網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

acts of Parliament, which have been for nearly a century and a-half in operation, are, in their opinion, contrary to the constitution ?"

[ocr errors]

The Non-intrusionists say, that in their opinion the act of Queen Anne, re-establishing the right of patrons, is contrary to the constitution, and that the only way to remedy the existing evil is, to deprive the patrons of their usurped rights, and to vest the right of patronage either in the whole parishioners, or some considerable section of them. Be it so. Let it be conceded, for argument's sake, that their views in this respect are wholly well-founded, and that they possess a case in this particular so strong, that the legislature must, in the end, concede their demands. What is the proper course which all orderly subjects should adopt in such a case? Ought they not to address themselves to the understanding of the public, and convince their reason by argument, and thus strive, in the usual way, to effect an influence on the legislature? If reason fails, or argument is found unequal to the conflict with power, let them even agitate in support of the change for which they contend, and endeavour to extort, by popular outcry, from an unwilling legislature, the objects which they have at heart.

These are all the methods of working constitutional changes, which a constitutional monarchy allows; and although the third is an ultimum remedium, to which wise men will have recourse as seldom as possible, yet experience proves that it is sometimes indispensable, in order to effect legislative improvement in opposition to interested power. But the Non-intrusionists do none of these things. Discarding all constitutional weapons, they at once unfurl the red flag of rebellion. They resist the execution of the law by means of an arbitrary stretch, which they get the Church courts to make, without any legal authority. And when this illegality is declared by the highest judicatory in the kingdom, they still continue the conflict, and distract the minds of the people, and shake the foundations of government, by supporting with the weight of rank, talent, learning, and piety, an undisguised resistance to the law.

Dr Chalmers says, that the Church of Scotland acknowledges no head

but Jesus Christ; that no civil courts can interfere in the appointment to spiritual functions; that he disclaims, in the name of his party, all intention of interfering with the jurisdiction of the civil courts touching temporal emoluments; but that the co-equal and independent jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical judicatories in spiritual matters must also be maintained, and that there he nails his colours to the mast. Concede, for argument's sake, the principle, and let us see whether that argument, when carried to its legitimate conclusions, is consistent with the active resistance which he is maintaining to the law. He says that the civil and ecclesiastical courts are independent and equally supreme, and that neither must interfere with, nor trench upon, the prerogatives of the other. Granted. According to this principle, the presentee of the patron supported by the civil courts, is not entitled to interfere with the spiritual duties of the parish, and the presentee of the Non-intrusionists, supported by the ecclesiastical courts, is not entitled to interfere with the civil emoluments of his temporal rival. So far all is clear and consistent, and both courts are maintained in their respective supreme temporal and spiritual spheres.

To carry out the principle to its proper consequences, and preserve this mutual independence quite entire, the obvious course plainly is, for the temporal presentee to be inducted, and draw the temporal fruits, and immediately to be interdicted by the spiritual court from discharging any of the sacred functions; and for the spiritual nominee of the people to be immediately interdicted by the civil court from drawing any of the temporal emoluments. In this way, the co-ordinate supremacy of each court would be maintained inviolate in its respective spheres. The civil presentee would draw all the emoluments and do nothing, and the spiritual presentee would discharge all the duty and draw nothing. Such a state of things would be the direct consequences of the doctrines of the nonintrusionists, pushed to their legitimate results; and however much it might be regretted by all friends to religion and to the poor, as tending to divorce the connexion between Church and State, destroy the efficiency of the Establishment, and blast the religious instruction of the poor, it could

not be objected to on the score of consistency.

But this is not what the Non-intrusionists do. They do not allow the civil presentee to be inducted, and then interdict him from discharging the spiritual functions. They refuse to induct him at all, and thereby preelude him even from drawing the civil emoluments; induction being, by law, an indispensable preliminary to the patron's presentee acquiring right to the manse or glebe. They threaten with deprivation, and are now actually proceeding to deprive of their livings, the clergy of the presbyteries who induct contrary to the injunctions of the spiritual courts. By so doing, by interposing their negative at this early stage of the proceedings, they not only are acting in opposition to the civil law, but in direct violation of the very distinction between the jurisdictions of the church and civil courts for which they themselves so strenuously contend. While they disclaim all intention of interfering with the temporal emoluments, they contrive to interpose their negative at such a time and in such a way as effectually deprives the civil presentee of all the temporal emoluments of the living. While continually roaring out about spiritual independence, they are in truth sweeping off from their opponents the whole civil emoluments connected with the living. And while professing to contend only for having Christ as the head of the Church, they are in effect keeping a sharp eye upon the temporalities of the benefices.

To test the matter, suppose the case reversed. Suppose the presentee of the people, supported by the spiritual courts, to be inducted by the Presbytery, and that immediately upon doing so the Court of Session were to proceed to interdict him, not for drawing the stipend, living in the manse, or making use of the church, all which are the temporalities of benefices, and within the proper jurisdiction of the civil courts, but also from preaching, or discharging any spiritual function inany part of the parish, would not the Non-intrusion party immediately ex. claim that this was a flagrant violation of the independence of the church courts; that the civil judicatories had overstepped the frontier, and trenched deep on the spiritual territory, and that no decree of the civil courts could interfere with the ecclesiastical esta

blishment in spiritnal matters? There can be no doubt that this argument would be well-founded, at least it would be in perfect consistency with the separate sphere of civil and ecclesiastical judicatories for which they contend. But in what respect does such a case differ on principle from that which has now occurred, when the church courts, by preventing induction, debar the civil presentee from drawing the civil emoluments? It is evident that the latter is just as much an overstepping of the line of demarcation between the two jurisdictions as the former could have been, and that the Non-intrusion party are not now contending for an immunity of spiritual from civil power, but for an encroachment, by the spiritual courts, over the civil rights and patrimonial interests of the clergy of the kingdom.

And what sort of establishment would it be, that for which Dr Chalmers and the Non-intrusionists thus vociferously clamour, and to gain which they thus thrust forward the church courts into an invasion of the civil judicatory, and distract the country by the frightful spectacle of a large portion of the Church and a considerable body of the people being openly and avowedly arrayed in rebellion against the law? Is it not a church establishment on the most absurd and impracticable of all foundations that of the landed proprietors paying for the clergyman, and the people by universal suffrage, or some committee of their number, electing the clergyman? Was such a system ever heard of upon earth? Is it possible it could exist for five years? Would it not necessarily end in persons of property leaving a church, and shaking themselves loose of an establishment in which they had no longer any influence in the appointment of the clergy, and betaking themselves either to the Voluntary system, or to a general resistance to the payment of tithes? With what countenauce could the Non-intrusion clergy intrude themselves into the manse or the stipends? How could they call in the aid of the law to enforce their civil rights, or recover their tithesthey who had openly set the law at defiance, and who had intruded themselves into their respective parishes by trampling on its provisions? Do the clergy not see that the passive resistance to the law is a two-edged wea

pon, and that the heritors, at present burdened with tithes, may resist any further payment of them, by saying, "We are entitled to resist the law, because we think it is contrary to the constitution, and we hold the constitu tion to be the law of the land, minus the payment of tithes ?"

And let not the people, or the clergy of the people of Eugland, imagine that these topics are foreign to their interests, or that revolutionary and rebellious doctrines, such as these now promulgated and acted upon by the Nonintrusion party in the Church of Scotland, can be permitted to run riot in one part of the empire without endangering the whole. The example of the rapid way in which the anarchical doctrines of the Scottish covenant spread to and convulsed England, until they terminated in the Fifth-monarchy men of Cromwell, should be sufficient to convince them that such principles are not to be dallied with with impunity either in Church or State. It is always agreeable to the people to be vested with power; it is a very captivating doctrine with the masses to be told that they alone are competent to judge who are fit to be their spiritual instructors. It is still more captivating for the multitude to find themselves invested with the agreeable privilege of appointing the minister, while the persons of property are saddled with the painful operation of paying him.

No mortal will suppose that the movement will stop short as the Member for Kilmarnock wishes; he may propose to stop at Hounslow, but the movement will undoubtedly go on to Windsor. Down to the masses, the stone will roll when it is once loosened from its resting-place on the summit of the hill. Such principles are well calculated to rouse the revolutionists, to the south as well as to the north of the Tweed. They, too, can see the expedience of dividing the Church, by throwing the torch of dissension among its members; they, as well as the Scotch Whigs, can make a pretence of supporting the Non-intrusionists in the Church, in order to keep out the decided Tory intrusionists in the Cabinet. The flame of church revolution, if it succeeds in consuming the Scotch church establishment, will infallibly spread to and destroy that of England, and thus the leaders of the violent ecclesiastical party in Scotland

[blocks in formation]

And for what end is this fearful danger to be brought upon both parts of the empire? Is it to improve the Church-to elevate the character of its doctrine-to extend the blessings of its instruction? Is it not, on the contrary, to establish, without any exception, the most deplorable and unworkable establishment that ever existed? Who ever heard of the clergy of a national establishment being appointed by the universal suffrage of the members of the respective congregations? Does not such a system necessarily let into the establishment the whole evils, the well-known evils of the Voluntary system, and which Dr Chalmers, in particular, has with so much truth and eloquence illustrated? Must it not necessarily induce the intriguing to procure elections, the dependence of clergy on their flocks, the timidity at denouncing the vices or withstanding the cor rupt tendency of the tyrant majorities in their respective parishes, so well known to the reflecting in Europe, so woefully experienced by the irreflecting in America? Is it possible to imagine, for human wit to devise, a worse mode of election to any office of importance than that of vesting it in some hundreds or a thousand of the multitude, for the most part in the humblest and most unenlightened walks of life? Would such a mode of election be deemed safe for the appointment of a parish clerk, a road surveyor, or police officer, or any of the humblest offices in society which require the meanest capacity? Does not the universal practice of mankind, when assembled in large bodies, in naming a small committee, to whom the executive department is entrusted, prove the impossibility of getting business properly conducted, or proper appointments effected, by such numerous, changeable, and uninformed bodies? Is such a mode of election, as experience has every where discarded from the ordinary occupations of common life, to be selected as the fit mode of appointing those who are to watch over our spiritual instruction and eternal interests; and are we not absolutely insane if, when we would not

entrust an irresponsible tyrant ma. jority with the decision of a pecuniary question of twenty shillings, we nevertheless entrust to it the appointment of those to whom we surrender the direction of our immortal souls?

Patronage of churches, when vested in a single individual, may be often abused; but the real question is, not whether such abuse exists, but whether it is not more likely to be in creased than diminished by vesting the nomination of the clergy in the whole, or any considerable number of the parishioners. Patronage, as present constituted by law, has one immense advantage in the estimation of all who are acquainted with the workings of human nature ;-it vests the power of nomination in one responsible person. No doubt he may often make an improper appointment; sometimes do so from selfish, or improper motives; but if he does this, every one knows that the appointment rests with him, and he will never hear the last of it as long as he lives. But, if any improper appointment is made by an irresponsible promiscuous body, of some hundred or thousand parish ioners, every body will throw the blame upon his neighbour; the majority who chose him will be lost in the obscurity of the whole electors; and no individual will be found upon whom the responsibility of the wrong appointment can be thrown. proverbially known, that large bodies of men are much more prone to error, and much more liable to be deceived, than when acting singly, or in two or three together; and it is for that reason that in all ages it has been found necessary to vest the government of nations, armies, and provinces in single individuals, instead of irresponsible masses. If, therefore, the Non-intrusionists shall prove successful in spoliating the patrons, and establishing universal suffrage in church matters, by preaching up resistance to the law, we shall have voluntarily taken the important trust of appointing our spiritual guides out of the hands of those who are known, and are responsible, and whom the experience of all ages has found to be the only safe deposi

It is

taries of important power, and vested it in numerous bodies, who are ill-informed and irresponsible, and whom the experience of all ages, and of ordinary life in every department, has proved or found to be incapable of managing even the most common concerus of human affairs. That is to say, we shall have voluntarily favoured injustice, and forwarded revolution, in order to diminish the chances of the people obtaining the best class of spiritual teachers.

And if the cause of universal suffrage is triumphant in the church, how, it may be asked, is it to be resisted in the State? If the Non-intrusion party succeed by dint of clamour, resistance to the law, and misrepresentation, in at last obtaining the worst mode of appointing spiritual teachers that human wit has ever yet devised, namely, the nomination of the masses in one part of the kingdom, how is it to be resisted in another? With what countenance can it be maintained, that the rights of patrons are to be spoliated and set at nought to the north of the Tweed, and defended and maintained inviolate to the south of that river

that the clergy are to be elected by universal suffrage in Scotland, and by the crown, the bishops, or the patrons in the English counties? Such an imaginary line was never between revolution and Conservatism in the same empire. If the great cause of patron spoliation, and non-intrusion resistance to the laws, be successful in the northern end of the island, it will unquestionably be not slow of spreading also to the southern. Obsta principiis, is the only safe principle upon which Conservatives or holders of property canact in such cases. The anomaly of a popularly elected church and a hereditary monarchy cannot co-exist in the same country. The English may now not understand, or despise, the quarrels of the Scottish church, but let them beware. In former days, it was the Scottish covenant which overturned the English crown, and another solemn league and covenant has been formed, and signed, and is now acted upon by the Non-intrusion party to the north of the Tweed.

INDEX TO VOL. XLVIII.

A few hours at Hampton Court, 764.
A night excursion with Martin Zur-
bano, 740.

Abaza, a second chapter of Turkish his-
tory, 177.

Alison, Archibald, Esq., review of vol.
viii. of his History of Europe, 64-
his works on the "Principles of Po-
pulation, and their connexion with
Human Happiness," reviewed, 808.
Andryane, Alexander, his Memoirs of a

Prisoner of State, noticed, 495.
Archæus, thoughts in rhyme by, 280.
Art and its vehicles, 255.
Austrians, Charles Julius Weber's ac-
count of them quoted, 487- notice
of Von Wolfgang Menzel's Travels
in Austria, taken, 487-notice of Peter
Evan Turnbull's Austria, taken, 487.

Baden-Baden, 478.

Bagdad, the fall of, a third chapter of
Turkish history, 595.
Bath, the Monarch of, 773.

Beauty Draught, the, a tale, 795-Chap.
II., 798-Chap. III., 806.
Bell, James Stanislaus, his " Journal of

a Residence in Circassia during the
years 1837, 1838, and 1839," review-
ed, 619.
Bridegroom of Barna, the, an Irish

tale, 680-II, 688-III., 694-IV.,
696-V., 698-VI., 700-VII, 702.
Boundary question, the results of the

late survey of it made by English en-
gineers, stated, from their report,
331.

Bouvet, F., his réponse à M. Guizot,
noticed, 522.

Bunn, Alfred, his work on " The Stage
both before and behind the curtain,"
reviewed, 234.

Camoëns, a dramatic sketch, in one act,

by Frederick Halm, 220.
Carmen Triumphale, stanzas suggested
under the flag of the marble arch of
the Queen's palace, the evening of
Wednesday, June 10, 1840, by B.
Simmons, 33.

Candidates' garland, an excellent new
song, so named, to the air of "
Стор-
pies lie down," 534.

Caucasian war, the, being a review of
James Stanislaus Bell's " Journal of a
Residence in Circassia during the
years 1837, 1838, and 1839," 619.
Celtic language, the history of the, being
a review of L. Maclean's work of that
name, 249.
Chamberlayne, Dr, quotations given from
his "Sketches of England in the 17th
century," 263.

Charles-Edward after Culloden, by B.
Simmons, 824.

Cicala-Pasha, a chapter of Turkish his-
tory, 18.

Circassia, a political sketch of the pre-
sent position of that country, 84—J.
S. Bell's journal of a residence in, re-
viewed, 619-a war-song, 675.
Contrabandist, the, 771.
Correggio and Leonardo da Vinci, on,
270.

Delta, to a wounded ptarmigan, 175—
De Quincey's Revenge, a ballad in
three fittes, by, 578.
Democracy in America, being a review
of M. de Tocqueville's work of that
name, 463.

De Quincey's Revenge, a ballad in three
fittes, with genealogical and antiqua-
rian notes, by Delta, 578.
Devil's, The, Last Walk, 676.
De Walstein, the Enthusiast, a tale of
the French Revolution, 338.
Dreams, Omens, &c., a few passages
concerning, 194.

Europe, history of, from the French
Revolution in 1789, to the restoration
of the Bourbons in 1815, being a re-
view of the eighth volume of Mr Ali-
son's work of that name, 64.

Field Flowers, a poetical homage, 674.
Foreign Politics, 546-a strong feeling

exists, and has existed, in this country
in regard to the designs of Russia,
ib. by thus accusing Russia of
schemes of aggrandizement, it is not
improbable that she may be driven to
attempt what she has so long been
accused of, ib.- this delusion of
Russian aggrandizement has arisen

« 上一頁繼續 »