took no opportunity of explaining their principles. As for those who, caring little about either church or principle, sought merely the gratification of private partiality, or of party feelings, in their votes, we experience no wonder at their silence. These children of this world are wise enough in their generation to know, that quietness and a vote are their whole, and their best tactics. But we have feelings of kindness towards many members of the majority; and we deplore and are amazed, at their failure to make apparent to the public their sincerity and principle. Towards the SOLICITOR-GENERAL, for example, we have many kindly feelings. He has come of a good stock. His family began with an intrepid defender of pure Presbyterianism, and has owed its rise wholly to the independence and Christian-like boldness of that individual. Can the Solicitor-General, then, be a lover of pluralities in the abstract? Can he approve of the conjunction of secular and spiritual duties? Is he so entangled with party, and so blinded by ambition, as already to have lost that generous warmth which spurns at the mere accumulation of gain, when made at the sacrifice of public and of private good? Can he have really thought-in his conscience maintained—that it was good for the High-Church parish of Glasgow, with its 9000 souls, and for the College in that town, with its 1600 students, to be made the instrument of merely putting £1500 per annum into the pocket of Dr. Macfarlane, instead of being disposed of so that their welfare-the welfare of this great city population, and numerous youth should alone be consulted in the appointment? Mr. Hope, if we at all know him, must have disclaimed these principles: he must have laboured, had he spoken, to make a love for the pure discharge of ministerial and college duty appear compatible with his protection of Dr. Macfarlane; and we esteem him sufficiently to wish that he thus had gained to himself the honour of holding good principles in the abstract, if he had not the merit of applying them in the case. Why, then we ask, did he not speak, and shake himself loose of the doubt regarding his general views, which does certainly attach to him, and all about him, by their silence?

And then, with regard to Dr. Cook,—we are bound to believe, and most sincerely do we hope and trust, he can vindicate his personal consistency. It is a pity, however, that he did not make a point of doing so. He failed to take the tide at its flow, when, on the instant of the debate, he failed to demand a hearing for himself. Now the waters are on the ebb; and, struggle as he may, he will find it a difficult matter to resist that course which is floating him down into comparative disrepute. We have a plain downright public to deal with in this country. And that public, unaccustomed to nice distinctions, will not be easily persuaded that the vote which he gave on the present occasion can ever be reconciled with those deliberate principles of his, on the subject of pluralities, which are recorded, and printed, and published, and which gained for him so much, and such general respect. That reconciliation we hold to be impracticable: but still we regret that he did not explain his views, because, though to us the contradiction might have remained unaffected by all that he could say, we should have been glad to see by what species of logic our reverend friend had been able to delude himself.

But we must introduce our readers to something of what took place in this debate. And we begin with shewing them how very little even

of plausibility there is in the argument founded on the act 1817, the stronghold of the adversary, as exclusive of all inquiry into the merits. of Dr. Macfarlane's appointment. Mr. Cockburn and Dr. Chalmers— in very different ways, but each leading to the same issue-placed this matter in a very clear light. First, however, we shall, in fairness, let our readers see Mr. Robertson's views; and they may decide for themselves which is right:

"This act, said Mr. Robertson, 1817 seems decisive of the whole case, and by no sort of reasoning could his opponents get the better of its clear terms. It proceeds as follows: Whereas apprehensions have been generally entertained, that the permission given, in a few recent instances, to clergymen holding a professorship in an university, to hold, at the same time, a parochial charge in the country, may introduce abuses hurtful to the interests of religion and literature, the General Assembly, conceiving that it is their duty to watch over both those interests, and feeling a becoming solicitude to maintain inviolate the residence of ministers in their respective parishes, which the fundamental laws of this church require, and by which the people of Scotland enjoy, in full measure, the comfort and edification of a gospel ministry, direct all the Presbyteries of this church to employ the means competent for them, in order to prevent the same person from holding, at the same time, a professorship in an university, and a parochial charge, which is not situate in the city which is the seat of that university, or in the suburbs thereof; and, that this direction may be uniformly carried into effect, the General Assembly do, with the consent of a majority of the Presbyteries of this church, enact and ordain, that if a professor in an university be hereafter presented to a parochial charge, which is not situated in the city that is the seat of that university, or in the suburbs thereof, he shall, within nine months after his being admitted to the said charge, resign his professorship; and, at the next ordinary meeting of Presbytery thereafter, shall produce to the Presbytery a certificate that his resignation has been accepted: And that, if the minister of a parish, which is not situated in the city that is the seat of an university, or the suburbs thereof, be hereafter presented or elected to a professorship in any university, he shall, at the first ordinary meeting of Presbytery, which shall take place after the lapse of six months from the date of his induction into the professorship, resign into the hands of the Presbytery his parochial charge: And, in the event of this injunction not being complied with by the persons holding such offices, the General Assembly, with the like consent of the Presbyteries of this Church, ordain the Presbytery of the bounds to serve him, in his character of parish minister, with a libel for the breach of this statute, and to proceed therein according to the rules of the church. And it is provided, that ministers of chapels of ease shall in all respects be subject to the provisions of this act, in the same manner as parochial ministers. And it is further provided, that the Old and New Towns of Aberdeen shall be held as forming one city, so far as respects the provisions of this act.'

"Now, what is the plain meaning of this enactment?

Does it not

See "Report of the Proceedings and Speeches delivered at the Bar of the General Assembly in the case respecting the admission of the Rev. Principal Macfarlane to the Office of Minister of the High Church of Glasgow."-A most excellent report of a most important discussion.

infer, by necessary and irresistible implication, that a clergyman may hold a professorship, and much more a principality, along with a parochial charge in the city of the university or its suburbs? If not, and if, by the law of the Church, he could not hold, under any circumstances, two situations of that kind, why direct a special enactment against his holding a professorship along with a parish church in the country ?-or why enact, that the towns of Aberdeen shall be held as forming one city? Nor could it be denied, that, at this time, the very same sort of reasoning was used against the passing of the law which is now directed against Dr. Macfarlane. Neither was the union of a principality or a professorship with a parish church at that time an unknown evil, against which the law could not be supposed to be directed, if it really had been intended to prohibit absolutely any such union. On the contrary, at St. Andrews, in 1817, Principal Hill was first minister of that city, and Principal Playfair was minister of St. Leonard's. In Glasgow, Principal Taylor was minister of the High Church. In Edinburgh, Principal Baird held the same situations, (and long may he continue to enjoy them, endeared as he is to his fellowcitizens,) while several professorships were held by officiating ministers. In Aberdeen, Dr. Brown was Principal and Professor of Divinity; but he believed he was not a parish minister-this being the only exception. How, then, could the Church have passed a law directed only against the union of a principality with a country living, if they meant also to prevent such a union with town livings? Or, rather, did not the law so passed necessarily import, that the union of principalities with town livings was thereby expressly and unequivocally sanctioned? It would be observed, that, even if the Reverend Doctor fell within the provisions of this act, he was entitled to the period of nine months to demit one of his situations. Had he been Principal of the University of Edinburgh or Aberdeen, the Presbytery, on his obtaining a regular presentation to this church, were bound to induct him in the first instance, and then to give him time to demit. But here they place him in a worse situation than if he had fallen under the act by refusing even to sustain the regular presentation in his favour. They chose rather, with the rapidity of feudal vengeance, to get rid of him

at once."

Mr. Cockburn speaks as follows :

"It had been argued, in the first place, that all further discussion was superseded by the act which had been passed by the Assembly in the year 1817. It did not appear to him that any thing whatever could be more plain than the utter futility of this objection, which was equally condemned by the history and by the words of that famous act.

"It grew out of the cases of Arnot and of Ferrie; the former of whom had persuaded this House to let him unite a clerical charge with a professorship, in a university about six miles from his parish; and the latter, with still better luck, persuaded the House to let him do the same thing at twice the distance. Now, it was certain that in neither of these cases had any objection, except that of distance, ever been taken. And, accordingly, nothing was meant to be regulated except the specific evil that had been complained of. Hence the declaratory act of 1814 (the words of which he here read) was confined to the regulation solely of residence. This act was afterwards attacked, because it had not been previously transmitted to Presbyteries; which objection gave

1

rise to an overture, which was sent to all the Church Courts for their consideration. The words of this overture (which he read) also proposed a law relative to residence alone. And then, at last, came the act of 1817, which did not, and could not, go the least beyond the overture on which it had been founded.

During the whole of these discussions, not a word had ever been spoken except about residence; and all that the final act had done, or was ever meant to do, was, to regulate the mere intervention of space which might separate the professor's chair from the minister's pulpit. According to the appellant, however, while the House was legislating on this specific subject, it was secretly entrapping those who were hostile to pluralities into an unavoidable repetition of them; for his argument was, that a law prohibiting a minister to be a professor, unless the university and the parish were within a certain geographical boundary, was a law which virtually declared that within this boundary all other incompatibilities were struck out of our system. According to this, if the appellant had been the Provost of the burgh, or the Colonel of the burgh yeomanry, the Presbytery would have been bound to admit him. All that they had to do was to measure the distance from the College to the High Church, and, if these were within four miles of each other, they were bound to induct, even although there had been an admitted incompatibility. Nothing could shew the absurdity of this more clearly than the motion made by the late Principal Hill against the declaratory act of 1814, which was, that it was unnecessary to transmit any overture to presbyteries, inasmuch as the Church Courts have already sufficient powers to prevent any union of an ecclesiastical benefice with a professorship in an university, where the duties of the two are found incompatible. Yet the very persons who thus resisted the late law, because the Church Courts had an inherent power to check all incompatibilities, now maintain just the very reverse, and insist that no two of fices are incompatible in the church and in the universities, if the seats of them be within four miles of each other!"

6

All this is very powerfully (in the phraseology of Mr. Cockburn's favourite science, phrenology, most concentratively) put. Dr. Chalmers, with more variety of illustration, is equally happy and effective in his defence of the same doctrine.

"There is a single word in the preamble of this act, which, if fully weighed as to its import, and then consistently applied to the case before us, should guide us, I do humbly apprehend, to the very relation in which the Church Courts stand to the presentee in the present question. Whereas apprehensions have been generally entertained, that the permission given in a few recent instances to clergymen, holding a Professorship in an University, to hold at the same time a parochial charge in the country, may introduce abuses,' &c. The few instances that did obtain, it would appear, of that species of plurality, which is now done away, were all of them in virtue of permission-of a permission given by the church, and received by the pluralist. With which of the two parties, then, did the right lie?-with the church to allow of the induction, or with the presentee to insist upon it? Not with the Church, if it lay at all times under the legal necessity of making way for the induction; but with the presentee, if, on his entrance being

* Mr. C. we understand, was lately counsel for the Phrenologists before Lord Eldin, and very manfully set himself to their defence. The Phrenological members of Assembly, we understand, admired his head during his speech, while we (and the female gallery) were struck with the power of his physiognomy. 3 P

VOL. XXIII. NO. VII.

resisted by the Ecclesiastical judicatories, he had been entitled to complain of it as an act of violence. But the very term of allowance,' or which is altogether tantamount to it, of permission,' gives us to perceive at once how the matter stands. None can, with propriety of language, be said to allow, who has not the power and the right to disallow; and if, as stated in the preamble of the act, it was, indeed, by permission of the Church, that a Professor in any instance held a parochial charge in the country, what is this to say, but that, antecedently to the passing of this act, the Church could either grant the induction, or withhold it at pleasure?

"Now, what you then were in reference to those country pluralities, of which you have at length enacted, you at present are in reference to those town pluralities of which you have not yet enacted in like manner. In regard to the union of Professorships with country charges, you are now the enforcers of a specific law; whereas, anterior to that law, you were the dispensers of a law. In regard to the union of Professorships with town charges, you may have laws, but you have no such law as that of 1817, of which you can see to the enforcement; but still there is a law of which you have the dispensation. Should you ever, in your wisdom, proceed to an enactment regarding town charges, that shall be a counterpart to the enactment of 1817 regarding country charges; the act, of course, will have a preamble, and I think that you could not preamble it better than by adopting the ipsissima verba of the one that you have already made. Whereas apprehensions have been generally entertained, that the permission given in a few recent instances to clergymen holding an office in an University, to hold at the same time a parochial charge in the University town, may introduce abuses hurtful to the interests of religion and literature,' &c. You will preamble it truly, when you state that all instances of such pluralities did obtain only in virtue of your permission; and it is upon the right of this permission, a right which you undoubtedly possess, that we now stand before you, to shew cause why in this instance the permission should not be given. It is for this object that we now reiterate in your hearing the utter balefulness of that plurality which you are now called upon to sanction; that we have spoken of the unseemly aspect which it bears in the midst of a population so wofully unprovided with the services of clergymen; that we implore you to think of the discouragement which it casts on all that is doing, and on all that has been devised for that great western branch of your family; that you will not, by the sentence of this day, traverse the progress which they are now making towards a more adequate complement of ecclesiastical labourers, and so lay a grievous arrest on the best and the dearest object of Christian patriotism.

"Abuses hurtful to the interests of religion and literature may spring from various quarters. One of these was the union of professorships with country charges. Another was, and still is, the union of professorships with town charges. Over both, however, the Church had a discretion, in virtue of which she could lay a check on the practice in every specific instance, when it was judged to be really pernicious. At length she came to the experience and conviction, that in no instance should the first species of plurality be tolerated, and so, by the act of 1817, she has coine forth with a vigorous and unexpected interdict against them. By her own standing law, she has set a seal even upon her own discretion, in the matter of country pluralities, so that now she cannot allow them even though she would. But it is a most perverse