names that address ment that any other had any hand in any part of their CHAP. XIII. calling. Now, suppose the nomination and choice to belong either to the people or to the presbytery severally, or to both of these jointly, or by mutual consent, IT ALWAYS FOLLOWS that the patron's nomination and choice of the minister takes it away from those to whom it is given of God; and THEREFORE patronages and presentations of kirk are sinful and unlawful." The address from which these words are taken bears attached to it the honoured names of Samuel Ruther-attached to ford, John Livingstone, and others,-men surpassed by none either, for learning or godliness. In the course of his masterly argument, Mr. Cunningham put his case in the following terms: "This is the substance of our position, that patronage is a plant which our heavenly Father hath not planted, and which must, therefore, be rooted out. We would like to receive from our opponents a distinct negative ningham's to this: we would like to hear them say, that it is a argument plant which our heavenly Father hath planted; we patronage. would like to hear them say, that He hath planted it any other way than as evil is permitted, and as the man of sin is permitted to have power in the world." Mr. Cunningham said he had seen the scripture argument against patronage "nibbled at, evaded, carped at;" but that he had never seen it fairly and strongly met." In this respect the discussion of 1841 produced nothing new; the debate abounded in the argumentum ad hominem,—in elaborate attempts to show that Mr. Cunningham and his friends the arguwere chargeable with great inconsistency in submitting to a system which they held to be at variance with 66 Summary of against The oppo nents do not fairly face ment CHAP. XIII. God's word; but no one undertook to face his assertion with a negative and to maintain the contrary proposition. It has been already mentioned that the progress of events had been serving of late more and more to disgust the mind of Dr. Chalmers with the law of patronage, and to prepare him to look-if not with strong desire, at least with considerable Dr. Chalmers complacency - - on the possible overthrow of the fears to be entire system. His speech on this occasion was with which accordingly occupied, to a large extent, in showing the abolition how groundless were those fears, which the very holds the groundless many con templated of patron uge. prospect of such an event awakened in many minds. Dr. Makellar said, that if "the hopes which he entertained from the bill which his grace the Duke of Argyll had introduced were to be disappointed, and that no efficient, adequate restriction, or no proper regulation of the exercise of patronage were to be afforded, Mr. Cunningham would find him, in the humble exercise of his powers, and to the extent of his energies and opportunities, resolute to contend for the same object." But meanwhile, under the influence of a conviction that to issue a declaration against patronage at present would weaken the duke's hands, Dr. Makel- and hinder the passing of his bill,-he, Dr. Makellar, said he would move as an amendment, that "it does not appear for the interests of the church and people of Scotland to adopt" Mr. Cunningham's motion. Dr. Cook preferred another and stronger amendment of his own that the overtures against patronage should be dismissed. He denied that the state, in setting up a law of patronage, interfered at all with the rights of congregations,--because if they did not like lar's amendment. theory of the christian Dr. Dr. Cook misses the the state's terms, they were free to worship elsewhere CHAP. XIII. than in the state's churches. "I don't interfere with Dr. Cook's their christian rights," said Dr. Cook, speaking for rights of the the civil power, * * * * "if they do not wish to people. come here, they will still have the same opportunity of worshipping God and learning divine truth which they had before; and if it is their opinion that their spiritual state will be more advanced by remaining as they were, I leave them at perfect liberty." This was obviously and altogether beside the question which Mr. Cunningham had raised,-Was patronage a scriptural system; was there any precept or principle in God's word to sanction the vesting in any man, or body of men, or in the state itself, a right to nominate the ministers of a christian church, merely on the ground of a certain secular qualification? Cook attempted to show that the New Testament is not explicit as to the mode of electing ministers; but he made no effort to prove that it anywhere recognizes the right of election as being other than a spiritual right, to be exercised in virtue of spiritual qualifications alone. It was not a question between election by the many, and election by the few; nor was it a question between election by the rulers, and election by the members of the church. Admitting that there might be some room for argument on points like these, they were not the points in discussion. These various modes of proceeding, however they differed in other respects, agreed at least in thisthat they left the election of the minister within the church. Mr. Cunningham's grand objection against patronage was-that it took the election out of the point of Mr. ham's scrip Cunning ture argument. CHAP XIII. church; for granting that the patron may be a member Scripture of the church, it is not as a member of the church, places all rights con nected with but solely as the possessor of a certain civil right, the election within the of ministers that he chooses the minister. For anything in the Church law of patronage, he may not only be no member of most impor- the church, but he may be a man whom no church, Patronage places the tant of these rights with out the Church. regulated by a scriptural Dr. Cook would not venture to bring the matter to the test of scripture at all; and his reason for declining to do so is not unworthy of notice. It throws much light on the principles of moderatism. "A great principle is laid down," he remarked, "that nothing must be done contrary to the word of God; but then, there are a vast number of arrangements established in the christian world, and which every christian reveres and observes, that are left totally indefinite, so that we have a variety of churches, a variety of establishments, a variety of forms of established governments,-under all of which, I hope I may safely assert, the power and the influence of divine truth may be experienced. I maintain, that if you go to scripture, and found upon scripture for anything taking Scrip- that is said with respect to the election of a minister, and with respect to patronage or against it,—if you go to this, then you must take this along with you, that there must be one and the same definite construction for all things; and if you are to follow out the principle, and say that we shall not consider as binding upon ministers anything but what is explicitly and precisely laid down in the word of God, I say you will alter the state of the christian world entirely, and so alter it as Dr. Cook's objection against ture as the rule. rule would condemn too many exist and there Cook will ing things, fore Dr. not have it. to tend in a fatal degree to destroy and corrupt CHAP. XIII. religion." The substance of this singular statement, -vague, loose, and latitudinarian throughout,appears to be this—that the institutions and arrangements of Christendom will not stand the application The scripture of a scripture test, and that, therefore, Dr. Cook could not commit himself to a principle by which so many existing things would be condemned. He would not apply it to patronage, because he was not prepared to apply it universally: to do so would be, in his judgment, to injure religion. True, indeed, the application of the principle would make wild work in that "variety of churches, church establishments, and forms of church government which we have in the world; for, unhappily, those conventional rules and views of expediency which Dr. Cook seemed to consider sufficient for disposing of the question of patronage and the election of ministers, are the only authorities which could be pleaded for a very large proportion of the ecclesiastical arrangements that have hitherto prevailed. But it is no legitimate argument against a principle that, if carried out, it will come in collision with many existing things; and least of all, is this a valid objection to anything that can be shown to be a principle of God's word. Mr. Cunningham word. affirmed that God's word repudiated patronage. If that assertion was well founded, it would not do for Dr. Cook to complain of the wide range over which such a conclusion would carry him. But though Dr. Cook, in his peculiar mode of dealing with the scripture argument, could find nothing like a principle on the subject of the election of ministers in the bible, This no argua principle: ally, inst ment against and especi a principle of God's |