« PreviousContinue »
so nefariously altered. She must take up a decidedly popular position, and plead, not for any extension of ecclesiastical power, (already sufficiently large,) but for the admission of her communicants to an effective share in the election of pastors ; a matter in which, at present, their conscientious dissent has no more power to prevent a settlement, than has the re-calcitration of a bay horse on a coronation day' the power to · forbid the banns' betwixt the sovereign and the people of Great Britain.
We would remonstrate still farther with those well-meaning friends of the Church of Scotland who give in by far too readily to the conceit, that the act abolishing patronage was not contemplated in the union settlement. We would ask them a very simple question. Was this act, abolishing patronage, the only act which was passed on the memorable 9th July 1690 ? Were there not other three acts of parliament passed that very same day in favour of the Church of Scotland ? . One of them cancelling certain holidays; another rescinding several acts of parliament passed during the days of persecution; and a third annulling all the laws enforcing uniformity of adherence to the hierarchy. Will they thus hold that none of those were meant to be confirmed and declared permanent by the act of union? For on what principle of common sense or of ordinary interpretation can they imagine that one out of the four (and that the most important assuredly,) was meant to be excepted from the comprehensive term, 'THE HAILL ACTS ?' If meant,' why not say so? Ah, our easy but rash friends know well, that had such a notion been mooted in the days of Dundas, Dalrymple, and Stewart, the union would not have taken place at all!
Another view still may be taken of this great point. The friends against whom we are now contending, for they are not intrusionists with whom we have in this argument to do; many staunch assembly debaters for non-intrusion are implicated,—these friends of the independence of the church imagine that the haill other acts,' ratified by the union, extend not beyond the month of June 1690, when the magna charta of presbyterianism was given. Now, do they need to be reminded that a variety of most valuable statutes vindicating the rights and liberties of the presbyterian church, and clearing away doubts as they occurred in the progress of time, were passed after even the 19th July 1690; and that unquestionably these acts must have been in the eye of our fathers when they, in the union act, ratified and perpetually settled and confirmed the statute of the revolution, June 1690, and the haill other acts thereanent?' Surely we are not to tolerate the notion that these acts also are in danger of being thrown aside as doubtful, inasmuch as as little notice is taken of them, and of their subjects
in the claim of right' as of patronage. That great national instrument—the claim of right was not designed to enumerate every specific instance of abuse, but rather to enunciate the heads or arguments on which were suspended the special points to be rectified. In this enunciation of genera, patronage could not have found a place, for the best of all reasons, that patronage was not one of the crimes which it was the design of the claim of right to bring against the Stuart dynasty. They did not originate patronáge; and even as to the gross abuses of it, which were perpetrated after the restoration of 1662, the blame of these belonged rather to the bishops and their minions under the new fedged ecclesiastical hierarchy. The complaint against patronage was much older than the days of the Stuarts. It was coeval with the reformation itself; and in 1690 it was the public voice of Scotland, and that alone, which put it down.
In examining the precise import of these other acts, consequent on the claim of right,' it is well deserving of notice, that the substance of the anti-patronage act of July 1690 is recognised in them, clearly evincing that, if the one is excluded from the range of the haill other acts,' so must all the others. For example, in the act 1693 (23d May), for enforcing the oaths of allegiance and assurance, there is no mention at all made of patrons of parishes' as bound to take these oaths, clearly implying that such parties had no existence; but in their room are specially named 'all heritors voting on the calling of ministers, and all others whatsoever giving voice in the calling of ministers at their meeting for that effect;' clearly proving that this mode of election was the only one here recognised; and yet that mode of election has no existence apart from the act of July 1690, which our patronageloving friends nevertheless say was not included among the haill acts consequent on the claim of right!' Again, in the act, 11th June 1693, for settling the quiet and peace of the church,' the power of the Assembly and other church courts to depose ministers, tam ab officio quam a beneficio, is distinctly asserted; and it is statute and ordained that the lords of the privy council, and all other magistrates, judges, and officers of justice, shall give all due assistance for making the sentences and censures the church and judicatum thereof to be obeyed or otherwise effectual as accords. It is too well known that, in the present day, the assistance, that is given by councils, and judges,' is all the other way; it is to the effect not of making the sentences be obeyed and made effectual, but just the reverse. Now, we could understand something of the meaning of this, pending patronage and the • astricting clause;' but how it could be that the supremacy of the church, in her censures, should have been specially protected
by law, to the effect of being made effectual,' and yet such supremacy to be absolutely opposed to the civil right of patrons, we cannot comprehend. Nor can any principle solve the difficulty, save that which proceeds on the assumption, that civil rights did not exist. In other words, that the act 1693 presupposed the patronage abolition act of 1690. In fine, the acts of 28th June 1695, against blasphemy,' 16th July 1695, concerning the church,' and the act of queen Anne, 9th June 1702, for securing the protestant religion and presbyterian church government;' ali assert the same supremacy of the ecclesiastical courts of Scotland in all causes ecclesiastical; and assert also the duty and obligation of the civil authorities to help them in the same. This is altogether inconceivable on any other ground than that the legislature meant the church to hold and exercise such supremacy, irrespective of all control on the part of any court of law, nay, with the condition, as expressed, that the courts of law shall be bound to protect her in it.
That the revival of the law of patronage in 1712, had the effect of introducing a very vital change in the character and extent of that independence which the church had guaranteed to her at the revolution, and by the union settlement, is what we have always maintained ; and we distinctly contend, that had the legislature supposed for a single moment that patronage, as a civil and patrimonial right, was continued under the revolution settlement, she would have stultified herself entirely in guaranteeing to the church such independence. And why ? Plainly because the person called • a patron,' who stands at the door of every parish church in the kingdom, and, as a watchful sentinel, turns away any one who dares to enter without his express authority, is not amenable to the highest church court in the kingdom, and can set her proceedings aside quoad hoc. So the country often have found, and so we believe it is. But assuredly the legislature at the revolution meant nothing of the kind. She set aside patronage altogether as a patrimonial right, and vested the power of electing, or rather of initiating, not in an individual irresponsible, and it may be connected in no way with the locality, but in the resident landowners and elders of the church, whose proceedings, with those of the remanent inhabitants, were made revisionable by the church courts, and by them alone. Such is the constitution by which we are bound; and to that constitution, in all its civil relations, the courts of law are astricted to give effect.
With these views strongly impressed upon our minds, we earnestly desiderate on the part of the friends of the Church of Scotland, a calm and persevering study of the revolution and union periods; and as introductory to this, we strongly recommend to them
the perusal of Mr Mackay's very valuable history of the great General who stood forth so prominent in those days. The excellent biographer-who is now gone to the resting-place of the spirits of the just, but whose saintly form and aspect are now vividly before us-studied with peculiar care the history of the British constitution, not only as exhibited in the pages of enlightened and impartial history, but as developed in the proceedings of parliament, and in the revolutions of the times. His researches into the life and military labours of General Mackay necessarily led him to a review of the revolution period of 1688; and the severer studies of his early days were brought to bear upon its development. He was a conscientious Whig of the revolution school ; but he was far from thinking that the very best specimens of disinterested whiggism belonged to that period. He sought and he found a purer principle and a nobler patriotism among the opposition members of the second parliament of Charles the Second ; to whom, though few in number, and by no means raised above all selfish aims, posterity still stands indebted, for arresting the career of arbitrary power, and rousing the spirit of jealousy, which, after many struggles and many defeats, saved the liberties of England. With them also he associated the high-minded Covenanters of Scotland, whose banners on their native hills, indicated to the sagacious eye of William that a crisis was near.
He traced the difficulties in which the Church of Scotland has of late become involved, mainly to the ignorance of many churchmen regarding the real history of political and religious freedom in Scotland.
Of the life and character of Mr Mackay, the present edition of his biographical work has given, in the shape of a preliminary memoir, a truly graphic and interesting sketch. The Family Annals,' which Mr Mackay had drawn up for his amusement, are incorporated with the events of his own life, and they give us a coup d'æil view of domestic scenes and incidents, of great patriarchal simplicity, combined with a development of principles and views, far beyond the selfishness and narrow-mindedness of this nether world. His father and grandfather before him, were fine examples of the Christian pastor, and the highland parish of Lang was highly privileged in so long enjoying their ministry. Of Mr Mackay's early studies at Edinburgh, we extract the following account:
“ Having imbibed all the lore a well-taught parish school could supply, the subject of this sketch was sent to the grammar-school of Inverness, where he increased his knowledge of Greek and Latin in a measure very creditable to his teacher (Mr Hector Frazer) and to himself. From thence he came to the University of Edinburgh, where ample opportunities were afforded him for the
acquisition of knowledge, of which he availed himself with great industry and pleasure. His father's wish was, that his eldest son should follow his own profession, and in compliance with this desire, besides attendance on the usual literary and philosophical classes, he entered the Hebrew class : but he soon felt that he was not calculated to follow in the footsteps of his grandfather and father, and gave his studies a more secular direction. He continued, however, his Hebrew reading, and had, in Professor Robertson, a kiod friend. De Black's lectures on chemistry, and his unassuming manner of stating his views, particularly interested him. Professor Dugald Stewart won his warm admira. tion, and honoured him with his notice and friendship, but it was by becoming a member of a debating society (the Speculative) that his intimacies weró formed, and his mental powers called into action and invigorated. Mackintosh (afterwards Sir James) then a student of medicine, Malcolm Laing, the bistorian of Scotland, Benjamin Constant, David Cathcart (afterwards Lord Alloway,) and
many others who became distinguished, were members; Lord Charles Townshend was one, a very amiable youth, and so much interested by the proceedings of the society, though too young to take a part, that he prevailed on bis father to assist in forming one on a similar plan in London, the early meet. ings of which took place in the Marquis’s house, and were attended by as many members of the Edinburgh society as were then in town, including Mackintosh, Emmett, and Mackay. To the last named, Lord Charles always continued his friendship, and was his frequent visitor after he had lost his sight.
“ He was introduced to Dr Erskine by his father, but in those times the relationship which he bore to Mrs Erskine (who was daughter to Lord Reay), though distant, insured to a young and humble relative friendly attentions. Ready admittance to the family circle of Dr Erskine, must have been of incalculable value to a mind so athirst for knowledge, as was Mr Mackay's. “The life of Dr Erskine,' says Sir Henry Moncrieff, from bis birth to his grave, was such as entitled his name to be transmitted to posterity, as that of one of the most estimable and venerable characters of his time.' Erskine, nest to Warburton,' said Hurd, is the deepest divine I have yet known.' He was the first man in Scotland to raise his voice against the war with the American colonies, as alike impolitic and unjust. He was among the first Scotsmen that took an active interest in the abolition of slavery. He stood firmly on the side of evangelical religion in the church courts, as in the pulpit, all his life; maintaining the claims of the people, the duty and importance of missionary schemes, though his party, few in number in those days of moderate supremacy, was constantly thwarted by the votes of men who 'cared for none of these things.'
Through the kindness of the venerable and distinguished Dr Erskine, Mr Mackay was introduced into much improving society, and was recommended as tutor to the family of Lord Elphinstone, then resident in Edinburgh, as Governor of the Castle-a connexion which was productive of much gratification to him through life. At Lord Elphinstone's he met with many distinguished persons, by whose conversation he was well prepared to benefit; and, happily, that most amiable family encouraged their young inmate to take full advantage of such opportunities.” Pp. xi.---xiii.
The memoir goes on to detail in succession the fair prospects which opened to Mr Mackay in regard to the world ; his connexion with the India House, and his visit to the East; the circumstances connected with his loss of sight,-a calamity under which he laboured, and with much Christian patience, for half a century ; the progress of his studies and literary pursuits, and correspondence