THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

IN 1834, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, passed 'the Veto Act,' which allowed the majority of parishoners to pronounce a veto against the settlement of a minister in their parish. The promoters of this act had many objects in view, and all, it may be supposed, meant for the amelioration of the Church, which had been reduced to an alarming state of weakness, by the absolute right of patrons, exercised, in many instances, in total contempt of the feelings and wishes of the parishioners. The right of patrons had greatly contributed to the increase of Dissent in Scotland, and had generally alienated the affections of the people from a church, which for a long time had enjoyed the unreserved respect and attachment of the nation. Mr. Dunlop* well describes the reign of patronage. "Enough is known to satisfy every one, that the exercise of absolute patronage is of a nature much more repugnant to the sacred character of the act to be performed-the selection of a minister of the Gospel, and a pastor of a flock of Christ-than what takes place in the worst cases of popular nomination or dissent. To say nothing of simony, so difficult to detect, or rather to prove, which still it cannot be doubted is committed, we know, that, prior to the veto act, ministers have been selected by such means, as lossing up a halfpenny, or as a reward to the tutor of a family for sitting up the third night with a guest―a patron—when, after two nights' dissipation, the host was unable to keep him in countenance in his orgies another; and the like. It is perfectly notorious, that presentations were constantly given, solely from regard to private connexionsfor personal considerations-and, above all, for political services and so far from a proper motive being that which usually led to the appointment, it was generally the very last which had any influence in the matter. That there were bright exceptions to this is true; but in general, so far as the exercise of the right was concerned, there was much more to offend every rightly constituted mind, than the worst evils that occur in the exercise of the people's voice, while there was very little of the counterbalancing good; when absolute patronage existed in full vigour, we saw minister after minister, forced by armed men upon their congregations, church after church deserted, and meeting-houses springing up beside them; people in hopeless apathy, at last no longer resisting a settlement, but quietly withdrawing from the establishment, and leaving only the indifferent and the formal; and, where provision could not be raised for a seceding meeting-house, a parish turned into a desolate wilderness. The simple facts, that during a century preceding 1834, five hundred congregations (being half the number of those in the establishment) not dissenting in doctrine from the church, but holding all the principles, were driven from her pale by the exercise of an absolute patronage, is of itself sufficient to condemn it without reprieve. To its baneful influence, the church owes the host of enemies who now assail her, but who otherwise would have been her devoted friends. Besides, and still worse, to this she in a great measure owes the spiritual desolation which to so great an extent is spread over Scotland, and to which may justly be attributed the unfitness that anywhere may prevail for the right exercise of the privilege of dissent." p. 163. All this called for a remedy, and, therefore, the general Assembly acted wisely in their generation by passing the veto law, which was calculated to give a totally new feature to the church: and the effects whieh it produced were striking and speedy in their operation. "In one single year, and by the meeting of the next general Assembly, there were in progress towards erection, by voluntary contribution, sixty-two new churches, in connexion with the establishment, being exactly the number which had been so erected in the whole course of the preceding century. At the end of five years, the number of new churches so erected, or in progress, was

* An Answer to the Dean of Faculty's Letter to the Lord Chancellor, "On the Claims of the Church of Scotland in regard to its Jurisdiction, and the proposed Changes in its Polity," by Alexander Dunlop, Esq. Advocate. Edinburgh: John Johnstone.

two hundred and one, being an addition of more than one-fifth to the whole number of churches in the establishment in 1834. Three new schemes of Christian benevo lence had been instituted by the Church; that of church extension, in 1834; that for the aid of Presbyterian settlers in the colonies, in 1836; and that for the conversion of the Jews, in 1838; while those previously established by education and foreign missions, were prosecuted with increased activity and zeal. The healthful exercise of discipline was restored, and the church purged of worthless ministers, who, in other days, would have found protection and shelter.

"One branch of the seceders was restored to the communion of the church, and so a door was opened for the return of others. The 'voluntary' enemies of the church, so confident in their attack, were driven from the field. Already, a very marked change has taken place in one part of a probationer's course, arising out of the closing or narrowing of the old path to appointments. Instead of seeking for situations, as tutors, in families of influence--the sort of high road to preferment formerly-probationers, now, greatly prefer taking charge of preaching-stations, or becoming missionaries in parishes too extended or populous for the ministers, and thus acquiring a practical knowledge of the duties to be performed by the minister before the full responsibility is thrown on their shoulders. Such preparatory probation constitutes a far better system of training than that afforded by residence as a tutor in a private family, especially considering the footing on which, in Scotland, tutors were too generally placed, and which was necessarily most injurious to their tone of mind and feeling."-p. 150.

But, in the meanwhile, what said the patrons, the lairds, the grandees of Scotland, to this attack on their ecclesiastical property? They that hitherto had filled the clerical body with their nominees (and Mr. Dunlop speaks of certain Presbyteries "wholly under the influence of patrons"), could not be expected silently to relinquish their church preferments, and to renounce the prerogative of promoting their humble dependents, in obedience to the new views of purification adopted by the General Assembly.

Ten cases of veto have, it appears, occurred in the Scotch Church since the passing of the act in 1834; and one of these, the Auchterarder presentation, has brought the powers of the General Assembly in collision with the civil courts, and set the Church and State at daggers' drawing. A few months after the passing of the veto act by the Assembly, Mr. Robert Young, a person not ordained, but holding a license as probationer, was presented by Lord Kinnoul to the parish of Auchterarder, then vacant. This parish contained a population of 3182; and, on the rolls of heads of families, communicants, and therefore enjoying the right of veto, there are 330 individuals. The “moderation" of the call took place, according to the appointed formalities. Two individuals, together with Lord Kinnoul's factor, or representative, signed the call; 287 heads of families expressly dissented from the call and settlement. It may be curious to see the form of this strange invi

tation.

"We, the heritors, elders, heads of families, and parishioners of the parish of Auchterarder, and county of Perth, taking into consideration the present destitute state of the parish, through the want of a gospel ministry among us, occasioned by the death of our late pastor, the Rev. Charles Stewart, being satisfied with the learning, abilities, and other good qualifications of you, Mr. Robert Young, preacher of the Gospel, and having heard you preach to our satisfaction and edification, do hereby invite ant call you, the said Robert Young, to take the charge and oversight of the parish, and to come and labour among us in the work of the gospel ministry, hereby promising to you all due respect and encouragement in the Lord. We likewise entreat the Reverend Presbytery of Auchterarder to approve and concur with this our most cordial call, and to use all the proper means for making the same effectual, by your ordination and settlement among us, as soon as the steps necessary thereto will admit. In witness whereof we subscribe, &c.

Heritors and Elders,

"For the Earl of Kinnoul, Patron.

"JA. LORIMER.

December 2, 1834.

The Presbytery of Auchterarder, acting in obedience to the laws of the Assembly, of course refused to proceed to the ordination and settlement of Mr. Young, who then, or rather Lord Kinnoul for him, brought his action against the Presbytery in the Court of Session, the supreme court of Scotland. The decision of the judges, delivered at great length, was in favour of the absolute right of patrons, and against the power of veto given to the parishioners by the General Assembly; and the Presbytery of Auchterarder was enjoined to ordain and admit Mr. Young as the pastor of the parish, to which he had been presented by Lord Kinnoul, and invited and called by Michael Tod, and Peter Clerk. From this sentence of the Court of Session, an appeal was made to the House of Lords, which, being the supreme court of the realm, has confirmed the judgment of the Scotch judges, and thus restored the right of patrons.

The present position, then, of the Church of Scotland, is thus explained by Mr. Dunlop :

"It has been decided, that the Court of Session has jurisdiction to call to its bar the Presbyteries of the church, to answer for their proceedings in the admission to the office of the ministry, and in entrusting the spiritual charge of a portion of Christ's flock to a particular pastor.

"It has been decided, that the Court of Session has jurisdiction to inquire, not only into the act done, or sentence pronounced by the Presbytery, and to consider whether that act or sentence be beyond the province of their spiritual jurisdiction; but to consider and judge of the grounds on which the Presbytery rested their judgment, in judicially resolving to pronounce a particular sentence, or do a particular act, confessedly within their proper province, and competent to them alone; viz. the rejection or admission of a presentee.

"It has been decided, that the Court of Session may prescribe to their Presbyteries their duty in the admission of ministers, with reference to the grounds on which the Presbyteries may have rested their decision in the matter, the Court of Session being the judges of the validity of these grounds.

"It has been decided, that Presbyteries are bound to act in conformity to the views taken by the Court of Session of such grounds; and from whence it necessarily follows that the court may order them to perform their obligation, and, in the circumstances prescribed by the court, to admit a particular minister, subject, of course, to imprisonment, until they obey that order.

"It has been clearly laid down as the law of the land, that the only ground on which the Presbyteries can legally reject a presentee, is want of qualification in one or other of the specific matters of literature, life, and morals; and that if they reject on any other grounds whatever, whether want of other ministerial gifts, or unfitness in any thing other than these particulars, they are subject to coercion by the civil courts, to compel them to admit.

Finally, it has been decided, that Presbyteries are subject to the same controul by the civil court, when the act of admission includes ordination, as when it does not; and, consequently, that the court can order the Presbyteries both to admit and ordain" (P. 37).

Here, then, we find the adultery of Church and State punished at last by their own unhallowed union. The founders of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland took the world into the Church at first, and resolved to make the Church strong and powerful by the world's wealth and authority; and now, at last, it is discovered, that the union is contamination, and pollution, and fraught with danger to that which the Presbyterians suppose is the kingdom of Christ. Nay, so strange is the position of the Scotch Church now, that it has actually commenced the work of making Dissenters, for in another case of veto, they have refused to admit Mr. Clark, the patron's nominee (and therefore the legal minister by decision of the supreme courts), and have ordained Mr. Andrew Kessen to be minister of Lethendy, in spite of prohibitions and injunctions issued against them. Mr. Kessen is, therefore, to all intents and purposes, a Dissenting minister, though ordained, appointed, and approved by an Established Church! And so fully does Mr. Clark understand this, that he has actually made application for the imprisonment of the Presbytery, in order to compel them to obey the injunctions of the court in his favour. The judges seem to hesitate in committing the Presbytery to prison, though there can be

little doubt that they have full power to do so if they please. In the meantime, the General Assembly, in this most extraordinary struggle, falls back upon doctrine, as a trench not to be stormed by the civil courts; and has now declared, that there shall be a broad distinction between the kingdoms of Christ and of the world; for in the session of 1839, the Assembly, on taking into consideration the judgment of the House of Lords, immediately instructed the Presbytery of Auchterarder "to offer no resistance to the claims of Mr. Young, or the patron, to the emoluments of the benefice of Auchterarder, and to refrain claiming the jus devolutum, or any other civil rights or privilege connected with the said benefice." This had been preceded by a declaration, that "they would not submit to the controul of civil courts, in the exercise of the functions which they held to have been conferred on them by Christ, and which includes an exclusive right to determine in all matters of doctrine, discipline, and government, though they acknowledged an unqualified jurisdiction of the civil courts, in regard to the civil rights and emoluments secured by law to the church and ministers thereof."

And this, Mr. Dunlop, the advocate of the General Assembly, further explains :"To admit Mr. Young would be to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the Court of Session to review and control proceedings in a matter which the church contends to be spiritual; and this the Assembly never pretended to do. There is no pretext of submission here, for they boldly profess they will not submit...... .The resolution of the General Assembly of 1838, was adopted in consequence of the decision of the Court of Session in the Auchterarder case, and the principles announced from the bench, which, if admitted, were necessarily destructive of the spiritual independence of the church. Its main object, therefore, was to assert this spiritual independence; while, at the same time, the exclusive jurisdiction of the civil courts in civil matters is fully acknowledged." And for confirmation of this view, he quotes the following words of the confession of faith:-"The Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed a government in the hands of church-officers, distinct from the civil magistrate; and in all matters touching the doctrine, government, and discipline of the church, her judicatories possess an exclusive jurisdiction, founded on the word of God; which power ecclesiastical flows immediately from God and the Mediator Jesus Christ, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head upon earth; but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of the Kirk.”

But here many questions might be asked. If all " the doctrine, government, and discipline" of the Church of Scotland is of a spiritual kingdom, and flows from Christ, "the spiritual King of the Kirk," how comes it that till within the last five years the church has quietly submitted to the "desolating system of absolute patronage;" that "whole presbyteries" have been under the influence of patrons, and have voted and acted as the patron pleased; that "minister after minister have been forced by armed men on their congregations;" that presbyteries ordained those who had been chosen by the patrons, by the toss of a half-penny; that ministers have been to a large extent, the dependents, tutors, tools, and co-revellers of the great; and that, on one occasion, the majority of the General Assembly (so Mr. Dunlop assures us) was bribed by the then government to pass a law relating to the induction of ministers to their benefices? Mr. Dunlop describes the Church of Scotland as withering away in corruption, disease, and debility, till revived by the Veto Act of 1834; but where then was the spiritual kingdom of the Mediator to be found in "the government and discipline" of the church till that happy era arrived?

And does the General Assembly suppose that "the word of God" on which it now rests its cause, authorises all the intricate fabric of the Presbyterian platform, which Calvin built up first at Geneva? Where can Kirk Sessions, General Assemblies, Courts of Presbyteries, and many other items of the Presbyterian plan be found in the word of God? And is it any amendment, as far as the kingdom of Christ is concerned, to turn from patrons to parishes, and to rest all the glory of the kingdom o the Mediator on parochial elections, and the ennobled heads of families? Doubtless the Veto has made, and will make, if allowed to stand, the Scottish Church more popular; but parish elections to the ministry are as utterly unknown in the Scripture as the right of absolute patronage; they are not the results of the commands of God, but of the will of the flesh; and of the flesh, therefore, do they produce cor

ruption. The whole Presbyterian platform is a daring invention of man's wisdom, set up originally to beat Popery out of the field, and to take possession of the property which Popery had held for many centuries. That field is the world, and to hold tenure of this new territory it has been requisite for it to draw largely from worldly maxims, and to place the power in the flesh, where it ought to be in the Spirit.

Nationalism, and by consequence, force, have always, from the very first, been at the root of the Presbyterian theory to rule in the flesh, and not to suffer in the spirit, has ever been the aim of this carnal association; and the history of the sect is to be traced in war and violence wherever it has appeared. See the violent measures with which it was introduced at Geneva-the expulsions, the oustings, the confiscations, and imprisonments. Trace its history in Scotland-a story of blood and resistance for nearly a century. Mark the violent demeanour of John Knox and all his associates; the wars which afterwards followed with the Stuarts, and the purchased invasion of England in the reign of Charles I. That invasion was wholly a work of Presbyterian ministers and their stormy faction; and every step the Presbyterians took both in England and in Scotland at that period, was marked with the most appalling fierceness and the most sanguinary fanaticism. Violence and the Presbytery seem co-ordinate; and yet in all their movements of force, the Presbytery has ever been talking largely of the kingdom of Christ, and the power which they hold exclusively from their divine Head. They have degraded Christ into a spurious Joshua; and forgetting that the kingdom of the Redeemer is righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, have, in the delirium of Presbyterian arrogance, supposed it was their right to slay, thrust out, and violently take possession. Well, they have, as conquerors, been settled now for a long time in Scotland, and no murmur has ever escaped their lips about the encroachments of the world in their sanctuary, till the Auchterarder case has at last shewn them that the union between the world and the Church, wherever attempted, infallibly brings with it at last its curse and its sting. According to Dr. Chalmers' doctrine, it is the duty of the State to aid, protect, and nourish the Church (i. e. the Presbyterian ministers); but wholly to abstain from "spiritual" interference: but now circumstances have placed the State in the attitude of an enemy; and the sword of the law is hanging over all the Presbyteries of Scotland, in order to force them to ordain pastors over the flock of Christ. Church cries* out, This is "an invasion of the spiritual authority which they have received from the Mediator." "That may be," replies the State, "but having for two long centuries submitted to our carnal aid, friendship, and protection; and having married your church to the State, the State as the stronger party, as the head and lord, commands you now to submit to its injunctions; and not to rob patrons of their property, and by so doing to shake the foundations of all property. You priests may have your ideas and plans to follow out; but we laymen have our undoubted rights to attend to: and as you have in a hundred cases called in the

The

* The cry of the Church may be heard in these words of Dr. Chalmers :-" It is not the individual question of patronage which alone concerns us. Those who differ most widely from ourselves in this, ought to join forces, and resist the beginnings of a system absolutely ruinous to the Christian character and usefulness of the establishment; which more than anything else would subject us to the triumph of the voluntaries; and what is worse, to the contempt of the general public-that sure precursor to the overthrow of the Church of Scotland. We must not take our order from the civil court in things ecclesiastical, else where will it end? An eminent lawyer has recently given forth, that every man who subscribes our articles, and has a fair moral character, has a right of admission to the communion table. Let the civil court act upon this (and where lies the difference between an order from that quarter to admit a man to be a partaker of the ordinances, and the order to admit a man to be a dispenser of the ordinances?) and every spiritual qualification on which we now insist, is utterly put to scorn. Christianity sinks down to a civil and earthly standard-the whole institute is vitiated and secularised. Not the patrimonial interest of the Church alone, but its very theology will be at the beck of the legal functionaries; and what, in the hands of our venerable forefathers was a pure Church of Christ (!), one of the most illustrious daughters of the Reformation, will be trodden under foot of the Gentiles, and become part and parcel of the world!"