other orthodox pillars of the Establishment were content to wait; for which they refused to quit it; and which would not suffer them to despair of it-so long as a door was open at which such angel visitations might be expected to find an entrance. Yet these men lived in the" dark age" recognizing no part of their duty, however, in disruption or dissent, and just as ready to reprove the petulance of the Seceder, as to lift up a testimony against the fierce for moderation. These things have been often stated, but they cannot be stated over mach. There was a time when they were not left untold to those who took it upon them to be the enemies of the Establishment, for abuses no longer existing. We thus sweep away a long drift of causes which had no sequence in the actual circumstances of the Established Church, or in the grounds of Secession for which so many have left it. We must now come to a word of reckoning with the gentlemen who have been pleased to seek their own justification in such fictitious causes. trading on party names and distinctions; we charge them with slander We charge them with at the expense of the survivors of their disruption; and we protest against their attempted monopoly of the Evangelical character. We almost repent of having transcribed out of their vocabulary the words Moderatism, Evangelism. It is a concession they have no right to ask, that we should yield them their own application of these names, at least their own definition of them. They have moreover a sectarian sound, and are of sectarian construction—as if made to perpetuate differences. What is Evangelism? Is truth, evangelical doctrine, an ism! The ordination vow renounces many heresies and errors, under the head of their characteristic isms. But where is truth so catalogued, or so confessed? In this instance the name is a mean coinage for the sake of the contrast which it is arrogantly meant to insinuate. Arminianism we know, and Calvinism we know, because men have been divided, but evangelism! In the name of truth and reverence, let not Christ be divided also; and his glorious gospel uncatholicised into the ism of a party. We wonder that men of seriousness and piety should be found giving a place to such denominational ineptic, and that in the gravest of their histories and writings. Whatever may be the meaning of Moderatism, we very much doubt whether the Church of Scotland can afford, or would consent to spare all that has been contributed to her distinction from that calumniated quarter. Would she have her standards stript of all the illustration and defence, so successfully elaborated by Hill; her Presbyterian government and discipline left unprotected by the researches into primitive antiquity of Campbell; her literary character unadorned by the criticism of Campbell and Macknight-the rhetorical graces of Blair, or the historic glories of Robertson-her Reformation undelineated by Cook-her recent counsels unilluminated by Inglis? We are quite aware that the sneer of Moderatism will be ready to accompany the rehearsal even of such names as these-and that the worthies they belong to may be reckoned to have spent their strength for nought; while let but a small lawyer, or agitating orator, be seen in the opposite ranks, and forthwith we hear the "all hail" of— "Sir, your law-and Sir, your eloquence Yours, Cowper's manner, and yours, Talbot's sense. We have been struck in going over the pages of Dr. Buchanan more than we have patience to express, with the disparagement of the great and exaltation of the small, which confounds every rational rule of judgment that can be made applicable to measures or to men. Thus Hill is orthodox if he were only in earnest. Inglis is the advocate of good principles and of good measures, but then he is so very cold. Cook is plausible-and when for a moment he expresses alarm for innovations in doctrine, Robertson is not sincere. Every popular leader has his panygeric. Dunlop is "an eminent lawyer." Cunningham makes "an unanswerable speech." One is Jupiter, and another is Mercurius. "The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men." And this is character-this is painting-in the taste of the History of the Ten Years' Conflict. That History, we think, is susceptible of being very shortly told. Its proper commencement was with the year 1832-and with a discussion on calls. We remember that debate well. Then it was that the Sybil began to raise her price-advancing it year after year, as her oracular overtures were rejected-till her claims reached the extravagant quotation with which all the world has become familiar. Then, first, was the ill-omened Veto forthcoming, claiming appropriate parentage in an overture from the Presbytery of Auchterarder. Lord Moncrieff was deaf to the announcement that ushered in the monster-birth. "He had not heard such a thing mentioned." He was asked to look at the voucher. "Well," he exclaimed, "the overture from Auchterarder may go farther than the rest." Other significant hints were thrown out in the course of this debate. Committees "out of doors" began to be talked of. The intrepid voice of James Begg was heard cheering on the younger hopes of the Church, (to whom, indeed, this discussion was very much left,) to the walls and to the battlements. "I trust," he cried, "that those members who think as I do, that the very existence of the Church depends upon the satisfactory settlement of this question, if they are left in the minority, will not suffer themselves to be baffled. They may meet, and from a Committee of their own," &c. &c. In this gallant style did the younger and hotter combatants in the high debate clear the walls, almost over the heads of their alarmed leaders, and push into the midst of hostilities which the latter would, perhaps, have gladly at least adjourned :— "Egressi superant fossas; noctis que per umbram In the next stage we find the Veto's self ushered in with trumpetflourish and tuck of drum. The Sybil's price had risen. Her rejected overtures were now at a premium. The Reform Bill, since her last appearance, had become law. A non-reforming Church was pronounced unsuited to a reforming people. The Dissenters rejoiced in their clerical tribunes, whose glory it was to march whole congregations to render their suffrages to the champion of free lom in province or borough. In this emergency, friendly voices whispered to the Church, "Something must be done." The juncture seemed favourable even to the total abolition of patronage. But, "soft you," said the government of the day, by the mouth of its advisers. For the Dissenters were gained already, and an establishment had its prizes, and prizes. to be of use to any government must be at its disposal. Whether this crafty policy were mother to the Veto or no, we shall not venture to pronounce. But if we can trust its historian-who becomes on this point gossiping and confidential-such was the egg, whose young progeny chipped the shell, to all mankind's astonishment, when Chalmers made his famous motion in May 1833. It would be ludicrous, if it were not melancholy, to show up all the jugglery that attended the circumstances of this memorable hatching. A learned lord, then a whig-official, who had long enacted Robin Goodfellow at the bar of the Assembly, amusing, and we fear too often amused, appeared we believe for the first time in that memorable year, in the character of a Member of the House. It turns out that, in a semi-official capacity, he was the trusted counseller and adviser of the movers of the Veto law. He took burden upon his conscience that it was not ultra vires, and he was understood to possess the key of other consciences than his own. All this is now understood. But the farce of the antipatronage committee the pro-patronage, zeal, and eloquence of Chalmers! The testimony of Lord Moncrieff-the indignation of Dr. M'Crie at the delusion of a silent voice instead of an election! who could have construed without the recent discoveries that have introduced us so perfectly into the arcana of the Veto policy? The discussion of 1833 was memorable chiefly for a very able but see-saw speech of Dr. Chalmers. It sticks less to our remembrance, however, than a spirited rejoinder to it on the following day, by poor Dr. Welsh, who in his whiffling but not unimpressive way, ventured to remark on the orator's defence of patronage which was couched in the oracle, "Arithmetic tells on quantity, not on quality;" "we have a deliverence from higher authority, that in the multitude of counsellors there is safety." The anti-patronage party were in dudgeon and discontent. But they had no friends either in or out of official power who could afford to please them. At length, however, an instalment of their demands was made payable. In 1834, a law was enacted which, it must be allowed, left very little indeed for patrons to surrender, or for the people to demand. The Sybil rose to her highest valuation, and was refused no longer. First, she required "that effect should be given to the call of the people" next, that a majority should have the power "of rejecting a presentee, unless it should be made to appear on proof by patron, presentee, or minority, that the opposition was malicious, collusive, or causeless;" and third, "that the Veto of a majority should be absolute on their declaration, if required, that they were not actuated by malice to the presentee. Such was the ascending scale on which this popular measure soared to its ultimate pretensions." The Veto, in its latest form, was proposed by Lord Moncrieff, and carried according to his motion. The history of his mind on the sub ject is a very remarkable commentary on the history of the measure. It does not appear to have occurred to him, in the first instance, that such a position could be maintained as that to which he was ultimately induced to lend his eloquence as an advocate, and his authority as a judge. He refused to find it in the original overtures. He listened with complacency to the ofttimes cited authority of his father, which was adhibited to the necessity of reasons to be alleged and proved for the rejection of the presentee. At length "his eyes were opened;" but it was through the temptation of fruit forbidden -poma Deus non omnia grata sacravit. Disastrous, indeed, was the fruit, by what tempter's hand soever presented, that inspired such novelty of understanding. For novel and unheard of was the scheme pretended to be extracted from the existing constitutions of the Church, to relieve the people of the grievance of patronage. M'Crie had studied Church history with the keen and jealous scrutiny of a Covenanter. Where were his eyes that they could not see the Veto in all the records that they had sifted? "Ask their suffrages," said he, pleading on behalf of the people, "instead of telling them that they are incapable of anything but dumb and dogged resistance without the assignment of a reason." He would have the golden promise of the Books of Disci pline redeemed; but redeemed constitutionally, and by Act of Parliament. He could not read in the ordinance, that "no minister should be intrusit contrary to the will of the congregation;" nor in the act 1619, which makes exception of "groundless prejudices;" that dumb and dogged, brute resistance was any part of a congregation's privilege, or of its redress, against patron or presentee. As unconscious was the acute and searching intellect of Sir Henry Moncrieff of the existence of any such statement in the laws which, as an ecclesiastical leader, he had made the study of his life. Thus he interprets the people's part in the vocation of their pastors, dating from so high a source as the Second Book of Discipline; "this language signifying, according to all the laws and usage which followed, the right of the people either to give their consent, or to state and substantiate their objections, of which the Presbyteries were to judge." Whence then that fatal bigotry to the Veto, which terminated in a rent so woeful, that the torn garments of the prophet might well have been its emblem! Was the name so propitious or well omened in all past history? Or was it well exchanged for the call, which it superseded? In the Veto, throughout its progress, methinks we see that "dumb spirit" which Dr. M'Crie insinuates to be its character; the dogged resistance of the tribune, when he would move the popular discontent without venturing to assign its cause. In another phase we see in it the sulky frown of the tyrant-looking menace and condemnation, but not daring to express or justify it. We see in it the very worst and haughtiest usurpation of Papal Rome-challenging for infallibility dues and privileges, which reason would be ashamed or afraid to exact. Dr. Buchanan waxes pathetic over the rejection of this nota ble expedient. We shall blend no tears of ours with his on the occasion. We are of the mind of those who in 1782 entered this resolution in the records of the Assembly, "That the moderation of a call in the settlement of ministers is agreeable to the immemorial and constitutional practice of this church, and ought to be continued." So say we with all our hearts. The call and concurrence constitutes an amiable and desireable bond of connection between all parties. It completes that vocation to the ministry, which according to our fathers, comprehended the lawful title, the adjudged qualification, and the reasonable consent, -the first flowing from the patrons, the second from the eldership, the last from the people. From the Veto this respectable and constitutional formula is as different in its essence and circumstances as is the right hand of fellowship tendered at some friendly and hospitable door, from the gorgon's head frowning in the vestibule; looking unutterable "things forbid," turning charity to stone, and welcome to despair. Of the Veto we find no historic trace; save where we have already hinted its name and character must be sought. Among the laws of the Church it is not and never was. "Groundless prejudices' vitiated and set aside the popular objection, by the Directory of 1649. The "qualified presentee" found protection in the astricting provision of the Act 1592. The will of the congregation had reasonable effect allowed it in the enactment that "no person be intruded in any of the offices of the church contrary to the will of the congregation to which they are appointed, or without the voice of the Eldership." These matters explain each other. The will is respected, but not as it is a capricious volition, or the child of groundless prejudice. Entrance into the ministry is separated from intrusion into it. And the "voice of the eldership" is made potential, to the effect that presentees be qualified, and that congregations be reasonable and just. Is vocation upon such a footing a mere nullity? how differs it from that constitutional calling of which the character is so well expressed in the concrete, in the Second Book of Discipline. "Vocation or calling is common to all that should be in office within the kirk, quihilk is a lawful way, be the quihilk qualified persons are promotit to any spiritual office within the kirk of God, without this lawful calling it was never leisum to any person to middle with any function ecclesiastical." What was now become of this vocation or calling? No provision was in point of fact made, or left for it. The call of appointment, of qualification, and of invitation, for that was the call in the concrete, no longer remained, nor was acknowledged. What was its substitute? Non-prohibition-though there should not be a single voice inviting or concurring. Was this the most gracious form in which a pastor and his people could be introduced to each other's acquaintance, and wedded in the bonds of spiritual union? But apologies for the Veto have been founded on the very quiescence of its operation, in cases where objections found no expression. The consent of silence was affirmed to be a convenience on many occasions to patrons and presentee. It was our fortune sometimes to witness such consent, on the part of congregations, in which the Veto was yet a law; and we must say, that in the rueful silence which attended the whole ceremonial, we were reminded more of the solemn mockery into which the |