in the introduction of the inventions of men into the worship of God; and he has already become familiar with the dangerous and delusive process of explaining away or evading the testimony of Scripture on all subjects on which its decisions are not direct, formal, and explicit. In these circumstances, we see little or nothing to protect his Grace from the influence of those outward and inferior considerations which have led so many of the Scottish nobility to adhere to the English Establishment. He seems at present to be much in the same undecided and perilous position which his illustrious ancestor occupied during the earlier sittings of the Glasgow Assembly of 1638; but we scarcely venture to expect in this case an equally noble and magnanimous decision. And yet we would very willingly cherish the hope that one who is the descendant and representative of the illustrious men that did and suffered so much for the cause of civil and religious liberty in Scotland, and contended so nobly for those great principles, the maintenance of which forms the distinguishing glory of Scottish Presbyterians, and who himself possesses no ordinary personal claims to the admiration and respect of his countrymen, may yet attain to more clear and scriptural views of the relations and duties of churches and nations, and be honoured to contribute largely by his talents and influence to diffuse these views in the community, and to promote their practical application. May the Lord give him understanding in all things!

His Grace seems to have adopted to a large extent the views of Dr Arnold in regard to the church and its relation to the civil power, though we doubt much whether he fully understands them, and are pretty sure that he is not yet prepared to follow them out fully to their legitimate consequences. Dr Arnold's favourite principle upon this point was the identification of the Church and the Christian State, or, in other words, a virtual denial that the church is, by its institution, and according to Christ's appointment, a distinct and independent society, with a fixed and unchangeable constitution and government, and with settled laws for the regulation of its affairs. This is the notion which was devised by Hooker, and expounded by him in the Eighth Book of the Ecclesiastical Polity, for the purpose of sanctioning authoritative interference on the part of the State in the government of the Church, and warranting the civil power to regulate and control ecclesiastical matters, just as it does military or financial matters, or any other

department of the ordinary national business. We do not suppose that the ingenious and benevolent mind of Dr Arnold was influenced by any such motive or object in advocating that notion; but it fairly admits of being applied, and will, of course, be generally applied by politicians, to sanction a system of low and degrading Erastianism. The notion is so palpably inconsistent with the plainest scriptural principles, that, notwithstanding the high authority of the "venerable" Hooker, it has never found much countenance among the clerical defenders of the Erastianism of the Church of England, who have preferred to try other shifts and expedients, in order to palliate their position, but has been taken up chiefly by worldly politicians.

The only plausibility of the notion is derived from imagining what might, and probably would, be the state of matters if true Christianity pervaded the whole community, and affected the proceedings of the civil rulers and the general regulation of national affairs; and the essential fallacy of it lies in this, that it implies a total disregard and a virtual denial of all that the Scripture teaches us concerning the church of Christ, its fixed and unalterable relation to Him and to His word, and the perpetuity and unchangeableness of its constitution, government, and laws. Dr Arnold defines the church to be an association for the moral reformation of the community; and this might, without impropriety, enter as one feature into a detailed description that might be given of the church, but it is not the definition of it furnished by Scripture. It omits everything essential and fundamental which Scripture teaches concerning the church. It leaves out all the leading ideas which Scripture requires us to introduce into our conception and definition of the visible church catholic, and all the main principles which it obliges every particular society calling itself a church of Christ, to act upon, in the discharge of its duties and in the regulation of its conduct. Of course, it is evident that we ought to regulate our definition of the church, and our views of its nature, constitution, government, functions, and objects, by the statements of the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever, and not by our own imaginings of what is possible or probable, nor even by any actual realities in the state of society that might be presented before us. Even if Dr Arnold's idea of a Christian community and a Christian State were to be fully realized in fact, this should not in the least affect the scrip

tural doctrine concerning the church and its constitution and government; and it would afford no warrant whatever to civil rulers, as such, to interfere authoritatively in the regulation of ecclesiastical affairs.

There seems to be a strong desire in the present day on the part of politicians to acquire for the civil power a larger measure of control over churches,-not only over those which are estabblished, but over those also which are unconnected with the State, -in order to employ ecclesiastical influence for political purposes. And it is melancholy that such men as Dr Arnold, the Duke of Argyll, and in some degree also the Chevalier Bunsen, should have propounded views which are fitted to encourage them in the prosecution of this object, by encouraging churches to accept of, and submit to, their interference and control. The general current of opinion, however, among thinking and earnest men of all denominations, is happily running in the opposite direction. There is now, perhaps, more generally diffused in society than ever before, an intelligent appreciation of the true character of the church of Christ as a distinct independent society; and of the obligation that attaches to every society calling itself a church of Christ, to maintain its true position and character as such, to the exclusion of all civil control over its affairs, and with the forfeiture, when necessary for this end (as it certainly is in the case of all existing ecclesiastical Establishments), of civil advantages and emoluments. The disruption of the Established Church of Scotland, with the prominence thereby given to the principles of Scottish Presbyterians, may be fairly regarded as one of the influences which have contributed to produce this desirable result; and we trust that this and other concordant influences will continue to operate with increasing power, until all the churches of Christ are wholly emancipated from civil control, and are walking "in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made them free."

T

CHAPTER XI.

THE RIGHTS OF THE CHRISTIAN PEOPLE.*

Sec. I.-The Consent of the Congregation.

WHAT has been called the "Veto Act," became a standing law of the Church of Scotland in 1835, and was designed to carry into effect the principle of Non-Intrusion in the Settlement of Ministers in vacant Congregations. It is in the following terms: "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 aforesaid, who shall refuse, if required, solemnly to declare, in presence of

*From the second edition of a pamphlet entitled, "Defence of the Rights of the Christian People in the Appointment of Ministers." 1841. This pamphlet was written in reply to "Observations on the Veto Act, by

the Rev. James Robertson," then minister of Ellon, and afterwards the Rev. Dr Robertson, Professor of Divinity and Church History in the University of Edinburgh. (Edrs.)

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."

The Act sets out with declaring, "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," it proceeds to declare, enact, and ordain, etc. 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 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 Act itself, 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 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 considerable diversity in the details of the arrangements for effecting the object. More or less latitude, for example, might be given to the church courts, as to dealing with the people before pronouncing a final sentence of rejection, while yet the fundamental principle remained unaffected. Whether the presbytery should have any dealings with the people as to the grounds of their dissent, and if so, in what way these dealings should be conducted, are questions on which there is room for a difference of opinion among honest non-intrusionists; because in whatever way these points may be settled, the fundamental principle, that no man be intruded contrary to the will of the congregation, may be honestly acted on.