the people" but did not explain how, or to what effect. CHAP. VIII. first sanctioned the granting to him a license to preach the 1839. gospel." Having passed safely through the first ordeal, they were to record the fact in their minutes,—and then to submit him in some way or other, which Dr. Muir did not attempt to explain, to a second ordeal, by which his suitableness for the particular congregation should be tested. "The mind of Under this second ordeal, the "mind of the people" was to to be taken be one of the "circumstances and considerations for ascerinto account, taining his suitableness," which ought to become the subject "of investigation and judgment to presbyteries" in accepting or rejecting the presentee. It would not have been easy to contrive a scheme fitted to run more directly than this of Dr. Muir in the teeth of those views of the law which had been laid down in the house of lords in deciding the Auchterarder case. Let the presentee only have the presbytery's attestation that all was right with him in regard to "qualifications theological, moral, and literary," and anything beyond this would prove but a cobweb in the way of hindering his ordination and induction. The presbytery, by this process, would merely have furnished him with the staff to break their own heads, in the event of their presuming to throw their second ordeal across his path. The first had given him, by an express and recorded judgment of the presbytery, all which Lords Cottenham and Brougham held to be necessary for the completion of his title both to orders and admission. The attempt to interpose a second would be much at va- as great an illegality as the act of 1834,-and one still the Auchter- more offensive to the civil law, as having been framed at the The whole scheme as riance with arder deci sion as the very moment when the judgment of the civil courts forbid Veto-law itself. ding it, had just been pronounced. There were, however, many other objections to the scheme of Dr. Muir: and these were stated and urged with singular felicity and force, by one who was destined from that day forward to exert perhaps a greater influence than any other (now Dr. Muir an His swered by the Rev. R. S. Candlish. talents in debate, and agement of then un in the man 1839. single individual in the church, upon the conduct and issues CHAP. VIIL of this eventful controversy. The reputation of Mr. Dr.) Candlish as a preacher was already well known. extraordinary talents in debate, and his rare capacity for business, not hitherto having found any adequate occasion to call them forth, were as yet undiscovered by the public, His great -probably undiscovered even by himself. They seemed, however, to have needed no process of training to bring them to maturity. The very first effort found him abreast of the most practised and powerful orators, and as much at home in the management of affairs as those who had made this the study of their life. There was a glorious battle to fight, and a great work to do, on the arena of the church of Scotland, -and in him, as well as in others evidently raised up for the emergency, the Lord had His fitting instruments prepared. affairs till known. Dr. Muir had thrown his motion into the form of a series of resolutions. "First of all," said Mr. Candlish, after a Speech of Mr. Candlish. brief exordium, "I find expressions introduced into these resolutions which, unless carefully explained and strictly guarded, would go far to lay the authority of the church prostrate at the feet of the civil power, not only in questions relating to the admission of ministers, but in other questions also, affecting the most sacred spiritual functions which the church can be called to exercise." In his second resolution Dr. Muir had laid it down, "that in passing this act (that of 1834) of her own will, and carrying it into effect, the church was influenced by the belief that this act, being not only in its nature, but also in its consequences, strictly and purely spiritual, there was no necessity to obtain previously the concurrence of the legislature to it." As Dr. Candlish justly remarked, this statement was really not true. In passing the act of 1834, the assembly knew well enough, and could not but know, that "in its consequences" it was not "strictly and purely spiritual." They knew that if the Points ont both in fat ple, contain Muir's the errois, and princi ed in Dr. second re solution CHAP. VIII. law took effect in the ordinary way, one of its consequences 1839. must be to exclude the presentee from the benefice. Why, indeed, did the church follow Mr. Young and Lord Kinnoull into the civil court at all, but just because "consequences" were connected with the act 1834 that were not spiritual but civil, and on which, accordingly, the civil court alone was competent to adjudicate? But, furthermore, this statement of the resolution, so incorrect in point of fact, was as unsound in point of principle. If it had any meaning at all it could be only this, that it was ultra vires of the church to pass any act, however purely and strictly spiritual in its own nature, if only it could be shown to carry, no matter how indirectly and remotely, some civil consequences in its train. It was to this Mr. Candlish alluded, as a principle that would place the church, even in her most spiritual functions, under the entire and absolute control of the courts of law. In a word, it was precisely Dr. Cook's erastian principle somewhat less broadly announced; and their essential identity was sufficiently brought out at the division, when at the final vote, Dr. Cook's motion had the support of Dr. Muir. The point, however, in Dr. Muir's resolutions which most resolutions needed animadversion was of a different kind. There was a great deal in them about "the judicial character and privileges of the ecclesiastical courts," but nothing whatever about the privileges of congregations. The only kind of intrusion to which Dr. Muir seemed to be opposed was intrusion against, not the will of the people, but the will of the presbytery. "I have looked," said Mr. Candlish, "and I do not find, from the beginning to the end of his tions pleaded resolutions, one single word recognizing the privileges of the rogatives of christian people. The reverend doctor has pleaded for the power of the church, in its courts, composed of its rulers disregarded and office-bearers, but without securing and carrying out The point in Dr. Muir's which most required animadversion. The resolu for the pre the Church Courts, but studiously those of the people. along with that power the rights of the christian people. * * * 1839. And this, to my mind, is substantial popery. It is a posi- CHAP. VIII. tion which must go far to establish a system of spiritual despotism. In truth, it is only when the rights of the people in the church of Christ are secured that the power of the ruling courts can be safely pleaded; and it is then also that that power can be pleaded to its highest point. If the people are once effectually secured in their rights, I hold that their rulers in the church may exercise a far more energetic superintendence, and a more discretionary jurisdiction than now they do; and may interfere with far more authority, in regulating and moderating the proceedings which take place throughout the whole matter of the settlement of ministers. If we recognize their privileges, we may require and expect them to recognize our prerogatives. For it is undoubtedly the right and duty of the rulers of the Mr. Candlish church, to moderate and control, with a high scriptural it is only authority, the movements of all the other parties who act to- people have gether in this matter. But when we assert the power of secured, the church in its ruling courts, while the rights of the christian people are sunk and merged, we are asserting a power altogether unchecked and arbitrary, to which surely the Lord never intended that those whom He has made free should be subjected." After expressing his satisfaction, that the form which the question had now assumed was that of a life and death struggle for the principle of non-intrusion; this, said he, "is the plain and palpable alternative" we have to put before our people:-"Will you have us to submit without a struggle and without an effort, to a system of patronage the most arbitrary and unrestricted, to a system of patronage which, but for the milder temper of the days in which we live, might bring back those melancholy times when not ministers in their robes, but bands of armed men, introduced the pastor to his people? Will you submit, or will you shows that when the their rights that authori ty can safely be vested in the Church Courts. The appeal to the members Church in be made to of the the present crisis. CRAP. VIII. have us to submit to that iron yoke which your fathers were 183% unable to bear, or will you give us your sympathies and your prayers while we stand up for the rightful power of the church of Christ, and assert at once and together our prerogatives as the rulers and your liberties as the people; while we go respectfully, but manfully to the other party, in the contract by which we are established, to the state,— to the authorities of the nation,-testifying to them what is their duty, and soliciting them to the performance of it? I have no doubt whatever, that when the question is thus put, it will be fully, and cordially, and unanimously answered round the throughout all our parishes. But if the trumpet give an such a cause. uncertain sound,-if we merely assert the rights of the rulers in the church, while we sacrifice or hold in abeyance the people's liberties, it will be no wonder if we have not,— we shall not deserve to have with us the heart or the prayers of one single man who is worthy of the name of Scotsman.' ITis confi dence that the people will rally Church in who took part in the debate. As the debate proceeded, the chief speakers in support of Dr. Cook's motion were, Mr. Whigham, advocate, and the Rev. Dr. Bryce, formerly of Calcutta; in support of the motion of Dr. Chalmers, and in addition to Mr. Candlish, The speakers Mr. Earle Monteith, advocate, and the Rev. Dr. Burns of Paisley; and in support of the motion of Dr. Muir, Sir Charles Fergusson, Bart. of Kilkerran, and the Rev. Adam Tait of Kirkliston. Mr. Whigham argued, or rather asserted, that the motion of Dr. Chalmers, if carried, would amount to a violation of the law. Dr. Bryce maintained that the simple fact of having appealed the Auchterarder case bound the assembly, as matter of course, to give up the veto-law at once, since the decision had gone against it; and said Dr. Bryce that when he saw his opponents hesitating to do this, "he impugns the honesty of felt inclined to doubt whether he was speaking to honest men and clergymen." This indiscretion brought the speech of the reverend gentleman, then in its opening paragraph, his oppon ents and breaks down. |