The church defiance of its previous interdicts.' was in no mood to abate her pretensions. Hitherto the members of the Strathbogie presbytery had been under sentence of suspension only. They had vainly sought protection from Parliament; and on the 27th of May 1841, the General Assembly deposed them from the ministry. Dr. Chalmers, in moving their deposition, betrayed the spirit which animated that Assembly, and the dangers which were now threatening the establishment. 'The church of Scotland,' he said, 'can never give way, and will sooner give up her existence as a national establishment, than give up her powers as a self-acting and self-regulating body, to do what in her judgment is best for the honour of the Redeemer, and the interest of his kingdom upon earth.' It was evident that the ruling party in the Assembly were prepared to resist the civil authority at all hazards. 2 bogie com The contest between the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions was now pushed still further. The StrathThe majority of the presbytery of Strath- missioners. bogie, who had been deposed by the General Assembly, but reinstated by the Court of Session, elected.commissioners to the General Assembly: the minority elected others. The Court of Session interdicted the commissioners elected by the minority, from taking their seats in the Assembly. And in 3 1 June 11th, 1840. Dunlop, Bell, and Murray's Reports, ii. 1047, 1380. 2 Ann. Reg., 1841, p. 71-73; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lvii. 1377 ; Iviii. 1503; Buchanan, ii. 17-285. May 27th, 1842. Dunlop, Bell, and Murray's Report, iv. 1298. Lord Fullerton, who differed from the majority of the court, said: 'According to my present impression, this court has no more right Claim and declaration of General May 1942. revomiting the excummary of these refractory commledoners, the count was forced to adjudge the sometitution and rights of the Ecclesiastical Assem305. All these decisions were founded on the prineiple that ministers and members of the Church of Soodland were Dt to be permitted to refuse obediense to the decrees of the civil courts of the realm, or to claim the exercise of rights which those courts Lad pronounced illegal. The church regarded them as encroachments upon her spiritual functions. It was plain that such a conflict of jurisdictions could not endure much longer. One or the other must yield: or the legislature must interfere to prevent confusion and anarchy. In May 1842, the General Assembly presented to Her Majesty a claim, declaration, and protest, complaining of encroachments by the Court of Session ; and also an address, praying for the abolition of patronage. These communications were followed by a memorial to Sir Robert Peel and the other members of his government, praying for an answer to the complaints of the church, which, if not redressed, would inevitably result in the disruption of the establishment. On behalf of the government, Sir James Graham, Secretary of State for the Home Department, returned a reply, stern 1843. and unbending in tone, and with more of rebuke than conciliation. The aggression, he said, had originated with the Assembly, who had passed Answer of Jan. 4th, to grant such an interdict, than to interdict any persons from taking their seats and acting and voting as members of the House of Commons.-Ibid. the illegal Veto Act, which was incompatible with the rights of patrons as secured by statute. By the standards of the church, the Assembly were restrained from meddling with civil jurisdiction: yet they had assumed to contravene an Act of Parliament, and to resist the decrees of the Court of Session,-the legal expositor of the intentions of the legislature. The existing law respected the rights of patrons to present, of the congregation to object, and of the church courts to hear and judge,—to admit or reject the candidate. But the Veto Act deprived the patrons of their rights, and transferred them to the congregations. The government were determined to uphold established rights, and the jurisdiction of the civil courts: and would certainly not consent to the abolition of patronage. To this letter the General Assembly returned an answer of extraordinary logical force but the controversy had reached a point beyond the domain of argument.1 Jan. 20th, The church was hopelessly at issue with the civil power. Nor was patronage the only ground Quoad sacra of conflict. The General Assembly had ministers, admitted the ministers of quoad sacra 1843. parishes and chapels of ease, to the privileges of the parochial clergy, including the right of sitting in the Assembly, and other church courts.2 The legality of the acts of the Assembly was called in question; and in January 1843, the Court of Session adjudged them to be illegal. On the meeting of 'Papers presented in answer to addresses of the House of Commons, Feb. 9th and 10th, 1843; Buchanan, ii. 357. 2 Acts of Assembly, 1833, 1834, 1837, and 1839. Stewarton Case, Bell, Murray, &c., Reports, iv. 427. the Assembly on the 31st of January, a motion was made, by Dr. Cook, to exclude the quoad sacra ministers from that body, as disqualified by law: but it was lost by a majority of ninety-two. Dr. Cook, and the minority, protesting against the illegal constitution of the Assembly, withdrew; and the quoad sacra ministers retained their seats, in defiance of the Court of Session. The conflict was approaching its crisis; and, in the last resort, the Assembly agreed upon a petition to Parliament, complaining of the encroachments of the civil courts upon the spiritual jurisdiction of the church, and of the grievance of patronage. General 1843. He This petition was brought under the consideration Petition of of the Commons, by Mr. Fox Maule. ably presented the entire case for the church; and the debate elicited the opinions of ministers, and the most eminent members of all parties. Amid expressions of respect for the church, and appreciation of the learning, piety, and earnestness of her rulers, a sentiment prevailed that until the General Assembly had rescinded the Veto Act, in deference to the decision of the House of Lords, the interposition of Parliament could scarcely be claimed, on her behalf. She had taken up her position, in open defiance of the civil authority ; and nothing would satisfy her claims but submission to her spiritual jurisdiction. Some legislation might yet be possible: but this petition assumed a recognition of the claims of the church, to which the majority of the House were not prepared to assent. Sir Robert Peel regarded these claims as involving 'the establishment of an ecclesiastical domination, in defiance of law,' which 'could not be acceded to without the utmost ultimate danger, both to the religious liberties and civil rights of the people.' The House concurred in this opinion, and declined to entertain the claims of the church by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five.1 The May 18th, 1843. This decision was accepted by the non-intrusion party as conclusive; and preparations were immediately made for their secession from secession, the church.2 The General Assembly met on the 18th May, when a protest was read by the moderator, signed by 169 commissioners of the Assembly, including quoad sacra ministers and lay elders. This protest declared the jurisdiction assumed by the civil courts to be 'inconsistent with Christian liberty, and with the authority which the Head of the church hath conferred on the church alone.' It stated that the word and will of the state having recently been declared that submission to the civil courts formed a condition of the establishment, they could not, without sin, continue to retain the benefits of the establishment to which such condition was attached, and would therefore withdraw from it,-retaining, however, the confession of faith and standards of the church. After the reading of this protest, the remonstrants with 1 Ayes, 76; Noes, 211. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lxvii. 354, 441. See also debate in the Lords on Lord Campbell's resolutions, March 31; Ibid., lxviii. 218; Debate on Quoad Sacra Ministers, May 9th; Ibid., lxix. 12. 2 Minute of Special Commission of the General Assembly, March 20th; Ann. Reg., 1843, p. 245; Buchanan, ii. 427. |