cised on the side of truth, and our readers will see how remarkably it was manifested in the conflict of which we shall now endeavour to give them a brief and rapid sketch.

to

The Reformation in Scotland differed in this respect from that of England, that it was a movement of almost the entire people of the country. Naturally a shrewd and reflective race, when the Bible began to be circulated and the doctrines of the Reformation to be preached among them, they very soon became almost universally prepared throw off the yoke of Popery, and to embrace a system of Christian doctrine and church government directly at antipodes with those they had previously held. The Church of Rome was not merely partially reformed as in England. It was overturned. It was razed even to its foundations. "Not one stone was left upon another, that was not thrown down." The cruelty of the Popish hierarchy against those on whom the light of divine truth first dawned, prepared the way for this; but it was mainly through the Divine blessing on the zeal and energy of John Knox, that the change was accomplished. This remarkable man, educated a Roman Catholic, and actually ordained a priest of the Romish Church, had yet at an early age, embraced the doctrines of the Reformation. Compelled at the commencement of the struggle to leave his native land, he repaired to England, where, for some time during the reign of Edward the Sixth, he was extensively and usefully employed in preaching the Gospel. On the fires of persecution being rekindled in the reign of Mary, he sought for shelter in Geneva, where his intercourse with Calvin made him acquainted with the peculiar form of Church Government which he afterwards introduced in Scotland. Burning with zeal, however, for the deliverance of the country of his birth, he soon resolved, at whatever risk, to return. He found the people ripe for the change, and such was the influence which, through his deep piety and dauntless resolution and overwhelming eloquence, he exerted, that, except in some remote and unenlightened districts, almost every trace of Popery was, after a very few years, entirely swept away. Scotland became Calvinistic in doctrine, and Presbyterian in her form of Church Government; and, the struggle with Popery terminated, there soon began the struggle with the State.

Convinced as we are that any alliance of the church of a country with its government cannot but be injurious to both, we have often wished that, at the era of the Reformation, there had been some land where the experiment had been fairly tried, of "Cæsar" occupying himself only with "the things that are Cæsar's." and leaving Christians to "render unto God the things that are God's."

Ex

We could wish that the church of Scotland had been a "Free Church" from the beginning, and that she had been willing to purchase independence when she first started into life, even at the price which she has recently so nobly paid for it. But those principles of religious liberty which are now, after the lapse of three hundred years, only beginning to dawn on the minds of statesmen, were not understood by our reformers. perience, the great teacher, had not had time to impress the lesson,-a lesson which the church has been sadly inapt and unwilling to learn, that statesmen will never willingly endow her, unless she consent to yield them subjection and service in return. The Scottish Reformers soon began to learn this lesson. They had no difficulty in 1560 in inducing the Parliament which then assembled at Edinburgh, to declare that Popery was abolished, and that Protestantism should thenceforth be the national religion. But when the question came to be considered, "How are the forfeited revenues of the Romish church to be disposed of?" it soon began to appear that if the Reformed Church was to enjoy any portion of them whatever, it must be at the expense of her liberty. The share, moreover, which it was proposed to allot to her, was very small. The ecclesiastical revenues were to be divided into three parts, two of which were to be given to the ejected Romish prelates during their lives, and afterwards to revert to the nobility; while the third was to be divided between the court and the Reformed church. This proposal drew from Knox the remark, "If the end of this be happy, my judgment fails me. I see two parts freely given to the devil, and the third must be divided between the devil and God." But even this miserable moiety of the wealth of Rome she was not to be permitted to touch, except by the sacrifice of her independence, a condition which, we rejoice to say, she had virtue enough then to spurn. The first book of discipline, which was prepared about this time, was unpalatable to the government, which refused to ratify it; and the consequence was, that for seven years, the church continued to discharge her functions, unpatronized and unpaid by the state. At the end of that time, she obtained a civil establishment, but it was at the expense of a concession on the important subject of patronage, which has been a source of heartburning and division ever since. Dr. Buchanan tells us, vol. i. p. 67, that the act establishing the church, "reserved the presentation of laic patronages to the just and ancient patrons," and expresses his regret that the church did not then stand on first principles, and reject the compromise. She might have preferred remaining as she was, though poor, yet independent and free, to accepting an establish

ment on terms which soon issued in manifold evils. But the concession seemed at the time to be a small one. These lay patronages were but few in number; and the church was led to believe that she possessed the power of controlling them. When James the Sixth, however, came to the throne, he soon found a way of multiplying them, and the church began by-and-by to discover, that in the fetters with which she had allowed the state to bind her, she possessed far less liberty than had been promised her, while it was in the power of the state at any time to take even that little away.

Patronage was a legacy of Romanism. She bequeathed it to the churches both of England and Scotland. Strangely enough, while the English people have always quietly submitted to the yoke, our northern neighbours have never been able to endure it. It has been a constant source of contention among them from its introduction down to the present time. It has led to one secession from the national church after another, till, by the crowning one of 1843, more than three-fourths of the population have become Dissenters. They now find out of the church what they sought in vain within it, the liberty of choosing their own ministers. This liberty was denied them, while the ministers were supported out of a purse of which the strings were held by the state. They have now learned that the sure way to possess this liberty, is to pay for it the very reasonable price of supporting their ministers themselves.

The fetters with which the state, by the consent of the church herself, had thus bound her, had the singular property of being clastic. At the command of the ruling power, they would contract at one time, and widen at another. Hence there were periods when the church, though the fetters were on her, could feel almost as if she were free; while there were other periods when she "groaned by reason of the bondage." Though avowedly Presbyterian, the government repeatedly attempted to force her to become Episcopalian, and those who had abjured prelacy, and even bound themselves by a "solemn league and covenant" to extirpate it, had prelates set over them oftener than once. From the abolition of Popery, in short, in 1560, down to the Revolution in 1688, we find the government almost incessantly engaged in the attempt to force presbyterians to become episcopalians; and the church, though generally in an attitude of resistance, yet, at one period at least, so overborne by civil penalties and sordid bribes, that a hireling assembly which met at Glasgow in 1610, actually yielded up the entire liberties of the church to the king, and consented to prelacy being restored. The most prosperous period of the church's history through this long interval, was from

1638 to 1660; during the former part of which Charles the First was too much occupied by his struggle with the Parliament to be able to interfere, while, during the latter portion of it, Cromwell, in accordance with his wellknown principles, gave the church all the liberty she could desire.

ters.

Soon after the Restoration, this liberty was again withdrawn, and the attempt to force episcopacy on the Scottish people renewed. At the Revolution, however, the church was permitted to dictate her own terms to the government; and patronage was settled on a basis proposed by herself. But though the government found it necessary to adopt a liberal policy at the Revolution, it soon found itself strong enough to impose the yoke anew. By" the act of Queen Anne," passed in 1711, what patrons regarded as their "ancient rights" were restored. They might again intrude an unacceptable minister on an unwilling people. The inhabitants of a parish might, almost to a man, be opposed. They might declare themselves unable to derive any benefit from the ministry of the presentee. But if the patron were resolute, and preferred his own will to the wishes of his people, his nominee was ordained and the settlement took place. Such, in fact, was the way in which the law worked, and its disastrous consequences soon became apparent. Worldly men introduced worldly licentiates as minisSettlements were constantly taking place, to which almost the entire inhabitants of the parishes were opposed, and not unfrequently it was necessary to call in the assistance of the military to keep the people quiet, and help the hungry presentee to his living. A lamentable declension in religion soon followed. Ministers of earnest piety became rare in the church. The pulpits were gradually filled with "Moderates," men who preached the ethics of Plato and Aristotle instead of the living truths of the Gospel. Under their blighting influence, the church sank in formality and corruption, till at length the life of religion seemed as if about to be extinguished. The church of Scotland was rapidly becoming then, what the church of Geneva is now. This period has been well designated, "the dark age of the Scottish church." A spirit of scepticism began to spread among the ministers. "The purpose was deliberately entertained to get rid of the confession of faith, as the grand hindrance to the free-thinking that was abroad." The infidel historian David Hume, who was on intimate terms with many of them, could pay to the church of Scotland "the sinister and significant compliment, of being more favourable to Deism, than any other church of the day." It will not be wondered at that ministers, who could frequent the card table and the theatre, should regard all attempts to spread Christ

ianity among the heathen "as equally romantic and visionary."

From

In the mean while, the law of patronage was doing its work in the promotion of dissent. Ebenezer Erskine and his three coadjutors left the national church in 1733, and founded the Secession Synod; and about twenty years after, the Rev. Thomas Gilespie was driven out, and founded the Relief Synod. small beginnings, these two bodies gradually increased. Each of them was constantly receiving accessions from the Establishment. It often happened, that when an unacceptable minister was forced on a parish, the people in large numbers would withdraw, and erect a dissenting chapel. The church meanwhile continued indifferent, and would make no effort to remedy the evil.

About the close of last century, Moderatism in Scotland reached its culminating point, and began to show symptoms of decline. Various causes contributed to this. The excesses of the French revolution revealed the dangers that might result from the spread of infidelity, and gradually produced a reaction in favour of Evangelical religion. Soon after the Gospel began to be extensively preached in Scotland by the early Independents;-men, whose noble and self-denying efforts in carrying the word of life into parts of the country where the darkness of spiritual death had long reigned, ought never to be forgotten by the ecclesiastical historians of Scotland. And faithful men were not wanting in the church itself. The high character of Dr. Erskine, the influence of the devoted Rev. Sir Henry Moncrieff, and the energy of Dr. Andrew Thompson of Edinburgh, contributed greatly to revive and strengthen the good cause. Patrons now began, in some cases, to manifest a preference for men who would preach the Gospel. The number of pious ministers gradually increased, and the tide flowed more and more in favour of Evangelical religion. Nothing, however, contributed so much to procure for this party the strength they afterwards attained, as the influence of Dr. Chalmers. At first a Moderate in church politics, and anti-evangelical in religion; his heart was no sooner touched by Divine grace, than he turned all the powers of his mighty intellect to the promotion of the cause of Christ. He burst on society at once, a star of the first magnitude. His preaching wherever he went, was waited on by multitudes. His earnest and impressive eloquence when in the pulpit, his unfeigned piety, his practical zeal, his imdomitable energy when out of it, and afterwards, his influence on the young men who were preparing under his tuition for the ministry, gave a mighty impetus to the cause. The moderate party now rapidly declined. Every year beheld their opponents gaining strength, till at length, having obtained a

majority in the General Assembly, they were impelled to that course which brought them into conflict with the law, and terminated in their secession from the Establishment.

The state of affairs in Scotland, as it regards religion, was at this time very remarkable. While the church had been asleep, dissent had gone on increasing till the Establishment retained in connection with it little more than one-half of the population. It was now become evident that, should the change progress in the same ratio, the church would soon be left in a minority; and, would the people of Scotland, when the mass of them had embraced the principles of voluntaryism, endure the continued existence among them of the Establishment? This question received a practical answer in the formation throughout the country, about the year 1832, of societies for agitating the subject of a separation between church and state. Dissenters, with but few exceptions, engaged with keenness in the 'conflict, and the friends of the Establishment flew to arms for its defence. The country, from one end to the other, rang with the strife. Pamphlets and periodicals and newspapers and public lectures, and every other available means of assault on the one hand, and defence on the other, were resorted to. The church seemed to be really in danger. There was no weapon, however, of which she felt the strokes more keenly than the taunt, "You are not free: you have sold your liberty for the patronage of the state: a church established, is a church in chains." Those who brought the charge could point in proof of it, to the working of the law of patronage.

The only way by which the church could effectually answer this argument was by getting the law repealed, or by devising some means by which it might be rendered ineffectual. The subject was therefore brought forward in the General Assembly in May, 1833, and the following year, after a strenu ous resistance by the now weakened moderate party, the "Veto Act" was passed by a majority of 46. By this act it became the law of the church, that in cases where a majority of the male communicants of any congregation declared themselves unfavourable to the settlement of the nominee of the patron, the presbytery should reject him. Another act was passed at the same time, entitled "The Chapel Act," by which chapels of ease were admitted to the status of parish churches, and the right of sitting and voting in the General Assembly conferred on their ministers. It soon appeared that the arrangements introduced into the church by these two acts, would not work harmoniously with the law of the land.

No one seems to have imagined at the time of the passing of the Veto Act, that it could

possibly lead to the consequences which afterward resulted from it. It was thought then, that even should the patron insist on his right, the issue would be that the presentee would enjoy the stipend, while the people would be at liberty to elect another minister, whom, in this case, they would have to support themselves. The matter was soon put to the test. Three months had not passed away when the parish of Auchterarder, in the south of Perthshire, became vacant by the death of the incumbent. The Earl of Kinnoul, who was the patron, issued a presentation in favour of a licentiate of the church, named Robert Young, to whom it soon appeared that a majority was opposed. Indeed, out of a population of upwards of 3,000 souls, among whom there must have been at least 300 entitled to vote, only two could be induced to sign his call, while no fewer than 287 came forward as dissentients. Here then was a dilemma for the members of the presbytery. By the law of the church they were bound to reject the presentee, while by the law of the land they were bound to ordain him. Which then would they obey? The Government of the Country, or the General Assembly of the Church? They appealed first to the Synod, and afterwards to the Assembly, for advice. The injunction of both was the same,-" Proceed agreeably to the Veto law." The presentee, however, acting, as it appeared, under legal advice, and having the sanction of the patron and the support of the moderate party in the church, determined to carry the matter into the courts of law. There was a doubt among legal authorities, as to whether a presentee could lawfully enjoy the fruits of a benefice, unless ordained and settled by the presbytery. But the church enjoined the presbytery to reject him. It was now to be seen whether the law would not command the presbytery to proceed at once to his settlement.

The case was argued before the Court of Session, the highest court of law in Scotland; and in March, 1838, a decision was given by a majority of the judges, against the presbytery, and in favour of the presentee. It was found that the presbytery "had acted to the hurt and prejudice of the presentee, illegally, and in violation of their duty." The church and the courts of law were thus brought into collision. The members of the presbytery could not yield to the decision of the Court of Session without disobeying the church, nor could they obey the church without exposing themselves to civil penalties. The Church might excommunicate them if they obeyed the Court of Session, the Court of Session might subject them to fine, or throw them into prison, if they obeyed the church. presentee, armed now with the authority of law, demands of the presbytery that they

The

proceed at once to his settlement, and on their determining to refer the matter for advice to the Synod, he serves each of the members with a legal document, holding them liable to him for damages.

Our space will not allow of our giving a full detail of all the proceedings connected with this case. Suffice it to say, that an appeal was made to the House of Lords,-that the House of Lords confirmed the decision of the Court of Session, and that consequently, unless the government should interfere, and a bill be passed in Parliament settling the matter in conformity with the wishes of the Non-intrusion party, as they were now called, nothing remained for them but either to succumb, or else relinquish their connexion with the Establishment. Application was therefore made to government. Every possible means was employed to move it to a favourable decision. Deputations were sent to London. Interviews were held with Members of the Cabinet. Members of the House of Commons were appealed to, and members of the House of Lords. The strongest representations were made as to the calamitous effects which it was thought would result to the Scottish Church and people, were patronage to be maintained. The Church would be rent in sunder. Her most eminent and useful ministers, and the great mass of her members, would relinquish all farther connexion with her. The Scotch would become a nation of dissenters. And then, the cause of Establishments being thus weakened, what might be the consequences to the Church of England? It seems certain now that had the government known at the time that their refusal of the demands of the Non-intrusion party would have led to the consequences which so soon resulted from it, they would not have assumed the attitude they did. They would rather have yielded, than that the Scottish people should so extensively have been driven into the position of voluntaries. But the motive of our statesmen would, in this case, have been one of expediency. They would have preserved the National Establishment of Scotland entire, that it might have continued to serve, like that of Ireland, for a buttress to the church of England.

Meanwhile ecclesiastical matters in Scotland were getting into still [more inextricable confusion. Take the following as specimens. The parish of Marnoch in the presbytery of Strathbogie having fallen vacant in 1837, the trustees of the patron, the Earl of Fife, made a presentation of it to Mr. John Edwards, who had been for three years assistant to the former incumbent. In this capacity he had given so little satisfaction, that, at the urgent request of the parishioners, he had been removed. Now, though but one.

of them, the keeper of a public-house, would sign his call, while two hundred and sixtyone were against him; he was to be thrust on them as their minister. Encouraged by the issue of the former case, Mr. Edwards took legal proceedings to compel the presbytery to ordain him, and a majority of the members being disposed to obey the law of the land, in preference to the law of the Church, resolved to proceed to his settlement. The Church issues her injunction against it. The Court of Session, on the other hand, commands it; and amid a scene that was an outrage on all the decencies of religion, and even of common life, the settlement took place. At the next meeting of assembly, sentence of deposition was passed against the members of presbytery who had taken part in this transaction; while they, through their legal agent and a messenger-at-arms, served an interdict at the door of the assembly on "the Moderator, and all others," to prevent them from carrying the sentence into effect. By the same assembly, Mr. Edwards was deprived of his licence to preach the Gospel; so that though declared by the Church to be no longer a Minister of Christ, he was upheld as such by the decisions of courts of law. We might show here how by "The Chapel Act" also, the church was brought into conIflict with the law, but we forbear. In the other case, that relating to Mr. Young, and the presbytery of Auchterarder, matters became still more serious. As the presbytery preferred obeying the church, and refused, in Ispite of the decisions both of the Court of Session and the House of Lords, to proceed to the settlement of the presentee, an action of damages was brought against them to the amount of £10,000.

This brought matters to a crisis. It was now evident that if the Non-intrusion party remained in the church, they must either yield to the law, or else the law would crush them. Their decision was soon taken. They would leave the Establishment rather than yield the principle. It was determined, however, to make one more appeal to the government. In November, 1842, therefore, the Non-intrusion ministers were summoned to meet at Edinburgh. In obedience to the summons, 465 from all parts of the country assembled. At this convocation, two series of resolutions were adopted, one series setting forth their grievance, and the other avowing their determination to abandon the Establishment should the government not interfere with a sufficient remedy. Ere the next meeting of Assembly, it became evident that nothing was to be hoped for from Government. The law would be maintained as it stood.

Thursday, the 18th of May, 1843, was an important day in Edinburgh. The crowds

on the leading streets, and the excitement and expectation pictured on every countenance, betokened the approach of some great event. The Marquess of Bute was the Queen's Commissioner to the Assembly. The morning of the day was occupied with the customary levee at Holyrood Palace, which was more than usually thronged. The representative of Majesty then proceeded with all the pomp and pageantry of such occasions, to the church of St. Giles, where the late Rev. Dr. Welch, the Moderator of the preceding Assembly, preached the introductory discourse. The Assembly was to meet in St. Andrew's Church, which was in another part of the city, and which since break of day had been thronged with an eager and expectant multitude. We give the description of what followed, partly in the language of Dr. Buchanan. We are sorry we have not room for the entire

account.

It was about half-past two o'clock when the tramp of the military cavalcade and the sounds of martial music announced the approach of the Queen's representative. Dr. Welch had arrived and taken his place in the moderator's chair a few minutes before. As the commissioner entered the church, the assembly and the audience rose to receive him. The lord advocate, the lord provost of the city, the commander of the forces, and a crowd of other distinguished personages, civil and military, not unmingled with the gentler sex, thronged every inch of the space around the throne. The central area of the church, allotted to the members of the assembly, was densely filled, while on the front cross benchi might be seen representatives from various other churches, who had come, many of them from distant continental countries, to witness the transactions of this memorable day. The rest of the building, from the floor to the roof, presented one living mass, which left no available spot unoccupied within the walls. The first movement was toward the throne of God, the moderator leading the devotions in a solemn and earnest prayer. As soon as the members had resumed their seats, Dr. Welch again arose, and, amid breathless silence, spoke as follows: Fathers and brethren, according to the usual form of procedure, this is the time for making up the roll; but in consequence of certain proceedings affecting our rights and privileges, I must protest against our proceeding further. The reasons that have led me to come to this conclusion are fully set forth in the document which I hold in my hand, and which, with permission of the house, I shall now proceed to read.""

Having read the document, "he laid the protest on the table of the house, and turning round toward the commissioner, who rose in evident and deep emotion, Dr. Welch bowed respectfully to the representative of the Queen,