is some advantage in thus calling attention to the case in its present immature condition. The question now under consideration is, not, whether the Minister of Cardross was or was not guilty of the offences charged against him; nor, whether, after the materials for final judgment have been afforded, the Court will find reason to conclude that the proceedings of the Assembly have been, or have not been, in conformity with its laws and constitutiona question on which any expression of opinion would be premature. It is a still wider and more important inquiry to which attention is here called; namely, whether, a civil interest being involved, or apparently involved, in the proceedings of a voluntary Church, taken with an immediate view to internal order and discipline, the Courts of Law will, on the suit of one of the members, deeming himself wronged, inquire into the laws and constitution of the Church, in order to determine whether these afford probable grounds for such proceedings, and, in the event of its being made to appear in the contrary, in order to give such redress as may, in the circumstances, be just and practicable.

The judgment of the Lord Ordinary in favour of the defendants "sustaining "the preliminary defences, and dis"missing the actions as incompetent," having been brought under the review of the First Division of the Court, was unanimously reversed, and it was decided that the defendants must produce, for the consideration and judgment of the Court, the sentences of suspension and deposition, to which the actions related, together with the warrants on which the sentences were grounded. The opinions of the judges are elaborate and concurrent; but it would be out of place here to do more than indicate the general principles on which they all profess to be rested. These are-that in a voluntary Church, or any other voluntary society, there is no jurisdiction, properly so called, and that any authority exercised over the members depends, for its justification, on their own consent; that the laws of the society (unless invalid

because inconsistent with public policy)

are to be held conclusive as between the members and office-bearers, but that any proceedings not authorized by these laws will not be protected from question by the mere fact that they are the proceedings of such a Church or of its office-bearers, and relate directly to internal discipline; and that the Church or its office-bearers, or individual members, may become liable in reparation to any member who has suffered in consequence of such proceedings.1

This judgment of the Court, waited for with anxiety, was received by a large part of the Free Church, and by some members of other non-conforming Churches, with indignation, or dismay; and a meeting of the members of the General Assembly of the Free Church (termed a meeting of its "Commission") was held, on the 18th of January, to consider the course to be taken. Many members, it is understood, came to that meeting prepared to recommend extreme measures; but the counsels of the less impetuous and more influential lay members prevailed in the meeting, and the recommendations embodied in the Report of a Committee of the Assembly were adopted. It was accordingly resolved that the sentences of suspension and deposition should be judicially produced. The speeches made at an adjourned meeting, to which the public were admitted (the meeting for consultation. having been private) have been published, as revised by the speakers; but, being all on one side, neither give expression to the differences of temper sentiment already noticed, nor shew the real difficulties of the question.

and

In the case of the Norwich Baptists, already referred to, public attention was called in the Times to "the calm and "peaceable resort of the disputants to a "Court of Law, the quiet and natural "action of the Court in a case so appa"rently strange, as. features forcibly "illustrative of English feeling and

1 December 23, 1859. See "Cases in the Court of Session &c. vol. xxii. pp. 290 to 328.

"habits." It may be a question if these remarks could be applied with truth to the Cardross case; and, indeed, the manner in which the judgment of the Court was received by those whom it chiefly concerned, suggests a doubt whether the judges of Scotland have yet universally earned the reputation for calm, dignified, impartial bearing in the administration of the laws, which has long so honourably distinguished the judges of England, and won for their office the public confidence. And it may be remarked, that a reader of the opinions by which the judgment in the Cardross case was prefaced, will hardly find in them any expressions tending to show that the judges were much impressed with the extreme delicacy of treatment requisite for such questions, and the respect due to a region of thought and feeling which, although too high and etherial to come within the proper sphere of their jurisdiction, can never be safely ignored or treated with levity. At the same time, some of the quotations already made from the arguments for the Free Church, rather seem to indicate that these sacred elements had been from that quarter imported into a question, towards the solution of which they can probably bring no contribution. They are not within the province of Courts of Law, and can only be validly pleaded there on the hypothesis that the judges are to determine what is the true idea of a Christian Church, and what institutions, claiming authority in that character, are to have their authority recognised and their judgments executed by the Courts of Law.

Perhaps in no way could the liberties of the Churches in this country be more effectually undermined and destroyed than by the establishment of such a principle; for, since there are certainly no existing laws defining what, for such purposes, a Christian Church is, the decision would in each case be determined by the mere theological tenets of the particular judges; with results too disastrous to be needlessly depicted or imagined.

For

the danger is not imminent; the Courts of Law will give no countenance to

as

such a proposition. Nor does the allied position seem capable of being easily maintained-that such sentences those under question in this case are so purely spiritual and within the domain of the conscience as not to contain any elements for the adjudication of civil courts. It would rather appear that a Church, in becoming an organized society or institution, necessarily comes under the conditions common to all such social organisms. It may also contemplate higher aims, and possess other special qualities; but at least it must possess those which are general or universal; and, however spiritual such sentences may be deemed, they have certain civil effects, or ought to have such effects-which can only be made to follow them, in case of any refusal to submit, by the intervention of the Courts of Justice.

It

It must be added that, in the argument for the Free Church, the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law has been admitted to extend over all the property, of whatever nature, which the Church may be possessed of; and that the refusal to give effect to the sentences of the Church, in so far as they relate to its disposal, is not resented as an invasion of the region claimed as sacred. needs little reflection, however, to satisfy any mind familiar with inquiries of this nature, that the distinction here assumed, though plausible, is inadequate. Legislative enactments, and the daily experience of Courts of Law, equally attest, that restrictions are enforced, rights protected, and wrongs redressed, affecting character, feeling, liberty, as falling within the domain of civil government, which the assumed distinction would exclude; and in the later arguments for the Church larger concessions have been made.

If, then, there is to be inquiry by the Courts of Law, what are its limits? It is admitted, that the only questions to be put are (1) Is there anything in the proceeding immoral, or otherwise contrary to public law? And (2) Is it, apparently, in accordance with the constitution of the Church? The autonomy

of the Churches is entirely admitted, or, rather assumed. Subject to the provisions of public law, Churches may organize themselves with perfect freedom, and the Courts of Justice will recognise and give civil effect to their sentences. Here is the conclusive answer to the cry of persecution, raised in some quarters with reference to the possible decision in the present case. And, it is to be remarked, that, to call in question and refuse civil effect to a sentence passed in disregard or defiance of the constitution and laws of the Church in whose name it is uttered, may not be to invade the liberties of the Church, but to protect these from the incursions of a temporary majority of its members or office-bearers. For, if a Church be an organism, it must act through its laws and constitution, which express and regulate its life; and what is done in contradiction of these is the act only of certain individuals, not the act of the Church. And, without ascribing to Courts of Law any peculiar exemption from human error, it will probably be admitted that, on the whole, at least in England, the rare and never unsolicited interference, exercised by them in such cases, has been just and beneficial. Never unsolicited-and this limitation is of the utmost importance-for it is only when the refusal to submit to such an ecclesiastical sentence proves that the question is no longer, in a strict sense, within the forum, or court of conscience, that the interference is possible. when, in such circumstances, the plea of conscience is urged by the Church, as excluding the jurisdiction of the Courts of Law, what is really (although, perhaps, not consciously) contended for is, the right of the Church, or of a majority, to compel the submission of a member to a sentence which his own conscience does not itself acknowledge and make effectual. This is plainly not a mere question of conscience; and on the rebellious members sentences cannot become operative without the intervention of the Courts of Law. A power to execute their own sentences would be inconsistent with the well-being of the

And

Churches themselves, depriving them of their most peculiar characteristic; and the evils would be scarcely less were the Courts of Justice, without inquiry, to carry them into execution.

The alarm with which, in some quarters, the judgment of the Court has been regarded, can hardly be understood without noticing its relation to a peculiar dogma (or, perhaps, rather a peculiar mode of expression), giving an exaggerated importance to this case. It is a special form of the general idea of the independence or autonomy of the Church as a Divine Institution. It is the subject of many recent sermons and speeches; and of a large part of a "Catechism on the principles and constitution of the Free Church," published under the sanction of the General Assembly (although of questionable authority), in which the following questions and answers on the subject occur (pp. 9,10). "Q. 10. Who "is the Head of the visible Church? "A. The Lord Jesus Christ. Q. 16. "What is your meaning when you say "that Christ is the Head of the visible "Church? A. I mean that it is the "kingdom of which He is the only Lord "and Lawgiver; of the institutions of "which He is the sole author; and the "peculiar privileges, immunities, and "benefits enjoyed by which proceed "from, and are conferred by Him alone. "Q. 17. What do you mean when you say "that Christ is the Head of every par"ticular Church, or branch of the visible "Church? A. The meaning is, that "what He is to the whole, He is, and "must be, to every part; since it would "be subversive of the relation in which "He stands to the universal body as its

Head, to suppose Him not to stand in "the very same relation to the several "communities of which the Catholic "Church is made up."

As an example of the practical application of this doctrine or phraseology, a few sentences may be quoted from a Sermon by Dr. Candlish, as in some sort one of the most representative of the Sermons recently preached on this topic; its author being one of the most eminent

and influential orators and preachers in the Church to which he belongs.1

"I cannot consent to the Church visible "being dealt with as if it were less truly "the body of Christ than the Church "invisible. To me the Church visible;

the Church of which I am a member; "is most practically and immediately, "the body of Christ ;-more so, I would say, in an important sense, than even "the Church invisible ;-more so, at all " events, when a testing crisis comes.

"With the Church invisible, the true "spiritual body of Christ, Cæsar cannot "interfere. The sentences passed with "reference to it, he cannot review. "With perfect ease and safety therefore, "I can maintain the independence of "the Church invisible. And affecting "a high and transcendental spirituality, "which looks on questions of outward "rule and order, touching the relations "of Church and State, as beneath its notice, I may suffer Cæsar to have his own way in all the actual ongoings of "the outstanding Christian community

66

"But it is not so with me; it cannot "be, if I rightly apprehend the nature "of the kingdom which Christ meant "to found, and has founded, in the "world. It is not indeed absolutely "identical with the kingdom as it is to "exist in the heavenly state. It has in "it worldly elements; it is liable to "worldly mischances and mistakes. But "it is Christ's ordinance nevertheless; "it is Christ's body. It is to be treated "as his body. And I am no more to "suffer the interference of Cæsar in its 66 concerns, than I would do, if it were

1 "Church and State." A Sermon on the Principles of the Free Church of Scotland. By R. S. Candlish, D.D, preached in St. George's Free Church, Edinburgh, on Sabbath, Nov. 13 (1859), the day appointed by the Assembly for advocating the principles of the Free Church of Scotland, and making a collection on behalf of the Ante-Disruption Ministers.

"the new Jerusalem itself come down "out of heaven, prepared as a bride "adorned for her husband!"

From these quotations it is apparent that High-Church doctrine is not altogether unknown to present Scotch Presbyterianism. But it is difficult out of such discourse on a subject like this to extract any definite thought, which might aid in the decision of the question, whether there truly lies hid under this language (in so far as it differs from other assertions of ecclesiastical authority) any specific doctrine; or whether, on the other hand, it is only a traditional mode of expression extended beyond its original sense, and encrusted with sacred associations. The fact that there is a tenacious adherence to the old phraseology, and an unwillingness, or inability, to translate it into more modern forms, rather supports the latter view, which might be confirmed by a reference to the venerable authoritative standards of the Church of Scotland-from the first of these (or John Knox's) Confession of Faith of the Church of Scotland, ratified by the Parliament in 1560, to the latest of them, the Westminster Confession, sanctioned by the General Assembly in 1647.

The extreme views put forth in most of the sermons, preached on the occasion referred to, that have been published, have not been uncontradicted. In a sermon entitled "The Church and its Living Head," by the Rev. Wm. Hanna, LL.D.,2 preached on the same occasion, these passages occur:

"The controversy between us and that "Establishment from which we have re

2 Dr. Hanna is already known to the public as the biographer and son-in-law of Dr. Chalmers. Another interesting volume has been published recently, consisting of two courses of lectures, which he delivered to the members of the Philosophical Institution of Edinburgh; the first on "Wicliffe and his Times," and the second on "The Huguenots." They show careful study, are written in an earnest, truthful, candid spirit, and will incline those who may have perused them to regard with more respect the sentiments of the author on the subject at present under consideration.

"tired, does not touch the doctrine of "Christ's Headship as taught in Holy

Writ, so as to give any true ground for "saying that we uphold, and that the "Established Church denies, that Head"ship. The whole question at issue "between us has respect alone to the "functions and government of the "Church, regarded as an external or"ganized society. But it is not of any "incorporated society of professing "Christians, however pure its member"ship, however exactly its institutions, "laws, and government, may correspond "with those set up by our Lord and his "Apostles, that Christ is said in Scrip"ture to be the Head. The Church, "which is his body, is composed alone "of those who, by true faith, are in "vital union with Him through the "indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

All

"the descriptions given of that Church, "all the attributes and prerogatives "assigned to it, all the promises held "out and made good to it, are such as "can belong alone to the body of true "believers, the company of faithful men "in Christ Jesus our Lord. They do "not and they cannot apply to any "organized society whatever, viewed as "such. There has been no greater per"version of Holy Writ, none more "widely and fatally misleading, than "that by which those descriptions, "attributes, powers, prerogatives, pro"mises, which belong alone to the "spiritual brotherhood of true believers, "have been transferred and attached to "an external institute calling itself the "Church."

"The attempt has been made to throw "a peculiar and additional sanctity "around that testimony, by erecting it "into a separate religious dogma or doc"trine-that, namely, of the Headship of 66 Christ over the visible Church. That "attempt I have endeavoured to expose, "by showing that no such separate

66

dogma is taught in Holy Writ; that "so far as it is taught there, it resolves "itself into the general truth of the "supremacy of Christ's revealed will, "and that, as thus taught, our oppo"nents cannot fairly be charged with

"repudiating it. For other and wider "purposes, I have endeavoured to un"fold to you the true idea of the Church, "by teaching you to distinguish care"fully between that Church of the first"born, of whose birth and life, dignities "and destiny, such glorious things have "been spoken, and any outward and "organized community of professing "Christians. Keep this distinction "steadily in view, and the spell of that "arrogant assumption will be broken by "which the Church of Rome claims for "herself all the powers and prerogatives "of the unseen Church of God. Keep "this distinction steadily in view, and, "under cover of an unconscious confu"sion of the two different meanings of "the term Church, you will discover "some stern substantial embodiments, "and some thin ghosts of the Popish "theory stalking in regions remote "enough from Rome."

Some of the other recent pamphlets show this sermon to have met with a reception from a large and influential part of the Free Church, revealing a danger to its liberties which may be greatly more serious, although more insidious, than any which can be anticipated from the Courts of Justice. The free expression of conviction is plainly essential to its life; and all attempts by means of misrepresentation, calumny, public accusations of heresy or treachery, or by other similar too familiar weapons, to resent or preclude the utterance of those differences, which in every truly Free Church must exist, ought to be regarded as acts of hostility to its liberties, and disavowed and reprobated by all its real friends. One or two of these publications might, indeed, justly fall under this censure, but they had best be forgotten, and will not be here named. From another out of this bundle a few sentences may be quoted, as written in a different spirit.1

"It will surprise no careful observer to "find that, while the simply practical "Free Churchmen have been for years "quiet and silent, the other party in the

1 "The Recent Sermons on the Headship Reviewed," by the Rev. Walter Smith, Free Roxburgh Church, Edinburgh.