The Sun.
London, England, 1840-08-13 00:00:00

THE NON-INTRUSION QUESTION•

The proceedings d the 'Commission of the
General Assembly, which holds its first meeting
to-day, cannot fail to have an important bearing on
the interests of the Church of Scotland. To the
Commission was referred, by the Assembly, the
case of the Strathbogie ministers, with instructions
to depose them from their offices unless they re-
traced their steps, humbled themselves before the
representatives of an offended Kirk, and promised
implicit obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors
for the future. None of these things have the
seven brethren of Strathbogie done, and none
of them will they do. The Commission will,
therefore, as a matter of course, proceed to the
ultima ratio, the deprivation of their benefices,
and the extinction of their clerical character.

Then comes the question, has the Commission
power to depose men from the office of the minis-
try ? The ablest opponents of Ecclesiastical Law
assert that it neither has, nor can hare, any such
power. What is this boasted Commission about
which the public hear so much ? Is it a Church
Court known to, and recognised by, the law of the
land ? Nothing of the kind. The only Courts

in which the business of the Church can be so
transacted as to possess legal validity, are the
Kirk Session, the Presbytery, the Synod, and, last
of all, the General Assembly. No sentence, we
apprehend, that does not proceed from one or
other of these regularly constituted and acknow-
ledged Courts, is worth the paper on which it is
recorded.

This boasted Commission does not seem to pos-
sess even the authority of a Committee of the
Assembly. It is not appointed by the Assembly,

it consists of no definite number of persons, it may
comprehend persons who were not members of the
last Assembly. In short, it seen's altogether an
anomalous body, originating, probably, in that
tendency towards usurpation which is an inherent
principle in all ecclesiastical corprations, and in-
tended to answer the purpose of a permanently-
sitting General Assembly. Dr. HILL, in his
" Constitution of the Kirk," states that it may be
constituted and proceed to business whenever and
wherever thirty;three members of the last Assem-
bly—twenty-one of whom are ministers—shall
chance to find themselves congregated together I
Dr. BRYCE, a high authority in the Church of
Scotland, holds that the Commission is at best no
more than a Committee of the Assembly, and that
the latter body, being itself delegated, could not
delegate its authority. .

ployed by my learned friend, Mr. Monteith, to prove
the getvlei'nen at the bar to be eonturhaeiOu, and justly
subject to the censures of the Church. It is founded on
the discipline of the Church, and it goes to establish
th'st the Church Courts must have the sole power and
authority, in saying who are to be the dispensers of the
ordinances of religion, as she possesses that of deter-
mining who are to be their receivers; and hence, as my
respected friends of Strathbogie have admitted the Civil
Courts into the former protess, they trust be held in
violation of the law and practice of the Church. Sir,
I am aware that what I am going to say, in answer to
this argument, wilt startle some of the gentlemen on
the other side, whose views on the matter of the
Church's power in discipline have been Lid before the
public ; and I must crave a patient hearing. I think,
Sir, that there prevail very great mistakes as to the ex•
tent of the Church's powers in the matter of discipline.
I am ready to maintain, and also to prove, that every
man in a parish, professing himself to be a member of
the Church of Scotland, has a right to be taken on
trial by his Minister and Session, to see whether lie is
qualified or not to be admitted to sealing ordinances.—
( Hear, hear.) And this right I further maintain is a
civil right.—(Cries of " Oh, oh !" from the left side.)
I am not to be deterred by these cries from doing my
duty in this place ; and I repeat, that the right of being
taken on trials as to qualifications for sealing ordinances,
is a civil right ; and I assert that if any minister of this
Church should refuse to take on trials or to examine an
applicant, who is not under public censure or Church
process, this minister would subject himself to an ac-
tion of damages before a Civil Court, for refusing a
civil right.—(Renewed cries of" Oh, oh !") I hope no
man mistakes me in what I now say. Let the minister
in the discharge of his duty say, •. You are not quali-
fied," and the Civil Court is utterly and entirely shut
out. It has no right to interfere in the question of
qualification to partake ; but it has right to enforce the
obligation of the minister to discharge the duty of try-
ing and examining. For what purpose, I would ask,
were an Establishment supported and endowed, if it
were optional with the clergy to do or not to do the du-
, ties for which they are paid by the State ? Gentlemen
on the other side may call this an invasion of the spiri-
tual independence of the Church ; but I can see no
difficulty in distinguishing where this independence com-
mences, and is, and has been hitherto, respected and
guarded by the civil law. It rests with the minister and
session of every perish—subject to appeal to the Pres-
bytery and other Church Courts—to pronounce on the
qualifications of applicants for admission to sealing ordi-
nances ; and from their judgments the Civil Courts are
shut out ! These judgments ate final under the statu-
torythe lawol4f.er of land,
t/iehu ..
affirming
what
I hold to be an in-
trinsic This doctrine is then applied to the ease of the
Strathbogie ministers in the following terms :

There is now lying before us a small pamphlet
entitled " The Non-Intrusion Question," consist-
ing of three speeches delivered by Dr. BRYCE in
the last Assembly, from which we shall make a few
extracts for the satisfaction of those of our readers
who may be desirous of knowing the opinions of a
man of eminent talents, and thoroughly versed in
the constitution of the Church to which he belongs,
on this interesting subject. On the points to which
we have keen adverting—the power and proceed-
ings of the Commission—Dr. BRYCE makes the
following just and conclusive remarks :
But, Sir, I am prepared to contend, that taking the
remit as it appears from the last Assembly to its Com-
mission, my reverend friends at the bar have imple-
mented the orders of the General Assembly. They
were directed to report any change of circumstances
that might occur to the Commission. A change did
occur on their receiving the decree of the Court of.
Session to take Mr. Edwards on trial, in the month of

And how, Sir, does this view of the dis
cipline argument bear upon the case before us?
It is easy to see this, by applying it to the case
of those who are to administer ordinances when
they come before the Church Courts. Tney bring
with them, limier certain specific conditions, a
civil right to be taken on trials ; and no Church Court
can with safety refuse them this right ; no Church
Court can withhold it from them, without violating
the la v, and violating their own oaths of allegiance.
This is the view of their duty taken by the gentlemen
at the bar ; and I am sure they are willing to illustrate
and defend it by the case of admitting the participator,
as well as the dispenser of holy ordinances, when
that case is rightly understood, and fairly applied.
Ir had been happy for the Kirk had the Assem-
bly been actuated by the spirit, the truly Christian
spirit, which breathes in the concluding portion of
this eloquent speech ; still happier had they
adopted the excellent advice which it contains :

Before I sit down, I would most earnestly entreat
the Assembly to consider the position in which the
Church is now placed as regards her relation to the
State and its tribunals ; I would beseech the House to
look forward to the consequences of maintaining the
unhappy contest that now exists between the Civil and
Ecclesiastical Judicatories. I know well that the dif-
ference of opinion on the great question of the Church's
spiritual independence which exists within these walls
is both wide and conscientiously entertained. The
language that has been employed on the other side,
both in vindication of the position assumed by it, and
in reprobation of the doctrines held upon this, leaves no
room to doubt upon this point. But, great as this dif-
ference unhappily is, can the gentlemen opposite refuse
to allow that doubts, at least, surround the position in
which we are? Can you hesitate to extend to us the
same conscientious regard to what we hold to be the
duty of the Church which you claim for yourselves ?
—and have you no misgivings that in this contest you
may have taken up the side of error and misapprehen-
sion? I feel assured that such doub:s and misgivings
you must entertain ; and 1 ask of you this day to int-
olate them on the altar of Christian charity. Even
under a tear and feeling that the brethren of the bar
may be guilty, give them the benefit of these doubts.
Surely the sacrifice will not be retused by him who
•• quenched not the smoking flax, nor broke the bruised
reed." Manifest that charity towards our brethren at
the bar, which " thinketh no evil," which •' auffereth
i long, and is kind."

June, and they reported accordingly ; intimating at the
same time their resolution to proceed in obeying the
C:vil Courts. It was for this resolution that they were
suspended I The Commission, when they came before
it on the 11th December, did not tell them they were
right on reporting the change, but wrong in resolving
to proceed. They did not warn them against taking
any further steps under certification that they should
be punished I And on what ground do the gentlemen
opposite now justify this severity ? They say that the
seven ministers, when asked at the bar of the Commis-
sion, had declared that they did not mean to desist
from obeying the Civil Courts ; and therefore the severe
measure, which indeed was pronounced most lenient,
was resorted to• But how stands the fact ? Toe seven
ministers' were not present personally at the Commis-
sicn ; and when their Counsel was asked if they would
desist, be said lie had no instructions. Was it fair, Sir,
to infer from this that the brethren would proceed to
the induction of Mr. Edwards, if not deprived of the
power, as it was held they might be? They have not
even yet proceeded to that step. In deference to the
Civil Courts, they have taken Mr. Edwards on trial ;
out of respect for this Assembly, they have not pro-
ceeded to induct him until your deliverance should be
given. Yet these are the men whom your Commission
ims suspended from their pastoral and judicial function !
Let me add my earnest solicitations to those of my
reverend friend near me, Dr. COO 4, that the Assembly
would take heed how it find ministers of the Church to
be censurable, who have acted in such a manner—how
it affirmed a sentence suspending thtm from their pasto-
ral and judicial functions for no other crime (!) than
obedience to the law as that law had been declared by
its highest judicatory. Let gentlemen opposite concur
in such a sentence, and then let them go home, and
from their pulpits inculcate upon the people to "submit
themselves to the powers that be because they are or-
dained of God !" and let them expect, if they can, the
response of a Christian flock to this command. lam
aware that I sin speaking more to the merits of the
general question, than to the powers of the Commission
to pass the sentence of suspension—the point more im-
mediately before the House. But I am remembering
—I cannot forget—how severely my reverend friends at
the bar have been punished ;—and for what? For
obedience to the law of the land ! This is their offence
—no more. Nor have they been alone the sufferers.
Their parishioners have also been punished—(Laugh-
ter, and cries of " Oh, oh !")—Sir, I repeat it—the
parishioners of the seven brethren have been punished—
aye, deeply punished by the sentence which has over-
taken their ministers.—(Hear, hear.) Is it no punish•
tnent to have had a doubt—a harassing and distressing
doubt—thrown around the pastoral services of men, to
whom these parishioners are warmly and affectionately
attached ?—(Oh, oh.) Do the gentlemen opposite
mean to deny that such is the place which my reverend
triends at the bar hold in the esteem of their parishoners
If they venture on such an assertion, it will be crushed
under the facts that establish all that I have said, and
„Odell sustain the ground I era now taking, that the
Commission of December not only proceeded ultra
vires, but in its eagerness to reach the supposed cul-
prits, it fl'eted its pains and penalties on their trooffend-
ng parishioners.
On the subject of co-ordinate jurisdiction between
the civil and ecclesiastical powers—that stumbling-
block to the fanatical party in the Kirk—the Rev.
Gentleman thus expresses himself : .
My learned friend has dwelt not a little on the
4round of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts htitiaa in
the matter of settlement a co-ordinate knisdiction. Now,'
Sir, how does this affect the gentlemen at the bit-? A
jurisdiction on the part of the Civil Courts is admitted,
and has been exercised and obeyed :—a jurisdiction on
Ihe part of the Ecclesiastical has been claimed, and has
Lint been obeyed—obedience to the decrees of both
being impossible. And what now awaits my friends at
the bar? The highest ecclesiastical censures of the
Church ? Had they imitated the example of the Presby-
Try of Auchterarder, what was the danger, on the other
nand, to which they exposed themselves ? The pains
and penalties of the civil law ! But how does my
!earned friend, Mr. Monteith, make out his co-ordinate
iurisdiction ? If it exists at all, I apprehend it must be
the creature of the statute ; and who is to interpret the
4atute but the tribunals of the legislature ? I have
inown, in a former debate, that the point of co-ordinate
jurisdiction is a res judicata. It was carried by the
Church herself to the only competent tribunal ; and that
tribunal has decided that no such co-ordinate jurisdiction
as is claimed by,the Church is known to the law. Now,
Sir, what is the bearing of this decision on the position
of the Rev. Gentlemen at your bar ? Does it not prove
beyond a doubt, that while acknowledging, like good and
loyal subjects, the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts, they
are, as sons of the Churca,guilty of no disrespect to any
jurisdiction legally vested in the Ecclesiastical ? And
yet, Sir, what is proposed this day to do with these gen-
tlemen? To punish them most severely—to punish their
parishes and their flocks—because they will not recog-
nise and submit to a jurisdiction which the House of
Lords, on your own appeal to it, has declined that von
do not possess !
We can readily believe that the following defence
of the privileges of the people, in opposition to the
claims of the clergy, notvuthstanding the clamour
made by the latter about the rights of their darling
people"—cannot be very palatable to the pro-
moters of the Non-Intrusion humbug
I would now, sir; advert to =other arguraeat

JOHN THOROGOOD.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SUN.

SIR—It is with much pleasure I have read your first
remarks on the inconsistent conduct of the Bishop of
London ; I hope you wiil again call the attention of your
readers to this subject, and also favour us by giving a
list of the names of those worthies of Chelmsford who
evinced their Church-A-Eaglandlike feelings by send-
ing a petition to the Huuse of Lords against the libera-
tion of the persecuted but highly to be respected Mr.
John Thorogood, and at the same time give us the
names of the dunderheads in the Lords that spoke and
voted against his being liberated from the truly unjust
and un-Christianlike imprisonment he is suffering. I
doubt not but Mr. Thorogood will remain firm to his
principles, and I do trust the nation will now demand his
being set free.—l remain, Sir, your's respectfully,
A CONSTANT READER.
Wednesday, Aug. 12.

11-1141 SUN, LONiioN. TITNISDAVt AticitTsT 13, 1846..