They had been taught to places and times to say. reverence Establishments. the elementary logic of Presbyterianism, as contrasted with Popery on this hand and Erastianism on that, pronounced the jurisdiction of the State to be co-ordinate with the jurisdiction of the Church. Was it a sin to obey one rather than the other of two co-ordinate powers, both sacred? They had seen Chalmers, and one who, in the fierceness of his opposition to patronage far outdid Chalmers, namely, Cunningham, smiting the Voluntaries hip and thigh, and seeming, at moments, to fall into the habit, all but universal south of Tweed, of referring to free Churches as sects, and to Established Churches as if they were alone entitled to the name of Church. Cunningham, no doubt, had thundered in the Assembly against the notion that the Church could do no particular act in her own spiritual sphere without going cap in hand to the State to ask permission; but he had admitted there and then that she could not do what the State expressly prohibited. A country minister might have some shadow of excuse for mistaking the Court of Session, when it talked very big, for the State. The Dean had pointedly affirmed at the time of the passing of the Veto Act, and the Court of Session now backed him up in his assertion, that the State had prohibited the Church from restoring to the parishioners rights which had been transferred to the patron. The statute on which the Court of Session relied might be an abominable statute. The Court only asked whether it was law. It might be a violation of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland. The Court of Session did not mind that. It might be unchristian, inhuman, in its dealing with parishioners,—no matter; the only question the Court of Session could entertain was whether it was law. If it was, the Court would interpret it, issue decrees in accordance with it, severely punish for disobeying it, and place all the power of the State at command of the proper officers to give it effect. We may under these circumstances despise and condemn the ministers who, defying the Church and trampling on the people, consented to do the bidding of the Court of Session, but we cannot be blind to the mystifications of their position. They could not be electrified, on a sudden, into the spiritual heroism which made a Chalmers, a Candlish, a M'Cheyne ready to sacrifice all things rather than ordain ministers over parishioners who solemnly declared that they could derive no edification from them. They had vowed to obey the Church, and they knew that the Bible was the Church's law, and, under it, the Confession of Faith. But they might vaguely imagine, or may at least be charitably supposed to have imagined, that all these were included for them, as State-Churchmen, in the law of the land. Let us not be surprised if thousands, and among them influential statesmen, thought that the discipline under which the Church placed these rebels was severe. THE CHAPTER XX. Lam and Gospel,The Lethendy Case. HE Dean was a man of resolute purpose, not to be frightened by complications, not to be turned by any difficulty from the even tenor of his way. He had made up his mind that the Court of Session should in all causes have the last word in Scotland. He played the part, mutatis mutandis, of Henry VIII., and made every man tremble who dared to obey the Church and to disobey the Civil Power. We shall take two illustrative samples of his administration. The Presbytery of Dunkeld had been instructed by the Commission of Assembly in 1838 to induct Mr. Kessen into the pastoral charge of the parish of Lethendy, with special injunction to refrain from any interference with the temporalities of the parish. The motion to this effect had been made in the Commission of Assembly by Mr. Dunlop, and it was carried by an almost unanimous vote, fifty-two against six,-the Evangelicals being joined on the occasion by leading Moderates. Dr. Brunton, a prominent Moderate, had described the act of the Presbytery "as purely spiritual," adding that "he knew his own province, and on that province he would stand or fall." The Presbytery met, with a view to obeying the Church. The Dean, armed with an interdict of the Court of Session, forbade the Presbytery to proceed with the settlement. The Rev. Michael Stirling, of Cargill, the senior member, pointed out to his brethren the alternatives between which they had to choose. If they obeyed the Court of Session, they would be secured in their manses and stipends; if they obeyed the Church, they would be guilty of contempt of the Civil Court, a grave offence, punishable with fine and imprisonment. To do the bidding of the Lords of Session would be, in effect, to force into the parish of Lethendy a man whom the people refused to receive as their pastor, and to keep out a man whom the people accepted and the Church approved. Delay was not to be thought of, for the parish had for nearly two years been deprived of pastoral superintendence. Mr. Stirling was a country minister, of unobtrusive character, who had taken little part in public discussions, but he had not a shadow of doubt that, in proceeding with his fellow-Presbyters to ordain Mr. Kessen, he and they were true to the fundamental principles of the Church of Scotland. ordination, therefore, took place, in defiance of the Civil Magistrate. The The Presbyters were cited to the bar of the Court of Session to answer for their conduct. The judges, twelve in number, wearing their robes of office, occupied the bench. At the bar stood the Presbytery, eight parish ministers, to answer for contempt. As they stood, one or two of the ministers of Edinburgh entered the court and placed themselves at their side. At last the universally honoured Dr. Gordon entered and quietly took his station with them at the bar. This brought a scowl across the brows of their Lordships. 'No sooner was the noble and venerable head seen emerging from the crowd at the end of the bar, than a proposal burst from the Bench to turn out those clergymen from the bar; but an indignant and solemn remonstrance from Lord Moncreiff checked this attempt." The ministers were asked what they had to say for themselves. Mr. Stirling made a brief and dignified statement, professing for himself and his brethren the intention to treat the judges with all the reverence that was their due, but making no apology for what had been done. "In ordaining to the office of the holy ministry, and in admitting to the pastoral charge, to which in the proceedings complained of we strictly limited ourselves, we acted in obedience to the superior Church judicatories, to which, in matters spiritual, we are subordinate, and to which, at ordination, we vowed obedience." They were dismissed for the time, and the Court took four days to consider how they should be punished. "It is commonly understood," says Dr. Buchanan, “that five of the judges voted in favour of a sentence of imprisonment, and six for the more lenient measure of a rebuke; and that the Lord President did not vote at all." On the day fixed they were publicly reprimanded, and warned that, in case of a similar offence, they should be imprisoned. It will be difficult for any man born and bred in |