CHAP. XIIL tanto frustrated. But their decisions must be regulated by a higher standard than any consideration grounded on, or connected with, these civil effects. If the state did not concur in the decision of the church, the benefice and the cure would be dissociated, -and that duty which the state, and not the church, was bound to, was not accomplished.” His reply to Dr. Hill's assertion Turning his attention to that part of Dr. Hill's amendment in which it was affirmed that the Duke of Argyll's bill was "not calculated to relieve the church her difficul- from the difficulties under which she labours," Mr. that the bill would not relieve the Church from ties. Cunningham said " He need not go over the ground to show that the bill would be productive of the most important results. It would put an end to the oppressions of the civil court, and leave the ministers to go about the exercise of their ministry in peace. Dr. Hill asked them if it would settle the cases of Auchterarder and Marnoch? No, it would not settle these cases; but would the repeal of the veto settle them? According to Dr. Hill and his friends, there was no way of settling these cases but by sanctioning the revolting atrocity at Marnoch, and forcing in Mr. What it would Young at Auchterarder. No; the bill of the Duke of Argyll could not settle these cases, but it would vent all such cases in time to come; and these cases, however painful and annoying they might be in the meantime, they would yet get over." settle and what it Would not settle. Candlish pre At the close of the debate, the amendment of Dr. Motion of Dr. Hill was rejected, and the motion of Mr. Candlish carried by a approved and adopted by a majority of 125; the numbers being, for the amendment 105, and for the motion 230. A majority of more than two to one in majority of 125. statute law within. question re disposed of sembly. the general assembly ought to have carried weight in CHAP. XIII. parliament. It was decisive as to the prevailing sentiment of the church; and had an enlightened patriotism guided the councils of the state, the Duke of Argyll's bill would have been converted into a month after the assembly rose. anticipate the current of events. The assembly had still another great question to Another great deal with, and one more exciting by far than either of mains to be those to which reference has yet been made. Matters by Asof legislation, though in themselves the most important of all,-seeing that they affect the very constitution of the body which they concern, and may exert, for generations, a powerful influence on its character and whole proceedings, yet do they, for the most part, move men's feelings greatly less than matters of mere administration. There is such a difference between the abstract and the concrete, in respect of present impression, that society will often look on with comparative indifference at the framing of a law, the application of which may be destined to set the kingdom on fire. So it was in these debates of the general assembly of the church of Scotland. Patronage and the Duke of Argyll's bill touched both of them, the Legislative vitals of the church's constitution as a national establishment; and without some speedy adjustment of the matters to which they related, the disruption was inevitable. And yet the interest which they awakened, excepting, perhaps, in the case of a few of the calmer and more reflecting minds, was greatly inferior to that which gathered around the case of the Strathbogie ministers. Their case, it is true, though in its own questions, though more important, interest than questions of administra tiou. The Strath CHAP. XIII. proper nature a mere case of discipline, was one of unusual magnitude. It was the breach by which the storming party of the erastian forces was attempting to but one of force its way into the citadel of the church's freedom,— bogie case: a question simply of discipline, vital mo ment. The parties at the bar. Patrick counsel for and no wonder, therefore, that there should have been concentrated upon it so large an amount of the anxieties and energies of the general assembly. When the day appointed for taking up this momentous case arrived, Thursday, the 29th of May, all the suspended ministers appeared at the bar, with the exception of Mr. Cruikshanks of Glass, the state of whose health did not permit him to leave home. Mr. Patrick Robertson and Mr. Hamilton Pyper were along with them as their counsel. In pleading their case, Mr. Robertson seemed to rely more on threats than arguments,—on the influence of terror rather than Speech of Mr. On the force of truth. "Have a care," said he, "that Robertson, the sentence you pronounce is within your power. With respect to the relevancy of the indictment, there is nothing in that point which does not decide the merits of the indictment. If you find the libel relevant, you must proceed to pronounce sentence. We have no defence apart from this. We have committed no crime,—we offer no proof-we have no proof to offer, -the facts are admitted. Our minute of admission is before you. Have a care then how you now proceed. Will you depose us? Have you the power to pronounce sentence of deposition? Will the civil law regard your sentence of deposition, any more than it did your sentence of suspension? Will these men the Strat bogie ministers. cease to be ministers of our Scottish church? I talk not of their right to their glebes, and their manses, Mr. Robertlikely to son's decla mation not make much on earnest and their stipends, and their churches, and their CHAP. XIIL schools? I ask, dare you loose their connection with the people, with the flocks over whom they have long presided? Have you power to loose that connection? Have you power to drive these seven ministers from the church of Scotland?" This rapid discharge of startling interrogatories, however effective as a piece of forensic declamation, was not likely to frighten from their propriety men who inherited the spirit, and impression were treading in the footsteps of the old Scottish men. reformers. When the pleadings at the bar had been concluded, and the house was now ready to proceed to judgment, an aged and venerable minister, the Rev. Mr. Munro of Halkirk, was called on to engage in prayer, for divine for divine guidance, in this painful and momentous case. At the close of these devotions, Dr. Chalmers rose. The question," he said, after bringing out in the introductory part of his address, and that with equal precision and power, the radical distinction between matters of principle and matters of simple expediency, the question between the church and the Strathbogie ministers, is not whether the veto be a good or a bad law, but the question is, whether disobedience to their ecclesiastical superiors be a good or a bad action. They hold it to be good, because, while what they did was in disobedience to an ecclesiastical, it was done in obedience to a civil mandate. This lands us in another question, Whether, when in a thing strictly ecclesiastical, as the ordination of a minister, or the dispensation of a sacrament, the civil court gives forth one order, and the ecclesiastical another,--whether to disobey the latter II. 66 2 A Speech of Dr. Chalmers: is the real shews what nature of the case. CHAP. XIII. that we may obey the former, be a right or a wrong principle. We have conjured up this question, not with the view of prosecuting it to a conclusion-that has already been done a thousand times over-but of bidding you remark how utterly diverse a definition it is to the question,-whether the veto be a good or a bad law,—whether the law be good or bad,—whether an ancient or a recent law,-whether it be the oldest in the statute book, or have been enacted only a few years, and to be repealed, perhaps, in a few days,-it positively matters not to the inherent character of the offence on which we now sit in judgment; and unless we confound the essence of a thing with the occasion of a thing, we shall read, in the disobedience of the Strathbogie ministers, a blow struck at the entire jurisdiction of the church,-a distinct matter truly from entire juris. any of her particular ordinances, and only to be disthe Church. posed of on distinct and peculiar considerations of its The conduct of the Strathbogie ministers strikes a blow at the diction of But is there no umpire who can decide between the courts by which these conflicting orders are issued? On that important point the assumption of the Strathbogie ministers, and of the moderate party generally, theory of the Was this; that no umpire was needed, that wherever only way of the two courts, the civil and the ecclesiastical, differed between the in their judgments, the ecclesiastical must give way. ecclesiasti Was the assumption of their opponents the counter The moderate right and settling a difference civil and cal courts. part of that theory? Did the evangelical party hold that in the event of the disagreement supposed, the civil court must, as matter of course, bow to the judgment of the ecclesiastical? "We do not," said Dr. Chalmers, speaking to that precise question, "over |