The Sun.
London, England, 1839-05-30 00:00:00

AUCHTERARtiER CASE.

The following are eitreeta ;out some of the Scotch
Pas2e•-_,', relative to the late vote of the General Assem-
bly on this important Church question. It will be seen
that many persons in Scotland look upon the present
condition of the Established Church in that country as
full of danger to the 61,11 ettablshet, etst of rblition
thi 'ScOtiman.)
" the motion of Dr. Chalmers was carried on Wed-
nesday, in opposition to Dr. Cook's, by a majority of 49,
after what may be called the intermediate motion of
Dr. Muir had been set aside by a previous vote.
The Assembly has thus performed another evolu-
tion in that series of movements, by which it has
been labouring for some time to separate the
Church from the State. We wish it success,
though we cannot entirely approve of the means it
takes to compass its end. To understand the vote
come to, it is necessary to consider the tenor of
the three motions :—Dr. Cook's is plain and explicit ;
it states that the Veto Act having been found to in-
fringe on civil and patrimonial rights, the Presbyteries
shall be instructed to proceed in the settlement of pa-
rishes in the manner practised before that Act was
passed. It thus acknowledges that the Veto Act is a
nullity, and enjoins the resumption of the former usage.
Dr. Muir's makes the same acknowledgment, and in-
culcates implicit obedience to the Civil Courts ; but
declares that Presbyteries, in settling Presentees,
ought to consider, not only their general qualifications,
but their suitableness to the mind and situation
of the people of the parish, and proposes that
a Committee be appointed to devise the best
means of attaining this end. Dr. Chalmer's motion
is worded with Jesuitical ambiguity. It admits
that the decision of the House of Lords has settled
the question of " civil right" in the Auchterarder case,
professes to enjoin implicit obedience thereto, and orders
the Presbytery to offer no farther resistance to Mr.
Young's claim to the emoluments; but resolves, at the
same time, that the principle of non-intrusion, as an
" integral part of the Constitution" of the Church, shall
not be abandoned, and that " no presentee shall be
forced upon any parish contrary to the will of the con-
gregation," The motion—very reasonably anticipating
that this enforcement of the abrogated Veto Law, for
such it is substantially, may lead to the separation of the
stipend from the charge—provides that a Committee be
appointed to execute the hopeful task of reconciling the
" pririleges of the Church," as Dr. Chalmers under-
stands them, with the laws of the State as proclaimed
by the Judges.
We request the reader to reflect a little on the im-
port of this motion. It no where admits what the
decision of the Courts has clearly established, that the
Veto Act was ultra vires of the Church, and is a
nullity. As we anticipated in our Paper of the Bth of
May, that Act is left for a stumbling-block to the hot-
heads in the Presbyteries. The name only is changed.
It was formerly the Veto Act—it is now the law of
" non-intrusion ;" and that the Presbyteries may not
mistake their duty, they are assured that this law " is
an integral part of the constitution of the Church,"
and cannot be abandoned!! The Committee is a
mere blind. Its functions are an absurdity ; it
may search and subtilize for twenty years, and will
never find means to make that legal which has
been pronounced illegal by the competent authorities,
in as plain terms as the English language affords. The
General Assembly openly counsels the Presbyteries to
resistance and rebellion ; and it goes even farther, for it
threatens its licentiates with heavy penalties, if they
yield obedience to the laws of the land. The fallacy'
which lies at the bottom of these strange proceediugs is
well stated by Dr. Cook. " Some assert that it belongs
to us (the Church) to declare what is civil and what is
not—that we have a co-ordinate power with the Civil
Judicatures to decide this vital question, and that until
we put our imprimatur on the proceedings of those
Civil Courts, to the effect that we consider the ques-
tion as a civil ,one, with which we cannot interfere—
that until svelno this, their decrees or decisions are to
receive no regard from the Church." It was under a
similar plea, he observes, that the Catholic Church
made those insidinus encroachments on the civil power,
which produced innumerable corruptions, and provoked
so large a portion of Europe to throw off its yoke. It
is said that allegiance and protection are reciprocal.
But Dr. Chalmers and his friends not only enjoy the
protection of the State, but claim a right to eat its
bread, while they set its laws at defiance ! We grant
that the Veto Law was an improvement on the old
high-handed law of patronage. We grant also that
the entire abolition of patronage would be a
still greater benefit ; but we have no sympathy
with those who roar and clamour against the cx
isting law. When the State provides a part of the
people with religious instruction gratuitously, it is en-
titled to prescribe the conditions under which the boon
is to be enjoyed. Whoever is not satisfied with these
conditions, has it in his power to withdraw from the
Church's communion. If he esteems patronage a
master grievance, he can escape from it at the expense
of a few shillings a-year ; for there is no difference
between the Church and the most numerous bodies of
Dissenters in this country, except is the mode of ap-
pointing and raying their clergymen. It will be ob-
served that the Earl of Dalhousie threatened to with-
draw from the Church in consequence of the rote of
Wednesday. He is too loyal a man to countenance re-
bellion. Yesterday three other gentlemen followed
his example. We shall have some amusing proceed-
ings in the Presbyteries for a while to come, when
presentations occur to vacant Churches.

(From the Courant of Saturday, May 25.)

The proceedings which have taken place within these

few days in the General Assembly, on the Veto Law,
have entirely engrossed the public attention ; and the
decision to which that venerable body have come on that
vital question is fraught with the most important con-
sequences to the National Establishment, It is plain
that the resolution approved of by the Assembly, how-
ever it may be disguised, implies an opposition to the
law as it is expounded by the Supreme Court. The
religious Establishment of Scotland is ruled by civil as
well as ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the difficulty
which has caused the present controversy is distinctly
to mark out the respective limits of those clashing au-
thorities. In case of disagreement, however, it is the
Civil Court which must finally decide ; and herein con-
sists the fallacy of those who advocate the Assembly's
resolution, that while they claim for the Church Courts
the right of regulating sacred things, which is admitted
on all hands, they do not sufficiently consider that it
belongs to the Civil Court to settle what those sacred
things are. To one Court, it is clear, that the power of
final decision must be committed. The co-ordinate

jurisdiction of two Supreme Courts is contrary to all
principle, and would lead at once to anarchy ; for, if we
suppose contradictory decisions in the same case,
to what issue can matters be brought ? Dr. Chambers
says, there can be twc, co-ordinate jurisdictions in a
State, and that they would harmonize together, by each
keeping to its own proper sphere—the Civil Court to

he temporalities, and the Church Courts to sacret

things. True, but then a difference arises, as in the
present case, respecting the limit of their respective ju-
risdictions—respecting what is ecclesiastical and what
is temporal ; and how is the difference to be decided ?

Is it not clear that one must have the supremacy, and
must decide, not only in temporal things, but also as to
what is temporal and what is sacred. Only let this
point be conceded to the Ecclesiastical Courts, and they
will bring the whole Church polity, whether secular or
sacred, under their controul. This was, as was ably ex-
plained by Dr. Cook, precisely the key by which the
Popish Hierarchy opened their way to temporal power.
Give any ecclesiastical body the ground whereon to
stand, and they will easily draw every secular concern
under their control. The General Assembly in their
resolution propose to submit to the law as it is inter-
preted by themselves—they give up the temporalities
to the presentee, Mr. Young, but they will not hear
of him intruding into the exercise of his spiritual office,
thus still holding their own opinions in matters which
have been juslged of by the Civil Court. The judg
ment of that Court was, not only that Mr. Young
is entitled to the temporalities, but that the
Presbytery are bound to take him upon trials,
and if no good objection is stated against his morals
or his literature, to ordain him to the office of
minister. This decision may be right or it may be
wrong—still it goes this length ; and in confining their
obedience to the temporalities, the General Assembly
arc clearly acting in opposition to the law of the hind.
This conflict of the Church with the authority of the
State is one among the many novelties of those modern
times. We never thought to see revived these obso-
lete questions of past ages, far less that the Church of
Scotland, protected by the State, and respected by the
community, should quit her present enviable position of
safety and repose for so dangerous a collision. It is
truly an important crisis for the National Church—for

its natural termination seems to be in schism ; the law
will and must enforce obedience to its decrees. Indi-
viduals who are cast in a suit can never be suffered to
disobey the law, merely because it does not meet their
views. This would lead to a state of complete anarchy,
the sovereignty of the law must be asserted over church-
men as well as laymen ; the Courts of Law are bound
to execute their own decrees. Now we have a large
portion of the Scottish Clergy declaring that they cannot
in conscience submit to their decrees. It follows of
course that they must secede, and thus a breach is made,
and the National Church is rent into divisions. The
most zealous supporters of that Church must now swell
the ranks of Dissenters ; while their place will be sup-
plied by others who have no scruple in obeying the law
as it is expounded by its proper interpreters. That any
great part of the laity will go along with the clergy in
this contest, if matters really come to this pass, we
greatly doubt ; the high tone assumed in the contro-
versy is not generally approved of ; and if the Esta-
blished Churches are filled by able and respectable mi-
nisters, of which, of course, due care will be taken, they
will, no doubt, as heretofore, concentrate within their
walls the great body of the people.
(From the Mercury.)
In the present unfortunate collision—for collision it
practically,is—between the Supreme Civil and Eccle-
siastical Judicatories, we think that there can be but

one opinion,,ai to the tiiith of tlf. Mttirts cdrichtdittg
ohsetvations-, 70: desirable foi..us.wi ministers
—mast desirable for us as individuals—most
for oar people and flocks—that we as a Church should
get safely and soon to a termination of all these discus-
sions and altercations ; and I am sure that, consider-
ing what we have to do in the pastoral care and ma-
nager:loll,ot our cotigte#lltitinsi4 ,is of inestimable im-
portaace to get our um-1(1i, and tlai4 t•Oe fifth
those strivings, which I, for one, acknowledge are to-
tally incompatible with the quiet, faithful, and comfort-
able discharge of pastoral duty." But the course
taken by the respective parties to reach this wished-for
consummation it widely diffetent. On the ene side it is
proposed to fall back on the laws and practice of the
Church anterior to the Act of 1834 anent Calls—to
make an unconditional surrender of the power which
the Civil Courts has declared that the Mulch had no
right to assume. Dr. Chalmers, and those on the other`
side, repudiate this proposition, as tending to sanction
the invasion by the State of the inherent privilege of
a Christian Church to regulate its ecclesiastical po-
lity. The question is altogether attended with ex-
treme difficulty ; because the compact which forms
the connecting link between the Church and the State,
must, like any civil contract, involve certain obligations
on both parties ; but when a difference arises between
the Supreme Church and Civil Courts as to the inter-
pretation of the compact—when each holds the other
to have transgressed the limit of its authority—what is
to be done, seeing that to a certain extent they possess
a co-ordinate jurisdiction? The Civil Courts may grant
an interlocutor, or take any other step to prevent
the induction of a particular individual—they may de-
cide as to the disposal of the temporalities—but they
cannot force the Church Courts to induct, or to pro-
ceedi
words,
to
g
ecclesiasticallyy to obtemper their judgment, or, in
other eit substantial effect. If the Civil
Courts can check the progress of the machine in one
direction, they cannot urge it in another, without
the agency of the Church Courts, and that agency they
cannot compel. It is in vain to deny that a painful
and perplexing anomaly has thus arisen The General
Assembly have decided that they will not shun the
difficulty by falling back on the former usages, but take
their stand on their own privileges as a Christian
Church, in the mean time yielding obedience to the
civil authorities. They abandon a certain province,
that is, the temporalities, to the Courts of Law, and
say here we cannot contend against you, for your con-
' trol is paramount, but we will take shelter within
the citadel of our Zion, and there you cannot as-
sail us—and there we will abide until we can
make proper terms with the Legislature of the
land. As far as we can judge, this is the policy in-
volved in the motion of Dr. Chalmers. It appears to
us to be intended to place the Church in a becoming
position for a negotiation with the State. It does not
make the Church approach the Government in the
humiliating, crouching position of a subdued suppliant,
but in the erect, manly attitude of firm remonstrance.
Now, although we would deprecate in the extreme that
the present collision, difference, or whatever it may be
termed, should be pushed by either party to that degree
which would terminate in the dissolution of the alliance
with the State, yet we dread no such effect, unless, in-
deed, it is the wish of the people of Scotland that the
venerable Kirk should be swept away. We believe that
no such feeling exists ; but that on the contrary, what-
ever difference may exist as to the course which the
Assembly ought to have taken at this anxious stage, all
will in the end stand by the Church Establishment,
should her stability be threatened.
(From the Edinburgh Advertiser.)
The General Assembly closed its proceedings last
night. By far the most important discussion of the
Session was that on the Auchterarder case, which was
fully reported in our last Number. That decision has
given very general dissatisfaction. In proof of the all but
universal condemnation which it has met with from
the Newspaper Press, we refer to the extracts from
our Contemporaries ; and these proofs, had space per-
mitted, we could have multiplied tenfold. One or
two Journals no doubt approve of the decision, but
they arc so notoriously under the influence of partisan
writers, that their opinion is altogether unworthy of
confidence. The sense of the country, we believe,
does not go along with the majority of the Assembly
in its view of the question at issue between the Civil
and Ecclesiastical jurisdictions.
(From the Greenock Advertiser.)
According to promise we have given in the present
sheet the speeches with which Drs. Cook and Chalmers
prefaced their motions respecting the course which the
Church ought to pursue in consequence of the decision
of the Civil Courts in the Auchterarder case. The
remainder of the debate, and the division which fol-
lowed, were given in our last. The lateness of the hour
at which the vote was taken precluded the possibility of
members remarking upon the nature and probable con-
sequences of this most important decision, but at the
next sitting the Earl of Dalhousie deplored in solemn
and pathetic terms the judgment of the Assembly, which
he,regarded as putting in imminent peril the very exist-
ence of the Church as a civil establishment of religion.
Since then several other members have entered protests
against the decision, and some of the Elders have signi-
fied their intention of resigning their offices in conse-
quence.

- It is not to be denied that the question is one of con-
siderable difficulty in whatever aspect it is regarded.
Whatever may be the ultimate result of the contest—
and we see quite as much ground for hope as despon-
dency—the Church is fairly committed to the principle
of non-intrusion. In adhering to this, she is sure to
have the sympathy and support of the vast majority
within her own pale, and, however they may disguise
it, the respect of those without.