SCOTCH CONTROVERSY ABOUT SPIRITUAL AND TEMPORAL JURISDICTION.
THE Reverend Mr. CANDLISH has published a letter to the Home Secretary, in answer to the charge of breaking the law, brought against him in the House of Lords. The letter is, in point of temper, quite unexceptionable : its logic is of a curious character.
Mr. CANDLISH maintains that he has not broken the law, although he disobeyed an interdict regularly issued by the Supreme Court of Scotland and intimated to him. His reasons are—that the Court of Sesssion exceeded its le- gitimate powers when it pronounced the interdict ; that he had no means of calling in question its legality. Mr. CAND- LISH had the means of calling in question its legality which are open- to every citizen. He might have made application to the Court to allow him to show that it had exceeded its powers in laying on the interdict, and ought therefore to relieve him from it. This method of calling in question the legality of the interdict was open to him ; but he preferred taking the law in his own hands, and acting in defiance of the Court of Session. Mr. CANDLISH cannot extricate himself from this dilemma by say- ing that his conscience will not allow him so far to recognize the jurisdiction of the Court of Session. He says—" If they had summoned me to the bar of the Court of Session to answer for my conduct in breaking the interdict," most gladly would I have joined issue with them on that point." Mr. CARD- ma, it is true, may say that it is one thing for a man to de- fend himself when dragged into court, and another for him to invoke the aid of that court. Granting this, he proceeds- " I might have succeeded in satisfying the Court of Session : I am confident I would succeed in satisfying your Lordship's House, to which, by appeal, I would have brought the case." Mr. CANDLISH declares himself willing to abide by a decision of the House of Lords. Is the House of Lords a spiritual court ? is it less a temporal court than the Court of Session? Mr. CANDLISH'S plea that he could violate the interdict without breaking the law, is a most flimsy subterfuge. The law says that an interdict laid on in due form of law must be re- moved in due form of law ; Mr. CANDLISH admits his willing- ness to argue the question in a temporal court ; and yet Mr. CANDLISH; instead of taking measures to have the interdict removed, chose to break the law by acting in defiance of it. Can there be a mental reservation in this talk of an appeal to the House of Lcrds ? Can it be that Mr. CANDLISH would like to bolster up his case by a decision of that tribunal in his favour, but would refuse to acknowledge the competency of a judgment against him ? The sequel of Mr. CANDLISH'S letter suggests a plan by which the question arising out of the alleged conflict of temporal and spiritual jurisdictions can be easily settled- " The whole question of jurisdiction remains still to be tried. * * * We must have the deliberate judgment first of the Court of Session itself, and then of the House of Peers, after a full and patient hearing of parties, and a ripe consideration of the civil and ecclesiastical constitution of this kingdom. The point must be raised soon by some process either on their side or on ours. * * * Should it, after all, come to this, that, contrary to all our hopes, built on the iviknowledged principles of our free constitution, the claim of jurisdiction now put forth on behalf of the civil courts is sustained and sanctioned by a final and deliberate decision, * • then, my Lord, I acknowledge the crisis will have come. And if in such an event the Legislature refuse to interfere for her relief, it will undoubtedly be for the Church to consider if she can or ought to continue in a position in which, according to what then most be held to be law, decrees may be imposed on her which she cannot obey."
This would be the fair and manly way of proceeding. The Pres- byterian Church of Scotland existed before it was recognized by the State. It was established and endowed by the civil Legislature for certain purposes. A _difference of opinion has arisen as to the terms of the bargain between the temporal and secular authorities. This difference has been occasioned by the different construc- tions the parties put upon acts of Parliament. Now it is the special office of temporal courts to explain and enforce acts of Parliament ; the office of spiritual courts is to enforce the right interpretation of Scripture and the due dispensation of the sacraments. The question what were the terms of the bargain between the Church and the State when the former conferred upon the latter the privileges of an establishment, is a question for the civil court. If, after the civil court has declared what the terms of the bargain are, either the Church or the State feels that they authorize the other to encroach upon its jurisdiction, let the bargain be rescinded. The Church can put an end to it by renouncing the temporalities bestowed on it by the State, and re- smiling its independent action ; the State may put an end to it through the instrumentality of the Legislature, by restoring to the' Church its right of independent action and withdrawing its endow- ments.
"The point," says Mr. CANDLISH, "must be raised soon by some process either on their side or on ours." Why has it not been raised already ? The worldly-wise men of the Church, the Moderate party, honestly confess that they fear pushing matters to this extremity, lest it should put an end to the exist- ing connexion between Church and State, with which they are perfectly satisfied. But Mr. CANDLISH and his friends lack this collide apology ; they are above such considerations. Why, then, have they not already adopted the line of action so distinctly pointed out by Mr. CANDLISH ; and of which he says, that if their opponents do not soon adopt it, he and his party must ? The im- position of the interdict afforded him an opportunity of raising it ; but he preferred breaking the interdict,—an act which, if judi- cially taken up, could not fail to complicate the simple question upon which he professes to long for decision, with totally irrelevant matter. Surely there is some one clergyman among Mr. CANDLISH'S friends upon whom the interdict has been served, and who has not broken it ? Let him raise the question, with the consent and assistance of his party, by applying to the Court of Session to withdraw the interdict; and let his party follow up this in the manner so distinctly detailed in Mr. CANDLISH'S letter. If they do not, they will expose themselves to the suspicion that they wish to keep the question in its present doubtful state, from a con- viction that putting it in a clear light would spoil their eloquent speeches about persecution—would show that they wish to follow the example of the Dissenters by withdrawing from the control of the State, but wish at the same time, unlike the Dissenters, to retain the wages of subservience to the State.
Previous page
