English Dissenters, acting on the principle that the Church at all hazards must be weakened, will grant their dispensation to the Non-intrusion leaders to assert that no formal proposal was ever made. We mean that the Dissenters will not be angry at this apparent shrinking from the consequences of their own acts on the part of the Non-intrusionists, because they see with Candlish and his friends that a sudden change from Presbytery to Independency might damage their consistency. Dr. Candlish's assertion, therefore, will be fully understood by his friends the Voluntaries.

Our readers know already that the great question between the Church and the Non-intrusionists is that of patronage. The latter would place it virtually in the people, and thus introduce Radicalism into the Church, an evil of far greater magnitude than Radicalism in politics. The whole controversy hinges on this question. Now it had ever been the law in Scotland for certain parties to present to a vacant benefice, but the checks against improper persons being imposed upon a parish are of such a character that no mischief can arise. This law the Non-intrusionists pretended was imposed upon the Church, and they have sought for its repeal. Not succeeding in their attempt, they have quitted the Church and set up for themselves. Mr. Cumming thus argues the question of patronage:

"A patronage, limited and restricted as it is in the Church of Scotland, even if designedly wielded, as it is not, against the interests of vital religion, is incapable of doing any mischief, for the following

reasons:

"In the first place, the patron is confined in his selection, to a body which the presbyteries of the Church have examined and licensed to preach. In making these, the presbytery has absolute power. It may refuse to give this license on any ground it may be pleased to adduce. Each presbytery has unquestioned and unquestionable power to determine that none but converted, and holy, and enlightened men, shall be put within reach of the patron. He can be tied down to present none but one of whose principles, gifts, and character, the presbytery is thoroughly satisfied. If presbyteries do their duty, patrons can scarcely fail to do theirs.

"In the next place, the nominee or presentee of the patron, on being selected by him for a benefice, is again subjected to the examination of the presbytery; and on the presbytery expressing their satisfaction with his trials, they urge and require the parishioners to state and substantiate any objections of any kind against his life, doctrine, preaching, or powers to edify them. If no objections are urged, or if such as are urged are frivolous and untenable, the presbytery proceeds to ordain and induct.

"This, I contend, is the utmost limitation that patronage is capable of. Any limitation beyond this must be applied in a voluntary church. As members of a church established by law and endowed by the state, the people of Scotland have all the rights they can fairly require, or expediency exact, in the appointment of their ministers. Patronage has existed in the Church of Scotland from the earliest period of its history, and for one hundred and thirty years it has been exercised without interruption; and the very clergy who now not only petition against it, but refuse to comply with its prescriptions, entered their churches by this very door."

That the case is fairly and honestly put by Mr. Cumming is not denied, but the Non-intrusionists are not satisfied with any thing short of absolute power. The government have shewn every disposition to conciliate, while the schismatics have proved themselves to be unreasonable men, with whom no communion could be maintained. Yet the Non-intrusionists assert that the state wished to oppress the Church. Is the assertion borne out by facts? The Earl of Aberdeen stated in his place in parliament, that

"He was ready to grant to the Church all the rights and all the power which it had ever by law enjoyed, but he could go no farther, and the claims now set up

utterly inconsistent as they were with civil and religious liberty, and establishing a domination at once odious and degrading—he would resolutely oppose."

Is this the language of a man who wishes to oppress the Church? But what becomes of the assertions of the Non-intrusionists ? Mr. Cumming glances also at the practical working of the present system :

"Under this system the people of Scotland have risen to a lofty, moral, and spiritual pre-eminence; the pulpits of her parishes have been filled by a godly,

loyal, and faithful ministry, and schemes of missionary enterprise have been undertaken full of promise, and justly admired and imitated by sister churches. I solemnly believe that much of the altered and lowered tone of Christian feeling, by which Scotland has been recently characterised, has arisen from the spectacles presented by the Non-intrusion clergy."

Mr. Cumming adds the following confirmation in a note :

"Every communication I receive from Scotland confirms this. Son is against father, and husband is set against wife, by this wretched controversy. Socinianism, infidelity, and Romanism increase, but Non-intrusion absorbs all energy."

This is just what might have been expected. The readers of Scottish history, moreover, can revert to a period when similar scenes took place in that country. In the days of the Erskines the father excommunicated his son in one chapel, while the son excommunicated his father in another. The world will ask, where is the spirit of the Gospel in such proceedings?

Now we can assure our Scottish readers that the sympathics of the English clergy and the English laity, with but very few exceptions, are with the Church of Scotland, and not with the Non intrusionists. There may, indeed, be here and there a clergyman of the Church of England who takes part with Dr. Candlish and Co., just as he might sympathise and act with English Dissenters. These, however, are the exceptions; and while we do not contend that every English clergyman is consistent or faithful to his ordination vows, we do contend that, as a body, the clergy most cordially approve of the spirit, the temper, and the general proceedings of the Scottish Church.

Our feelings are of this description, and we know that we utter the sentiments of the body of the English clergy. Dr. Candlish may, perhaps, assign this article to Mr. Cumming, but we can assure our readers that we are members of the Anglican Church, and we are determined that no insinuation from Dr. Candlish shall deter us from the honest expression of our opinion. The following extract from Mr. Cumming's

notes to the new edition of his Tract will greatly amuse our readers :

"At page 13 he begins his quarrel with the editor and publisher of Fraser's Magazine, in consequence of the extremely temperate, Christian, and conclusive article, which has appeared in that periodical. The Doctor thinks I must have had a hand in it. If I had, I should not be ashamed of it; but, as the Doctor has not proved me to have had even a finger in it, he might have waited till he reached Edinburgh, and the columns of the Witness. The Doctor sees coincidences of facts in my letter and in the article, and on this he founds his conclusion that I am the writer. By this process he might have proved that Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, or Sir George Sinclair, had written it; as coincidences in facts are usually characteristic of honest men. From page 12 to page 18, Dr. Candlish keeps up a running fire between the author of the letter and the writer of the article. He does not venture to identify them in so many words, but, to use his own favourite expression, 'he insinuates.' At the same time, the Doctor having his own anonymous despatches very near his conscience, guards against consequences by remarking, Anonymous writing in a magazine is not necessarily inconsistent with honour and integrity.'

"The Rev. Doctor characterises the article as being in the style of the Sunday newspapers.' Now as I neither subscribe to, nor read a Sunday newspaper, I must bow in this point to the Rev. Doctor's superior experience. It is only to be regretted that any clergyman should have a taste for that class of newspapers. But, perhaps, some of them advocate Non-intrusion."

All this is amusing enough. Probably the Doctor imagines that no one but a Scotchman could write on Scottish subjects. We are of opinion, however, that we, being at a distance from the scene of trial, are better qualified to sit in judgment on the matters in dispute than the Doctor himself; and he pays us, as members of the Church of England and as Englishmen, a poor compliment if he imagines that we have not sufficient understanding to comprehend the intricacies of the Non-intrusion proceedings. We flatter ourselves, at least, that we know all about the business, and possibly our readers may give us credit for some knowledge on the subject. We apprehend that there are many Englishmen, and

as

English churchmen too, in London, who are quite competent to write on Scottish matters; so that Dr. Candlish need not be apprehensive that Mr. Cumming must be applied to whenever circumstances may render it necessary for us to touch on subjects connected with the Church of Scotland. But it seems that our former article, according to the Doctor's apprehension, is in "the style of the Sunday newspapers." Mr. Cumming's conclusion is irresistible, namely, that the Doctor could not be so well acquainted with the style of those publications unless he was in the habit of reading them. This reminds us of a work, written many years ago, by a Dissenting divine of some celebrity, on the evils of the stage. The work became popular, but it was evident that its author had been in the habit of attending the theatre. Some persons were tounded at this discovery; but the author's friends came to the rescue, declaring that he was compelled to attend those places of amusement, in order that he might be acquainted with their evils, and thus speak from his own experience, since his arguments would have much more weight, if he could say that he had himself witnessed the evils of which he complained. Now it may be that Dr. Candlish is on the eve of publishing a volume on Sunday newspapers; and, as in such a work it is necessary that their character should be accurately described, the reverend gentleman had no alternative but to read them for the purpose of enabling him to write from actual experience. But we leave the Doctor to escape, as he may, from the consequences of his own admission. He may, if he please, characterise this article as partaking of the style of the Sunday newspapers; but we can assure him, as Mr. Cumming has done, that we are not in the habit of reading such publications.

Mr. Cumming alludes to the numerous misrepresentations which have been circulated by the Non-intrusionists. Thus he says,

"If I tell them the clergy of the Church of England differ from them, they answer, They are prelatists, and their opinion is worth nothing; if I say eight hundred clergy of their own church dissent from the views of them, the four

dead

hundred and sixty Non intrusionists, they reply, The eight hundred are Moderates;' if I urge the fact, that all the orthodox Dissenters of England and Scotland are against them, they answer, They are Voluntaries; if I refer to Sir James Graham, He is Claverhouse; if to your lordship and other peers, of whose deep interest in the progress of vital Christianity there is and can be no doubt, These are not Presbyterians; if I speak of Lord Aberdeen and the whole Conservative party, They are Erastians; if I quote the opinion of Lord John Russell and his side of the House, They are enemies of the Church. In short, they allege that they are right, and that parliament, and peers, and judges, and courts of law, and Episcopalians, Moderates, and Dissenters, and Conservatives, and Whigs, are all wrong. They claim to be the interpreters of law, the expositors of statute; and they will nei ther obey the law, nor leave the establish. ment, in which the supremacy of law must be maintained."

Of course the members of the Church of England must necessarily be opposed to the Non-intrusionists. The law of patronage exists in England. Certain persons by law are entitled here, as in Scotland, to present to vacant benefices; and, though there may be evils connected with the system (for evils there must be in all earthly things), yet they are tenfold less than would be those of popular election, which is the principle contended for by the Non-intrusionists. So again there are checks in England as in Scotland to the improper exercise of patronage. In the first place, no man can be ordained deacon or priest until he has been examined by the bishop, who must be satisfied of the candidate's sound views and consistent conduct. Then

in the second place, no man can be instituted to a benefice, if he can be proved to be unsound in the faith or unholy in his practice. Such is the principle. That bishops are sometimes deceived, and that unworthy persons intrude themselves into the ministry are points which have nothing to do with the question at issue. We appeal, then, to members of the Church of England, can they approve of the proceedings or the principles of the Non-intrusionists? We unhesitatingly answer, the thing is impossible, because the principles of Dr. Candlish would destroy any church, and place all authority in the

hands of the people. The people of England, therefore, with the exception of the Dissenters, can have no sympathy with the Non-intrusionists. Mr. Hamilton appeals to the people of this country in his Harp on the Willows; but we conclude that he means his brethren the Voluntaries. Certainly the Free Church in Scotland and the Voluntaries in England are one and the same. We, however, can assure Mr. Hamilton and Dr. Candlish that the members of the Church of England, comprehending the great mass of the English people, concur in the views which are so ably set forth in Mr. Cumming's tract.

Dr. Candlish and his friends probably expected to carry with them the whole body of the Scottish clergy, but in this hope they have been grievously disappointed.

Of the numbers who have cast in their lot with the Voluntaries, many are merely quoad sacra ministers, or ministers of chapels without any pastoral charge. These chapels are like our chapels of ease and propriatory chapels in England. This class of ministers is somewhat different from those who are fixed in parishes; and of those who have swollen the ranks of Voluntaryism, the great majority are of this description.

Our opinion from the first agitation has been, that the Scottish Church could afford to lose her refractory members, and that she would flourish more after their departure. Our anticipations are already in part verified. Latterly the General Assembly was tyrannised over by a majority who refused to obey the laws, and were the propagators of disaffection throughout the country. The Church is now freed from this illegal power. The Assembly is now free to act for the welfare of the Church, and already the work of reformation has commenced. Thus as soon as the leaders of the anarchical faction had taken their departure, the following resolution was proposed in the Assembly by Dr. Cook, one of the ablest and most moderate men in Scotland :

"That, as the Act on Calls, commonly denominated the Veto Act, infringes upon civil and patrimonial rights, with which, as the Church has often declared, it is not competent for its judicatories to intermeddle, as being matters incompetent

to them, and not within their jurisdiction, it be an instruction to the General Assembly to all Presbyteries that they proceed henceforth in the settlement of parishes according to the practices which prevailed previously to the passing of that Act, keeping specially in view the undoubted privilege of the parishioners to state any relevant objections to the induction of presentees, upon which Presbyteries, after hearing parties, shall decide, it being in the power of those parties to appeal, if they see cause, to the superior Church Courts."

This is beginning at the right place, for the act in question was the cause of all the mischief. Before it was passed, the Church of Scotland was at unity with itself. The motion was discussed at considerable length, but it was carried without a division. The Assembly being now free, proceeded to annul the sentence, which had been illegally passed on the Strathbogie ministers. We may therefore expect harmony and peace in the Church, for the troublers of Israel are departed. What, however, are the prospects of the schismatics? Are they likely to agree, or to proceed in their voluntary career harmoniously? We predict that strife and divisions will arise before the meeting of the next General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The friends of the Church are now able to devise measures for the benefit of the people; and, ere long, if we are not greatly mistaken, they will have the most convincing proof of the hollowness of the Non-intrusion party. Like English dissent, Non-intrusionism contains within itself the elements of discord, and within a year those elements will be developed. Already, indeed, symptoms of disunion have manifested themselves; for while some of the party have declaimed against the voluntary principle, others have acknowledged its excellence, and all have admitted its necessity. Like our English Dissenters, too, every congregation of Non-intrusionists will be exposed to endless divisions. In England the most fruitful source of discord among dissenting congregations is the choice of ministers, and the same results will flow from the same cause in Scotland. Whenever a difference occurs, the congregation will be divided into two parties, and two separate bodies will be formed, who will be animated to

wards each other by a feeling of hatred more deep than that which now exists in the breasts of the whole against the Church of Scotland. It is quite impossible to avoid these consequences. In a short time their mutual hatred will be so strong, that their common dislike to the Church will be forgotten. We predict these consequences, because we know that they are involved in the great principles of the Non-intrusion party. We shall soon have a most edifying spectacle of Non-intrusion unity!

We

The Non-intrusionists have "a quarrel altogether" with the Church of England as well as with the Church of Scotland; but, according to their doctrine, both must soon cease to exist. Thus the Witness, alluding to recent proceedings, declares, "The government has sealed the doom of all church establishments." The Non-intrusionists, since their junction with English dissent, must deem them unlawful; consequently, the act of the government must inspire them with joy. The mighty fuss, however, of the Witness and the other Non-intrusion organs is unnecessary, for we can assure them that the Church of Scotland can manage her own affairs very well without their assistance. view the separation of the Non-intrusion body as the cutting off of a diseased limb, and we are sure that the health of the Church will now be restored. Were we to form our opinions from what occurs in a certain reading-room in London, we should be led to imagine that the fate of the nation-nay, of the whole world-depended on this schismatical party in Scotland. We know, too, that the account of the proceedings of the General Assembly was expected with so much eagerness by certain parties in this metropolis, that they even formed the absurd conception that their English neighbours were as much concerned in the matter as themselves. We know instances, in which parties expressed the greatest surprise at the apparent unconcern of their English friends.

For a short space the schismatical assemblies may be well attended. Curiosity may lead some to the new chapels, while the novelty of the thing will attract others; but ere long every thing will flow on as be

fore. The parish churches will be full and the Non-intrusionists' chapels will, with a few exceptions, be empty. Already the churches of some of the towns of Scotland are more crowded than they were before the schism. The Church will provide suitable men to succeed to the vacant charges, and not a few of the separatist ministers will, we feel assured, anxiously look about for a door through which to return to the church of their fathers. As the leaders of the faction die off, the excitement will fall away; and even before they are gone from the stage of time, the present feeling will be allayed. Though we are not prophets, yet we venture to predict such consequences as those which we have now described, both as it regards the Church herself and the Non-intrusion body. The latter will find it difficult to direct public attention to their proceedings, and thus they will have nothing to do but to "quarrel altogether" among themselves.

We know nothing whatever of the Non-intrusion leaders, except what we gather from their conduct. Neither are we acquainted with Mr. Hamilton and his brethren in London. But we have a high opinion of such men as Dr. Brown and Mr. Cumming. The latter has, on more than one occasion, defended those principles which are common to both our national churches; while, in his recent pamphlet, he has done much to scatter that mist which had been raised by the schismatical leaders in their writings, their speeches, and their sermons. Our readers, probably, are aware that few works have been published in defence of the principles of the Scottish Church, while the press teems with tracts and pamphlets in favour of the schismatics. The former pursues the even tenor of her way, not wishing to produce an unnatural excitement; the latter, knowing that they cannot exist as a party except by the favour of the multitude, are playing the part of religious demagogues. But though very few works have been written in defence of the Church, we are happy to say that some have made their appearance. Among her champions, on this occasion, Mr. Cumming stands forth for the purpose of explaining the question to the