CHAP. V. by the virtues of our well-conditioned peasantry. In the 1833. olden time of presbytery-that time of scriptural christianity in our pulpits, and of psalmody in all our cottages-these men grew and multiplied in the land: and though derided in the heartless literature, and discountenanced or disowned in the heartless politics, of other days, it is their remnant which acts as a preserving salt among our people, and which constitutes the real strength and glory of the Scottish nation." The motion Takes the form of a declaratory law. The motion with which Dr. Chalmers concluded was in the following terms:-"That the general assembly, having maturely weighed and considered the various overtures now before them, do find and declare, that it is, and has been ever since the reformation, a fixed principle in the law of this church, that no minister shall be intruded into any pastoral charge contrary to the will of the congregation: and considering that doubts and misapprehensions have existed on this important subject, whereby the just and salutary operation of the said principle has been impeded, and in many cases defeated, the general assembly further declare it to be their opinion, that the dissent of a majority of the male heads of families, resident within the parish, being members of the congregation and in communion with the church, at least two years previous to the day of moderation (of the call), whether such dissent shall be expressed with or without the assignment of reasons, ought to be of conclusive effect in setting aside the presentee (under the patron's nomination), save and except where it is clearly established by the patron, presentee, or any of the minority, that the said dissent is founded in corrupt and malicious combination, or not truly founded on any objection personal to the presentee in regard to his ministerial gifts and qualifications, cither in general or with reference to that particular parish: and in order that this declaration may be carried into full 1833. effect, that a committee shall be appointed to prepare the CHAP. V. best measure for carrying it into effect, and to report to the next general assembly." wonder that to such a law, Such was the measure, to destroy which it was not thought too great a sacrifice to rend church and state asunder. Posterity will probably wonder that so great a Posterity will price should have been paid to achieve so questionable a triumph: and failing to find in the measure itself anything to justify the reckless opposition which at length succeeded in burying it beneath the ruins of the church's spiritual freedom, will be tempted to exclaim, Tantaene animis cœlestibus irae! defeat Church and Scotland been rent State in should have asunder. Rev. Dr. Cook. The Rev. Dr. George Cook, professor of moral philosophy in the university of St. Andrews, the able and dexterous leader of the moderate party in the general assembly, rose to reply. The point, and the only one in reference to which he objected to the motion of Dr. Chalmers, was the giving effect to the dissent of the congregation without the assig nation of reasons. He admitted that patronage in Scot- Speech of the land had never been an unconditional right,—that it could be exercised only in favour of a particular description of persons; and that it had always belonged to the church to determine whether the election by the patron had been properly made." He admitted, moreover, "that the power of church courts in this matter had been for many years practically narrowed, and that it came to be held that, in general, when there was no deficiency of literature, or conduct, or doctrine, a presentee was entitled to be admitted, whatever other objections might have been made to him." "But," continued Dr. Cook, "there was no rescinding of the ancient law upon the subject-that remained as it had ever been; and to it, it was quite competent for the general assembly to return, for regulating the conduct of presbyteries Admits that rate party ed the power the mode had narrow of the Church courts. CHAP. V. as to the presentation and induction of ministers." His 1833. view of what that unrescinded law sanctioned and required was this-that the presbytery should "afford to the heads of families in a vacant parish an opportunity of stating against the whatever objections to the presentee they might think it The right of the people to state objections of "whatever nature," presentee. proper to urge. These, with the reasons on which they were founded, the presbytery, in the exercise of its legitimate power, would consider; and its sentence with regard to them, if no appeal be taken (that is, to a higher church court), would become final." Let the reader, in connection with these important admissions, mark the statement with which they were wound up. "In this way," said Dr. Cook that is, by recurring to and enforcing, as he had recommended and explained, the unrescinded law-"the people would acquire all the check upon the settlement of a minister which, even during the abolition of patronage, existing they ever possessed,-and they would do so from the "during the operation of what had always been the law of the church." patronage." In other words, Dr. Cook's statement involved precisely the Dr. Cook as sumes that the people had the same place and power under law-as abolition of same conclusion which has been contended for in the earlier part of this work,—that the restoration of patronage by the act of Queen Anne had not taken away, or even touched, either the sole and final jurisdiction of the church courts in the examination and admission of ministers on the one hand, or the right to approve or disapprove which belonged to the congregation on the other, such as that right had existed under the act 1690 and under the act 1649. This brings the single point in dispute between Dr. Cook and Dr. Chalmers within very narrow limits. Obviously, if it can be made out that, in the principle of the veto law, there a single was nothing substantially at variance with the "check " that related upon the settlement of a minister which the people possessed Difference between Dr. Chalmers and Dr. Cook reduced to point, and to a question 66 of fact. 'during the abolition of patronage," Dr. Cook's reasoning is at an end. 1833. Lord Mon "But let me now," said Lord Moncrieff, speaking in the CHAP. V. course of the debate on this very point, "request attention Speech of to the act of assembly, 1649, which is on all bands admitted crieff. to be a part of the law of the church in that part of it which is here material. So far as it placed the right of nomination in the kirk session, it is of course superseded by the acts restoring patronage,-by the act 1690, and by the act of Queen Anne. But in the other parts of it, it is admitted to be still of authority. It directs, that after the session on intimation by commissioners of the presbytery have agreed to the person to be proposed to the people, and this is intimated, if the people acquiesce and consent to the said person, then the matter being reported to the presbytery,' &c., they shall proceed to the trials of the presentee, and if he be found qualified, admit him to the ministry. Then it proceeds: But if it happens that the major part of the congregation dissent from the person agreed upon by the session, in that case the matter shall be brought into the presbytery, who shall judge of the same, and if they do not find their dissent to be grounded on causeless prejudices, they are to appoint a new election in manner above specified.' The full force of this enactment," continued Lord Moncrieff, "cannot be estimated without taking along with it the clause which follows as to a different case, and attending to the contrast between them; for the act goes on:-' But if a lesser part of the session or congregation show their dissent from the election without exceptions RELEVANT and VERIFIED to the presbytery, notwithstanding thereof the presbytery shall go on to the trial and ordination of the person elected.' Compare," said his lordship, "these two provisions together, His lordship's and see whether there be any doubt, that the first supposed that the dissent of the major part of the congregation was to be alone conclusive, without the statement or verification of special reasons of objection, unless it were proved to exposition of the Act 1649, --as afford ing a clear precedent for the veto. CHAP. V. proceed on causeless prejudice: while in the second, a 1833. minority dissenting were required to state and to verify relevant objections, objections that is to the life, or doctrine, or specifically to the personal qualifications of the presentee. The contrast is too pointed not to have been made by design: and it is to me evident that there would have been no sense in the separation of the two cases, if it had not been intended to make a distinction between them, precisely in the point of requiring reasons to be stated in the case of the minority; but holding the dissent of the majority to be conclusive, unless a case of causeless prejudice were proved against them. It has been said that the act bears that the matter is to be taken to the presbytery, who are to judge of the same, and that this must mean that they are to judge of the reasons to be assigned. This could not be the meaning, otherwise the distinction would have been unnecessary. But it is plain that the matter' here mentioned, means the fact of the dissent of the majority-in the same manner as the matter' is to be taken to the presbytery by the previous clause, where the people acquiesce in the election of the presentee. But why make so pointed a change of expression if nothing more was meant in the one than in the other? In both cases, the subject was to go to the presbytery: and the only difference is that in the case of the majority dissenting, the election was to be set aside, unless causeless prejudice were proved, and in the other it was to be sustained unless objections relevant and verified were laid before the presbytery. I therefore think that the first motion on the table is essentially the same in principle with the act 1649." The Justice Clerk Boyle's speech: his lordship's view of the Act 1619. The lord justice clerk (Boyle), who followed Lord Moncrieff in the debate, "took his stand on the law of the church, and even as it was contained in the act 1649." He dissented indeed from the interpretation of that act which |