The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-25 00:00:00

it is absolutely impossible the Established Church can
have the power which is assumed in the motion of my
Reverend friend. If she has not that power as an Es-
tablished Church, it is plain that she cannot have the
power in any other way. We cannot have it as private
Christians ; for what would that amount to ?—Just to
this disorganizing doctrine, that every man may obey
the civil power so far, and only so far, as he pleases ;
and that doctrine, if carried out, would dissolve not
only the principles of Government, but the social
union itself. It appears to me, therefore, that the
veto act is not an act of the Church—it is alto-
gether a nullity : the Church was acting under
error—she did that which she supposed she was
competent to do ; but it is now found that she
was not competent, and the act falls to be consi-
dered as no act of the Church at all. This being the
case, there is no occasion in my estimation to send
down this act to be repealed to the different Presby-
teries. We had not the power to pass it—we cannot
have the power to repeal it ; it is an absurdity, and,
therefore, in my opinion, it falls to the ground alto-
gether. The question then arises—and a most momen-
tous question it is—what is the Church to do ? The
obvious answer to this is, just to fall back upon the state
in which we were before the act was passed. By fall-
ing back upon that course we would have no cause to
complain of the infringement of the liberties of the
Church. We have all the liberty we ever had till the
year 1834, and to the minds of many in the Church
there were Lo such charms in the veto act as
to lead them to regret any decent and comfortable
way in which it could be got rid of.—(Hear, hear.)
The amount of what I have said is plainly this—
if the act be not abandoned—if we are to adhere
to it, which the motion of my excellent friend,
plainly does—then we are to consider what conse-
quences will follow. We shall be in the anomalous
position for an Established Church—of being in direct
opposition, and in defiance of the power that established
us. Now, I say, the first consequence resulting from
the adoption if this poliepstillrbe We alienation of the
affections and regards of the great part of the people of
Scotland. It has been the glory of the Church of
Scotland hitherto that she has been interwoven with the
affections and the best feelings of the people. They
have regarded her with veneration ; and, notwithstand-
ing the numbers of those who have gone out from her,
the heart of the nation is sound, and they are warm and
vivid admirers of the National Church. Is there not
already a sad departure from this state of things ? Has
not that uncalled for, and unnecessary, and most impru-
dent declaration of spiritual independence which was is-
sued by the General Assembly last year cooled the
affections of some of her best friends ? You can hardly
travel through Scotland—you can hardly meet with
a man in a public conveyance, who, if he spoke of that
declaration at all did not speak of it as having weakened
his love for the Church. That feeling, so much
to be deplored and lamented, would go on with railway
speed if you now take the attitude of defiance ; and
say here we arc determined to take our place and re-
sist the law of the land. Many men would have scru-
ples of conscience respecting their duty to remain mem-
bers of a Church which avowed such a doctrine as this
—a doctrine which is calculated to deprive us of all
our valuable institutions, and to scatter to the winds all
the civil and social blessings for which we are distin-
guished. I will have another effect—an effect which
must make a deep impression on the mind of my
Reverend friend. We have all great cause to lament
that the Established Church in this country is not ade-
quate to the wants of the people--that there are multi-
tudes in the lanes of our crowded cities—many in the
sequestered glades of our rural districts—for whom
there is no messenger of salvation—Rho have no one to
disperse their spiritual darkness—and to convey to them
the blessings and the consolations of the Gospel. My
Reverend friend has made a glorious stand to cure this
evil ; and though I differed from him at the com-
mencement as to the way in which the plan was to be
carried into effect, there is no man who contemplates
with more veneration and reverence than I do, the
effects that have resulted from them. Bat will any sane
Government consent to give additional endowments to
the men who, at the very time they make the demand,
tell the Government that they mean to set it and the
laws at defiance ? After dwelling on the object of en-
dowing an Established Church to train the people in
obedience to the laws—an end which would be defeated
by the course proposed—he proceeded :No doubt it
might be said, notwithstanding all the blessings of an
Establishment, we will rather see them taken away,
and the endowments of the Church scattered to the
winds, rather than submit to what we in our consciences
believe to be wrong. As a general principle nothing
can be more sound. If there was no other alternative
than to submit to the law of the land, contrary to the
law of God and the principles of morality, or to cast
ourselves desolate and poor upon the world, there would
not be room for a moment's hesitation. It may press
hard upon the weakness of our nature to throw away
these temporal blessings ; but we would submit to the
sacrifice to keep our consciences pure. But does it apply
to this case ? Is it necessary to destroy the Establishment
in order to adhere to our sense of right ? Happily not.
Those days, blessed be God, are past. If any one
finds the constitution of the Established Church to be
such that he cannot give obedience to the law of the
State, the way is clear for him, he can leave the Esta-
blishment—he will be permitted to carry his own views
into effect ; and he will not only be indulged in his own
peculiar opinions, but the Government of the country
will happily protect him in avowing and defending them.
But why should we destroy the Establishment who have
none of those scruples? Why not let these gentlemen
get rid of their difficulties, and leave us in possession of
our endowments, which we hope long to enjoy?—
(Laughter.) Another way of solving the difficulty has
been proposed. It is referred to in several overtures
on our table ; and I fear it is implied in the mo-
tion of my Reverend friend. It is that we shall
not set ourselves in direct opposition to the civil
power ; bat that we will pass an act, declaring
that all presentees and all ordained ministers,
who shall not submit to the laws of the Church, shall be
deprived of their license or deposed from their office.
The Church never did propose a measure which could
more tend to hurt her in the estimation of honourable
and high-minded men. She would be doing that covertly
and secretly, which all right-minded and honourable
men would maintain could not be openly done. It was
pouncing upon the helpless, instead of struggling with
the powerful. It was getting away from the contest
with those whom we are not able to face, in order to en-
tail misery and disgrace on those who arc dependent
upon us. I can say, from my own experience, and from
the communications I have had with numbers of men,
that nothing has shaken the attachment of the people of
Scotland to our Church so much as this proposition. Yet
I am afraid it is contained in the motion of my Reverend
friend, not explicitly, but then he preserves the veto
act, and if he preserves it, he will not allow it to be
discbeyed. The consequence comes to be this, that we
shall persevere in an illegal act, and that we shall punish
all those under our jurisdiction who will not join in our
illegality.—(Hear, hear.) It is clear that this is
resisting the State as much as anything else. What,
then, is the State to do ? It tells us that our acts are
illegal, and contrary to statute. We say, No matter ;
we don't enter into that ; but we have the power to re-
gulate our own presentees ; and if they don't do what
you declare to be illegal, the awful penalties of the
Church shall descend upon them. What is the mean-
ing of this ? We, an Established Church, are to
punish men for doing that which in other cases we de-
clare to be the highest virtue—for y bolding obedience
to the law of the land. Why, Sir, Britain will not
be the land of liberty which she happily is, and which
I pray God she may ever continue to be, if she
does not find against this tyranny an immediate and zi
complete protection.—(Hear, hear.) There is one other
course that may be taken, and that is to go to the Le-
gislature and endeavour to get our ecclesiastical polity
moulded in such a way as that there may be no collision
between the Church and State. Nothing can be more
constitutional than this. But I have always objected to
the Church going to the Legislature to seek for a new
constitution. I know well the ignorance in which the
major part of our senators are respecting time nature and
the constitution of our Church. No one can have resided
in England, and talked even with enlightened Englishmen,
without marvelling ; they knew nothing about our polity ;
and Presbyterianism was a word which seemed to have
passed through their ears, as something connected with
Scotland, but of its nature, of its connection with the
feelings and associations of the people—of the love we
bear to it—of the blessings it has conferred upon our
native land, they are entirely ignorant. If we go,
therefore, to Parliament for this particular purpose, can
we expect they will stop at the precise point where
we wish ? and is there not a danger that the Church
may emerge from the Houses of Parliament in a
form in which we do not recognise her, and in which
we never wish to recognise her ? Much as I differ
from a Learned Lord who was in the habit of en-
lightening our proceedings, and whom I respect for
his attachment to the Church, for his high attain-
ments and character—the son of a venerated father
—much as I differed from him with respect to the
veto act, I cordially agree with him as to the danger
of going to Parliament. Is there not in our volumi-
nous statutes much with which mammy of us are little
acquainted, and which, if freely brought out and laid
down, would furnish us with ample rules and efficient
security for the settlement of acceptable ministers as,
in the present imperfect state of human nature, it is
possible to obtain. IVe have the power to watch over
the education of our young men, and to examine them
at every stage of their progress ; when they come be-
fore us for a license we can examine them as to their

character, their conduct, their talents, and acquire-
ments ; when they are presented to a choreal we
can try them again ; and I maintain that it be-
longs to the Church to try them not only upon
these points, but also as to their fitness for
peculiar Church to which they are appointed.—
(Hear, hear.) Why, then, whoa we have such a
vast field before us, through the utmost limits of
which we may travel without molestation—why should
we not try if we can pluck from it sonia salutary
remedy to heal our wounds, before we apply to the
hand of a stranger to heal them ? I must Say tie
have been greatly deficient in our duty in this respect,
I allow that the Presbyteries of Scotland have been too
indulgent ; but we must pull up in time to come. We
must now begin and remember what we are all too apt
to forget, from the best of motives and the hest feel-
ings, that the Church cannot be preserved unless we
keep up the character and literary attainments of our
clergymen. We must train them up to be fami-
liar with the pastoral duties. IcTe must teach them
that the duties of a parochial clergyman do not
consist in their capacity to mount a pulpit and
to deliver orations and sermons ; but they must be
trained to come in daily contact with the people—to
remember that they are to be the guides and counsel-
lors of the poor and the destitute, who in many cases
can have recourse to them alone. This ought to he a
part of the education of our young men, and we ought
to examine their dispositions and characters to ascei twin
their views of the pastoral office and their preparation
for it. If we do all that we might do in this respect,
there will be few complaints of unacceptable ministers
being settled in our parishes. The people of Scotland
are a noble people—their minds are open at all times
to every good feeling ; they have a hereditary inclina-
tion to reverence their ministers ; and if we do our
duty, upon their reverence we may depend. But if the
motion of my Rev. friend is adopted, and if we persist
in that policy, there is great danger, not only of sitak-
in, the foundations of the Establishment, but of over-
whelming them altogether. It may be that the Legis-
lature will not interpose immediately and say, now
that you have acted in this manner we shall dissolve
the Establishment. But what I apprehend is this,
that once we enter into that field. into whicii many arc
now wandering—once we begin to assume powers and
principles which do not belong to us, we shall go on
increasing our appetite for innovation to a degree that
may render an Establishment intolerable, and thus we
will work out our own destruction. But we may not be
permitted thus gradually to destroy ourselves. We
may expect the plea to be urged, that the terms of the
compact being broken, the Establishment is of itself dis-
solved. Many among the Dissenters will urge this,
or the irreligious in the country will press it in
every possible way, and will urge upon the Legislature
of the country the necessity of severing our connection
with the State. Sir, we on this side of
the House, and
all through the country who adhere to us, have taken
our resolution. We solemnly declare, when such lan-
guage is employed, and such reasoning resorted to, that
we adhere to the terms of the compact ; and that we re-
probate the policy which has led to the idea of dissolution.
We venerate the Church of our fathers ; in her sanc-
tuaries we were instructed in the great truths and doe-
trines of the Gospel ; by her ministers our people have
been led in the way of salvation ; from them, amid the
calamities and trials which darken human life, they have
received precious consolation. We would uphold her
constitution, while we cheerfully and cordially yield
obedience to the civil authority. Whatever may relate
to patrimonial and civil rights, we shall carefully pre-
serve her Christian liberties. We shall raise the
standard of her faith, and count all things but loss that
may tend to abate her purity ; so acting, we believe
that we shall fulfil our ordination vows. We shall
endeavour to walk in the footsteps of our great--Mas-
ter. We shall secure to the people of Scotland the
blessings to which they arc all attached—the benefit of
a National Church, for which they will be grateful
through time and eternity. Once more and I have
done. Deserted we may be—deserted, I dread, we
shall and must be, if the polity which is now proposed
be adopted. But we shall continue to guide the ship
—we shall continue to steer her through the storms
and tempests by which she is driven, and by the grace
of God, and aided by the support and countenance of'
the majority of our enlightened countrymen, we shall
guide her once more in safety to the haven of tranquil.
lity, of peace. The Reverend Doctor then read his
motion, of which he had given notice, altering it in so
far as to give Presbyterians the right of trying if a pre-
sentee were fit for the peculiar parish in which he was
appointed.
Mr. SMYTHE of Methven seconded the motion.
Dr. CHALMERS commenced his speech, which was
very indistinctly heard, by disclaiming the idea that he
was the representative of any section of the Church.
He said, I solemnly disclaim the truth of this implica-
tion. I sat down to this question with my mind as
free from all party bias and influence as I ever sat down
to the study of any abstract quesiion on theotogy or
economics. The motion which I took the liberty to
submit was concocted by myself. It was never out of
my hands except for a day air two. How many saw it,
or who they are, with two or three exceptions, 1 am
entirely ignorant. My object in giving it out of my
own hand was from my own inability to put it in prac-
tical shape for a motion. It was returned in a right
shape, and with no change in substance ; if there was
any change it was in this, that it came back
with a more mild and conciliatory complexion,
than, with my most strenuous endeavours, I had
been enabled to give it. I trust I may be per-
mitted to say, why the position into Which sve are now
brou.ght by virtue of the decision in the House of Lords
should be not so embarsassing or inextricable as many
appear to hold. Although the veto law has been removed
by an adverse sentence pronounced by the highest civil
judicature in the realm, I have no difficulty in stating
my views of the course which ought in consequence to
be taken. It may look a little startling that I who
made the first motion on this subject, which was defeated
in the Assembly by a majority of twelve, and was then
carried the following year by another, should have now
• to stand up for the measure which has been again de-
feated or rather overborne by a former Act of Assembly,
and a power the existence of which puts to hazard the
existence of a Church Establishment. This looks formi-
dable enough, and yet I am at no loss for what I deem
the clear and incumbent path that ought to be followed.
I have only to regret that the suggestion which I made
six years ago was not acted upon. What I thought, and
in confidence uttered, in the club or conclave of ad-
visers, I will now declare aloud in open Assembly.
The identical whisper in the ears shall now be pro-
claimed upon the house tops.—( Hear, hear.) I had
all along felt that up to that time we had been too
much in the habit of regarding the question, what was
the right constitution for the appointment of a minister,
as one exclusively between the patron and the people,
while in my view it had a much more important aspect
as a question between the patron and the Church.
• It was the undoubted part of the former to issue his
presentation, but it was as much the undoubted and
uncontrolled part of the latter to refuse to give it ef-
fect ; and when the two did not work in hasrmony, then
the question came to be not so much a contest between
ore power and another as a contest between power and
principle. Tho learned Doctor here entered into
some detail, for the purpose of explaining the motives
which ought to guide a patron in his choice of a pre-
sentee, and continued—No one denies the power of the
Church to decide upon the moral and literary qua-
lifications of a presentee, but many doubt whether
we have the power to sit in judgment and de-
cide on these circumstances, by which the useful-
ness of a presentee is affected ; and whether it will
be for the Christian good of the families of a
parish that a particular man should be appointed
over them. We hold, or rather we held, that the Pres-
byteries eaw determine upon these matters. But that
power has been completely struck from under us within
the last three weeks—up to that moment we held that
the power was vested in the Presbyteries to decide, not
merely on the general qualifications f'or the office of the
ministry, but on the special qualifications of a man for a
particular Church ; or, in other words, if it was the
qualis minister for the talis people.—(A laugh.) My
object in making that motion was to make sure that we
did not forego what was altogether in the power and
province of the Government to give or withhold, the
inestimablebenefits of a National Establishment, to make
sure that we did not dissever the temporalities from the
and religious interests attic people of cot an
living, a consequence fraught witih disastersi tod.tThheantiowraasl
the onlyinfdroiematetidletlbleotatodmvicoeitmheyn
given, am
heart that my fears are overuled by the high legal authority
principlei
have nowon w tohi which I
regretv
of those who are more competent to decide this ques-
tion than I was. But better late than never. The
very measure which I advised to prevent a blunder, I
now advise to repair it. Let me here advert to those
sensitive, I lied almost said senseless people, who dis-
like the radical style of our proceedings, and who regard
ours as a radical and rebellious Church because of them.
It may blunt the edge of their dislike to be given to
understand, that, in framing this ecclesiastical law,
our great anxiety and solicitude was to ascertain the
bearings which it would have upon the civil law, and
if we conferred this anxiety to the chamber of consulta-
tion and bring it into visible display, it was because
we are satisfied with the high authority of her Ma-
jesty's law officers for Scotland.—(Hear, hear.) If
we made no reference to the Government it was be-
cause we had the legal functionaries of Government
on our side ; if the Church has violated the law, the
charge lies at the door, not of the ecclesiastics, but of
the civilians and the General Assembly.—( Hear, hear.)
Never was there a 'greater misconception than to look
upon time doings of the Church in the same light as the
fermentations of a country, when anarchy and confu-
sion are about to desolate the land. Those men in the
upper classes do not understand us.
civil They represent
us as opposed to obedience to the•ower. I trust
'
that a fell understanding will be givenpthem, and that
they will cease in time to be aliaid dour politics. They,-
will find that. in truth, we have no politics at all, or leo
other than the safe and healthful and pacific politics of •
the New Testament. Our code is contained in 'eve'
articles—it must take long to repeal them. Th•