where the right of presentation falls to them jure devolutu; and it is not a little remarkable, that though the non-intrusion principle seems to contemplate the tripartite division of influence between the patron, and the people, and the Church, as likely to be productive of the most salutary effects, yet, wherever the jus devolutum arises, there is concentrated in the presbytery alone the powers and privileges of the whole three. For the regulations of 1834 provide, "that if no presentation shall be given within the limited time, to a person from whose settlement a majority on the roll do not dissent, the presbytery shall then present jure devuluto;" and "that cases of presentation by the presbytery jure devoluto, shall not fall under the operation of the regulations in this and the relative Act of Assembly, but shall be proceeded in according to the general laws of the Church applicable to such cases." Here, therefore, the Church court nominates, examines, and inducts without the possibility of any other party interfering. This is the most absolute and uncontrolled exercise of patronage which it is possible to conceive—a right more absolute and more uncontrollable than any patron ever pretended to possess, or attempted to enforce far more absolute and far more uncontrollable than that exercise of patronage which the Church declared to be so intolerable a grievance as to demand the harsh and sweeping remedy of the Veto law. It is certainly not a little curious to observe, "that while the Veto is a wall of brass against the patron, it is a web of gossamer against the presbytery."[1] We are told it is a fundamental law of the Church, that no minister shall be intruded into a parish who is unacceptable, from any cause, to a majority of the male heads of families. For the vindication of this principle we have already seen what the Church has done, and what she is yet prepared both to do and to suffer. The violation of this principle, even in a single instance, is looked upon as a most serious calamity—the omission by a presbytery, upon any presentation by a lay patron, to ascertain whether a majority of the congregation dissent, or the refusal to give effect to their dissent, is described as a cowardly and inexcusable abandonment of the Church's duty to the people. And yet, in those cases where all power comes to be vested in the presbytery—where the Veto Act might be carried into the fullest operation without interfering with the civil rights of any patron—where they themselves are the patrons, they will not even listen to the people's voice, they will not deign to enquire whether their presentee be acceptable or no, or whether a majority of the male heads of families do not object to his induction. They are to proceed, forsooth, "according to the general laws of the Church." Is the fundamental law of non-intrusion not one of the "general laws of the Church?" Has the General Assembly not distinctly pledged itself to the maintenance of this proposition, that giving effect to the unexplained dissent of the congregation is not only warranted but enjoined by the laws of the Church? But the laws of the Church—the fundamental principle of non-intrusion—the interests of the people—the Church's consistency, and every thing else, must be sacrificed rather than interfere, in the slightest degree, with the uncontrolled exercise by the presbytery of that patronage which, so long as it remained in other hands, was denounced as inexpedient, immoral, unscriptural, tyrannical. This is the most unaccountable inconsistency, the most impolitic and useless deceit; for the congregations of the Church and the people at large, cannot fail to pierce the thin veil which is intended to hide the workings of clerical ambition.
But we have done. Our warnings and our remonstrances will probably have but little influence with those who seem to have assumed to themselves the lead in all cases in the General Assembly; and yet we would once more earnestly entreat them to pause, and for a moment to consider the condition of the Church. They have resolved to go to Parliament. But have they considered in what tone they are to address the Legislature what it is that they propose to ask, and on what conditions? An acute observer has said, "that if we cannot obtain every vain thing we ask, our next business
- ↑ Lord Corehouse's Speech, Robertson's Auchterarder Case, vol. ii. p. 231.
