DEFENCE OF THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE IN THE APPOINTMENT OF MINISTERS, FROM THE CONSTITUTIONAL STANDARDS AND HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND; WITH CONTINUATION OF STRICTURES ON MR ROBERTSON'S 'BY WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, MINISTER OF TRINITY COLLEGE PARISH. Second Edition. EDINBURGH: JOHN JOHNSTONE, HUNTER SQUARE MDCCCXLI. [Price 2s.] Lately Published, demy 8vo., price 6d., By the same Author, STRICTURES ON THE REV. JAMES ROBERTSON'S (MINISTER OF ELLON) OBSERVATIONS UPON THE VETO ACT. LEGAL AND SCRIPTURAL BRANCHES OF THE ARGUMENT. Printed by JOHN JOHNSTONE, High Street, Edinburgh. PREFACE. MR ROBERTSON'S "Observations on the Veto Act" was published in March last. In April I published "Strictures" on that work-" Part I. Legal and Scriptural branches of the argument." In that pamphlet I attempted to prove that Mr Robertson's elaborate discussion of the merely legal branch of the argument was, in a great measure, irrelevant to the present state of this controversy,-that Mr Robertson has entirely evaded the consideration of all those leading grounds of principle on which the recent proceedings of the Church have been defended, and by an examination of which alone he could reasonably expect to influence the understandings and conduct of his brethren, —that he holds Erastian principles, and, at the same time, appears to be ignorant of the Erastian controversy,—that the onus probandi, in discussing the propriety of the Veto Act, lies upon our opponents, and that they are bound to declare openly, and to prove from Scripture, that the Church Courts have a right to intrude ministers upon reclaiming congregations, and that the consent of both parties is not necessary to the formation of the pastoral relation,—and that all the objections brought forward against the principle of the Veto Act by Mr Robertson, as well as by Dr Muir and Mr Tait, are groundless. I stated that the only part of Mr Robertson's "Observations" that needed or deserved a formal answer, was that in which he had attempted to prove "that the principles of the Veto Act are nowhere recognised in the acknowledged laws and constitutions of the Church," —and I promised to prove, in answer to this part of his pamphlet, "that he has produced no sufficient warrant for so great a deviation from the natural and obvious meaning of the declarations contained in the laws and constitutions of the Church, as to make them consistent with the lawfulness of intrusion,-that, from defective information, he has mistaken and misrepresented the views held by our Church in former days,—and that most of his references to foreign authorities, being obviously taken up at second-hand, are characterised by blundering and irrelevancy." On the 23d of May I published a Letter in the "Witness" Newspaper, expressing regret that other avocations had prevented me from fulfilling this promise before the meeting of the Assembly, giving a brief summary or outline of what I intended to attempt to establish, and adverting to some of the leading defects in the evidence which Mr Robertson had adduced. Before this letter was published, I had collected all the materials, in the way of authorities, which have been employed in the following pamphlet, except what have been derived from a fuller examination of the canon law. But various causes have prevented me from preparing them for the press till the present time. As I have been led to enter pretty fully into the consideration of several points not discussed by Mr Robertson, and to explain the views held by our Church at different periods, not merely in regard to intrusion, but generally in regard to the rights of the people in the appointment of ministers, I have thought proper to give this pamphlet a more general title, although, in the earlier part of it, it bears plain traces of having been originally intended merely as an answer to Mr Robertson. In the letter published in the "Witness," I showed that Mr Robertson had taken his quotations from Calvin and Beza, from the Report of Lord Medwyn's Speech in the Auchterarder Case, and stated, in proof of this, that "he had copied even Lord Medwyn's blunders,” referring, in illustration, to his having followed his Lordship in substituting octodecim for octiduum, in a quotation from Beza. In a few days after, Lord Medwyn published a letter in the "Witness,” complaining that I had spoken of his "blunders," when I had specified only one, and that a very insignificant error of the press. The truth is, that I was scarcely thinking of Lord Medwyn at the time. Had I been examining his Lordship's speech, I would not have adverted to so insignificant a mistake, not affecting the sense, but have assumed that it was an error of the press. It was, however, important for the only purpose I had in view, viz., proving that Mr Robertson had copied from Lord Medwyn without consulting the original; and if I had recollected at the time that Mr Robertson had expressly acknowledged in his Preface that he had taken his quotations from Beza from the Report of Lord Medwyn's Speech, I would not have produced it even for that purpose, as it would have been needless to prove what he had himself confessed. It is proper, however, to assure Lord Medwyn, that there are not a few blunders in his speech of much more importance than this,—that some of them are pointed out in the following pamphlet,—and that several others were noticed in a very masterly article on the Auchterarder Case, in the Presbyterian Review for April 1838. Did Lord Medwyn take his quotation from Calvin (p. 158) from the original, the source from which he gives us to understand he got his quotation from Beza? There are three blunders in it, two of occurred in the transcription or in the them likely enough to have printing, but the third (the substitution of "promulgare" for "indicare") not so likely to have been produced in that way. Mr Robertson, of course, exhibits the quotation from Calvin with Lord Medwyn's three blunders, to identify it. It is but fair, however, to state, that Lord Medwyn appears to have taken great pains to acquire information, and that his speech is highly creditable to his diligence and research. Mr Robertson did not take due pains to get adequate information, and I have therefore had no scruple about freely exposing his blunders. The letter in the "Witness" indicated to Mr Robertson the chief points on which I meant to assail him, and he has thus had ample time to prepare for his defence. I subjoin a copy of what is commonly called the Veto Act, transmitted as an overture to Presbyteries, by the Assembly of 1834, and converted by the Assembly of 1835, with the consent of a majority of Presbyteries, into a standing law of the Church: "Edinburgh, May 29, 1835.-The General Assembly declare, that it is a fundamental Law of this Church, that no Pastor shall be intruded on any Congregation contrary to the will of the people; and, in order that this principle may be carried into full effect, the General Assembly, with the consent of a majority of the Presbyteries of this Church, do declare, enact, and ordain, That it shall be an instruction to Presbyteries, that if, at the moderating in a Call to a vacant pastoral charge, the major part of the male heads of families, members of the vacant congregation, and in full communion with the Church, shall disapprove of the person in whose favour the Call is proposed to be moderated in, such disapproval shall be deemed sufficient ground for the Presbytery rejecting such person, and that he shall be rejected accordingly, and due notice thereof forthwith given to all concerned ; but that, if the major part of the said heads of families shall not disapprove of such person to be their pastor, the Presbytery shall proceed with the settlement according to the rules of the Church: And farther declare, that no person shall be held to be entitled to disapprove as |