Doctrine of Divine Origin of Presbytery. -of Divine Origin of Independent Jurisdiction of Established Church in all Ecclesiastical matters. Examples-Opinions of Mr. Candlish. Origin of doctrines of Divine Right of Christian people. Dangerous consequences of such doctrines: -productive of the greatest intolerance. Avowed object to bring back the Presbyterian Church to the powers exercised by it in 1638. Prelacy of Church of England attacked by the members of the Committee as against the Word of God, and hurtful to vital godliness. Independence of Established Church in questions with civil tribunals asserted. Patronage declared to be against the spiritual kingdom of our Sa viour. Illustrations of these opinions given. Series of Tracts published by members of the Committee and other clergymen. Claim of the Established Church to decide what falls within the scope of her Independent Jurisdiction. -principles on which this claim is supported. -Decision of House of Lords declared to be an invasion of spiritual power of the Church. Dangerous consequences of these Doctrines to Civil and Religious Liberty. Disposition to address the Doctrine of the Divine Rights of the people, particularly to the lower classes: -Appeals made to them to support the Church in its opposition to the Law. Narrative of Proceedings of the Church since 1832. Veto Law of 1834. Previous checks against abuse of Patronage. -most efficient. Admonition by General Assembly in 1835 against abuses of the Veto, both by Presbyteries and people. The Veto a novelty in the Church. -so considered by Lord Moncreiff in 1832. Dr. Chalmers's motion in 1833. -in principle directly at variance with the Veto allowed in 1834. -different views taken in these two years of the "fundamental law" of the Church as to non intrusion. -motion of 1833 contained most important limitations on proposed power of people to reject. Great importance of the restraints proposed by Dr. Chalmers in 1833. -utterly inconsistent with the Doctrine of a right to re ject. -importance of these restraints advocated and explained by Lord Moncreiff in Assembly in 1833. Veto introduced in 1834:-is absolute-proceeds on totally dif ferent principles from view taken in 1833: -admits a right to reject, the exercise of which the Church cannot review on any grounds. -is final and peremptory. -Jurisdiction of Church excluded. Speech of Dr. Chalmers in 1839. -directly opposed to his own motion in 1833. Resolution proposed by Dr. Cook in 1833. Acknowledgment by Dr. Chalmers that on the part of the Estab lished Church the Veto was incompe tent: -that it was carried through against his opinion and advice. Statement of the points tried and decided as to illegality and incompetency of Veto. Lethendy Case: -Injunctions of Supreme Court deliberately violated by the Presbytery and by Commission of General Assembly, on the ground of independent authority of Church placing it beyond the controul of the law. Motions in Assembly 1839. -of Dr. Cook. —of Dr. Chalmers. Remarks on latter. -obscurely worded. -enforces the Veto. —is in direct violation of the judgment of the House of Lords-in open defiance of law. -grounds on which motion is in its terms founded. Shew of submission in part to law in the motion, a very thin dis guise. -parts of the motion inconsistent with principle on which it proceeds. Consequences and evils directly produced by and contemplated in the motion. Expectation of Church to carry its objects by creating the evils of a separation of stipends from the pastoral office, or of parishes being vacant. Manner in which the Motion was followed up by the Church, by enforcing the Veto, and re-directing Presbyteries to allow it, exactly as if the judgment of the House of Lords had not beeen pronounced. Grounds on which opposition to law is advocated by members of the Committee. -exhibited in a series of non-intrusion Tracts issued since the Assembly, by Dr. Chalmers and others. -dangerous character of these opinions. Judgment of Court of Session (following up decision of House of Lords) that the Presbytery of Auchterarder is bound to take Presentee on trials, in order to ascertain whether he is qualified. Commission of General Assembly prohibit Presbytery of Auchterarder from acting on that Decree. -speech of Mr. Candlish in Commission. -view taken of the Divine Right of the Christian peo ple. This state of things produced by adherence to a course which Dr. Chalmers himself originally thought was incompetent. -remarks upon his speech. -his motion inconsistent with declarations in his Speech. Attempt on the part of the Church to stifle opposition by the threat of Church censures and deprivation against Licentiates who might try ques tions in a court of law. Resolution of General Assembly May 1838, 1st, As to Independent Authority and Jurisdiction of Church. 2d, Against all Members of the Church who may dispute the competency of proceedings in question. -pretensions asserted in this Motion. -manner in which it was attempted to be followed up against the Pursuer in the Auchterarder Case. -declaration by Dr. Chalmers of the difficulty he has had in restraining ecclesiastical usurpation and intolerance. -powers claimed by Dr. Chalmers for the Church, in the state to which his motion has brought matters. -Tract by Dr. Chalmers. Threat of enforcing submission to incompetent proceedings of Church, by the effect of Church censures, most alarming. -favourite engine of Churchmen to attain their ends. The object of some leading Members of Committee is to alter the Constitution of Church as established at the Revolution. -that constitution declared by Mr. Candlish to be an -that the system in 1638 is the true model of Presby- Remarks upon 'the principle of Non-Intrusion.' -same point which was decided by the House of Lords. -is taken by Church to mean an absolute right to reject a Presentee, on which Church Courts shall have no controul. Principle distinctly advocated that there can be no check or limitation on the right to reject. Opinions of Sir Henry Moncreiff-very different. 'Statement? by Committee of General Assembly. -Remarks, -upon their observations Admission by Committee that the Veto is not a satisfactory regulation to large portion of its present supporters in the Church. Opinions entertained by the Committee and a great body of the advocates of these measures. -lead to popular election of ministers, or to the necessity of a call by the people to a presentee. Committee approve of either of these principles rather than of Veto. -mean to reserve power to introduce the Call by authority of the Church. -proposal to leave regulation of whole matter to the Church. Proposal of Committee as to the general jurisdiction to be committed to Church in regard to Patronage. Real character of Dr. Chalmers's motion disguised in Statement' by Committee. -comparison by Dr. Chalmers between his motion and proceedings of Church Extension Committee, as to collections for the poor at Church doors. -his notion as to the manner in which the Church may with propriety defeat the decree of a Civil Court. Proceedings of Church greatly affected by a change in the composition of General Assembly. -this effected by the incompetent introduction into Church Courts, of the ministers of Chapels of Ease. these ministers declared by Resolution of General Assembly to be Parish Ministers. Erection of all Chapels of Ease into Parish Churches, with parochial districts, by AN ACT OF THE GENE RAL ASSEMBLY. -ministers of these Chapels introduced into Church Courts as parish ministers. -declared to have the same rights with parish ministers. -anomalous and unconstitutional character of this pro ceeding. |