IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) h // < signifie "A SUIVRE ", le symbole V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmic " ^i«K,xjF»"rxorv 01' THE SYNOD OF CANADA, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHDIICH of SCOTLAND CALLED FOR? AN ADDKESS TO THE PllESBYTEEIANS OF CANADA WHO STILL SUPPORT THE SYNOD IN CON- NECTION WITH THE CHl'RCH OF SCOTLAND. PUJiLlSHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CO^IMISSION OF THE SYNOD OF THE PRES13YTERIAN CHURCH OF CANADA. 'V 'T lUlANTFORD : C K. STKWAKT k Co. BOOK ANM) .TOIJ I'RLNTKKS. (JE()K(;K fiTHKKT. 1872. v\ i^^ f III 1 I w #.'/; » I •t =^-, > i t / WAS THE ^. \ R.ECE1XT l>IH3EtTJFTIOTV OF THE SYNOD OF CANADA, IN CONNECTION WITH THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND, CALLED FOR? • \\ AN ADDKESS TO THE PEESBYTEEIANS OF CANADA AVHO STILL SUPPOET THE SYNOD IN CON- NECTION WITH THE CHUECH 01:^ SCOTLAND. PUBLISHED AT THE BEQUEST OF THE COMMISSION OF THE SYNOD OF THE PBESBYTEBIAN CHUBCH OF CANADA. \{ BEANTFOED : C. E. STEWART & CO.. BOOK AND JOB X'KIXTERS, GEORGE STREET. 1872. ^ .' . . I PUBLISHEB'S NOTICPJ. A number «[ clcTg5'mcn and others connected with the Canada rrt-sbyterian Church, believing that it would be - > • I WAS THE DISRUPTION CALLED FOR ? The most oommon answer with which tho friends of the Pres- byterian Church in Canada, when advocfltmg the necessity of the recent dibruption, are met hy thone who fcupport t]ie Hynod in connection witli the Cliurcli of bcothmd, is, that whatever may have heen the case in Scothind, a disruption in Can- ada was completely uncalled fur. And, by many, the m6re as- sertion involved in this answer, is obviously regarded as in itself conclusive. Indeed, one can scarcely move about in society, without meeting with some simpleton c>r other, who will deliver himself of this answer vrilh an air of oracular wisdom, as if it settled the whole ijutstiun at issue completely and for ever. "Sir, it is my njiiniun that the disruption was a thing eompletely uncalled for. There may, it is true, have been occa- sion for the disruption in Scotland ; »nd. perhaps, had I been in Scotland, I should have joined the Frw (.'fntrrfi too ; but, in Canada, Sir, in Canada — three thousand miles from Scotland — where union among all Presbyteriaus was of such immense im- portance, the disruption, let me teil you, was an act of most gratuitous folly." Of those who would scitlo the question in this summary way, a large proportion, there is reason to believe, are about as re- markable for their ignorance as for their conhdenco. When asked to give a reason for their opinion, and thus gently reminded that assertion, however confident, is not exactly tho same thing with argument, it will commonly be found — we have even heard not a few frank'y avow it, — that they have never studied the subject at all, hat they have been quite content to jump to their conclusion in tiie dark, and that, mir,taking the mere asser- tion, that the disruption vras uncalled for, for an argument, they have never supposed that any other reason for their judgment could be expected or required. To such persons we have little to say. The conduct oi men, professing to be followers of Christ, who can coolly dispose, in this way. of a grave and mo- mentous question of principle — a question, moreover, deeply alTecting the intereists of the Redeemer's kingdom — needs no comment ; their support of the Synod in connection with the Church of Scotland, yields her no honour ; md their conviction, by argument, however conclusive, may be regarded as next to hopeless. » Among those, however, who allege that the disruption was uncalled for, there are, we believe, not a few with whom it is not altogether hopeless to reason, — whose opinion, if not based on a very careful aucl searching examination of the subject, has itn origin in feelings which are far from being blame-worthy, and, with which, indeed, wo heartily sympathise, and who have not yet i^arted with the honest desire to judge of the question at issue between us, upon a full and dispassiouato consideration of the whole merits of the case. To such persons we are anxious to supply the materials, from which wo conceive an enlightened and impartial judgment may be formed ; and wo now respectfully addrosi them, bolieviug, as we do, that if they will only patiently listen to us, wo shall be able to furnish them with reasons good and strong, for reversing the judgment to which, through partial information, they have come, and for concluding that, in so far at least as our separation from the Synod which they are sup- jjorting is concerned, the disruption, instead of being unneces- sary, wa« imperatively called for, by a regard to the duty which we owed to Christ. And, in entering upon the statement which wo propose to submit to tlicm, wo are happy in being able to assure such per- sons, that, with the feelings under which chiefly wo believe they have formed their opinions and are now acting, we can heartily sympathise. You have a strong feeling that there need not, and oKijht not to have existed any occasion for a disruption in Canada, in conse- quence of the disruption of the Church of Scotland; that so lamentable an event might easily have been prevented ; and that had only a littlo common sense, not to spouk of principle, pre- vailed in the Synod, it could never have occurred. Wo cherish the very same feeling ! Nay ; we will even go the length of saying, that, in this seit-^r, a more "uncalled-for disruption" never occurred. "What wo object to is, the conclusion to which, under this feeling, you have come, nnd into wliicli wo believe your better judgment was hurried b}' it, before you had given to the subject that full and anxious consideration which its impor- tance deserved, — the conclusion, we mean, that (irrasinn did no! actuallji arisf, or that circumstances did not actually occur, which rendered our secession necessary, and that we are, therefore, tho guilty cause of an "uncalled-for disruption." The feeling, under which you have decided against us, we conceive to be right ; but iu-.^uorr.nce of the facts of the case, you have allowed it to flow in a vrrong channel, and directed it against the wrong parties. Allowing, as we most unreservedly do, that the disruption in Canada could only have been brought about by the most inex- cusable folly as well as wickedness, — allowing tlmt in the circum- stances in which the Synod was placed, by the disruption of the Church of Scotland, there existed no necessary occasion for a disruption among its members, — no strong temptation even to such a course as would lead to it, nothing, in a word, that could haveledtoit, among wise, honest, true-hearted men, allowing this we woTJtld put it to yourselves, does this show, or can this show i that wo arc the guilty autliors of the disruption? or does it prove that occasion did not actually arise for it, or, in other words, that a course of procedure was not actually adopted by the majority of the Synod, which rendered our separation from them a duty? To ring the changes, as so many seem to do, on the melancholy fact that there oiiiiht not, and in'cded tu.t to have been any occasion for the disruption in Canada, and, under the feelings tlius excited, to neglect the essential enquiry, wliether that event did not actually become necessary, through the course pursued by the Synod, and to jump to the conclusion, that on our heads the sin of an "uncalled-for disruption" is to be laid, is a course unworthy of intelligent men. The fact, that the supporters of the Presbyterian Churcli of Canada happened to be in the minority in the Synod, and were thus the moving party in the disruption, has led some well- meaning persons, not accustomed to rellect on such subjects, to ■upposo that, as a matter of course, they are the cause of the disruption, jind that on them the blame of that event must lie. But, we would lii'g such persona to consider, that tlie moving party in a disruption are not always the real disruptionists, — that the guilt of rL'udiu'j^, — aye, of unncces.-jiirily rending, — : Ciiureh, may lie on tho luads of the remaining, or Iksiduary party ; — and that a disruption niuy have been uuncci'ssurv and uncalled-for, in the sense of there having been no such dilference of professed principle among those who have taken part in it, and no such strong temj^tatiou to deviate from tho path of duty, as should have presented any formidable barrier to a reconcilement of differences of opinion, and to an agreement to act together on the side of truth and principle ; and yet that that very disruption may have been rendered inevita])lc, and tlie secession of those who are the moving party in it, an imperative duty, by the selfish folly — the unprincipled tergiversation — the flagrant disregard of what was due to the Headship of Christ — and the openly avowed determination to support the cause of His enemies — into which the majority of a Cliurch may have recklessly and gra- tuitously plunged. The way of deciding who was in the right in the preseiit case, and on which side vour dutv to Christ calls vou to stand, is not by harping, however gracefully or plaintively, on the one string: surely the disruption was uncalled for, — surely it might have been prevented*, — surely all the members of the Synod might still have been united in peace and harmony, — but, by enquiring into all the circumstances of the case, and learning fully the grounds on which each party has acted. The case is one of facts, and of principles ; and, by a careful reference to the proofs and arguments, illustrative of these, a right judgment upon its merits can alone be formed. In no other way can you be entitled to pronounce who has acted from principle, and in obedience to the dictates of conscience, and from a simple- hearted regard to the honor of Christ, and who, under the in- fluence of some inferior and unworthy motives, — who is on the « L 6 siilo of Christ, ami who on tho sido ( f liis enemies, — or of those, at loust, who wittingly or unwittingly are doing injury to HIb cause. Tho 'piestion at issue, betweon us and tlio Synod in connec- tion with tlio Clmrch of Scotland, is hrioily this : — Has the Church of Scotland sinned in mutters vital and fundamental ; and was tho Synod called, on the ground of her having so tinned, to dissolve connection with her ? And on tho answer to he given to that question, must depend the answer to tho other ()ueHtion. Which of us is in the right. — which on Christ's side, — and which the real and guilty cause of tli(.' disruption '? We undertake to prove that tii" Oiurch of Scotland has so sinned, — that tho Sy- nod was imperatively called upon to renounce connection with that sinning Cliurch. — and that when wantonly and gratuitouslj the majority of the Synod resolved to stand hy that Church, — to uphold and encourage her in her sin, — and to lend their iu- tluence to extend and perpetuate the dishonor sho has cast on the cause of Christ, and the wrong she has done to the people of Scolland, — no alternative was left us but to geparato from thoir communion, and to wash our hands of the guilt which we believL'd them to have incurred, and of the course of opposition tothe interests of Christ's kingdom, on which we considered them to have enterid. If wo cm establish these positions, — if we can prove to you that our procedure has l>een justilied by reasons so conclusive, — then, su]-ely, you must admit that we at least are not chargo- able with tlie blame of the disruption ; that if it was not called for in one sense, it wos most imperatively called for in another; and, th;:t they wlio rendered it necessary by their uncalled-for disregiu\l to principK' and expediency, and every motive which ought to liiive weighed v.-ith them in the matter, are the proper parrii's against whom yonv indignation at this "so uncalled for disru})tiou" will not indeed lie lessoned — on the contrary, we be- lieve it will be deepened — Init that it will flow in a very difl'erent channel. But you demur to tho correctness of the positions with respect to tho sin of the Established Church of Scotland, and the duty of the Synod in Canada, which we have just laid down. Very proper ! Wo do not wish you to take them for granted, as you have been taking the opinions on which you have hitherfo been acting, uithout vufjuinj. What we desire is, that you should hear, and weigh dispassionately what we have to say, and then judge for yourselves, as reason and conscience shall approve. We do not dread investigation, — we court it. We do not muzzle the mouths of those who come among us to support our cause, we love free and full discussion. What we dread is, judgment pronounced in ignorance, — sentimental tears about "this un- called-for disruption" precluding enquiry, — and the common- places of prejudice and selfishness bandied about as argumentc, and substituted for tho dictates of sound principle and common sense. •^ ft I I •f Lot us liopo that you will fo'' " ud poutlcr ovci our urgu- ments, while we p'-occeJ brietl^ .u 'uy before you tho ^roundH upon which we justify our procedure, in HCpiirutiuK' from tho Synod in connection witli the Ciiurch of Scothiud, and on which wo belioTO that that procedure should comuicnd itsolf to every friend of tho spiritual independence of tho Church, and every well wisher to tho causo of Christ in Canada. Wo holievo that many are repelled from the examination of tho subject, by tho complicatioix of tho details which re(|uiro to bo considered, and the contradictory assertions in regard to matters of fact which are made on tlio ojiposito sides; — we sluill, therefore, endeavour to present tho sul)ject in as simple a form as possible, and to establish the positions advanced, l)y a reference to irrofraf,'al)io proofs. Only discard from your minds all regard to bold and general assortiojis on either side ; and, by the verdict which you pronounce on the facts which wo shall adduce, aud the prin- ciples to which "WO si mil ajipeal, wo shall be content to abide. SIN OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. To understand the sin of the Church of Scotlinid, three things will require to be ecuisidored. First — The Scriptural Constitu- tion of tlnit Churcli, as laid down in her stiUhlards, and sanc- tioned by the State in her establishment. Srauhl — The claims, subversive of that constitution, to a right of interference with her ecelcsiasticul procedure, which have been nnule by the Civil Courts, and sanctioned by the Ijegislatnre. And, l/iinl — -Tho action of tho Churcli in regard to these claims, iuid the position in relation to the state in which she now stands. First. — COKSTITUTION OF THE ChURCH OF hJcOTLAND. To thoSO who know anything of tho history of the Chureh of Scotland, it will be a familiar fact, that that Church has been specially dis- tinguished among tho Churches of the llefurmation, for her testimonies and contcndings on behalf of tho crown rights of Christ as "King of Kings," and "King of Saints." On the one hand she has ever maintained, that it was the dut\ of the civil magistrate, as under law to Christ, the "King of Kings," tho Prince of tho Kings of the earth, and bound to act within tho civil province committed to his care, in accordance with His laws, and for tho promotion of Ilis glory, to eountennnce, jiro- tect, and establish the Church. And, on the other hand, siio has no less uniformly and zealously maintained, that the Church, as a kingdom, not of this world, — the spiritual kingdom of Christ, as "King of Saints,"- — is entitled to the enjoyment of perfect liberty, and the unfettered exercise of exclusive spiritual jurisdiction ; that in respect of doctrine, discipline, and worship, (Ate is responsible to Christ, her Head, alone, and can lawfully own no other rule than His Word, and no other government than that which He hath instituted ; and that, in the dischargo of the duties which he owes to her, the civil magistrate has no 8 right or warrant whatever to encroach upon her liberty, to inter- fere with her jurisdiction, or, in any way, to intrude into the spiritual province, and to usurp authority over her in things with respect to which she is responsible to Christ alone. And these principh s whic^ the Church of Scotland has thus been dis- tinguished lor maintaining, have ever been held by her mem- bers to be fundamental parts of lier constitution, found as they arc distinctly and unequivocally laid down in her standards. It is with respect to the latter of the principles to which we have referred, — that relating to the Headship of Christ over 'he Church, and the inherent liberty and exclusive jurisdiction of the Church itself, that the contendings between the Church and the Civil Courts in Scotland, which have issued in the disrup- tion, have taken place ; and it is the provisions of the consti- tution of the Church of Scotland, based on Jiat principle, which wo hold to have been destroyed. But the Establislicd Church, it is sometimv,'S said, holds the doctrine of the Headship of Christ, and the principle of the in- herent liberty and exclusive jurisdiction of the Church which is involved in it, as \yc11 as the Free Church ; the difference be- tween them is merely that they give a different interpretation of them. If the public reports of the speeches delivered by the de- putation from the Establislied Church, which recently visited the colony, may be relied apon, this was a favorite assertion of theirs : — Oh ! said they, we don't deny the Headship of Christ — we hold it as decidedly as any minister of the Free Church can do — wc can preach it too, as fully — the only difference between us is, a trifling difference in the interpretation we put upon it. We shall not waste the time nor insult the understanding of any man of common intelligence, by pointing out at length, the pal- try and contemptible evasion involved in sucli an assertion. We would, simply remark, that the question at issue between us, is not whether or no they profcsa to liold tlie doctrine of Christ's ji ulship, but whether the interpretation which they have put iri>:> I it, — and which we thank them for so frankly admitting to be ilitj'crcnt from that of the Free Church, — is, indeed, a tri- i, J.." onb] and whether, on the contrary, it does not amount to a giving up of the doctrine altogether. Arians, we know, admit thai Christ was the son of God ; but, when they come to inter- pret the sense in which they understand the words, they stand forth as dcniers of the proper divinity and proper sonship of the Saviour of sinners. Roman Catholics profess to hold the great doctrine of the atonement ; but, when we refer to the doctrines which they also hold with respect to the sacrifice of the mass, to the merit of good works, to penances, to absolution, and the like, we find that tliey cut up the doctrine of the atonement by the roots. And so of countless heresies ; they are just erroneous interpretations of scriptural statements or of doctrines professedly held. But, to bring matters to a point, so that no one may be hood- winked by such an unworthy evasion, or lose himself amidst • 4 i ii-T \.m\jmaitmm IS t ii 9 vajTue generalities, — as those who are not accustomed to deal with general principles are so apt to do, when such principles are merely generally announced, — it may he well that we show you what is the proper interpretation of this doctrine of the Headship of Christ, or what it necessarily implies as to the duty of the Church, and the duty of those who are not of the Church, (such as the governments of the world), in their dealings towards it, before we pass to the proof of our assertion that the State in Scotland has acted in defiance of this doctrine, and that the Church has submitted to its usurpations. And first, as a general conclusion from this doctrine, i'. fol- lows, that no party without the Church is warranted to inter- meddle with its government or discipline, or in any way to ex- ercise a coercive power over the administration of its affairs, or can attempt to do so without intruding into the ecclesiastical province, and encroaching upon the prerogatives of Christ. And further, that no party within the Church is warranted to submit to such interference, or can wilfully submit, without violating their allegiance to their King and Head, and virtually giving up the assertion of his sole Headship in His own kingdom. In a •word if there be any meaning in this doctrine at all, the integrity and independence of the Church must be maintained inviolate. There must be no submission on the part of the Church to any foreign power, — no incorporation with the kingdoms of the Tforld, — no deference in the regulation of her ecclesiastical affairs to any authority but that of Christ, and no appeal to any standard but that which He hath given. But next, to show the extent to which a right interpretation of this doctrine requires the independence of the Church to be maintained, it may be well to remark, that the principle of the inherent liberty and exclusive spiritual jurisdiction of the Church, applies to every part of the Church's duty, with respect to which Christ, her Head, has given her a revelation of His will. If, for instance, Christ has given laws for her guidance in any matter, by these laws she is bound, by her allegiance to Him, to abide ; setting at defiance, if need be, the mightiest earthly potentate who may attempt to impose his laws in their room. If, again, Christ has assigned it to* her as part of her duty to ordain suitable men to the office of the holy ministry, and to depose them from that otHoo when found unworthy, then she is bound to act according to her own conscientious convictions of duty in Buch matters, without submitting to the trammels or regarding the commands by which any earthly power may attempt to limit her freedom. Or, again, if Clirist has conferred on her office- bearers, qualified ni a particular way, the power of performing certain spiritual functions, at the bidding of no human authority may she allow those powers to be exercised by others ? Or, if, once more, Christ has conferred any rights upon her members, in regard to the calling of pastors, or any other matter, for no earthly object, and from a regard to the fear or the favor of no earthly government, may these sacred rights be given up or ( ' 10 compromised? There is, in fine, no branch of her duty to which the principle does not apply ; and uo right or privilege, conferred upon her by Christ, which it does not require her sacredly to maintain. Such is the interpretation of the doctrine of Christ's Head- ship over the Church, which we are satisfied will command the assent of every intelligent and true-hearted Presbyterian ; but let us just brieliy glance at the proof of our assertion, that this is a doctrine co tained in the standards of the Church of Scot- land, and which was recognized and sanctioned by the State, when she was established. 1, — The following quotations from the St'coml Bonk nf Discip- line and the Confeftsion of Faith, will show how explicitly this doctrine is laid down in the Standards of the Church : — "The Government of the Churcli is an order or form of spir- itual government, which is exercised by the members appointed thereto by the Word of God ; and therefore is given immediately to the office-bearers, by whom it is exercised to the weal of the whole body.' •' '"■'- "■'■ ' This power and policy ecclosiastical is dijf't'rcnt and di'^tinct in its own nature from the power and policy wiiicli is called the civil power, and appertains to the civil gov- ernment of the commonwealth, albeit they be both of Ood.' '■' ■• '■'' ■ For this ])o\vor ecclesiastical llovvs immediately from God. and the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth ; but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Church.' "That God alone is Lord of tiie conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in anything contrary to His Word, or beside it in matters of faith and worship ; -tliat the Lord Jesus, as King and Head of His Church, liath therein appointed a government in tlio hand of Churcti oliijers, distiw^t from the cirii inarfistrate :' — that 'to these officers the keys of the kingdom of heaven are committed;' — and 'that tlie civil magistrate nin/ not assume to himself ad- ministration of th; Worl and Sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' " 2. — With respect to the recognition of this doctrine, as deter- mining the constitution of the Churcli, when she was established by the State, the following quotations from the ]\remorial issued by the Convocation which sat at Edinburgh, in November, 18-42, will suffice to prove, both that the State recognized this doctrine in the recognition of her standi' rds, and, .ibove all, that the civil courts long understood and respected the perfect indepen- dence and exclusive jurisdiction of the Church thus recognized. lay the State, and, moreover, did so in that very matter of the settlement of ministers, a collision about which led to the dis- ruption. / 'C Vy V 11 After laying down the constitution of the Church of Scotland, the Memorial thus proceeds : — "Such, then, being the undoubted principles held by the Church of Scotland in regard to this matter,— she conceives that these principles have been, at various periods of her history, exiireuly recognized and sanctioned by the State, an the principles upon which she is establi'Shed, and under which she Itolds her en- dotvnents, and the other immunities of her establishment. Thus, in particular (without at present going back to earlier times), -vrhen the establishment under which the Church at present exists was, very solemnly, settled at the Revolu- tion, the Legislature — while it recognized her as the Established Church, en- titled to the State endowments, and made provision for her enjoyment of them — did, in the very sama act, afford to her the most ample recognition of the sacredness and inviolability of her spiritual government. By the act 1690. chap. 5, Parliament not only 'established, ratified, and confirmed, the Presby- terian Church government and discipline to be the only government of Christ's Church ivithin this kingdom ;' but it recognized and fixed the exclusi re character of the spiritual government, thus vested in the Church, by also 'ratifying and establishing the Confession of Faith, in which it is laid down, that 'there is no other Bead of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ,' and that 'the Lord Jesus f'.s' King and Head of ^ is Church, hath therein appointed a Government in the hands of Church officeri, distinct fuom the civil magistrate ;' and, in respect to the most important head of the Church's spiritual government, viz., that touching the appointment aiid removal of her ministers (who form the chief officers in conducting her spiritual government), the same act 'revives, renewi, and confirms' a previous act (loOS), by which it is explicitly declared, that 'the coUatidn and deprivation of ministers' ate among thdne 'essential privileges' whicli 'Crod hath giicn to His Church,'— ircim which, it is thereby farther de- clared, that the supremacy of the Sovereign over all his subjects, shall in no- wis-o derogate. "The exclusive authority of the Church, in the cnTnlnct of her entire spiritual government, under her gre-at Head,— thus secured 1)y the act of her Establish- ment, — wsi^ still farther secured to the Church, by the Act of Security and the Treaty of Union between the two kingdoms, by which Parliament most solemnly 'establish and confirm the said true Protestant religinii, a/u^ the worshiv), discip- line, and iiaverninent of this Church, to continue, without any alteration, to the people of thi.i land, in all succeeding generations ;' and farther provided, that 'the Sovereign succeeding in the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, shall, in all time coming, at his or her accession to the crown, siocar and sub- fcribf, tli.at fliC'i s/iall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the foresaid tnis Protestant religion, ir/i/t the government, vioT'!i\\\Y>, discipline, rights and privilege!^ of this Church, as above established ;' the said establishment being farther declared to form 'a fundamental and c-ucntial condition of the treaty of Tinion ' between the two kingdoms. "It has, therefore, always appeared to the Church of Scotland, that so far from having i-eceived, or from holding, her endowments and other immunities of her establishment, under condition of being subject, in any article of her sjnritual government, to secular control, she ha^, by the very act of her esta- blishment, obtained the most explicit recognition of her absolute spiritual free- dom, and that her religious principle upon this head, recognized, in that char- acter of it, l)y the State, has been secured to her, for ever, by the fundamental laws of the United Kingdom. "But still farther, the Church has been supported in the view she has thus taken of her constitutional freedom, by the decision^ of the civil courts and the in- variable 2Jractiee of the law, from the period of the Revolution dov;n to the present day ;— the law too having been declared and adhered to, during that period, by the civil e^mrts, under circumstances calculated to prove the jieculiar strength of the securities under which the Church possesses her exclusive spiritual au- thority." "Thus, so early as 173.'i, the Court of Session adjudged that 'right to the sti- pend is a civil right ; and therefore, that the Court hav<: power to cognosce and deteriaine upon the legality of the admission of ministers, to this (;/JVri,— whether the person admitted shall have right to the stipend or not.' And when, in 1749, the Court was asketl to interdict a Presbytery from in-oceeding to admit, aa minister of a parish, another person than the patron's presentee, they unani- mously refused, — 'because that was interfering with the povrer of ordination, or 12 internal policy of the Church, with which the Lords thought they had nothinri to do. The same principle was invariably adhered to in numerous other cases ; and Lord Kames, in a formal Treatise on the JuriHdiction of the Courts, lays it down as the unquestionable law, that Presbyteries and the Church Judicatories are supreme in the matter of the settlement of ministers, — 'their sentence beinf? ultimate, even where their proceedings are t//e,7a/,' — or contrar/ to the obliga- tion expressed in relation to them in the Statute ; the nnbi 'check (as he states) provided b;/ law beiivj, that a minister, so settled illegally, shuU nnt be entitled to the stipend,' — an arran-^enient which, he adds^ 'happily reconciles two things commoniy opposite,' viz. , the necessary freedom of tlie Churcli, and a com- petent regard to the civil interests of patrons." But it lias been ari?uecl by some — an established Church can- not be thus independent of the civil power by which she was es- tablished, and the Church of Scotland gave up, to some extent, her independence when she received her existence, as an esta- blishment, from the State. As an establishment, it is said she only exists by statute, and must be just what the State is pleased to make her. TJiis was a favorite argument £ii,inong the lawyers, — and we are sorry to add, among the voluntaries, — in Scotland, during the discussions which preceded the disruption there ; and we have occasionally hoard it broached even in Canada. The quotation vro have given, proves that this, at least, was not the theory on which the Church of Scotland was established. It is utterly Eviistian : and, if good for anything, would just go to prove, not that tlio Scottish establishniunt ought not now to bo renounced as Erastian, but that it is a grievious mistake to sup- I)ose that her Erastianism only began at the disruption, and that she should have been renounced as Erastian long ago. But, again, it is sometimes argued, that it is difficult to de- fine the distinction between what is civil and what is ecclesias- tical in an establishment ; and that, to avoid endless collisions', the claim of an established Church to spiritual independence must be at least defined by the civil courts, and the powers im- plied in it, exercised within the limits which they assign. This, tv,o, is Erastianism, and would virtually involve the loss of the Church's independence. The power possessed by one court of determining the limits of another's jurisdiction, is plainly in- compatible with tlie real independence of the latter. There is no difficulty beside, whe're men do not purposely make it, in de- fining the distinction between what is civil and what is spiritual or ecclesiastical in an establishment. What the State gave is civil, and may be dealt with as such ; vvliat Christ gave is spir- itual, and must be respected and held sacred as sucii. The State confers upon an establishment certain civil advantages and immunities ; with these it may deal, and these, if it sees fit, it may take away. Christ gave all that pre n-ly constitutes the Church, — what she w-ould have possessed independent of her es- tablishment, — and with these the State has nothing whatever to do. Each, — the Church and the State,— within its own pro- vince. is supreme, and let each keep within that province, only reviewing what is done by the other for objects within that pro- vince, and there need be no collision or interference whatever. In the admirable speech of Lord Jeffry, in the Auchterarder case, this view will be found strikingly illustrated by a reference 13 to the co-ordinate jurisdiction of the courts of session and justi- cairy in Scotland, and api)hed convincingly, at the same time, to prove the independence secured by statute to the Church of Scotland. But, still further it has been said, that the act imposing Pa- tronage on the Church of Scotland, so far took away her inde- pendence, and that it was too late when the Veto Law was passed to begin the assertion of that independence. It is, un- fortunately, not to be denied, that this act did, to a certain ex- tent, interfere with the independence of the Church, by confer- ring on a party, not necessarily within the Church, the power of acting in a matter properly ecclesiastical, and by depriving the members of tlie Church of a right Avhich v.-e believe Christ con- ferred on them. The tame submission of the Church to this en- croachment on her rights, was a grievous sin; and she has now reaped the natural fruits. But, it is to be observed — the en- croachment thus made, was only in f enjoiniiKj, under the threat of civil jieitaitics the performance of spiritual functions, — and, in one word, of exer- cising, for civil ends, and by means of the compulsitors of civil law, as absolute a control over the actions of the courts of the Church, as they could exercise if they were themselves spiritual courts, and possessed, as such, of a direct right of review in all spiritual matters. Thus, to illustriite, by a reference to the acturtl procedure of these courts, suppose a probationer is presented to a parish by the patron, they do not pretend, it is true, to have any right to review, as a spiritual matter, wliat is done by the Presbytery with regard to his ordination, — this would be too monstrous even for them, — but, on the ground, that a civil interest, viz., the right of the presentee to the stipend, is effected by the procedure of the Church courts, they assert a right of reviewing their pro- cedure, and of interdicting and suspending their action ; — nay ; more ! of enjoining them to take him on trial with a view to or- dination, and of punishing them as guilty of a civil wrong if they refuse to comply ; — thus, in the spiritual matter of ordination, usurping over the Presbytery as groat, — we might say greater, — power than they could do if claiming to be spiritual courts. Or, again, suppose a minister is suspended or deposed for immoral- ity by a Presbytery, they do not pretend, in such a case, any more than in the former, to any direct right of review ; but, oil the same ground of a civil interest, i. e., the minister's right to his stipend being affected, they assert the right of interdicting, suspending, or reducing what has been done by the Presbytery, and protecting the man who has been deprived of office in tiie name of the Lord Jesus Christ, not in his right to the stipend merely, but in the discharge of all his spiritual functions, as if he had never been deposed ; — and, thus again, usurping over the Church, in this important department of the spiritual pro- vince, a complete Erastian supremacy. This, then, is the principle on which the claims of the civil courts, to interfere with the Church in spiritual matters, is 18 baued ; and every intcllifjont Presbyterian will see at once liow utterly Erastian it in, ami liow completely, even while the ox- oluwivo jarisdiction of tho Church, in matters purely wpiritual, is fornuUbf admitted, it layw tho Church prostrate at the feet of the civil power. Wo shull immediately, bhow tho extent to which, proceeding on this principle, the civil courts have actually in- trudod into tho spirituul province, and taken away tho spiritual indopondcuce of the Churcli ; hut, in order that they may under- stand thoroughly the ovidonco on this point, which we are about to adduce, we wisii tlioso who have not studied tho subject be- fore, thoroughly to nuistor the explanation wo have just given. The Church of Scotland, during her contcndings with the civil courts, never, bo it observed, denied the right of these courts to revi(!W her procrdure for cicil ends, and to give or withhold, as they saw fit, civil clTect to that procedure. They never, in other words, contested tho right of tlicse courts to do with stipends, and manses, and glebes, and all the other temporalities of the Church, as they pleased ; — in this respect they were as ready, as the most zealous of their opponents, to "ohrj/ the law." "What t/hey hold was, that the civil power had no right to ijo furthrr, — that they were not entitled, for civil ends, or for any ends, to in- terfere with what was spiritual, — to control or coerce them in the exercise of powers which they had received from Christ, and for tho right exercise of which they were responsible to Him alone, — or to interdict, suspend, or reduce what was done by them in the name of Christ, and within the province which Christ luid committed to their care. And had the civil courts kept within their own province, and dealt merely with the tem- poralities, afToctod by the procedure of the Churcli, the struggle, which issued in tho disruption, would never have occurred. But the civil courts would not thus restrict themselves ; wherever as we have explained, a civil interest was affected by the action of tho Church, in any case, no matter how purely spiritual that action, they asserted the right on this gromid, of dealing, not merely with the civil interest so affected, but with the spiritual action of th>' Church itxelf. Here, you will observe, lies the Erastianism of the claims to supremacy over the Church, advanced by these courts, which no formal admissions of the Church's exclusive jurisdiction in matters purely spiritual, and no mere assertions that the civil courts have only dealt with civil interests can ex- plain away. On the plea of their supremacy in things civil, these courts have asserted a right of intermeddling with things spiritual, and thus have thrust in a wedge by which they have broken up the scriptural constitution of the Church of Scotland, set aside the solemn sanctions by which her spiritual independence was guaranteed by the State, and reduced her from the glorious po- sition which she once occupied, to a condition of helpless de- pendence on the good pleasure of the civil power. But let us now proceed to show the extent to which, on the principle we have explained, the civil courts have actually ad- vanced claimg subversive of the spiritual independence of the .1 the ad- the 19 Ohnroh. We cannot undortako, within tho limits wo have as- signed to this address, to record all that has been done in this way ; but we shall point out enough to prove that there is scarcely a spiritual function, — if, indeed, there be so much as one, — with respect to which tho civil courts do not claim the right of controlling or sotting aside the action of the Church. Tho civil courts, then, have claimed tho rii^'ht of controlling or sotting aside the action of tho Church in tho following, amoug other purely spiritual or occlesiasticul uiatttrH -.—First — The ordination and settlement of ministers, Sirond — The suspen- sion and deposition of ministers. Third — The conferring of power to perform sjiirituiil functions. Fourth — The composi- tion of Churcli courts. Fifili — The extension of parochial su- perintendence over the members of tlio Church. And, Sixth — The preaching of tlio Gospel. A simple statement of facts will make this plain. First, — It will be admitted that the ordination and aottlement of a minister is a purely spiritual matter. If it he not, there is nothing spiritual in a Cliurch at all. Now, in this purely spir- ituMl matter, Iho civil courts (on tho principle we have just ex- plained) have interfered with tho action of the Church in three different ways : — 1st. They have issued a decree, requiring and ordaining a Church court to take on trial, and admit to the of- fice of tlie lioly ministry (or in other words, to ordain), in a particular charge, an unordaiued presentee ; this was done in the well known Marnoch case. 2nd. T ^y luive interdicted a Presbytery of the Church from ordaining and admitting to a l^astoral charge ; this they did in the Lothendy case. And, 3rd. They have found the members of a Church court lia])le in damages, as for a civil wrong, for obeying their ecclesiastical superiors, and refusing, at the bidding of a civil court, to proceed with the or- dination and settlement of a presentee ; this was done in the celebrated Auchterarder case. And submitting these simple facts, we would just ask any man of common sense, if the claim to such a right of interference, — no matter on what plea it is based, — is compatible with the free action of the Church in the ordination and settlement of ministers ? Or what more could the civil courts do in the way of intruding into this department of the ecclesiastical province, except proceeding themselves to confer ordination ? Second. — It will be admitted again, that the suspension and deposition of ministers is a spiritual matter ; there cannot bo two opinions on this point. Well ! in this purely spirit- ual department tho civil courts have also interfered. They have interdicted a Presbytery from proceeding in the trial of a minis- ter accused of fraud and swindling, as in tlic Stranraer case. They have interdicted another Presbytery from pronouncing sentence of deposition upon a minister found guilty of theft, by a judgment acquiesced in by himself, as in the Cambusnethan case. And they have suspended and set aside, and interdicted the execution of sentences of suspension and deposition, pro- It f I ( M 20 nouuood l)y tho Church jiulicatories in tho uamo of tho Lord Jo.sus ChriHt, uj)oii ministers found ^'uilty of viiriout4 offouces, Buhvorsivo of tlio purity and indt jxjndonuo of tho ('hurch, and in violation of their onlinitiou vow.s ; — thus roponin;.j to a spir- itual olllce, and usurping' tho "powor of tho koyH ;" — an in the several Strathbo^'io v'aH(!.s. And will any man fjfravely pretend that this is only dealin;^ with civil interests ? Or, that a claim to thori<(ht of such intiirferenco is compatible with the cxelusivo jurisdiction of the Clnirch in all spiritual matters '/ Wore it not for the effect wliich moral ohliijuity and tlui influence of a de- termination not to ho convinced, has in blintlini,' men's judg- ments, we should ho loath to confide, even in the most trivial matter, to tho judgment of a man who could coolly weigii tho facts we have submitted, and yot make such assertions. Third. — Hut further, it will be admitted, that the conferring of power to [)orl'orm spiriiual functions is also a spiritual mat- ter. This is one of the pov.-ers committed to tho Church by Christ himself, and is essential to her very existence. If a par- ty wifiiout the Church may eonfer such power, llu'u that party may cluin;^'o, at any moment, liie relative position of the mem- bers and olVice-beurers of the Church, and reduce its govoru- meut to a nullity. It seems scarcely possible to conceive that anv civil court could bo so infatuated, as deliberatelv to claim the right of conferring sucli power. Yet, \> hat luivo tho civil courts aetuallv done in the third Auchterarder case ? The " Church, it is known, has conferred on Presbyteries the power of l)erfonning certain spiritual functions ; but the civil courts found, in tho case referred to, that tho majority of tho Presby- tery of the bounds were determined not to become their sub- missive tools in the pi-rformauce of these functions, but to obey, in accordance with their ordination vows, their ecclesiastical superiors ; and, in these circumstances, they actually authorized the minority of the Presbytery, a body which possessed, accord- ing to the laws and constitution of tho Church, no power in tho matt'U', and which, at the same time. was acting in defiance of the superior ecelesiastical judicatories, to perform the functions proper to the Presbytery, and to proceed to the ordination and settlement of a minister. And yet, forsooth, we arc to believe, that the civil courts respect tho exclusive spiritual jurisdiction of tho Church, that no fetters shackle her movements, and that she is " as great, glorious, and free as ever." We willingly leave those to believe this xchu can. Fourth. — But further still, it will be admitted, that the deter- mination of the composition of Church courts, or in other words, of the parties entitled to sit in such courts, and to perform the spiritual or ecclesiastical duties for which these courts are ap- pointed, is a spiritual matter. As Presbyterians, we hold that Christ hath laid down rules and principles rela-tive to this mat- ter, by which the Church is bound to regulate her procedure. As Presbyterians, too, we hold that a close adherence to these rules and principles is inseparably identified with the well-being of the Church. Have the civil courts, then, respected the in- • . the of lat rng in- ai depemlonce of tho Church in this raattor, find nllowcil her to ohoy, in roliition to it, tho mind of ChrJHt ? No ; evou hero, again, hy the help of tho Hweepiu^' principle, to which wo liave roferrecl, they liave found a ])rotcxt for interfering'. They have, for iuHtance, dochirod that tho ministers of quoad aacrn parishes, who had hccn admitted to sit in Church courts hy a bclcmu de- cision of tho Church, had no ri^ht to sit there, and not only ho, but they have set aside tho decisions of Huch courts on tho ground that a ({luifdl .srtna minister took part in the )>roc('dure. So far iiavo they j^'onfi in this way, that in tho wi'U known caso of Carahusnetlmn, thoy set aside, on this ground, a sentence of deposition from the olhce of tho holy ministry, pronounced upon a minister convicted of theft/'' And nt^'ain, interdicts without number, it is n()tori(Mis, weru issu'nl hefore the niet'tino; of tho Assembly at whicii the disruiition took place, proliii)itin,i; mem- bers chosen by Presbyteries from taking,' their seals, thus pro- venting, as fjir as tbo civil courts could do so, a free assembly chosen r.nd convened accordinu' to the word of God. But, th(>n, what of all this '> it is said, the civil courts were only looking nfter civil interests, and tho Church is Btill perfectly free. Strange notions of freedom somo pooplo must have ! * Uue of the muft iinHLTttble trickH to whicli tlio hanl-iiii.^lu'cl tlofcnder of a l)ail cause rvir liml ncoursc. is Hoiui'tinifs trie'l in rfferiTcc to thin ('arabuHne- than ciiHt'. As t)ie intt'lli;^ent readf-r will seu, it is Imnv-'ht forward to prove that thi; civil courts clfiiiii a ii;L:iit to iiitirfei'o with the cuiiiposition of OLnrch courts, iind thi- f.ict thut tlic niiiii>t(ir of ('anil)URnetli;in wliosc SHiitcnoe of dejio- Bitiou \va^ set a^ide on tho {'round of t)i»» ]irotcnd('d ri;,'ht ti> such ititorfiTence, U'a$ a thief, \H nicntioiiod, not for tlie ]>nrpoHe of showin;.,' that eitiier the civil co\irt« or the EKtahlishcd ( huivii h:vd any npccial favor f<'r thieves, Imt to show the nio'iwtrcius results v.nich flowed from the iuterferenee of the civil courts. But to serve a jiurj.ose, the mere reference to tlie f.ict is conietim^s taken up \ij our opponents, as if it involved a char.ure of iiarliuliti/ to thicnn, and a world of pathetic elo u wliite slave in Britain." It must surely be on some such prin- ciple, as that on which these now despised and forgotten de- fenders of slavery reasoned, that any man aware of what the civil courts have done, can now maintain, that the Church of Scotland is bHW perfecthj fi-ee. Such, then, arc the claims to a right of interference with the spiritual affairs of the Church which have been advanced by the civil courts, and of which the recorded decisions of these courts are the unquestionable evidence; and no one, wo venture to say, can calmly consider the nature or extent of these claims, -with- out seeing that tlioy are utterly incompatible with the spiritual independence of the Cliurcli. 33ut, perhaps, you arc one of those who admit that these claims arc incompatible Avitli tlie freedom of the Church, but who, notwithstanding tlie notorious facts to which w^e liave ap- pealed, cannot bring themselves to believe that such claims have actually been advanced. We have not unfrequently been amused at the pertinacity with which some can stand out against the clearest evidence, and at tlie frivilous grounds on which they will persist in believing that the civil courts cannot have done aiiytliiug so wicked as we have alleged against them. The judges Avho sit in these courts, — it is sometimes said, when everything lil^o argument lias failed, — are high-minded, honor- abb; men. and nothing will make us believe that they could be cai!;ible of what you afUrm. It may be that you are standing out upon this ground. We shall now, therefore, cite some of those /ii;iii-niiii(h'n, he subject to the control of the civil magistrate re- Ijresented by your Lordships." The same judge revealed, in the following significant state- ment, the animus with vrhich his judgments were given, justify- ing fully the remark, that the law dispensed from the Bench on the Church question, was not hiw punjcd of pulsion, but law prompted and inflamed by the angry zeal of partizanship: — " I firmly believe, that the power of Dr. Robertson and others had its origin in those more enlightened views of the true rights and privileges of the Church, which gradually devfcloped themselves, from before the middle of the eighteenth i; 26 century, in the proceedinprs of the General AsBembly, in opposition to the enthu- tiastic and bigotted notions prevailing in some sections of the Church, and which had been handed down to them from the dayx of Melville, though rejected by th« legislature in the statute 1592,— which again burst out at the time when the Secession took place about 1736. and earned off the more strenuous adherent* of these antiquated pretensions, which were destined to remain in abeyance tilZ the enlightened days of the year 1834." The Melville thus spoken of, be it remembered, is the celebra- ted Andrew Melville, whose memory will ever be enshrined in the heart of every true friend of the liberty and independence of the Church of Christ ; — the Dr. Kobcrtson, on the other hand, is the Principal, — celebrated in another way, — who was so long the leader of the Moderate party in the General Assembly, the first principle of whose administration, as stated by Dugald Stewart, his biographer, "was a steady and uniform support of the law of Patronage ;" and under whose leadership, so many heartless atrocities in the form of forced settlements, were per- petrated. Further comment is unnecessary. "*' But, perhaps, a still clearer view of the truth of all that we have alleged, respecting the claims advanced by the civil courts is to be found in the terms in which the respected judges in the minority remonstrated against the decisions which were given by their brethren. The sentiments above quoted, were spoken in connection with the first Auchterarder case, — the first of these cases in which decisions, subversive of the independence of the Church, were given, — in after cases, the hostile judges seemed to have thought it as expedient to say less, but to do more, in favour of Erastianism. But as decision after decision was given against ^lie liberty of the Church, the minority supplied, by their remonstrances, a commentary sufficiently explicit upon the principles on which these decisions were given, and lan- guage was uttered from the Bench as strong as any which this pamphlet contains. In the first Auchterarder case, Lord Jeffery thus expressed himself respecting the claim of the presentee, in favour of which the court decidad : — „ Ji. * The extracts above given, as illustrative of the principles of the Judges opposed to the independence of the Church, are from the a'uthorised report of the Auchterarder case. In connection with them, it may be instructive to sub- join here the following e.xtract from a speed' by Dr. Chalmers, delivered in Glasgow before the disrui)tion, as illustrative of the actings of the enemies of the same independence. Tlie princijiles of the one, and the actings of the other, will be found to be in admirable harmony : — " I know a little of the vile process of tampering with the integrity of minis' ters that will go on under that system, 1 know already what has been the practice of patrons. 1 have seen a formula presented first to one of our proba- tioners, then to another, then to a third, then to a fourth, — that you shall get this presentation if you subscribe to this formula, by which you engage, that whenever the civil and ecclesiastical courts come into coUi&ion, you will obey the civil and disobey the ecclesiastical authority. That I have seen with my own eyes ; I traced it through four probationera, who all manfully rejected the proposal. What became of it afterwards I know not. Certain, it is that a presentee did get the living, but by that time it had become a work of darkness, and I could trace it no farther." 1 . ' 1 n *' What 18 asked for this presentee, is full admi»»ion to the office of the minis- try, and nothing else. I, for my part, think, the whole of the ])roceeding:8, af- ter sustaining the presentation, are properly ecclesiastical : but at all events it is clear, the concluding and moat important part of them, is purely so. And if that cannot be dispensed with, ami is dutinctly required by the pursuer, how can we possibly discern the Presbytery to aclmit, witliout intrudin;;, in the mott jUujrant mwnne.r almost that can he iinarjincd, on titeir sacred and ncculiar pro- vince f It would be lint a little greater i>r(>fanatiun, if we were asked to order a Church court to admit a party to the c()minuni(m table, whom they had ra» pelled from it on reli;nous groMids ; because he had satisfied us that he was pre- judiced in tlie exercise of his civil riijhts by the exclusion." lu the Stewartou case, Lord ]\[ontcrieff, nfter remarking tliat all be had learned of law from bis earliest jears, told him that the Church of Scotland, as finally established by the Union, possessed, by its various courts, powers and jurisdiction, both judicial and legislative, in all matters ecclesiastical which might be brought before them ; that that power was absolutely inde- pendent of any other courts, and such as no civil court created by statute for other ends could touch or control, goes on to say:— That this power was fundamental and inherent in the constitution of the kingdom, and that it had been rendered, by a series of statutes, more unambi- guous than the laws had detiued any other jurisdiction in the kingdom. He did not mean that the jjowers of the Cliurch courts so much depended on the words of statutes that nothing could be done but what was in those words ; he only spoke of the general principle, that there vrns, h>/ the constitution, suck jurisdic- tion in all matters ecclesiastical, vested in the Presbyter iav Church, and though he (Lord Montcrieff) was well aware that its privileges at various times had been opposed by different classes of the community, and still might be very dis- tasteful to some ijersons, he must say that he never heard it denied till the dis- cussions of the present day arose that sucii was the case If, said he, in the face of the letter and spirit of the statutes, there was found to be no exclusive jurisdiction, he could onhi express his protest wjainst a principle which tended to results he trembled to contemplate." In the same case. Lord Cockburn thus also expressed him- self : — "That if the princij)le were well founded that the Court of Session could al- ways enter the Church courts, and control their acts when they appeared to them {the Court Session) to be illegal, the result would be that the Church would have no independence. The suspenders did not concede to the ('hurch exclusive jurisdiction in what he (Lord Cockburnj regarded as its most spiritual feature " In the third Auchterarder case, Lord Ivory did not hesitate to use the following language : — * It is, indeed, lamentable to look upon the shape which these questions are now assuming. Step by step it has come to this, that there is absolutely no one proceed inij, however cxclusivclji ecclesiastical in its own character it used to be considered, in which the civil court is not asked to interfere. It has been called upon to interdict Church censures, to prevent the execution of sentences of suspension and deprivation — in M'Queen's and other cases, interference, more or less direct, has been sought, in regard to excommunication, and refusal of tokens for admission to the sacrament ; and now it is asked, that the court shall suspend the majority of a Presbytery from the exercise of their whole ec- clesiastical functions, and set up the minority to perform these functions in their steai. If this be within the power of the court, I really see no reason why it should not take upon itself at once, and directly, to adjudicate u})on the collation and deprivation of ministers, as in any ordinary civil matter," And in the same case, Lord Montcrieff also thus strongly and indignantly gave expression to his opinions : — " This amounts to the farther assumption by this court, of the power of or- daining to the holy tninistri/ through the intervention of persona (the minority 28 of th« Anchterarder PrcHbytery), wlio by the very showing of the demand it- self, do not conBtitute a presbytery at all. If thin be competent, / knoio not what is incompetent, or what shred of spiritual indepcwlente is Ifft, in the courts of the Established Church of Scotland," • A word of remark on these (j[uotations would bo super- flous I But, we have said that the claims advanced by tho civil courts have been sanctioned by the Legislature; and, iu show- ing this, as we are now to do, we yhall bo able, still further, to establish the correctness of all that we have asserted respecting- the nature and extent of these claims, and to prove, at the same time that, in the position in which the Establishment now stands, these may bo enforced against her whenever the civil courts see fit ; or, in other words, that the condition on which she is now established by the State, is her compli'lc subjection, as a mere creature of tlie Statute, to the ririJ power. By the appoal of the Church to the Legislature, against the encroachments on her indopeudonce, mado by the civil courts, the question between these courts and tiio Church was brought, in the Providence of God, to a very simple and hitelligible issue. ' Freed from the comiilexifcy in which it had before been involved, it stood forth palpable to every understanding, as the plain and definite questiou, — shall the civil courts bo allowed to enforce certain Kiitriiii',! chiinis against the Church, and to give, in eccle- siastical iLiatcers, certain siiecijied decinions' All ambiguity, both tis to tlv ri'jhta irhich tJi' Church ussertetl to hrlonff to her in virtue of her Scriptural constitution, recognised and sanctioned by the State, and slature refused to entertain tho appeal of the Chnrcli, and, by that refusal, sanctioned tlie claims and the de- cisions against wiiich the appeal w;is lotule, the exact relation in wliicli tho Ciiurch stood to the civil courts, was brought out as clearly as it possibly could be, and the -terms on whi3li the Church could alone continue to be established, were defined as explicitly, as if v^ new iict had been passed, establishing the Church. Let us refer, thf;n, to the terms in which the appeal of the Church was made, and to the explanations given by those who took the lead in directing the decision of the Legislature, as to what they intended by that decision, and see if what we have stated as to the sanction given by the Legislature to the claims of the civil courts, is not fully justified. In 1842, while the encroachments of the civil courts were in progress, but before they had been carried the whole length which they afterwards reached, the General Assembly adopted the celebrated " Claim of Right;" or, "Claim, Declaration, and Protest anent t'le Encroachments of the Court of Session," set- ting forth iu detail the constitutional principles of the Church, 29 1 concerning the Headship of Christ, Uxul the inherent hberty and exchisive jurisdiction which flow from that Headsliip, — along with the national guarantees by whicli these were sanctioned; the various encroachments on her rights and privileges, by the civil courts, of whicli she complained ; the impossibility of her submitting, consistently with her duty to Clirist, to these en- croachments and to the claim to supremacy in virtue of which they had been made ; and, lastly, the necessity under which, if redress were refused, she would be placed, of withdrawing from connection with the State. And this solemn deed was at the same thne submitted to the consideration of Government, by an address to Her Majesty the Quoou, entrusted to the Lord High Commissioner. Iii November, 1842, after further en- croachments had been made by the civil courts, and after, in particular, the decision in tlie Auchtcrardor case had been given in the House of Lords, the Commission of Assemldy presented a Memorial to the Government, again calling tlieir attention to the " Claim of riiglit,"and representing the new enci'oachments upon their rights of which the Churcli complained. In the same month, the celebrated crnvocation of about live hundred ministers, which met in Edinburgh, issued a Memorial to Gov- ernment, still further setting forth the position of the Church in relation to the civilcourts, and announcing the resolutions to withdraw from connection with the State unless redress were granted, to which the members of the Convocation had come. And again, in January, 1843, the Extraordinary Commission issued a Petition to Parliament, embracing the substance of the documents on the same subject previously issued by the Church, and praying the Legislature to interpose t.nl pro\ide a remedy. In these various documents, the rights asserted by the Church, and the claims advanced by the civil courts, were om- mul over defined, and a few brief extracts (which is all that the limits within which we wish to confine ourselves will allow) from the first and the last of them,— the " Claim of Eiglit " and " Peti- tion to Parliament," — will shov/ explicitly tluit v.diat the Church contended for, was the right of exclusive spiriln<(l jurisdiction, — or, the right, in other words, of regulating and deciding upon all purehj spiritual matters, according to IjCi own conscientious convictions of what the laws which Christ had given for her guidance required ; that the encroachments of the civil courts against which she sought redress and protection, were encroach- ments into this purrb/ spirit -dl provituc ; and that the remedy which she sought from the Legislature, was such an acknow- ledgment of her exclusive sjiiritual jurisdiction, as should pre- vent the civil courts from enforcing the claims which they had advanced to a right of coercing the Church in the exercise of her spiritual functions, and of reducing and setting aside her spiritual sentences. Thus, with respect to the right of exclusive jurisdiction for which the Church contended, we hare, in the following para] i I .. r ■ 80 graphs from the " Chxim of Right," defining the nature and ex- tent of the jurisdiction which she chiimed, an explicit declara- tion that it was jurisdiction in vuUtvrs njnritval : — " And whebkah, according to the Haiti f'onfeRsioii, ami to the other ntand- arcla of the ('hurch, and a!,'rouably to the Word of (Jod, thiw Kovernraent of the Church, ihuH api'oi'ited by the Ijord JeHus, iti the hand of Church oHiceri4, din- tinct from the civil inaKistrate, or suproinu jjower of the State, and flowing di- rectly from the I Iiiul of the Cluurh to tlie off.ce-hearerH thereof, to the rxclusion of the civil ma^'iHtiate, comi)rehendH, as the ohjectH of it, the preaching of th« Word, adminiHtratioii of the HaeranieiitH, correction of manners, the ailmission of ti>e otrice-l)earers to their otHces, their Hiispenision anil deprivation there'rom, the infliction and removal of Clmreh cenHiirfH, and, geiierallv, the whole 'power of the keys,' which, hy said ('onfesaion, is declared, in coiiforraitj with Scrip- ture, to have been ' committed' to ( Jhurch ofHcers, and which, as well as tho preacliiuK of the Word and the administration of the sacraments, it is likewise thereby declared, that ' the civil ma;,'istrate may not assume to himself.' •• And wilEUKAS this jurisdiction and governmejit n'liur it rci/ardx only spirit' ■ital condition, rigltt.f, een wrou>;fully sustained in consciinence thereof, — have, in numerous and repeated instances, stepfied beyond the i)rovipce allotted to them by the constitution, and within which alone their decisioTis can be held to declare the law, or to have the force of the law, decidiuK' not only 'actions civil,' but '(•((««>• lipii-itnal and ccclr.siast i en I, '—timl that, too, even where these had no connection with the exercise of the rii,'lit of Patr(ina;,'e, — and have in- vaded the jurisdiction, and encroached ui)on tlm spirltua/ priri/rin.i of the courts of this Church, in violation of the constitution of the country— in defiance of the statutes above mentioned, and in contempt ot the laws of this kingdom: as for instance — By, &c., ************* "By all which acts the said Court of Session have invaded the jurisdiction of thecourts of the C'hurch— have subverted its government— have illegally at- tempted to coerce (jhurch courts in the exercise of their i>itrcl;/ ."piritual fane- tiojis— have usurped the 'iH)werofthe keys '—have wrongful! v acclaimed, .as tlie subjects of their civil jurisdiction, to be regulated by their decrees, ordination of laymen to the othce of the holy ministry, admission to the cure of souls, Churcii censures, the -preaching of the Word, and the .administration of the sa- craments — and have employed the means entrtisted to them for enforcing sub- mission to their lawful authority, in compelling submission to that which they have usurped,— in o])position to the doctrines of Goil's Word set forth in the Confession of Faith, as ratified by statute— in violation of the constitution— in breach of the Treaty of Union, and in disregard of diverse express enactments of the Legislature.'" "And v-'HEKeas farther encroachments are threatened on the government and diBcipline of the Church." »1 To the same effect also, we find the following statements in the Petition to Parliament : — " That of late that court, no longer confining itHclf to the dispoRal of civil rightH and the decision of causeR appropriated to its excluHive jurisdiction, has for the first time since its institution, interfered with n.nd reviewed the sen- tences of the Church courts, in matters confesHcdly witliiu tlio province of the Church." * • "That the inti-rference <»f the Hiiid court has not, however, been confined to enforciuK the adtniHsion of a patron's jireHontee, when rejected in respect of the dissent of the i)e()ple, but lias been extended to almost all tlie various makers set forth in tlit? statutes lieruinhi-fore recited jis belunfiin;? to the exclusive jurisdiction of the (.'Inirch, such as the ' pruaching of the Word,' ad- ministration of the Sacranunts,' 'correction of manners,' * collation aii'l dejiri- vation of ministers,' and other matters falling within th« 'govenimtiit of the Chinch,' and the ' puttin;,' order to all matters and causes ecclesiastical ;'— sua- pendiuK such sentences, and interdicting their c!xecution, — L'storin^' suspended and deposed ministers to their functions,- -prohil)itinj,' tli'j jireaching of the Word and administration of sacraments tlirouuhout wliol j districts, — staying and paralysing the discipline of the Clnirch, and subvertin<; its government." * * * "That by these and the former decisions of the saiv, follow upon such sentences in anj- particular case ; and how far civil aid shall be allowed for sarrying them into ellect. Such was the simple form, such the plain and explicit terms in which the question hetween the Church and the civil courts, was brought before the Legislature ; and even had it not been so luminously explained, nor the rights of the Church so power- ^ 32 fully enforced witliin tho walls of Parliamout, when t'"e motion " tliat tho Uoiiso resolve itself into a Coraniittoe to enquire into the Cliiim of Eight " was brought forwartl by tho Hon. Fox Maulo, and when the exact position in whicli the Church stood, and tho nature and grounds of tho claim with which she camo before the Legislature, wore fully unfolded in tho able speeches of tlio honorable mover, of Mr. Rutherford, confessedly ono of the lirst lawyers at the Scottisli bar, and of other enlightened and disinterested friends of the Church, it is plain that'no mem- ber of the Legislature could have been ignorant of the fact, that what tliev were called on to decide was, — shall the claim of tho civil courts to sni'miiiiri/ over thoso in the Cinirch in l/iy r.rcrci-w of i/ii'ir si'iuiTUAL rrNCTioNS Ih' alloirfil, — sliail the demand of tho Church to bo protected against tlio exercise of the jurisdiction in ro/tinl to spiritual matteui^, thus claimed, bo refused, — and shall it now be uudorstood, that the terms on which alone tlio Church can enjoy the benefits of establishment, are her entire siihinisnion to thf sitprcmnnj of the riril powrr. And wiieu tho Legislature deliberately refused to examiuine into tho Cliurch's " Chiim of Right," or to take a single step to grant to the Church tho redress and protection whicli slie souglit, tho decision thus come to, was as express a sanctioning of the claims put forth by the civil courts as it was possible in the circumstances to give, and a no less explicit announcement to the Church, that if she was to continua in her jiosition as an Establishment, she must in things spiritual, as well as things civil, be utihjcct to the ciiil jiotrcr.'-' Tliat any man can calmly examine the Church's " Claim of Eight." and the decision of the Legislature regarding it, and come to any other conclusion, wo believe to be impossible ; and the lying assertions which are sometimes made on the subject, as if what the Church claimed, and what the Legislature re- fused, was independence, not in things spiritual, but in things civil, can impose only upon those who an' as igrorant and gul- lible, as tlie parties who make such assertions seem generally to assume the people of Canada to be. But, to take even from ignorance and gullibility the shadow of an excuse for misappre- hension in the matter, we shall give the meaning and intention of the Legislature in the decision on tiie Church's "Claim of Eight," as put into plain and intelligible language by Her Ma- jesty's Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel. In the debate which took place in Parliament, on the motion of Mr. ]\Ianle, there was no silly attempt made to prove to tho Church that the civil courts were not intruding into the ecclesiastical province, and as little was it attempted to be denied that tlie Church hr^d come before them with a claim to spiritual independence ; and so plain and * It may be well to state here, that the refusal in Parliament to enquire into the " Claim of Right," was carried by the votes of English members, — who seem to have thonprht that the Erastianism Avhich existed in the Church of England must exist in the Church of Scotland also. A majority of the representatives from Sjotlaud voted in favor of the enquiry. 89 unmistnkable in consoquoace was felt to bo tho desij^a unil ef- fect of tho clecision in which tliat debate rosultod, that a ;j;oii('raI * feclin*:^ of gratitude to God was expressed among the frioud.s of Free (Uairch prineiph^s, that tiie course of duty had been ren- dered HO clear. The followirifj sentiments, so well expressed by Dr. (lordon, in rcferrin<:f to tiiat debate, were }»cnerally sympa- thised in : — '* It iM now thi! unquostion.iMti law of tlic land, thiit the civil courtH liavo ru- !)reiiiacy in iimttiTs spiritual. It is now tin; law of tlif land, that I, an a iiiin- rtter of tho (Josjm;!, if 1 ahiiU' in tht) KstahliHhiui'nt, niiiMt ^'wu iriy co.jsont to this princiiue." * • ♦ •» Aniidst all tho alaniiinj,' prospcctH thiit are beforo nif, I draw f,'n'at comfort from thirf conwidnration, that hithiito. up *\ to tho prcHi-nt hour, through tho t;ood I'rovidonco of (Joil, our jiath has l/fcii made very plain. I'/ntanKleincnt after cntan.i'lt.'nu.'nt Ii.im Ix-tn ri'iiiovcd,- and it would HCi'in that, if we do rt-ally holil the iirineiples vvhich we profes.s to held, (lod has loft us but one plair road to follow. And when I read tlx- dehate in the HoiiHe of ('oinnioiiH, whieh you. Sir, ao nobly and jjo ably opened, bitter iis my liisaiipointTneiit was. and ahirniing as the pros|)e(tri lieeaTue, 1 felt that I could not withhold from the (iovernment, and from tlu' Le^dslature, my tril(ute of respect, for thi> cle.'ir, distinct, uneipiivocal, and manly way in wliii'h they gave me their answer. This is just another [iroof to me of the good J'rovidence of God ovorrulijig this whole matter," But the lnn;^ua<:je of Sir llobort Peel must open tlie eyes even of the most skeptical. Dolarinp; his own views, and those of IltT Majesty's Government, and embodyinjj also, as was felt at tlio time, the views commonly entertained by tlio.so by whom even ,, enquiry into the Cliurch's "Claim of liight" was refused, it is impossible for any man of common sense to read it, without see- ing that the claims of tho civil courts to a ri,L,'ht of inLerf(!renco ■with tho siiirititiil affairs of tho Church have boon explicitly sanc- tioned by the Legislature, and that the Church of Scotland is now established on conditions involving the loss of her spiritual independotcc : — " I do not see that yu can establish a Church, possessing all tho emoluments of State endowment, without its submitting to htrlvohn r CONTUOL on the part of the State. I consider the State should exercise .an infiuence in tho ap])oint- ments or the Church, and that, without such influence, there would be great injury from investincr any form of faith with the endowments of an ICstalilish- ment. I think it of the ir reasons shall be stated specifically to tlio Presbytery ; thus plucin'.^ tlu) peoi)lo in a delicatt! and invidious position towards the prtjsenteo, and one manifestly fitted to abridge their freedom in objoctin;^. According to tho bill, a people may bo unani- mously of ()[)ini()n that a presentee is not lltted to promote their spiritual edilicatiou ; but unless they are prepared to state and Hubsianliate the reasons on which their opinion is grounded, they have no right to object. ('2.) It ties up tho Church courts from rejecting a presentee oil tlu; '.'round oven of an unanimous declaration l)y the people, that ill their honest belief, he can neither be acceptable nor useful amon;.; them, expressly declaring that " it shall not he law- fid U> reject a presentee upon the ground of din/ mere dissent or tli.ilikc, expressed by any part of the congregation of the parish to wliieli iie is presented," thus taking awn-y in this matter, the liboriits of tho Church courts as well as of the Christian people. (;).) TTaving abridged tho liberties of tho Church courts in re- gard to objections not specifically stated, it confers on theso courts tiie power of judging of all specific objections when giver in, and of setting them aside, and proceeding in spite of them to intrude ministers on reclaiming congregations ; thus with the viev/ of favoring patrons and presentees, conferring on the Church courts the power of trampling on tho rights and liberties of tlio people. A .somewhat ludicrous issue this, to the opposi- tion wliieh was shown to tho friends of Freo Church princix)lcs, on tho ground, that they wore uranpinn after power ! (1.) And, lastly, it leaves tho courts of the Church, in all the action which they may take, in tho matter to which it refers, subject to the review and control of the civil courts ; thus rivet- ing, as we have said, the Erastian bondage of the Church, Tho correctness of this latter statement has been established in a way which loaves not even a peg on which scepticism might hang a doubt. If you might feel inclined to doubt our interpretation of the bill, you will surely not doubt that of its orhjinator, whoso name it bears, and that of the Lord Chancellor, under whose sanc- tion and guidance it passed through the House of Lords. Lord Campbell, it seems, with tho jealousy of a lawyer, desirous that no pretext whatever might be left to the Church for grounding upon the bill a claim to exemption from the interference of the civil courts, wished a clause' to be inserted, enacting that " in N 85 T in the evunt of a patron or prosontoo thinking liimsolf iMJurod by a judgment of tlio Church courtHon hittiiuahiicatioiiH, thoy Bhould havo an appoal to tiio civil courts ;" und his proputiul was resis- ted by Lord Abordoen and the Lord Chancellor, on the ground that it was nnmri'Manj, and that tho power of tho civil courts would bo nurrowed instead of ron/irmed by Huch a clause : — " ' There cimUl be no douht whatever,' Haul Lord Abenli-en. ' that any pa- tron or preHouteo iiuKht, \>y action of (loclnrator, briiiK bis cauHo before the Court of Si'ssiori, ami havn it found whetljer or not th'! I'riMliytcry bad ex- ceeded their powers in the jtarticular case, -whether they b id acted within their competency an a judicatory of the C!hurch, or had not. 'lliuro wim no iioHHiblo reaH'in for introibjcuii,' tlu'se wordw (liord (lanipl)eirM), U'< tb'-y would teuil rather to narrow than to contimi this ri(.;ht.'" *' *If,' Haid the Lord ('hancellor, ' the C'hurch courtH did not conform to the Act, antl exceeded the powers given to tliem, tin rivil riturt^ hil a ri;/ht to in- tfr/erc. It was (luite unnecessary to enact anything,' of the kind. V>y ho doing tkoy would seem to thntw a doubt on the stilijcct ; and if they did not take care to enact it in very full and air\|)le tcriuH, they would narrow tho jurisdictiou of the civil courts instead of maintaining it untouched.' '' 2. After tho Htatonnnits juHt made, with vespoct to tlio control which tho bill of Lord Aix^rdoen loaves to tho civil conrt.s in tho sottlomont of niiniHtors, it iiiii,y seem almost HU))erllmis lo re- mark, that in jill other matters, it loaves tho Church in tlie same relation to the civil courts, in which she was left by tho decision of Parliumout on the " Claim of liight." As in tho matter to which it directly rofors, it loaves tho Church und( r tho control of tho civil courts, jind as it makes not ev(ni tho romotost dHu- siou to tho freeing of tho Church from such control in any other matter whatever, then, by plain and luidoubtod implication, it gives, as has boon well oxpross'^d, " tho sanction of law to all the recent decisions of tho Court of Session, and to tho principles on which they wore based, thus reducing the ecclesiastical Es- tablishment to tho condition of a civil institute." It is plain that a more palpahlo absurdity was never invented, than tho as- sertion that this bill restored or secured the spiritual indepen- dence of the Church. 3. But the very history of this bill furnishes, as we have in- timated, evidence of tho Erastian doj^aaclation to which the Church has been reduced, and which, instead of removing, it has only tended to deepen and confirm. It was introduced into Parliament, and carried through in a manner which clearly im- plied that Parliament assorted the right of legislating for the Church as they saw fit, and without even consulting tho Church in the matter. It is well known that it was attempted to bo passed as a mere declaratorn bill, but that on meeting in that form, with the opi)osition of every law Lord in the House of Peers, but the Lord Chancellor, (Lords Cottenham and Camp- bell declaring, that if the law had been as the bill declared, the Aucliterarder case had been wrongly decided), it was withdrawn, and brought in and passed as an ciuictive bill ; tho Legislature thus assuming a power over the Church, in virtue of which it might change at pleasure the whole constitution. It is notor- ious, too, that the bill was brought in by Lord Aberdeen and the Government who backed him, without tho Church having y<. > . 86 been so much as offered the opportunity of giving it her sanc- tion. It is usual, in dealing with the most dependent civil in- ptitutes, to consult, to some extent at least, the views of those who are to he affected by what is proposed to be done, but so completely was the Church treated as the mere creature and tool of the State, that even this poor courtesy was denied her. Lord Aberdeen, with the help of some of the Judges, whose Erastian- ism we have recorded, first concocted laws for her guidance, and then Parliament forced them upon her, without even asking her advice or caring for her consent. They knew, it would seem, with whom they had to do ! Bo, then, stands the Church under the bill of Lord Aberdeen. If any one is still disposed to coast of that bill as a new Magmi Chnrta of the liberties of the Church, we willing leave him to hug his idol. Third. — Action of the Church, in regard to the Claims to Erastian Supremacy, Advanced by the Civil Courts. After the .ixinute explanation which we have given of the claims to supre- iracy over the Church, advanced by the civil courts, and sanc- tion'^d by the Legislature, a very brief statement will be sufficient hO e&tablish our grand charge against the Church of Scotland, viz., that she has now, by her own action, become an Erastian Chui'ch, and practically denied Christ's sole Headship over her. Voluntarily, ^e shall find she has bowed her neck to the yoke imposed by the civil power; — nay! abjectly has she licked the dust at the feet of her oppressor. This, we are aware, is strong language ; but it is not stronger than true. If you have fol- lowed what we have already advanced, you will find no difficulty in assenting to its truth ; but we shall state explicitly the melan- choly, and but too conclusive proof, on which our assertion rests. 1. First of all, by continuing to retain the benefits of esta- blis-Lment after tiio decision of the Legislature, sanctioning the Erastian claims of vlie civil courts, and by acceptmg the Eras- tian bill of Lord Aberdeen, the Churcli has agreed to accept and hold these benefits, on the condition of her submission to the supremacy of the civil j)oner in spirituol thinaod of Canada was not responsible for the sin of the Church of Scot- land, with the commission of which she had nothing to do, — and again, that there were no practical grievances of which the Sy- nod had to complain ; but that, on the contrary, she was in the full enjoyment of all the freedom for which the Free Church was contending, — and from the use, of these ai'guments wo are led to believe, that there are two grand errors prevalent respecting the .disruption in Canada, which it may bo well at the outset of our 42 illuBtration of the part of the subject to '[^hich we have come, to advert to, and if possible to remove. The one is a misappre- hension -as to the ground on which the disruption took place : — the other is a fallacy in principle, as to the legitimacy and suflfi- ciency of that ground. The misapprehension as to the ground of the disruption, to which we have referred, ia one which, when distinctly stated, appears too gross even lor the most confused intellect io fall into ; and yet, from the frequency with which the first argument, or rather assertion, adverted to, is reiterated, it is impossible to a^oid believing, that some, through confusion of intellect, are actually misled by it ; — it is, that the ground of our separation from the Synod of Canada was simply that the Established Church of Scotland had sinned, and that a disruption had taken place in it, — as if we held the Synod to bo directly responsible for the sin of that Church. We beg, therefore, to remark, that the ground of our separation was not the sin nor the disruption of the Church of Scotland, but the sin of the Synod of Cmutda. That sin, indeed, as we shall show, arose out of the sin of the Church of Scotland, — but it was that sin committed by the Sy- nod herself, on which our action was based, and on which ye hold that it can be triumphantly vindicated. The only ground, we believe, on which the members of a Church can lawfully re- nounce communion with that Church, is the existence of sin, — or, in other words, of unsoundness in her doctrines or in her prac- tice. On the ground of her sin, — on the ground of her practi- cal denial of the Headship of Christ, — the members of the Free Church left the Established Church of Scotland ; on the ground of her sin, — her oirii sin, — in like manner we renounced com- munion with the Synod of Canada. And the solution of the question — "Was the disruption called for?" hinges mainly on the proof which we axe now to adduce, and to which our discussion of the sin of the Church of Scotland was intended to be prepar- atory, of the sin committed by the Synod in connection with the Church of Scotland, and which, we hold, rendered our separa- tion from tliat Synod a duty. The fallacy in principle again to which we have referred, is that implied in the assumption on which the second argument Kdverted to, — viz., the absence of practical grievances in Can- ada, — is based. Those who use this argument plainly imply that the sin of a Church, apart from what they call practical grievances, can never warrant secession from that Church. When we allege that the sin committed by the Synod required us to secede, and when, \a answer it is said to us — " Your se- cession was altogethei ancalled for, — yoa had no practical grievances to complain of, — the courts of law in Canada never threatened to encroach into the ecclesiastical province of the Synod, — patronage was al+ogether unknown among us, — we had fc'/ery thing, in fine, that the ministers and people of the Free Church wanted,-— and why, then, rend our Church ?" — when reasoning like this, we say, is employed by our opponents, it has ^ 48 as you will observe, no meaning and no weight at all, unless it be first assumed, that except where practical grievances like those referred to exist, there can be no proper ground for seced- ing from a Church, — or in other words, that the sin of a Church alone cannot warrant secession. If you do not hold this principle, then it is very clear you are shooting at the moon, — you are not looking at, much less deal- ing with, the ground on which wo rest the vindication of our procedure, — in expatiating on the absence of practical grievances in Canada ; you are merely making irrelevant assertions about v^ what nobody denies. Suppose you heard some one telling his neighbour that he had seceded from the Church to which he once belonged, on the ground of her having fallen mto vital er- rors in doctrine, — and suppose his neighbor to argue against the step which he had taken, by reminding him that the Church which he had left had never laeen enslaved by the State, and knew nothing of the evils of patronage, and, in a word was free from every kind of Erastian interference, would you not under- stand him to mean that the doctrinal errors, on the ground of which his seceding brother had justified his secession, were no valid groimds for such a step, and that so long as a Church re- mained free from the practical evils which he had enumerated, y no valid ground for secession could exist. If he denied such to be his meaning, you would feel at once, that his whole argu- ment had been altogether irrelevant and absurd. Now, WG would put it to you, do you really hold this principle? If a Church fall into Socinianism or Arminianism, — if she deny the sole Headship of Christ over her, — if she change her form of government from one which is scriptural to one which is un- scriptural, — if she fraternise with, and encourage other Churches involved in fundamental errors, or if in any other way she be- came guilty of sin in matter .ital and fundamental, is it really so that if only at the same time there be no interference with her from without, no practical grievances, such as those which forced on the disruption in Scotland, assailing her rulers or her * people, that there exists no just cause for seceding from her com- munion. You cannot, we are sure, ponder the matter, without seeing that even where no practical evils of the kind referred to exist, there may be many, and these strong and valid reasons, why the communion of a Church should be renounced, by those / who would be faithful to Christ and to his cause in the world. As we have already remarked, the only legitimate ground on which the members of a Church may secede from her, is her sin. But that may be a valid ground irrespective of all practical grievances. Such grievances may afflict a Church and yet, if dealt with in a right way, may involve her in no sin; and, at all events, it is never such grievances themselves, but only the sin that may be connected with them, that can furnish a valid ground for secession. While, on the other hand, if there be sin K in matters vital and fundamental, — although there may be no practical grievances in existence, nay, although a Church may a enjoy the utmost outward freedom and prosperity which heart could desire, — .seoesnion has not only become lawful, but must bo regarded as an imperative duty. . ; ., . , . , • But, not only does the argument, that there wore no practical grievances to complain of in Canada, involve a false principle, and leave tbe ground on which we justify our secession un- touched, but from tlje fact on which it builds, we can draw an argument to strengthen our cause. The grievances which ex- isted in Scotland, — the coercion wliich in so many forms was brought by the civil power to boar upon the Estab'^shed Church, ' formed, undoubtedly, a temptation and a snare, and so far as strong temptation can be an excuse for sin, do furnish an ex- cuse, and the only excuse which can be otl'ered for the sin into which that Church fell. Tlie fact on the other hand, that no such coercion, — that no strontj temptation of any kind was press- ing on the Synod of Canada when she committed the sin which led to the disruption (and which we are now to prove against her), — only goes to show, that her sin was more wilful, deliber- ate, gratuitous, and, therefore, more inexcusable than even the bin of the Church of Scotland. Just carry with you this fact, then, to which you are so fond of appealing, and you will find, that it makes not ayainHt, but/cr our argument. Having made these explanations with the view of removing misapprehension as 1o the ground on which the disruption in Canada took place, aad showing the true principle on which the question — "Was that disruption called for ?" must be settled, we now proceed to explain the sin which we charge against the Synod, and to adduce the proof by which we establish our charge, I. And first, the sin which wo charge against the "Synod in connection with the Church of Scotland " is, that by continuing in connection witli that sinning Church, she has made herself partaker — art and part, — with her in her sin, the am of prac- tically denying the sole Headship of Christ over his own Church. By the minute and lengthened illustration and proof which we have given of the sin of the Church of Scotland, we trust that we have sufficiently convinced you, not only of tlie reality and magnitude of the sin which she committed in basely giving up her spiritual independence to the civil power, t-nd thus denying Christ as her only Head, but also of the nccoBsity under which the ministers, elders, and people of that Church who would be faithful to their heavenly Kmg, were laid, of leaving her. And if we have succeeded in this part of our work, we shall have no difficulty in getting you to admit, that if only we can substan- tiate against the Canadian Synod tiie charge now stated, we shall have fully established that the disruption in Canada was called for. We frankly confess, that if wo have failed to con- vince you of the exceeding heinousnessof the sin committed by t e Church of Scotland, and of the imperative necessity of the step ^^ 45 •v ' which the Free Church hns adopted, wc have no hope of convincing you either of the sin which tho Canadian Synod committed in ^ adhering to the EHtablished Church of Scotland, or of the pro- priety of the Btep in which we have taken part. Tho more am- ple the opportunity which wo have of knowing tho state of mind, in which those who ntill from choice adhere to tho " Synod in connection with the Church of Scotland," are acting, the more fully are wo satisfied that whatever ihey may profess, the real secret of their adherence to that Synod is, that through ignor- ance, or carelessness, or looseness of principle, they have formed us yet very imperfect and inadequate conceptions of tho sin of '^ the Church of Scotland. We have rarely or never met with a man who had a thorough sense of the greatness of that sin, and a real heartfelt sympathy with the noble cohtendings of tho Free Church, who was not warmly, fnthusiastically on our side. In discussion with opponents too, we Lave al'.vays found, that whatever their professions at starting, the argument in the end mainly turned on the question of the sin of the Scottish Esta- blishment. It is on tliis account that we have enlarged at such length and with such an array of proof upon the sin of that Church. We felt, and still feel, that until you arc not only cor- rectly informed on this part of the subject, but rightly impressed with the melencholy conclusion which we have established, all ^ further reasoning with you must be in vain ; while, if only we could succeed in this object, the real obstacle to your approval of our procedure would be removed, and the remainder of our task would bo rendered comparatively easy. Nor can you, we are persuaded, yourselves reflect on the sub- ject, without seeing that the call for the disruption in Scotland, and the call for the disruption in Canada, must be affirmed or denied together, — if only wc can prove to you that the Canadian Synod is art and part witli the Church of Scotland in her sin. The same reasons which justified the one disruption, will then be of equal force to justify the other. Every consideration which goes to prove that the ministers and elders and people of « tho Free Church were called to renounce a Church which had basely betrayed the liberties with which Christ had invested her, and practically acknowledged the civil magistrate instead of Christ as her head, will go equally to prove that our secession was called for. And thej^ whose principles would have required ^ them (as some of you profess would have been the case with you), to be Free Churchmen in Scotland, must be seen to be acting in violation of their own principles, in adhering to the Synod in connection with the Scottish Establishment. This, then, — let it be kept in view, — is the charge which we bring against tho Synod to which you adhere, and on the proof of which, the conclusion of our argument, that the disruption in Canada was called for, now hinges, — viz., that the Synod has become art and part with the Church of Scotland in her sin, — ^ has virtually sanctioned and approved her conduct in the prac- tical denial of the Headship of Christ, — has aided and abetted 40 her in tho betrayal of the liberties of the Church of Chriat, and the rights of the people of Scotland, — and has, in a word, strength* eued and encouraged her in her evil course, nay ! even allowed herself to bo publicly appealed to, and boasted of as giving such encouragement, when it was her plain and imperative duty to have renounced communion with that sinning Oiurch, and to have shaken herself free from all participation in hor sins. Let us entreat of you to consider attentively tlio proof of this charge which we are now to adduce. Its justice was clear when wo took the step which wo are now vindicating ; and subsequent events have rendered it still more manifest. If, in tho face of the evidence to which ^vo shall appeal, it can be shown that your Synod is not a participator and an ally of tho Church of Scotland in her sin, it must bo on principles by which it may equally bo shown, that one church never can bo a participator in the sin of another, and that tho Synod might enter into close and friendly alliance and compact with Socinian andArmiuiau Churches, nay! if that were practicable, with Popery itself, and still that she would be guilty of no vital sin ; and still, too, that there would be no call for you to separate from her communion. Let it not be forgotten, at the same time, that unless you can thus get rid of the evidence to which we refor, you must stand convicttjd, so long as you adhere to tho Synod in connection with the Church of Scotland, of personally and individually sinning against Christ, and encouraging those who are denying his Headship. Churches are composed of individuals ; and he who adheres to a Church sinning in matters vital and fundamental against Christ, is him- self a partaker in the sin. Your Christian character, then, is at stake. The question whether you are contending for or against Christ, is involved in tho charge against tho Synod which we have brought forward ; and the answer to bo given to it must depend on the force of the evidence by which that charge is sub- stantiated. If only the cha"ge be proved, you will plainly be shut up to the alternatives, either of honoring Christ by re- nouncing your adherence to the Synod which has dishonored Him, or of sinning against Christ by continuing that adherence, and by identifying yourself with those who have been guilty of denying His sole Headship over the Church which he hath pur- chased with his own blood. 2. But now to the proof. (1.) The first ground, then, on which we rest our charge, is the resolution of the Synod (at the meeting at which our seces- sion took place,), to continue injclose and friendly connection with the Established Church of Scotland, notwithstanding tho sin which she had perpetrated, and to which she then showed, as she is still showing, a fixed determination to adhere. Nothing has astonished us more, in connection with the dis- ruption, than the vague and loose notions which some professing Christians seem to entertain, as to what is implied in the con- nection or friendly communion of Churches. One would almost -V 1 47 suppose, from the way in which not a few roaHOii about tlie con* nection of tiio Synod to which you adhere with the Church of Scotland, that thoy are of opinion that one Cliurch can novor bo a partaker in the sins of another, and that a pure Churoli may enter into the most close and friendly connection with t^ i most impure and heretical, not only without any loss of her own pur- ity, but without sanctioning and encouraging the sins and orrord of the Church thus befriended, or becoming in any way respon- sible for the injury thus don. to the cause of Christ. Wo can scarcely believe that any intelligent Christian, or indcod any man of common sense, can hold a principle so preposterous ; and yet, where the sin of the Church of Scotland is admitted, where it is even avowed, " Wo should have boon Free Church- men in Scotland," and where ncvt-rtholess, the close and friend- ly connection maintained with that sinning Church is justified, or at least treated as if it gave no warrant for secession from tho Synod, on what other principle can those who thns act, be pro- ceeding. Iq the pastoral address, issued immediately after tho disruption, we explained the true principle applicable to this matter, and showed by a reference to the duties and responsibil- ities of Churches as depositaries of tho truth, and witnesses for Christ, that they are bound to bo pure in their alliances, and to testify, in the formation and maintenance of such alliances dn the side of truth and of righteousness, — that they cannot, if re- cognising the obligation thus resting on thorn, be in alliance with other Churches, without being understood thereby to give their sanction and approval to the principles and procedure of such Churches in all matters vital and fundamental, — and that in the event of their entering into, or continuing, in alliance with Churches involved in vital and fundamental error, they thus be- come partakers with them in their sin, and render themselves justly obnoxious to the same condemnation. Wo are unwilling to go over the same ground again, or to argue a point which we believe would, but for the effects of wilful blindness, be felt by every one to be self-evident; biit to make the principle to which we are referring palpable to every understanding, we shall take a simple case in illustration. Suppose that you heard of a Church being in close and friendly communion with another Church, which was known to have fallen into Sociniaii or Ar- minian errors, receiving the ministers of that Church into her pulpits, or even into her pastoral charges, exchanging with her by letters or by deputations expressions of sympathy and appro- bation, and asldng and receivhig from her, pecuniary support, — would you not at once and without hesitation (Jpcide, that the Church so acting was sanctioning Socinian or Armiuiau error ; aiding, encouraging, and abetting the promulgation and main- tenance of these soul destroying heresies ; and thus making her- self a partaker, — art and part, — in sin with the Church by which they were held? Or could you, we ask, remain in connection with a Church in this position ? You must be well aware, that you could not defend a Church so acting from the charge of vi- 48 tal Hin agiiinst Christ, and that you coald not justify yoarsolf in being in commuuion with hor. - r. '•, »j. Now, tho principlo on which you would decide and act in this hypotiiotical caHo, is applicahlo to every case of a similar kind, and is applicable, thcrofoto, to tho case of the Synod to which you aro adhoring. By continuin/^ tho connection with the EBtahllHhed Church of Scotland, the Synod han made herself a partaker in hrr sin, and left no alternative to those who would free thcmBclves fi-om a participation in her guilt, but to renounce lier communion. The only way in which this concluaion can bo evaded, is by arj^'uing, as some do, that tho Church of Scotland has not sinned at all, or that her sin is not of such a vital and fundamental nature as Socinianism or Arminianism would be. Of course, if, after calm examination, you hold either of these positions, you aro in your proper place — you are a consistent Erastiau or Latitudiuarian, and wo sliould bo sorry, indeed, to 1)0 afflicted with your support; but if, as wo hope, wo havo succeeded in convincing you that tho Church of Scotland has sinned, and has sinned in a matter of the very first importance to the honor of Christ, and to tho purity and independence of His Church, — that, in a word, she has denied Christ's Headship over her, then you must see and feel that tho conclusion is irresistible, — that the Synod, in continuing the connection with that Church, has committed sin which renders separation a duty But the soundness of the conclusion to which wo are thus brought, will, we are persuaded, be still more powerfully im- pressed upon you, if you consider for a little, tho peculiar closeness of tho connection which ha sail along subsisted between the Synod and the Church of Scotland, and tho circumstances in which the formal and deliberate decision to continue that connection was come to, A large proportion of the ministers sf your Synod hold, it is well known, that the connection between the Synod and the Church of Scotland is constitutional, i. e. is not merely con- tingent and discretionary, like the connection between two separate and independent kingdoms, acting in harmony during pleasure for certain specified purposes, but permanent and essential, and such as could not be given up without a radical change of the constitution, like the union subsisting between Scotland and England, or Great Britain and Ireland. And the following extract from a report of the Colonial Committee, given in pervious to the disruption, to the General Asseinbly, will show that thi» is the view also taken by the Established Church, and that any proposal on tho pait of the Synod to dissolve it and assert her own independence, vvould be opposed as revolu- tionary, and made the ground of an nHompt to deprive her of the endowments conferred by the Stat 3: — "An effort, it is understood, is to be made, or rather is now being made, in the Colonial Legislature of Canada, to procure the incorporation of the Presbjrter- ian ministers there, heretofore connected with the Scottish Establishment, as a separate Presbyterian Church, adhering simply to the Westminster Standards, •V 11 it e a 'V •■■'[' 40 and t<» till' l'r«(ihyty the Synod of tho Li. cntiat'.s of the h'stalilislunent w.as allowed to he cfpiivalent t > ordination liy tlio Vrcshyteries of the Church at home — throuirli thu interjiretatioti put upon It, rreobyteriea in (Janada ha\o iieen iu the practico of aduiittim,' JJcentiatts, Ministers, a!i I i'ilders of tlu' Mstaldislinient in Scotlaml, on the same footin;,' as if thi'y liH 1 hern lieensed or ordr.ineil by the Synod in ( 'ana'la— as one of the privilei,'e.s resulting,' from it, the i losest intercourse in tlie way of fi'ieudly cor- responduuce, and (.f askiiij,' and roceivin.Lj ailvicu in matters of importame, lias p.U alon;,'been maintaine vcnj sunn thus glory in their shame. (2.) Having given you a specimen of the terms in which the Synod allovrs herself to be addressed by the Establishment, wo siiall next give you a specimen of the terms in Avhich she does not hesitate to address that Erastian Cb.urch. Tlie Commission which met in Toronto in February last, after remaiking in a preamble that it was performing '' ic(tH/i for iDi/nldin;/ all the riches of tJir. Gospel for the conversion of sinners, and the eiiitication of (leu's dear children. "That the meekness, Inunility, h)ve of jieaee, and flivistian er.arity, Avhich have been S(j proiriineiitly exhibited in the (Jlmreh of Scotland, thronghont the peenliar trials which she has of Lato lieeii called to endure, are, to ns, ]>leasin,!:,' indications that she in atitl nuiiuatcd 6/y the S2}irit uf lur JJirinc Mtt-itcr, and that He who has often been her defence in troublous times, will coiitinr.e to be a wall of fire around her, and the glory in the midst of her. '\^ " That Avhile our Synoil has all aloUi,' soui,dit to cultivate a fraternal Christian intercourse with those Presbyterian Churches that hold the truth as it is in Jesus, vo niucli more from tlie wircr rc'nti'tn in which we stand to the Church of Scotland, have we (.'ver desired, and do now ilesirc, fhut the fcUiif.^hin cud C')iinccti'»i with (hat Chirrrli ma>i lie (i.f fid/;/ carried <»it «.■ the rcspc'tivc fircum- titancc.-i of the two (.'hurclia will uurrrant." Here you have tho jud:;'ment of tlio Synod rospeetin^j tiu5 past c'ouduct and present position of the Established Clinrch, com- municated to the General Assciuuly oi that Cinirch, in a i'ormal document, expressive of sympathy and friendship, and of tho de- sire tliat tho " foUovfsliip and connection" l^ctweon iJicra, may he c;!rrled out " as fully as the respective circumstances of tho t^vo Churches will vrarrant." And what is tho judgment thus y communiciitod ? Docs it imply disapprobation of her conduct; — does it indicate, that even ihe things, " against ^Yhich some of her bosl friends i.'kiji have talien exception," ;iro counted by the Synod as grievous sins, or even as sins ai all, — does it not, in a Avord, plainly imply that the Synod tal:es part v.itii her ivjdlnst tlie Free L'liiire/i, regards her as a sufferer from /(//.sv ac- cii:;(ilii)i(:-:, and desires to euroiirdi/e and nireiviliieit iicr in the ])Osi- tion Vt'liich she has assumed '} Just mark the Isinguago employed, — why ! she is told tJiat she " still holds the Iruth in its purity," although she has denied tlio Headshi]i of Christ ; — that sliG "possesses ample means for u':foldhig all tiie riches of the Go.spel," although she cannot, with an honest face,orv,'iih even the appearance of consistency in conduct, fully unfold the Kingly • ofiico of liie Saviour, and although the Gospel may be shut out from her parishes by the interdicts of civil courts, wliosc authority she has declared herself ready to obey;- — ^and that she has prominently exhibited "meekness, humility, love of peace, and Christian charity," and "is still animated by tho spirit of <^ her Diviuo Master," — although slio has sold the blood-bought liberties of "■' i Church and people, and called in the assistance of civil power to crush the efforts of those who were faithfully laboring to promote her purity, — although she is even now en- gaged hi robbing the people of tho Free Church, of the Churches v/hich they built with their own money, and looking on at her friends and supporters engaged in the work of persecution, and driving congregations of devoted followers of Christ to worship on tho hill-side, on the public highway, or by the sea-shore, ^ sTithout so much as lifting up a word of remonstrance or reproof, — and although the only token which she exhibits of the love of 1 1 64 peace and Christian charity ascribed to her, consists in the con- venient cry of "Peace, Peace," with vhich she is seeking to drown the faithful voices of those who would remind her of her sins, and urge her to repentance. What is this, we ask, but just the Synod embracing and lauding to her face her fellow sinner, — telling her that if she has faults at all they are too trifling to be noticed, — assuring her that she has done nothing to grieve the Spirit of God, and bidding her God speed in her evil course. If the scales have not fallen from your eyes, the mask has at least effectually and forever fallen from the Synod, and she stands convicted, on her own confession, of being, art and part, an approver and an encourager, of the Church of Scotland in her sins. (3.) Of the approbation and encouragement of each other, implied in the interchange of friendly visits by means of deputations between Churches, we do -not need to inform you; and wo would next remind you of what has been doing in this way between the Synod and t^'ie the Church of Scotland. You know of the visit of the deputation from the latter Church, which recently perambulated the Province, — of the warm welcome wliich tliey everywhere received from the ministers and other members of the Synod, — of the attempted defence which they made of the past conduct and present position of the Church which they represented, — and of the boastings in which they have been indulging since their return to Scotland, of their success in removing misconceptions from the minds of the Presbyterians of Canada, and in drawing forth their affections towards "the CLuivli of their fathers." Doubtless, you have read or heard of these things, arid must bo awai-<' how deeply the credit of the Synod has therebj^ been implicated with that of the Church of Scotland ; but the following extract from a report of the proceedings of the Synod which recently met in Kingston, will show you the return which that body is prepared to make for the visit of these deputies, and how much they are about to "carry out" the intercourse between the Churches, by means of a deputation to the General Assembly, and thus, in the most formal, and public, and significant manner possible, to identify themselves with the Church of Scotland in her sin: — " It w.is agreed to appoint a deputation to appear at the bar of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, at its meeting in May, to thank the Church of Scotland, for the timely and refreshing visit of the deputation last year, and to tliauk them for the manner in which they fulfilled their arduous and delicate mission." If the visits of deputies from the Free Church identify ns, (as all will allow), in principles and credit with the Free Church, is it not utterly preposterous to deny that an interchange of such visits as we have above referred to, just and truly identifies you with the Erastian Establishment ? (4) Another fact, illustrative of the kind of intercourse carried on between the Synod and the Establishment, and which exhibits the former undeniably in the attitude of an approver and an 'V T \ ^ 4 \ 55 (as , is uch you an encourager of the proceedings of the latter, is a well kuown fact, that the Synod is receiving and welcoming the money and i the preachers of the Estahlishment. You cannot have forgotten the boastings which nppoavod in one or two papers, about the grant of money to the con'.'^rcyation in Hamilton, and about the recent appointment of one or two missionaries to the Province, — and you must have noticed the following statement in the report of the proceedings of the late meeting of Synod : — "On an overture to that effect, the Synoil rescinded their resolution of 1842. in rcfiard to grants of money from t/ie C'olonidl CommittfC of the General '\. Assembly, to aid in hidhling of Churches, and lu/rcci to allov) cotifjntiationx to appb, to the said committee for such aid ; all aijplicaticns, however, to have the sanction, first, of the Presbytery of the boinnlH, and afterwanlH of tlie .Syjiod or its commission." But it is unnecessary to dwell on these facts ; — if tlie most secular mind, — the mind least capable of appreciating the spiritualities of the question, — cannot see at a ly reijuire to be fixed by posi- tive decision, before it will be generally received as law." The opinion of Lord Cunningiiam is as follows : — " ' There appears,' sayt-s he, ' to be little doubt, that at a certain jjeriod iu the \^it century, when ecclesiastical questions first were the subject of disi;ubsionin our courts, an opinion was entertained by lawyers of learning and reputation that such a separation (betv/een the benefice and the cure, as at the dispo- sal of distinct courts,) was in certain cases legitimate and;coiupetent, and admit- ted of yio remedy i,. tluK court. But able as the persons were, they had not the benefit of the anxious and elaborate arijumeyits, which the questions have under- gone in modern times, and which have thrown a light on cases of this nature, that writers at no former y:rwd enjoyed." " According to tho latter Judge, surely an imjtartUd authority, — even the civil courts gave a dilfercnt interpretation of the con- stitution of the Church from that now given, till enlightened by the discoveries of such oracles as John Hope, Patrick Eobertson, and Robert Wliighani. •V 1 61 hini- iu the hsii)n in itation •lispo- ladmit- liot the lunder- ^ature, )rity, con- pdby Itson, •V 'i I I. A I'ouith objection is, Hint tlio Church of Sccthiud denies that she is Krastiaii, or that nho hns compromised the rights oi' Christ iiiul the liberties of the Church. " Oh !" say Homo, "your assertions on this ful)ject are only assertions, — we have assertion'^ as «;ood as yours on the other side. — nay, luivo wo not seen in the oflicial documents (>i ihc Established Church, a dis- tinct and Hat denial of the char!j;cs you brinj^ against her." And this kind of pleadinpf may even be heard, from men who loolc as if thoy shoulil know better, in public meetiuLjs, and pul)lic dis- cussions. "Wo warned you at the commencement of the address not to regard vicn' assertions on either side, and we would just repeat the warning, Sot if you please the denial of tlio Establishment against tho charges of the Free Church, and let the one be held to neutralize the other. But don't bo so simple as to argue, after doiu" so, as if tho T;hole question were then settled. Ec- member that tho arguments and proofs on both sides arc before you, and that it is your duty before believing the one or tho other, by a reference to these to ascertain the truth. To deal with assertions alone, where proofs are offered, is to blink tho question altogether, and to play tho part of a fool. "What would be thought of a. jury, if setting aside tho evidence brought to es- tablish a crimintil accusation, they should reason thus : " True, this man is accused of a grievous crime ; but the assertion of tho accused is as good as the assertion of the accuser ; have we not heard hira wifii our own ears solemnly deny the accusation ; erijn, we sliall bring in a verdict of not guilty '?" Or, what would 1)L! thouglit of a kirk session which should dispose of a charge of Sabbath breaking in the same Avay, and should acquit an olfen- der, against whom witnesses were ready to prove that he had been sliootiiig or fishing on that holy day, upon no better ground than that he denied generally the charge, — asserted that ho res- pected and honoured the Sabbath, — and assured them that ho was only taking a little innocent recreation '? But this is just tho folly which those commit who quote, as conclusive, the Church of Scotland's assertions that she has never denied tho Headship of Christ. Look to the evidenc3, — the clear and con- clusive evidence,- y which her oircuco is proved, and dispose Mit till this be done, do not, we beseech you, .Jculous by supposing that the mere asser- "*f Scotland can ever, of itself, establish her of that if you can make yourselves tion of the Chure innocence. 5. A fifth objection, relied npou by some, is that even if the Clnirch of Scotland has sinned, it cannot b^ denied that she is still a Church of Christ, and, therefore, that there was no call to dissolve connection with her. The principle involved in this objection is plainly this, that separation from a Church can never be called for, unless she can be pronounced to have ceased to be a Church of Christ. It is utter- ly unsound. How far a Church may go in sin before she ceases 02 to bo ft Church of Christ, no man Ih warranted, or able, if war- ranted, to decide. There in, undoubtedly, an extreme state of corruption in which no one can hesitate in pronouncing, accord- ing to the principles of the Word of (iod, that a Church has ceased to bo a Church of Christ ; but there are many intcrmed- iftto positions between this extreme state and that of a lively, flourishing Church, in which it would bo presumptious to decide that a Church is no longer acknowledged by Christ at all, and yet where the call to separate from that Church may be as loud, and clear, and imperative, as the call to separate from a brother wlio walketh dinorderly or habitually indulges in open sin. In- deed, the apostolic rule about uoparatiou from erring brethren, necessarily involves a principle upplicuble to Churches, us well as individuals, — for what are Chnrchos but collections of indi- viduals. But it may bo more sutisi'actory to you to show, by one or two practical illu -mirations, that the principle of this ob- jection, is not one usually acted on, or by which you yourself .■>, But, because angry passions, and strife, and division were thus to attend tlic work on v-'hich these disciples were sent forth, did he allow them to suppose, that they were to determine, by the likelihood or unlikelihood of these evils being produced, irhcn. it was expedient for them to pr(}ach the Gospel, or did he intend that they should decide, Avlien such evils followed, that tlio course wliicli they vrcro pursuing was not approved of God ? Was not one of the very objects for which he forevrarnod them of these evils, that they might not shrink from the duty which he had assigned tlie:u, oven Avhen these evils tlireatcncd most ;i!'U'mingly to follow, luid might not h(\ stnggcv-^'l, Avlirn tho for- mal riiarisce, and the silK-cii votarv of i)lca:~uro, and t!)e soU'-iii- !>' 68 terested supporter of the religion of tlie State, into whose fami- lies or Synagogues the Gospel had found its way, shall de- nounce them as the authors of strife and division, and argue that a cause attended with such evil consequences could not be the cause of God. And the lesson which Christ thus taught his first disciples, was obviously a lesson for his disciples in every age, and still it proclaims — preach the Gospel, uphold the doc- trines of the Gospel, witness faithfully for every truth of the Gos- pel, carry out conscientiously everj'' principle of the Gospel, and doing this, leave consequences to God. But again, in this ob- jection, it is invariably, although falsely assumed, that if there is blame connected with the evils in question, that blame must rest upon us. We admit that where evil consequences follow the agitation even of a good cause, there must alwaysbe sin somewhere, aye ! and grievous sin ; and we admit, moreover, that the blame of such evil consequences as have actually followed the disrup- tion in Canada, must rest either on us or on you. But, then, how is it to bo determined on which party the blpme is to be laid ? Not by mere gratuitous assumption, surely, but by deter- mining who is in the right, — who is following the path of princi- ple and of duty. They are the offenders, — they are the guilty cause of strife and division, and injury to the cause of religion, who are resisting the truth, — who are supporting a cause which is not the cause of Christ,— and who are '• strivina and dividinrf " in families, and congregations, and neighbourhoods, against the faithful assertors of the crown rights of the Kedeemer. We have proved to yen who this i^arty are, and shown you that yon your- self happen to be among them, and we would, therefore, remind you, that as often as you expatiate upon the evils that have fol- lowed the disruption, you are not really doing damage to us, you are merely publishing your own shame, and grounding on evils which your own opposition to the truth has occasioned, an objec- tion against the cause which we are advocating, which might, with equal effect, have been brought against the Gospel itself, against the Reformation, against the contendings of our coven- anted fathers with Prelacy and lawless power, and against every cause, in a word, which has ever set in hostile array the powers of light and of darkness. But, finally, this objection overlooks the fact, that yood as well as rril consequences have attended the disruption. Although a cause may not bo pronounced bad mere- ly because its agitation has been nttcndcd witli tcme evil results, a cause wliicl: is attended o)iJy with evil, may well be regarded with suspicion, and our opponents, to serve their own purposes, usually argue, as if nothing but the evils they arc so fond of pic- turing, had flowed from the disruption. But how stands the fact ? It is not, perl.uips, to bo wondered vt, if the advocates of tlie " Synod, iji comiection with the Churcli of Scotland," know of little but tlie evils of which tlicy speak. We should liave been supriscd, indeed, if the course which they have pursued had been (ifteitdrd witli uiucli lliat could be called good, or that could fur- ni-^li a subject for rejoicing. With coiigre,'.fifions broken up, or I /» 69 36 fami- lall de- \ argue I not be light his in every ;he doc- the Gos- pel, and this ob- therc is lust rest How the le where, le blame } disrup- at, then, is to bo oy deter- (f princi- le guilty religion, se which iividiiifj " ainst the We have '/ou your- I, remind have fol- us, you [ on evils an objec- h might, )el itself, ir coven- Qst every le powers Dverlooks mded the )ad merc- II results, rcgarJoU purposes, Lid of pic- ;ands the /ocatcs of d," l