity which ecclesiastics would not have committed had they not been restrained by the civil power. The Confession of Faith acknowledged the necessity of this curb, for while it declared that the government of the Church lay with the Church's own officers, it also declared that the civil magistrate “had authority, and it was his duty, to take order that unity and peace was preserved in the Church, that the truth of God was kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies were suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship or discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and reformed." It was true the Strathbogie presbyters had disobeyed the superior ecclesiastical judicatories, notwithstanding their vows of obedience. But when they made these vows, there was the tacit understanding that their obedience was to extend only to things which were lawful. It could not be maintained they were pledged to commit any crime their superiors might command. If they had disobeyed in things lawful, they deserved the censures of the Church. But when obedience would have been a crime; when they could not carry out the mandates of the Church Courts without violating the law of the land, and even the law 1 This ground was taken by Dr Candlish.

of the Church itself, disobedience became an imperative duty. To claim for the ministers of the Church the right of disobeying and trampling upon the law at their pleasure, was as audacious as the highest pretensions ever made by any of the popes who had sat in the chair of Hildebrand.

These opposing opinions were urged on the one side by Dr Chalmers, Mr Cunningham, Mr Dunlop, and Mr Candlish; and on the other side by Dr Cook, Dr Bryce, Mr Bisset of Bourtie, and Mr Robertson of Ellon. Dr Bryce and Mr Bisset gave weight to their arguments by declaring that if the Assembly deposed the accused ministers, they would not recognise the sentence, but hold communion with them in word and sacraments as before.1 But the Church had now gone too far to be able to retrace her steps, and the seven ministers were deposed-not as in the olden time with book, bell, and candle, but after prayer to the good God, and in a House heated with excitement. It was the grey dawn of morning before the Assembly adjourned. The Non-intrusion ministers as they sought their lodgings in the chill morning air, must have felt that they had now crossed the Rubicon, and cut down their bridges behind them, and that retreat was impossible.

Next day Mr Edwards, the presentee, was stripped of his license; and the Assembly refused to receive a Protest against the deposition of the seven ministers which had been tendered by Dr Cook and many of his party. In this protest it was declared that the subscribers believed that the Strathbogie ministers had done nothing but their duty, and that they would not cease to regard them as being still ministers of the Church. On the following day, an interdict and suspension of sentence granted by the Court of Session was served upon the Assembly. In the hubbub which was created by the presence of the officers of the law at the door, the Lord High Commissioner, who happened to be absent, was sent for, in the vain hope that the presence of viceroyalty might screen the Assembly from what was thought to be an insult to its spiritual independence. It was an attempt to bring civil power against civil power into a Church Court when it could be of use. But his Grace only said with dexterous ambiguity, "that in the exercise of his duty he trusted he would not be found wanting, whether that duty called upon him to uphold the rights of the Assembly, or to support and maintain the authority and pre

1 Bryce's Ten Years of the Church, vol. ii. p. 132.