Page images
PDF
EPUB

aforesaid, who shall refuse, if required, solemnly to declare, in presence of the Presbytery, that he is actuated by no factious or malicious motive, but solely by a conscientious regard to the spiritual interests of himself or the congregation."

EDINBURGH, November 26, 1840.

CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.

State of the Question--Exact import of the Principle of Non-IntrusionOur opponents Intrusionists-Cautions as to the mode of using and applying Quotations-All who hold the right of the People to choose their Ministers, must in consistency be Non-Intrusionists-Weight due to decisions of Church Courts in particular cases as evidence of the deliberate judgment of the Church-Cases adduced by Mr Robertson irrelevant and unsatisfactory,

CHAPTER II.

Practice of the Primitive Church-Doctrine of the Canon Law-Misstatements of Lord Corehouse and Lord Brougham-Böehmer-Continental Churches-Doctrine of the Reformers-Principles of our opponents

Popish,

Page.

21

CHAPTER III.

First Book of Discipline-Second Book of Discipline does not differ very materially from the First in regard to the Appointment of Ministers -Second Book clear and explicit in favour of the principle of the Veto Act-Impossibility of fairly explaining its statements in any other sense-Instructions to the Visitors in 1576,

CHAPTER IV.

Examination of the alleged Testimony of Andrew Melville-The Synod of Fife and the General Assembly in 1597—Views of Calvin and Beza-They maintained the Scriptural Right of the People to choose their own Ministers and the necessity of their Consent-They have said nothing which countenances Intrusion,

CHAPTER V.

32

52

Period of the Second Reformation--Assembly of 1638-Henderson's Treatise-Acts of Parliament in 1640 and 1641-Proceedings of Assemblies of 1641 and 1642-Westminster Directory and Act of Assembly of 1645-Views of Scottish Commissioners in Westminster Assembly, 72

ance between the views of the Church at that time, and those of the Anti-Patronage Men of the present day,

CHAPTER VII.

Views of the Presbyterians during the Period of the Persecution-Revo-
lution Settlement-Act of 1690-Practice of the Church under that
Act-Church at that time decidedly favourable to Popular Election
-Statement of Sir Henry Moncrieff-Subsequent History of the
Church-Character and Progress of Moderation-Present Duty of the

Church,

86

110

DEFENCE, &c.

CHAPTER I.

STATE OF THE QUESTION

[ocr errors]

EXACT IMPORT OF THE PRINCIPLE OF NONINTRUSION-OUR OPPONENTS INTRUSIONISTS-CAUTIONS AS TO THE MODE OF USING AND APPLYING QUOTATIONS-ALL WHO HOLD THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO CHOOSE THEIR MINISTERS, MUST IN CONSISTENCY BE NON-INTRUSIONISTS-WEIGHT DUE TO DECISIONS OF CHURCH COURTS IN PARTICULAR CASES AS EVIDENCE OF THE DELIBERATE JUDGMENT OF THE CHURCH-CASES ADDUCED BY MR ROBERTSON IRRELEVANT AND

UNSATISFACTORY.

CONSIDERABLY more than the third part of Mr Robertson's "Observa- . tions" is occupied with an attempt to prove that "the principles of the Veto Act are nowhere recognised in the acknowledged laws and constitutions of the Church." His discussion of this subject occupies three sections, the third, sixth, and seventh of his first chapter, corresponding to the three principal eras in the history of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. The first of these sections is chiefly occupied with an examination of the doctrine of the Books of Discipline; the first, prepared by John Knox and the other leading reformers in 1560, the year in which Popery was legally abolished in Scotland; and the second, adopted by the General Assembly in 1578, and established by ecclesiastical authority in 1581, at a time when Andrew Melville, or, as Palmer, one of the leading Puseyites, calls him, "a misguided man of the name of Melville," was the most influential man in the Church. His sixth section contains a discussion of the views entertained and promulgated by the Church of Scotland during the period immediately succeeding what is commonly called the Second Reformation, that is, from 1638 till 1660. His seventh section is occupied with an investigation of the views entertained, and the practice followed, by the Presbyterian Church after the glorious Revolution in 1688.

Before proceeding to examine what Mr Robertson has brought forward under these different heads, we must make a few observations on the state of the question, and on the general nature and bearing of the evidence that may be adduced to decide it. We have no objection to Mr Robertson's general account of the state of the question, viz., whether "the principles of the Veto Act are any where recognised in the acknowledged laws and constitutions of the Church;" but, as we are convinced that some of his proofs are just specimens of the sophism called

B

by logicians ignoratio elenchi, or a mistake as to the precise import of the point to be proved, we think it right to explain, somewhat in detail, what the principles of the Veto Act are; and this is the more necessary, because of the unfair use that has been made by some of our opponents, of a statement which has been occasionally put forth, viz., that we are not pledged to adhere implicitly to the Veto Act, but only to the principle of non-intrusion embodied in it. Our opponents have sometimes affected to regard this statement as an entire abandonment of the Veto Act, as breaking down the difference between us and them, since they, too, profess to support the principle of non-intrusion; and when they see that, notwithstanding this declaration, we have hitherto refused to repeal the Veto Act, and still disclaim any intention of doing so, they have been disposed to allege, either that we do not mean any thing by the statement referred to, or that we do not honestly act upon it. Now the truth upon the point is this: The great body of the majority of the Church have no positive objection to the Veto Act, except, perhaps, that it restricts the right of dissenting to male heads of families, instead of extending it to all male communicants. Of course anti-patronage men think it defective, as not going far enough, but this is not an objection that either does or should prevent them from supporting it. We are satisfied with the Veto Act as a settlement of the question of non-intrusion, and earnestly wish the Legislature to enact, that when, henceforth, the Church Courts enforce that law, their sentence of rejection, founded on the dissent of the people, shall be valid and conclusive as to all civil consequences. But still we can distinguish between the Veto Act and the principle of non-intrusion, while, at the same time, we can point out a clear and broad line of demarcation between non-intrusion, understood in a fair and honest sense, and the non-intrusion, falsely so called, of our opponents.

The Veto Act sets out with declaring, "That it is a fundamental law of this Church, that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation contray to the will of the people," and, "in order that this principle may be carried into full effect," it proceeds to declare, enact, and ordain, &c. Now there is here in the act itself a manifest distinction made between the fundamental principle and the practical provision for carrying it into effect. The framers of the Veto Act, in professing to carry this fundamental principle into effect, might have erred in the provision they made for that purpose, by omitting to provide for something fairly involved in the principle, or by so fencing and limiting it, as virtually to neutralize it. The Veto Act, however, is not liable to objection on this score, as it does fully provide for carrying into effect the principle, that no man be intruded contrary to the will of the congregation. But it is quite plain that changes might be introduced into its provisions, which some might think improvements and others the reverse, and which might not affect its fitness to carry into effect the fundamental principle on which it is based. All that the fundamental principle which the Veto Act sets out with declaring necessarily implies, is, that the deliberate dissent of the congregation shall be a conclusive obstacle to the settlement of the presentee, so that no congregation shall ever have good ground for complaining that a minister was set over them, to whose settlement they were decidedly opposed. This principle might be effectually provided for and faithfully acted upon in different churches, while there might be consi

« EelmineJätka »