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

YENING EDITION.

is, fear God, which is very properly made the first, be- 1
cause all the rest are limited and subordinate to this. \
The second is placed in close juxta-position to it—Ho-
nour the King. The third is, obey Magistrates. The
tourtlinsclale not with men that are given to change.
(Hear, and a laugh.) And the fifth—That we lead
quiet and peaceable lives in all godliness and honesty.
(Hear, hear.) These are the only political lessons
which every faithful clereyman ho was bound to
give the whole counsel of' God, will deliver to his peo-
ple ; and let our alarmists be assured, that in spite of
their dread—the ridiculi.us dread, I think, of the growth
of a democratic Christianity, these are the only lessons
which., whether the veto be let al in! or a more popular
system be substituted in its place, will ever emanate
from the pulp:ts of the Church of Scotand. They
know us not—they understand us not. Our principle
is, that the ministrations of the Christian religion
may be made more effectual by a National than by a
Voluntary Church ; and next to the gratitude we owe
to Him who sitteth above, and who turneth the
hearts of men whither he will, it is truly our part
to express also our gratitude to our benefactors
below —to the King, who is a nursing father —to
the Queen, who is a nursing mother, to our Zion.
With respect to Dr. Cook's appeal on the subject of
Church extension, the Rev. Doctor stated, that if Dr.
Cook's motion were agreed to, the Church would lose
all moral weight in the country ; it would become a de-
graded thing ; and he would, for one, have no desire to
extend it. After expatiating on these topics at consi-
derable length, the Rev. Doctor continued—The word
independence, or more especially the independence of the
Church, has become so associated with the idea of defi-
ance to all authority, that I would rather avoid the use
of the term. For never did a more harsh or more injurious
misconception exist than that which I believe is prevalent
in England, and amongst many friends in Parliament,
with regard to our prove. fact in perfect accord-
ance with what was slid by my Rev, friend with regard to
the profound ignorance of England. Many in England—in
intelligent England—imagine that we stand in a provits
cial relation to them ; and thus are they ignorant of the
true character of our doings. Never did a grosser mis-
conception exist among the higher classes of England
than with regard to the claims which we assert, and in
particular with regard to the proceedings of last Assem-
bly—a misconception by which the spirit which prevailed
over last General Assembly is confounded with that spirit
of insubordination and anarchy which over Europe
threatens to demolish every ancient structure, whether
civil or ecclesiastical. Our single purpose was to pre-
serve and strengthen, not destroy. I hope we shall
succeed, therefore, in allaying the prejudices which
have arisen, by showing that the Church is fully
prepared to fulfil her obligation—to give to Caesar
the things that are Gasser's ; and, on the other hand,
, I trust that the State will not, by any rude inva-
sion of the ecclesiastical province, do aught to de-
grade or paralyze the Church in the eyes of the people,
or impair her usefulness as an instrument of Christian
good ; and, when left to her own jurisdiction, she will
be found careful in advising well for the best interests
of the Redeemer's kingdom—she will be found dili-
gently pursuing her labours with that fidelity, de-
votedness, and noel, to give unto God the things that
are God's. I ask, what is the position in which we are
now placed? To come to a right understanding of
this position, I eay we must not confine our view to
dissenters from a judgment. 'We are now engaged,
not with a particular case, but with a general question ;
and for the right solving of that question, we must look,
not to the sentence alone, but to those speeches which
• contain the grounds of the judgment, and expound the
views taken by the different Judges. It appears that,
if we choose tee give up the connection with the State,
then we may regulate the matter at issue as we please ;
but I am now also given to understand that we must
give up our connection with the State rather than touch
patronage, and that all cheeks and modifications what-
ever upon that right must for ever be abandoned ;
reservibg merely the right of the Presbyteries to inquire
into the life and literature of presentees. With this
one exception, the power of the Church in every
'question of ministerial settlement is wholly taken
away. We can set up no barrier whatever in the
way of an absolute, uncontrolled, and uncontrol-
lable right, vested, it seems, by law, in the
holders of patronages. After commenting on the judg-
ments given by Lord Brougham and the Lord Chan-
cellor he continued—The ground has been cut away,
and now there is not one inch for my feet to stand
upon. In virtue of this decision here we are placed
in our present difficult position, having no choice
peen us but unmitigated patronage on the one
side, or a lapse into voluntaryism on the other.
Between these two extremes, in the present state
of the law as expounded by the two Lord Chan-
cellors, there is no middle course permitted by the
existing law. The precise object of the committee
I Moved ler is to save us from these extremes—from
adopting an absolute system of patronage on the one
hand, secularizing our Church, and alienating the af-
fectfbn of our people, and from plunging into a system
of 'voluntaryism on the other, and at the same time
along with us the great mass of our population, be-
yond the reach of those influences which were brought
to bear on them by means of an Establishment. To
give some idea to the Assembly of the degradation
which, if we submit to the decision of the House of
Lords, will be inflicted on the Church—degradation
to which the Church of England, acknowledging the
King as the Head of the Church—never, never would
submit, and to which the Church of Scotland, profess-
ing that the Lord Jesus is their head, never can. By
the practice of our Church, induction and ordination
go together. We regard both as spiritual acts, but
by the practice of the Church of England, they were
separated in point of time. But if you ask of any Eng-
lish eccles:astic whether a Bishop would receive an
order from any civil court whatever on a matter with
regard to the ordination, the universal reply is that he
could not. We shall be degraded far beyond the level
of the sister Church if we remain in connection with the
State, and submit to their decisions on the subject of
ordinations. Mr. Adam, author of a work relative to
the Church, applied for ordination to the Bishop of
Norwich and was refused. He then applied to the
Arehbishop of Canterbury, whose resolution was simi-
lar. He then made an application to the King, ear-
nestly invoking his Majesty to exercise the Royal Pre-
rogative for the purpose of enforcing his ordination. The
reply of Lord Melbourne is dated 29th December, 1830,
not very many years ago. His Lordship's secretary
says, " I am directed by Lord Melbourne to acknow-
ledge the receipt of your letter of the 27th instant, and
to inform you that his Lordship cannot advise the King
to give any command for controlling the judgment of a
Bishop in the matter of ordination." In what position
are we placed ? In a position which the Church of
England, notwithstanding its Erastianism—of which,
however, it has far less than is often imputed to it—
never would consent to occupy. Many of them would
go to prison or suffer death rather than submit to such
an invasion of the functions of their sacred office.
The Reverend Doctor then read an extract front a
speech by the Bishop of Exeter on the debate in
the House of Lords on the Church Discipline
Bill, and then continued—lf the principles in-
volved in our present position were fully under-
stood, we would soon enlist the sympathy of every
English Bishop. The ease would soon come to be
better understood ; and I say that the whole of
Protestant Britain, which is upon the side of the prin-
ciple of establishments, may be roused in defence of
our present position. Lord Brougham said that no-
thing so wild had ever been urged as the proposition
that the Assembly has the power to make this act as to
secoad settlements, though not as to first inductions.
—(Laughter.) You know very well that in all such
cases of transportation the question as to the
greater fitness of the minister for one charge or
another, when it is proposed to remove him from
his old parish, is left entirely to the decision of
the Presbytery. On the ground of his unfitness for
the new parish, the Presbytery in fact do refuse to in-
duct him ; and therefore, whereas his Lordship as-
sumed this " wild proposition," as he calls it, for the
basis of his argument, we turned that basis upside
down, and found upon it an argument afortiori. I
say if the Presbytery can refuse to induct upon a ques-
tion which relates merely to the difference of fitness—
the existence of fitness for one parish or another—,-if
upon so slender a point the Presbytery can refuse to
induct, shall we be told that upon the question of all
the fitness together, it is not competent for the Pres-
bytery to decide ?—(Hear.) This is my argument a
fortiori. I must say that I read such passages as
those to which I have referred with a great de-
gree of comfort ; for the more ignorance, the more
rashness, and the more reckle-s disregard of the dear-
' est principles of our Church, and the most cherished
feelings of our people, exhibited in these opinions, the
greater should be our urgent demand for a measure
which should properly settle those questions ; and the
greater should be our hope of a prosperous issue to the
present eontroversy. Altogether the sentence in this
case is grounded upon error, Is it too much to ask
and hope of an enlightened and paternal Government,
that it should grant a new law correcting the interpre-
tation, or rather misinterpretation, of the old ? I wish
the Dean of Faculty knew all the difficulty we have
had in persuading some of the most devoted eccle-
siastics to refrain from an immediate forthputting of
the powers of the Church, in order that its laws should
he enforced. We could depose those refractory licen-
tiates ; but all such steps have been forborne, and I
think most properly ; for it is far better to obtain the
civil sanction to the law of the Church which the civil
courts declare to be incompatible with the law of the
State, than to attempt by a side wind to sustain the
veto act. As the first step to the adjustment of this
.1 question, we would offer to the State a frank explana-
tiou of all our views and difficulties • and we only hope
that the forbearance will be mutual ; that a season of
repose from conflict, and an opportunity for the settle-
ment of this question, will be afforded ; that some com-
mon around may, be laid open where piety and patriot-
, • ism shall meet together—where the sages of the Church
and the sages of the State might enter into converse,
and an accommodation be made by which all those mis-
understandings should be swept away, and all those dif-