THE

No. CLXXVIII.]

[Vol. XV.

the debate. ED.

UPON a motion made and seconded, the Assembly called for the Order of his Majesty in Council transmitted to the Moderator of the last General Assembly, and communicated by the said Moderator to the ministers of the Church of Scotland, by the medium of the newspapers, respecting the prayers to be publicly offered up for the King and Royal Family.

Dr. MACFARLANE accordingly laid before the Assembly the said Order in Council, together with a letter which accompanied the order from the Clerk of the Council, and which order was read together with the said letter. They are as follows:

Council-Office, Whitehall, February 12, 1820. SIR-You will herewith receive an order of his Majesty in Council, directing the necessary alterations to be made in the prayers for the Royal Family so far as relates to Scotland, which you will be pleased to communicate in such manner that due obedience may be paid thereto. I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient humble servant,

(Signed) JAS. BULLER. The Rev. Dr. DUNCAN M'FARLANE, Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. VOL. XV.

4 D

"In pursuance of an act passed in the 10th year of her late Majesty in the 32nd year of his late Majesty Queen Anne, and of another act passed King George III., wherein provision is made for praying for the Royal Family in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, it is ordered by his Majesty in Council, that henceforth every minister and preacher shall, in his respective church, congregation, or assembly, pray, in express words, for his Most Sacred Majesty King George, and all the Royal Family; of which all persons concerned are hereby required to take notice, and govern themselves accordingly.

(Signed) "JAS. BULLER."

Mr. THOMSON, in rising to submit his promised motion on this subject to the venerable Assembly he had the honour to address, said, be believed a great deal had gone abroad respecting it that was quite erroneous-topics had been mentioned as those which he should have occasion to introduce, which had not the most distant relation to the subject, and which it had never entered his mind to entertain. In order to convince the House of what was his real object, he should read at once the motion he meant to propose. It was

"That it be declared by the General Assembly, that no civil authority can constitutionally prescribe either forms or heads of prayer to the ministers and preachers of this Church, and that the orders in council which have been issued from time to time respectingprayers for the Royal Family are incon

sistent with the rights and privileges secured by law to our ecclesiastical establishment; but that, as these orders appear to have originated in mistake or inadvertency, and not in any intention to interfere with our modes of worship, the General Assembly do not consider it to be necessary to proceed farther in this matter at present. And the General Assembly embrace this opportunity of declaring the cordial and steady attachment of the Church of Scotland to their most gracious Sovereign, and to all the Royal Family; and of farther expressing their unqualified confidence, that, actuated by the same principles of loyalty and religion which have hitherto guided them, her ministers and preachers will never cease to offer up, along with their people, their fervent supplications to Almighty God in behalf of a family to whom, under Providence, we are indebted for so many distinguished blessings, both sacred and civil.”—Now, that was the substance of what he meant to offer; but if any thing could be added by the Assembly which, without departing from the design of his motion, wouid render its meaning more clear, or the expression of it more proper, he should be happy to adopt any such improvement; for he declared most solemnly, in the presence of that venerable Assembly, that in bringing this subject under discussion, he was influenced by no other feeling, than a firm conviction that it was his duty to do so, and an anxious desire to preserve the rights of the Church, which appeared to him to have been encroached on; and that he wished to do the thing in the simplest and most respectful manner. He was not desirous to speak upon the subject; and if the Assembly were disposed to agree to the motion, he would refrain from saying a single word.

The Procurator and others having stated that it was one to which they could not agree,

Mr. Thomson now observed, he was sorry to be reduced to the necessity of entering into the merits of the question before the House. He had hoped that the motion, as to its spirit and even as to its language, would have met with no opposition. In this, however, he had been mistaken; and therefore he should now take the liberty of stating the grounds upon which he rested its propriety and necessity. And he would begin with stating it as an acknow

ledged and incontrovertible principle of our establishment, that it has no spiritual head upon earth, and consequently that the King in Council bad no right to interfere in our worship. He would not bring forward any train of reasoning to prove this point, because that would look as if some doubt attached to it. Now, it was beyond all doubt or controversy. It was a vital privilege in our ecclesiastical constitution: it was of essential importance to the safety of the Church, as might be seen from the struggles that were made to deprive us of it by a persecuting government and a persecuting hierarchy; it was that for which our forefathers contended so noblyfor which they fought and bled-and which, by their sufferings and their perseverance, they secured to us; and it was that which we could not part with, without endangering the whole fabric of that Church to which, he trusted, we were all conscientiously attached. More need not be said on that head. But the Order in Council which had just now been read, trenched upon this privilege. It prescribed prayers to be used by the ministers and preachers of our Church, and consequently it ought to be resisted as we valued the integrity of the Church. But it would be alleged that this privilege had been actually taken away or rather denied to the Church by an act in the 10th of Queen Anne, in which ministers of the Church of Scotland are enjoined to pray in express words for the Royal Family, and that the Church did not oppose or remonstrate against the enactment. Of that act he would say, without hesitation, that it proceeded upon Erastian principles, and ought not to have been passed. But what were the circumstances on which it had been proposed and allowed to become a law? They were these: At that time the interests both of civil and religious liberty were in great jeopardy, by the schemes of the Pretender from abroad, and by the zeal and infiuence of his friends in this country. He had friends among the clergy, chiefly of the Non-jurant persuasion, but also of the Established Church. And one method by which these endeavoured to promote his cause, was that of praying in their public ministrations for the Royal Family in such a way that their people understood them to mean, not the family actually on the throne, but

the family pretending to it. To counteract this improper and dangerous practice, the legislature passed the act in question. And the General Assembly did not resist its passing, because they partook strongly of the general alarm by which it had been dictated, and would rather connive at the temporary invasion of a principle which they still held sacred, than not co-operate in every possible way to frustrate the attempts of a faction which, had it succeeded, would very soon have left them nothing that was worth contending for. But even then the Assembly did what it could to neutralise the act so far as it assumed to the legislature the power of meddling in their modes of worship. It passed an act of its own-on its own independent authority, and without the most distant reference to the Act of Parliament enjoining prayers in express words for the reigning family. But then the Order in Council pretended to found itself upon two Acts of Parliament which it specifies. The first of them was the very act of Queen Anne that had now been alluded to. But this is wholly inapplicable to the purpose of the Privy Council; for, in the first place, it requires the ministers of the Church of Scotland to pray in express words for her most sacred Majesty Queen Anne, and the most excellent Princess Sophia, so that if we were to pray in terms of the act, we should pray not for his most sacred Majesty King George IV., but for her most sacred Majesty Queen Anne and the Princess Sophia. (A laugh.) In the second place, this Act of Parliament has no force, for though not formally rescinded, it was, from its own phra seology, in respect to the clause founded upon, limited in its duration to the reign of Queen Anne, and it was never re-enacted mutatis mutandis, so that now it is nothing but a dead letter. And then, in the third place, what was chiefly worthy of remark, this act conveyed no such power to the Privy Council as that which they now claimed and exercised. The passing of the act shewed that they had no power previously; and as it did not communicate the power, they could not possibly refer to it as any authority for their proceeding, without demonstrating either that they had never read it, or that they did not understand it. This,

however, was not the only act to which the Order in Council referred. There was an act of George III. brought into play, of which he must say, that, if possible, it was still less to the purpose than the act of Queen Anne; for in truth it did not refer at all in any way to the Established Church of Scotland. It was an act which exclusively respected the Episcopal communion in Scotland; it conferred certain immunities on that body of our fellow-subjects; and it conferred them on this condition among others, that they should always pray in public worship for the Royal Family, in the form prescribed in the Liturgy of the Church of England. But what had this to do with the prayers of the Established clergy? Because the King in Council could legally require Episcopalian ministers to pray in such and such a manner, was the conclusion to be admitted or endured, that, therefore, the King in Council could dictate prayers to the members of our Presbyterian Establishment? Really the act of George III. had nothing to do with the subject; and the Privy Council might just as well have quoted any other Act of Parliament whatever. Such were the legislative enactments upon which the Privy Council had grounded their assumption of the power that he had taken the liberty of denying. If there was any other, let it be produced; and then we should see whether it might not be expedient to apply to the legislature for the restoration of rights which had been unjustly taken from us. But he was confident no such act existed. And therefore he was entitled to conclude, and to assert, that the Orders in Council to which he had called their attention, had not one inch of legal or constitutional ground to stand upon. Many, indeed, he was aware, were quite sensible of this, and therefore set themselves to explain away the force and import of the order itself. They were pleased to say that it was not imperative, that it only expressed the Royal wishes, and that therefore there was nothing so very formidable in it. Could he persuade himself that this was the true character of the documents in question, he would really not give himself much trouble about the matter. But could any person gravely maintain such a position? A strange mode indeed of expressing

the mere wishes of the Royal mind! Why the very title was enough to shew the absurdity of such an idea. It was an order by the King in Council. And was that which the Sovereign in Council ordered, to be treated as nothing more than a wish? Apply this interpretation to other orders in Council, and see how it would do. The whole language of the document corresponds with the title. Let any man read that, and say if it is not intended to be a distinct and peremptory injunction, or if it is capable of any other interpretation. It applies to Acts of Parliament for its authority: are Acts of Parliament mere wishes? It orders that every minister shall pray, &c. Are orders and requests synonymous? It requires all persons to take notice, and to govern themselves accordingly. And all this is nothing but a Royal wish! (A laugh.) Let the note of Mr. Buller also be considered, in which he talks of his Majesty's order, of its directing the necessary alterations in the prayers, and due obedience being paid to it. These surely were not the terms to be employed for transmitting a Royal wish. It was next argued that though the order is imperative, it does not enjoin a form of prayer. He did not think this of essential importance to the question at issue. But he would venture to maintain that a form of prayer was intended, and that the case did not admit of any other view, Did not the order enjoin us to pray in express words," for such and such persons, and were not these words put within inverted commas? They were so in the public newspapers, and they were so in the original document. And if this did not mean that these words were to be used just as they were set down for us, he would be glad to know what else it did, or what else it could mean. Now, in connexion with this consideration, which seemed of itself to be decisive, let it be recollected, that the act of George III. to which the order referred as one of its authorities, applies solely and exclusively to the Episcopalian communion-to those who have a liturgy-to those who cannot travel out of that liturgy in their public prayers -to those whose prayers for the Royal Family are taken from the English Liturgy as prescribed by the Privy Council. It must be obvious to every one that when they talked of express

words, and put them down and encompassed them with inverted commas, they were under the influence of liturgical ideas, and intended nothing less than a precise form of prayer. He would mention another circumstance which threw much light on this topic. On the demise of our late gracious Queen, an order in Council was sent to our Church. And what was its purport? Why, that we should no longer pray for her Majesty, because she was dead! (A laugh.) This was all very well, and very necessary for the ministers of the Church of England, who could not without authority alter one iota of their service-book, and some of whom did actually continue to pray for the Queen after they knew of her decease, aye and until they got orders to the contrary. (Laughter.) But did the Privy Council suppose that we, in this Church, who are not only Protestants like themselves, but know something about the covenanted work of Reformation, which they do not, were so infected with the Popish doctrine of praying for the dead, that we could go on praying for the departed Queen till they should, in the plenitude of their power, prohibit us from so doing? (Laughter.) The truth evidently was, that they supposed us to have a liturgy, at least with regard to prayers for the Royal Family, which we could not change without their interposition; and from this the inference was fair, that they meant us to employ the express words which they had prescribed, as a form of prayer. But although all this was quite clear to his mind, he did not insist upon it. He denied the power of the King in Council to interfere in the matter of our prayers as well as in the form of them. This the Privy Council had done. They had done it in the most strict, authoritative and peremptory manner. And they had done it under what was held out to the country, and what they must be presumed to have believed to be the constitutional sanction of Acts of Parliament, which, however, he had shewn either to have no existence, or to be utterly inapplicable. He was aware it would be pleaded that the thing had been done before-that it had been done often, and that it had never been found fault with. Be it so; but that being pleaded, he must in his turn plead that this constitutes no

small part of the evil. If the Privy Council had no constitutional power to interfere with our worship, the of tener they had interfered with it so much the worse. And if the General Assembly had hitherto not resisted the encroachment, so much more requisite was it now to begin that resistance. Obsta principiis was an excellent maxim but it was bad logic to say, that because the mischief had not been withstood at the beginning, therefore it should be allowed to remain without challenge or opposition. For his own part he had always thought such orders unconstitutional. He had often wondered that they were not noticed by some zealous defenders of our ecclesiastical rights. He had even ventured to suggest to some of his friends the propriety of taking the question up when an order was issued. But he supposed there had been sometimes a sort of indifference to the thing, and at other times "the fear of man, which bringeth a snare." For himself he was troubled with no such fear-he felt no such indifference; and he brought the subject before the House on this occasion, because it was the first that had presented itself to him, when he felt that he could do it seasonably. And if the Assembly had these views of the Orders of Council respecting our prayers, which he entertained, he called upon them to take the most prudent method of preventing their recurrence, and not to consider the silence which had been hitherto observed in regard to them, as any good reason for persevering in conniving at them.-But then it would be asked, where is the mighty evil of the Orders in Council? To this question he would endeavour to give a satisfactory answer. In the first place, these Orders in Council were an evil, as they affected the integrity and safety of our National Church. He would not occupy the time of the Assembly in speaking of the importance of our Presbyterian Establishment to the interests of religion and of the country. But surely its efficiency must depend upon its principles being kept pure and inviolate. And no greater violation of its principles could easily be conceived, than that which consisted in assuming the power of regulating the prayers of its ministers and preachers. If this was tamely submitted to, there

is no kind or degree of encroachment which need occasion alarm, because it goes to the very vitals of our constitution, as a church having no temporal head and no liturgy. But he would be met by the question, What! Do you suppose that it is the intention of the Privy Council to invade the rights of the Church of Scotland? No, he did not suppose that there was any such intention-he was quite sure there was no such intention in that quarter. But he had not so much to do with the intention as with the fact. Granting, as he most readily did, that there was no intention, still if, in point of fact, there was an encroachment, as he contended there was, they were bound to oppose it for the sake of the Church. Nay, he was ready to maintain that there was far greater danger where there was mere mistake or inadvertency, than where there was a real and obvious design. In the latter case they would feel themselves constrained immediately to take up arms, and assume the attitude of defence and resistance. But, in the former case, one encroachment was allowed to pass after another, without exciting alarm, till the right that had been violated was absolutely forgotten, and till any attempt to recover it proved either impracticable or extremely difficult. He would not say that the present Government would found any permanent claim on the ground of the numerous precedents which were allowed, through carelessness, to be established; but we did not know what was to be the disposition and character of the future government, and therefore it was best to secure ourselves now against all hazard. Besides, he could not forget what was well known to many members, and particularly to a Reverend Doctor in his eye (Dr. Cook) who was well acquainted with the history of our Church, that the invasion of the Church had usually come under the guise of Orders in Council; that our rulers, in tyrannical and persecuting times, had generally recourse to such authority, and that one great occasion of driving out the Stewart family from the government was an Order in Council respecting religion-the dispensing proclamation. And here he would take the liberty of mentioning a circumstance which illustrated this part of