THE ARGUMENT OF THE EVANGELICALS. 185 



after the passing of the Patronage Act, she had attempt- 

 ed indirectly and irresolutely. Dr Robertson, in initiat- 

 ing the policy which he pursued during his leadership 

 of the Church, took this position, that, as the Patronage 

 Act was law, and the Church did not avowedly resist it, 

 her consistent and honourable course would be to render 

 it a frank and complete obedience. The majority of the 

 judges of the Court of Session, bound to give to Acts 

 of Parliament the effect which their terms required, were 

 convinced that it was their duty to enforce the Patron- 

 age Act. The Church, by her Veto Law, declared, on 

 the other hand, that, irrespectively of the proceedings of 

 her own courts for a hundred years, irrespectively of any 

 statute passed by the British Legislature, irrespectively 

 of whatever decisions the Court of Session might pro- 

 nounce, the principles of Knox, Melville, and Henderson 

 were lier principles, and by her principles she would 

 abide. It complicated, and did not strengthen, the 

 argument of the Evangelicals to maintain that the law 

 of the State as well as of the Church was on their side. 

 No statesman or legal authority could be expected to 

 attach weight to the assertion that an Act of Parliament, 

 which had been on the Statute Book for a hundred and 

 thirty years, had infringed the constitution of the realm 

 and was therefore null and void. 



The champions of the Evangelical majority in the 

 Church of Scotland held themselves bound, during the 

 whole continuance of the conflict, to maintain two theses : 

 first, that the spiritual independence of the Church and 

 the non-intrusion rights of congregations were essential 

 to the Presbyterian constitution ; second, that these 

 could be secured although the Church maintained her 

 connection with the State. The theory that the civil 

 authority must and will, sooner or later, usurp the 



