identity was sufficiently brought out at the division, CRAP. IX. when at the final vote, Dr. Cook's motion had the

Dr. Muir's

which most

required ani

support of Dr. Muir. The point, however, in Dr. Muir's resolutions which most needed animadversion The point in was of a different kind. There was a great deal in resolutions them about "the judicial character and privileges of madversion. the ecclesiastical courts," but nothing whatever about the privileges of congregations. The only kind of intrusion to which Dr. Muir seemed to be opposed was intrusion against, not the will of the people, but the will of the presbytery. "I have looked," said Mr. Candlish," and I do not find, from the beginning to the end of his resolutions, one single word recognizing the privileges of the christian people. The reverend doctor has pleaded for the power of the church,—in its courts, composed of its rulers and office-bearers, but without securing and carrying out along with that power the rights of the christian people. And this, to my mind, is substantial popery. It is a position which must go far to establish a system of spiritual despotism. In truth, it is only when the rights of the people in the church of Christ are secured that the power of the ruling courts can be safely pleaded; and people. it is then also that that power can be pleaded to its highest point. If the people are once effectually secured in their rights, I hold that their rulers in the church may exercise a far more energetic superintendence, and a more discretionary jurisdiction than now they do; and may interfere with far more authority, in regulating and moderating the proceedings which take place throughout the whole matter of the settlement of ministers. If we recognize their

*

* *

The resolu rogatives of Courts, but disregarded

tions pleaded for

the Church

studiously

those of the

shews that

it is only when the people have

secured,

CHAP. XI. privileges, we may require and expect them to recognize our prerogatives. For it is undoubtedly the Mr. Candlish right and duty of the rulers of the church, to moderate and control, with a high scriptural authority, the their rights movements of all the other parties who act together in that authori- this matter. But when we assert the power of the church in its ruling courts, while the rights of the christian people are sunk and merged, we are asserting a power altogether unchecked and arbitrary, to which surely the Lord never intended that those whom He has made free should be subjected."

ty can safely

be vested in

the Church

Courts.

After expressing his satisfaction, that the form which the question had now assumed was that of a life and death struggle for the principle of non-intrusion ; this, said he, "is the plain and palpable alternative" we have to put before our people :-" Will you have us to submit without a struggle and without an effort, to a system of patronage the most arbitrary and The appeal to unrestricted,—to a system of patronage which, but for the members the milder temper of the days in which we live, might the present bring back those melancholy times when not ministers

be made to

of the

Church in

crisis.

in their robes, but bands of armed men, introduced the pastor to his people? Will you submit, or will you have us to submit to that iron yoke which your fathers were unable to bear,—or will you give us your sympathies and your prayers while we stand up for the rightful power of the church of Christ, and assert at once and together our prerogatives as the rulers and your liberties as the people; while we go respectfully, but manfully to the other party, in the contract by which we are established, to the state,-to the authorities of the nation, testifying to them what is their duty, and

soliciting them to the performance of it? I have no doubt whatever, that when the question is thus put, it will be fully, and cordially, and unanimously answered throughout all our parishes. But if the trumpet give an uncertain sound,—if we merely assert the rights of the rulers in the church, while we sacrifice or hold in abeyance the people's liberties, it will be no wonder if we have not,-we shall not deserve to have with us the heart or the prayers of one single man who is worthy of the name of Scotsman."

The speakers

part in the

As the debate proceeded, the chief speakers in support of Dr. Cook's motion were, Mr. Whigham, advocate, and the Rev. Dr. Bryce, formerly of Calcutta; in support of the motion of Dr. Chalmers, and in addition to Mr. Candlish, Mr. Earl Monteith, advocate, who took and the Rev. Dr. Burns of Paisley; and in support of debate. the motion of Dr. Muir, Sir Charles Fergusson, Bart. of Kilkerran, and the Rev. Adam Tait of Kirkliston. Mr. Whigham argued, or rather asserted, that the motion of Dr. Chalmers, if carried, would amount to a violation of the law. Dr. Bryce maintained that the simple fact of having appealed the Auchterarder case bound the assembly, as matter of course, to give up the veto-law at once, since the decision had gone against it; and said that when he saw his opponents hesitating to do this, "he felt inclined to doubt whether he was speaking to honest men and clergy- Dr. Bryce men." This indiscretion brought the speech of the host of reverend gentleman, then in its opening paragraph, to an untimely end. After assuring the house, amid the storm of disapprobation which immediately arose, that he would sit down if it refused to hear him, and

impugns the oppon

ents and

breaks

down.

Dr. Burns claims Dr. Bryce as a

vetoist.

CHAP. IX. attempting to struggle on for a little in the face of the unmistakeable response which this appeal called forth, he sunk down into his seat. "Moderator," said Dr. Burns, reverting to this tragi-comic scene, "amid the vituperators of the veto, there is at least one gentleman who will be its friend-I mean Dr. Bryce -for he began his speech by telling us that the moment the voice of the house was lifted against him, though without reason assigned, he would cease to speak. It is true, he has not kept the pledge, but the countenance of a minister of thirty years' standing is worth something." Mr. Monteith occupied himself almost exclusively with the injurious charge brought by Mr. Whigham against the motion of Dr. Chalmers, of violating the law. His speech was one of eminent ability. It scattered Mr. Whigham's charge to the winds. It demonstrated, with a weight of evidence teith's an and argument altogether irresistible, the utterly Whigham. unconstitutional character of that supereminent jurisdiction which was now claimed for the courts of law; it proved the jurisdiction of the church to be co-ordinate with theirs; and that the violation of law was consequently and altogether on the side of those who would betray that independence in matters spiritual which the state had ratified as the prerogative of the church. Mr. Tait, like Dr. Muir, was all for the Rev. A. Tait, " authority of church rulers." Sir Charles Fergusson gsson sup. thought Dr. Muir's motion the most "judicious,' and that "if the motion of Dr. Chalmers was car

Mr. Mon

swer to Mr.

and Sir

Charles Fer

port Dr.

Muir's reso

lutions. ried, the connection between church and state must

cease."

Other speakers were still desirous to address the

assembly, but midnight was already past, men were CHAP. IX. exhausted, impatience for the decision had become strong and universal, and the debate was at length The division. closed, when the light of the summer morning was

already beginning to dawn. On the first vote there appeared

The motion of

Dr. Chal

mers carried

ty of 49.

This decisive majority clearly showed that the by a mori independence resolution of the year before was no idle bravado, but the calm and well-considered declaration of principles by which the assembly was determined, at all hazards, to abide. What was then a proclaimed purpose was now an accomplished fact. In 1838, the church had distinctly announced what she could and would give up at the bidding of the courts of law; and what she could not and would not give up at their bidding. The motion of Dr. Chalmers, adopted by The motion the assembly of 1839, did nothing more than carry independ into practical effect the doctrines thus laid down. tion of 1938. Nor was this unflinching firmness untempered with becoming moderation. Not only was a strong desire expressed, but the utmost pains were taken that nothing should be done meanwhile of a nature to give needless offence either to the minority of the

of 1839 gives effect to the

ence resolu