Chapter LII: Ecclesiastical Movements

THE aim of this chapter is mainly expository. It will, therefore, proceed on the fundamental conceptions and principles of the polity of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland. In the first place it will touch on the original conception of this polity; in the second, the effect of external power and circumstances upon it; and third, the modifications which it has undergone.

The conceptions of the Scotch Reformers were not elaborated at once: religion and secular government were often mixed in the early stages of the Reformation. A Church distinct from and independent of the State was a conception quite alien to the forms of thinking which prevailed among the Reformers; on the other hand, a secular government distinct from and independent of the Church was an idea scarcely entertained by any statesmen of the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. Both the Church and State held the common notions of theocracy, as being both under the direction of God, should therefore be associated. In itself the theocratic idea is grand and inspiring in contemplation. But in practical operation it appears that the Church and State both claim a supremacy; and they often hold very different views as to what is the will of God, or how far and in what circumstances the Word of God should be followed. The King may maintain that he alone under God has a supremacy of power over the Church and everything else within his kingdom, as was done by James VI., Charles I., Charles II., and James VII., in Scotland. Whoever wishes to understand the Church of Scotland and her many struggles should form a clear conception of this theocratic principle, as it is the key of the history of Presbyterianism in this country.

According to the authoritative and historic polity of the Church, the doctrine of the spiritual and civil powers were as follows:――“This power and ecclesiastical polity is different and distinct in its own nature, from that power and polity which is called the civil power, and belongs to the civil government of the commonwealth; albeit, they are both of God, and tend to the same end, if they be rightly used――namely, to advance the glory of God and to have godly and good subjects. This power ecclesiastical flows immediately from God and the Mediator, Christ Jesus, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head in earth, but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Church. Therefore this power and polity of the Church should lean upon the Word of God immediately, as the only ground thereof, and should be taken from the pure fountains of the Scriptures, hearing the voice of Christ, the only spiritual King, and being ruled by His laws.... Notwithstanding, as the ministers and others of the ecclesiastical estate are subject to the civil magistrate, so ought the person of the magistrate in spiritual matters to be subject to the Church and in ecclesiastical government.

“The civil power should command the spiritual to exercise and perform their office according to the Word of God. The spiritual rulers should require the Christian magistrate to administer justice and punish vice, and to maintain the liberty and quietness of the Church within their bounds.... The magistrate ought neither to preach, minister the Sacrament, nor execute the censures of the Church, nor yet prescribe any rule how it should be done, but command the minister to observe the rule commanded in the Word of God, and punish the transgressors by civil means. The ministers do not exercise civil jurisdiction, but teach the magistrate how it should be exercised according to the Word. The magistrate ought to assist, maintain, and fortify the jurisdiction of the Church. The ministers assist their princes in all things agreeable to the Word, provided they do not neglect their own charge by involving themselves in civil affairs.

“So it appertains to the office of the Christian magistrate to assist and maintain the discipline of the Church, and to punish them civilly that will not obey the censures of the Church; to make laws and constitutions agreeable to the Word, for the advancement of the Church and her polity, without usurping anything that does not belong to the civil sword.”¹

¹ _Second Book of Discipline._

It is obvious that this theory of the spiritual and civil powers is grounded upon the assumption that the State and the Church ought to assist each other and runs on lines of a co-ordinate jurisdiction. As to supremacy in the case of the Church, the final appeal is distinctly placed upon the Word of God and Christ Jesus, the spiritual Head and King; in other words, it is a distinct development of the theocratic conception. The ideas involved in the theory are irreconcilable in practical operation, unless under peculiar conditions and circumstances of society.

Touching the election of ministers to congregations, it is explicitly and repeatedly stated that great care should always be taken not to intrude any minister on a congregation, if they are not satisfied with him. Hence, lay patronage was throughout inconsistent with the conception and fundamental principles of this Church; and she opposed and rejected it, and fought against it.

Having now stated the original grounds out of which the struggles between the Government and the Church arose, which have been explained at length in the preceding volumes of the work, it may be remarked that patronage was abolished shortly after the Revolution, but again restored by the British Government in 1712. After this the struggles of the Church of Scotland were mainly internal; but they still sprang from the conceptions and theory of the powers of the Church. The ideas, sentiments, and feelings engendered by many long years of severe persecution continued to be represented in the Assemblies and Courts of the Church with more or less vigour; hence, an internal struggle arose between the party who held firmly to those ideas and views and the new or more modern party――called, in ecclesiastical history, the Moderate party. At first the difference between the two parties was not great; but about the middle of the eighteenth century the opposite views of the popular and Moderate parties in the Church Courts and throughout the country had become distinct and irreconcilable.

The chief practical point of polity in dispute was the settlement of ministers in parishes against the wishes and the expressed determination of the congregations. Cases of this character were constantly coming before the presbyteries and the General Assemblies; and in 1733 it was upon matters which arose out of such cases that a secession from the church then took place. Ebenezer Erskine, minister of Stirling, was a vehement advocate of popular election, and in his sermon at the opening of the Synod in the autumn of 1732, he said:――“There is a twofold call necessary for a man’s meddling as a builder in the Church of God: there is the call of God and of His Church. God’s call consists in qualifying a man for His work; inspiring him with a holy zeal and desire to employ those qualifications for the glory of God and the good of His Church. The call of the Church lies in the free choice and election of the Christian people. The promise of conduct and counsel in the choice of men that are to build is not made to patrons, heritors, or any other set of men, but to the Church, the body of Christ, to whom apostles, prophets, pastors, and teachers are given. As it is the natural privilege of every house or society of men to have the choice of their own servants or officers, so it is the privilege of the house of God in a particular manner. What a miserable bondage would it be reckoned for any family to have stewards or servants imposed on them by strangers, who might give the children a stone for bread, or a scorpion instead of a fish, or poison instead of medicine? And shall we suppose that ever God granted a power to any set of men, patrons, heritors, or whatever they be――a power to impose servants on His family, without His consent, they being the freest society in the world?... A cry and complaint came in before the bar of the last Assembly for relief and redress of these and many other grievances, both from ministers and people. But instead of a due regard had thereunto, an act is passed confining the power of election unto heritors and elders, whereby a new wound is given to the prerogative of Christ and the privileges of His subjects.... Only allow me to say, that whatever Church authority may be in that act, yet it wants the authority of the Son of God. All ecclesiastical authority under heaven is derived from Him; and, therefore, any act that wants His authority has no authority at all.”

Erskine was rebuked by the Synod, and by the General Assembly, for the sentiments uttered in this sermon; but he adhered to every word that he had said, and in Covenanting style protested at every stage of the proceedings taken against him, along with three of his brethren who adhered to him. They stood out boldly against every attempt of the Assembly to threaten or to flinch them; and, accordingly, at last they were turned out of their churches and manses in 1740. But several years before this they had formed themselves into a presbytery, and dissent continued to increase. In the year 1773, there were nearly two hundred dissenting congregations in Scotland, besides Episcopalians and Roman Catholics.

The question of patronage and the intrusion of presentees on reclaiming congregations still occupied much of the attention of presbyteries and the General Assembly. But, in 1752, a movement was inaugurated in the General Assembly which had for its object the enforcement of the law of patronage at all hazards; and the leader of it was Dr. Robertson, who, in the policy which he persistently followed, seemed to have attained a remarkable measure of success, yet the wisdom of the course which he adopted may be questioned. His object was to enforce a strict and literal observance of patronage.¹ But what did this mean? It meant that one of the fundamental principles of Scotch Presbyterianism was to be extinguished. It also assumed that the opinions and sentiments of the people with regard to this principle could be suppressed by decrees of the General Assembly, forgetting that the people had fought and bled in opposing patronage for a period of nearly two centuries. In short, taking all the facts and circumstances in connection with patronage into account, it would have been a wiser policy, and more worthy of Robertson’s historic mind, if he had employed his talents and influence to abolish patronage. Dr. Robertson’s ecclesiastical policy had a deadening tendency, inasmuch as those who followed it had no higher principle than that of a cringing allegiance to patrons, so his party lost the confidence and the respect of the people because they had cast off the historic glory of their Church. The descent of the majority of the Scotch clergy in the last half of the eighteenth century was remarkable; their earnestness, spirit, and abilities, faded. Dr. Robertson retired from the management of ecclesiastical affairs in 1780.

¹ “Some friends and companions having been well informed
that a great majority of the General Assembly, 1751, were
certainly to let Mr. Adams, of Falkirk, the disobedient
brother, escape with a very slight censure, a select company
of fifteen were called together in a tavern, a night or
two before the case was to be debated in the Assembly, to
consult what was to be done. There met, accordingly, in
the tavern the Right Honourable the Lord Provost Drummond;
the Honourable William, Master of Ross; Mr. Gilbert Elliot,
junior, of Minto; Mr. Andrew Pringle, advocate; Messrs.
Jardine, Blair, Robertson, John Home, Adam Dickson of Dunse,
George Logan of Ormiston, Alexander Carlyle of Inveresk,
and as many more as made fifteen, two of whom, viz., Logan
and Carlyle, were not members of the Assembly. The business
was talked over, and, having the advice of two able lawyers,
Messrs. Elliot and Pringle, we were confirmed, in our
opinion, that it was necessary to use every means in our
power to restore the authority of the Church, otherwise
her government would be degraded, and everything depending
on her authority would fall into confusion; and although
success was not expected at this assembly, as we know that
the judges, and many other respectable elders, besides the
opposite party of the clergy, were resolved to let Mr. Adams
and the disobedient Presbytery of Linlithgow escape with an
admonition only, yet we believed that, by keeping the object
in view, good sense would prevail at last, and order be
restored. We did not propose deposition, but only suspension
for six months, which, we thought, was meeting the opposite
party half way. John Home agreed to make the motion, and
Robertson to second him.... Home made a spirited oration,
though not a business speech, which talent he never attained.
Robertson followed him, and not only gained the attention
of the Assembly, but drew the praise of the best judges
... whom I overheard say, that Robertson was an admirable
speaker, and would soon become a leader in the Church
courts.”――_Autobiography of the Rev. Dr. Alexander Carlyle_,
pages 246‒248.

“It was in the Assembly of 1752 that the authority of
the Church was restored by the deposition of Gillespie.
Robertson and John Home, having been dissenters, with some
others, from a sentence of the Commission in March that year
in the affair of Inverkeithing, gave them an opportunity
of appearing and pleading at the bar of the Assembly, which
they did with spirit and eloquence. The minds of the leaders
of the Assembly having been now totally changed, a vigorous
measure was adopted by a great majority. The presbytery
of Dunfermline were brought before the Assembly, and
peremptorily ordered to admit the candidate three days after,
and report to the Assembly on the following Friday. They
disobeyed, and Mr. Gillespie was deposed.... At a general
meeting of the party, after Gillespie was deposed, it was
moved that it would be proper to propose next day that the
Assembly should proceed to depose one or two more of the
offending brethren. Mr. Alexander Gordon of Kintore, and
George Logan, and I, were pointed out as proper persons to
make and second the motion. I accordingly began, and was
seconded by Gordon in a vigorous speech, which occasioned
great alarm on the other side, as if we were determined
to get rid of the whole Presbytery; but this was only
_in terrorem_, for by concert, one of our senior brethren
proposed that the Assembly should rest content with what
they had done, and this was carried.”――_Ibid._, pages
255‒256.

Another secession sprang from Gillespie’s deposition, which
soon increased in numbers.

In 1781 the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr presented overtures to the General Assembly touching patronage, which insisted that no call should be sustained unless it was signed by a majority of the heritors, elders, and communicants of the parish. But the Assembly dismissed this proposal because it was of a dangerous tendency. The Synods of Dumfries, Perth, and Stirling overtured the Assembly to state explicitly what was meant by a call, but these, too, were simply dismissed. The following year the Synods of Glasgow and Ayr, Perth and Stirling, Fife, Galloway, Lothian, and Tweeddale, unitedly appeared before the Assembly and stated that several presbyteries had recently inducted ministers without the moderation of a call, and prayed the Assembly to prohibit such proceedings in the future. Dr. George Hill, who had then assumed the leadership of the Moderate party, opposed the prayer of the synods, and said that the Assembly might at once dismiss the overtures; but to quiet the minds of the people, and prevent persons from spreading an opinion that the Church was deserting her Presbyterian principles, he moved that the Assembly should declare that the moderation of a call was the immemorial practice of the Church, and dismiss the overtures as unnecessary. Another eminent Moderate, Dr. Macknight, then moved that the resolution should be: “The Assembly, having considered overtures, declare that the moderation of a call in settling ministers is agreeable to the immemorial practice of the Church, and ought to be continued.” The popular party voted for this motion, and it was carried; but as to what constituted a call was left undefined. Again, in 1783, the synods of Perth, Stirling, and Fife brought this point before the Assembly; the kingdom of Fife was stamped with the spirit of Melville, and never deserted the popular cause. They implored the Assembly to make the utmost efforts to get the Act of 1712 repealed and the Act of 1690 restored. The Moderate party wanted to throw out the overtures without a debate; but the popular party proposed that Presbyteries should be instructed to consult with the landed gentry within their bounds, and report the result to the next Assembly. In the debate, it was stated that the aversion of the people to patronage was invincible, and could never be overcome; but the proposal was defeated by a majority of nine. Once more, in 1784, the synods of Glasgow and Ayr, Perth and Stirling, appeared before the Assembly, praying for the removal of patronage. It was proposed that the landed gentry should be consulted touching the divising of some means to remedy this insufferable evil; but the Moderate party became enraged, and carried a motion declaring that the overtures were ill founded and dangerous to the welfare of the Church. They further declared that henceforth patronage was not to be considered as a grievance.

In spite of this resolution of the majority, the synod of Perth and Stirling and the presbytery of Dumfries again appeared before the Assembly of 1785, with overtures touching the repeal or alteration of the law of patronage. But it was of no avail, the overtures were rejected by a large majority. The popular party, though in a minority in the Assembly, were not in a minority among the people; as they wielded the greatest influence on the heart and soul of the nation.

A grand revolution was preparing, unlike anything which had before been evolved, insomuch that scarcely a man in the British Parliament could comprehend its principles or understand its end. The changed state and circumstances of society in Britain rendered the original theocratic conception impracticable, while the original and fundamental principles of Presbyterianism were almost incomprehensible to politicians and lawyers beyond the Tweed. Hence their futile, and laughable efforts to check the evolution of the movement.

As an attempt to redress the evils involved in patronage, the popular party proposed in the General Assembly of 1833, that when a majority of a congregation objected to the minister presented by the patron, the presbytery of the bounds should not proceed with the settlement. The proposal was debated at great length; both parties exerted themselves to the utmost. At last Dr. Cook moved that the proposal should be approved, and a committee appointed to consider the best means of carrying it into execution; and this was carried by a majority of four. The Assembly of 1834 passed it into an Act; and the effect of the Act was simply this, that when a clear majority of the male heads of families, being members of the congregation, and in full communion with the Church, deliberately objected to the presentee’s settlement as their minister, in that case the presbytery of the bounds should not proceed to thrust him upon the congregation. This famous regulation is elsewhere called “The Veto Act.” It was on this simple and reasonable rule that the grand struggle which issued in the Disruption was fought. This was the hinge on which the conflict externally turned, although, of course, there were other principles involved in it.

The ultimate issue of such a conflict greatly depended upon the prevailing ideas touching the rights of man, as a reasonable and responsible agent, a free and social agent, a being not only accountable to external authorities, but also to his own conscience and to God. If the body of the people are merely conceived to exist for the convenience, pleasure, and glory of the privileged and ruling class, it follows as a consequence that the Church will be conceived and used as an instrument of the Government, as a mere prop of the power of the State. But to the credit of Scotland in the struggle under review, the first class of conceptions indicated above, gave such a manifestation of their vitality as astonished the British Government.

Without entering into many details, I shall present a summary of the leading steps in the revolution. For some time the Veto Act worked beneficially, and the internal discipline and order of the Church was improving. But self-interest and love of power are strong and often blind motives; so it was determined to maintain patronage in its most rigorous and offensive form. In 1834 the Earl of Kinnoul presented Mr. Robert Young, preacher of the gospel, to the parish of Auchterarder, in Perthshire; and the presbytery of the district proceeded according to the usual forms to admit him; but only two of the parishioners signed his call, and therefore the presbytery could not settle him in the parish. The case, in due course, was brought before the Court of Session; and in March, 1838, a majority of the Lords gave judgment to the effect that the presbytery had acted contrary to the provisions of the statute of Queen Anne, of 1712. The General Assembly met in May, 1838, and the Rev. Robert Buchanan, of Glasgow, proposed a motion which affirmed the spiritual independence of the Church. It was opposed by Dr. Cook, who moved an amendment. But after a long and vehement debate, Buchanan’s motion was carried by a majority of forty-one.

The collision between the Church and the civil power was begun in earnest, and could not continue long. The Auchterarder case was appealed to the House of Lords――the English Law Lords; and they came to the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the civil court, even in a matter which involves the spiritual act of ordination, is supreme, and must be obeyed; consequently, they affirmed the judgment of the Court of Session. This settled the point that the rejection of a patron’s presentee, entirely on the ground of the dissent of the congregation, was illegal; but it also implied and involved the conclusion that the congregation had no legal standing at all in the settlement of their minister. Their simple and only duty in the matter was to submit quietly to whoever the patrons thought fit to place over them.

The General Assembly met on the 16th of May, 1839, and intimation of the grounds of the final struggle was given. Dr. Cook, the chief of the Moderate party, at once announced that he himself, and those who acted with him, had resolved to conduct the affairs of the Church in accordance with the decrees of the civil courts. Dr. Chalmers then intimated that he would submit some motion to the Assembly. The debates were long and animated. Dr. Cook insisted that the Veto Act, by the decisions of the courts, was rendered not an Act of the Church at all, as the Church had been acting under an error. Dr. Chalmers’ motion was in effect that the Church bowed to the decision of the court so far as matters of civil rights were concerned, but avowed that――“Whereas the principle of non-intrusion is one coeval with the reformed Kirk of Scotland, and forms an integral part of its constitution, embodied in its standards, and declared in various Acts of Assembly; the General Assembly resolved that this principle cannot be abandoned, and that no presentee shall be forced upon any parish contrary to the will of the congregation.

“And whereas, by the decision above referred to, it appears that when this principle is carried into effect in any parish, the legal provision for the sustentation of the ministry in that parish may be thereby suspended, the General Assembly being deeply impressed with the unhappy consequences which must arise from any collusion between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and holding it to be their duty to use every means in their power, not involving dereliction of the principles and fundamental laws of their Church constitution, to prevent such unfortunate results, do hereby appoint a committee for the purpose of considering in what way the privileges of the national establishment and the harmony between Church and State may remain unimpaired, with instructions to confer with the Government of the country.”

This motion was finally carried by a majority of forty-nine, and a deputation from the committee appointed under it proceeded to London; but the Government then in office was weak. In short, the Government were never anxious to grapple with the different views which were taken of the operation of patronage, or to interfere by legislation on the limits and extent of the ecclesiastical power of the Church of Scotland. Then their almost utter ignorance of the real merits of the matters in dispute was another reason for the apathy of the British Government. So little were they aware of the true facts of the case, that they never dreamed of such an event as the Disruption.

The excitement in the country was rising fast. In the end of the year 1839, the seven rebellious ministers of the presbytery of Strathbogie were suspended, to prevent them from proceeding with the settlement of Mr. Edwards in the parish church of Marnoch, to which he had been presented several years before, it became manifest that the crisis was approaching its issue. The seven suspended ministers placed their faith upon the Court of Session, and in that quarter they showed great energy. They obtained first an interdict to prevent the minority of the presbytery, and all others, from using the church, churchyard, and school-house, in executing the sentence which the commission of the General Assembly had pronounced. They next obtained a formal warrant from the Court of Session for continuing in the exercise of the ministry themselves: and in moving this Lord Gillies said that “it appeared to him that the position which the non-intrusion party of the Church of Scotland had taken up in opposition to the established law of the country was the most arrogant that any established Church had ever attempted.” The second interdict also prohibited all the individual ministers, from various parts of the country, who had been appointed by the commission to execute the sentence of suspension, from even intruding into their parishes; but this part of the interdict was disregarded. Many ministers from the south and west entered into the presbytery of Strathbogie and preached on the turnpike roads and in the fields to vast crowds of the people, published the sentence of suspension, expounded the principles then at stake, and preached the gospel with a vigour and earnestness which had not been heard in that region since the middle of the seventeenth century.¹

¹ Although I was only six years of age, being living in the
heart of Strathbogie, I recollect these proceedings quite
clearly. One of the suspended ministers was our family
minister, and subsequently I knew five of them very well,
and have frequently heard them preaching. The last of them
died about ten years ago.

When the General Assembly met in May, 1840, a firm attitude was assumed by the popular party, who were still in a majority, and the suspension of the Strathbogie ministers was confirmed by a majority of eighty-four. The debate on this matter was long and animated. The final motion to continue their suspension was carried by a majority of sixty-four. The Moderate party in the Church now threw in their lot with the Strathbogie ministers, and the position which they soon drifted into was something like this: Whatever the Court of Session had declared to effect civil rights passed at once from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to that of the civil courts; the Church could not finally determine it, therefore she must submit to the dictation of the civil courts. This, they said, was the law of the land, and obedience to it was the first duty of all loyal subjects. They made few or no allusions to the fundamental conception and the original principles of Presbyterianism. It became pretty evident, too, that so far as the British government had any ideas upon the matter, they were most akin to those avowed by the Moderate party. They therefore resolved to carry on the conflict with a high hand. The popular party were equally resolute, and, with a clear aim in view and a firm grasp of principles, they already foresaw the ultimate issue of the struggle, and were prepared to face it.

The commission of the General Assembly met in Edinburgh on the 12th of August, 1840, when a motion to serve a libel on the seven ministers of Strathbogie was carried by a majority of one hundred and eighty to sixty-six; but the minority were securely covered by the Court of Session. The following is a portion of Dr. Chalmers’ speech to the members of the commission in reference to the libel. After remarking on the many encroachments of the civil courts, he said: “We must stand out against this series of aggressions thus rising in magnitude one above the other, else the most sacred, the most sacramental of our institutions, the very innermost recesses of the sanctuary, will be opened to the invader and trampled under foot. I know the obloquy which will be heaped upon us. I have heard the odious names which will be given us for this resistance; and I am prepared for them. If not an impartial public, at least an impartial posterity will tell whether we are rebels or they are persecutors. And here I may say one word to those who express the hope――and I observe that Sir Robert Peel is among the number――that we will give up our personal feelings and do otherwise than this. To what personal feelings he refers, he does not specify――whether it be the feeling of irritation or of false honour, ――the pride of men who have committed themselves and gone too far to retract without shame and degradation. If so, never was an appeal made wider of its object. These personal feelings have no existence with us; or if they have, it is in so slight a degree that they are altogether overborne by principles of a depth and height and breadth and length sufficient to engross and occupy the whole man. The principles, whether our adversaries comprehend them or not,――the only moving forces that have told and still tell on the Assembly,――are the full security of our spiritual independence. The Headship of Christ, the authority of the Bible as the great spiritual statute-book, not to be lorded over by any power on earth, a deference to our own standards in matters ecclesiastical, and a submission, unqualified and entire, to the civil power in all matters civil. These are our principles; and these principles, not personal feelings, we are asked to give up by men who have put forth unhallowed hands upon them. I ask, is there no room for a similar appeal to them? Have they no personal feelings,――no acrimony arising from the anticipation of defeat,――no triumph arising from the anticipation of victory? Have they no mortification of wounded vanity lest their battle-cry――‘What firmness has done before, firmness may do again’――lest that battle-cry should be rolled back by a resolute and unyielding Church on the heads of those who used it.... I was enumerating what may be the personal feelings of our adversaries, and I have a right to do so. I have a right to state everything that has occurred, whether within or without the limits of this court, that may lead the house to a right decision. I say, is there no inward chagrin among parliamentary friends, mourning over their abortive measures,――is there no sense of offended dignity among the functionaries of the law, lest it should be found that law――no impossible thing in the course of a hundred and fifty years――had for once gone beyond its sphere? I ask, which of the rival elements ought to give way? Whether the personal feelings of the men who have nothing to lose in this contest, or the personal feelings of men who are ready to risk all for principles; and who, though many of them are in the winter of life, would, rather than renounce their principles, abandon their homes, and brave the prospect of being cast, with their helpless and houseless families, upon the wide world? I ask if it was well in Sir Robert Peel, from his high station and from his seat of silken security, to deal out his admonitions to the Church of Scotland in this way; and while he spares the patrician feelings of his compeers, to take no account of the principles and feelings of those conscientious men who, humble in station but high in spirit, are ready, like their forefathers of old, to renounce all their enjoyments for the glory and the dignity of their Church.”

Alluding to the excitement and what was going on throughout the country, he ventured on an anticipation of future changes, which have since been fully realised:――“As we were not permitted to regulate the call, let the right of nomination be so regulated as to anticipate the call; and for this purpose let us, in the name of all Scotland――and I am sure of nineteen-twentieths of her people――seek, through the medium of the legislature, to modify, and, if less will not do, utterly to abolish the system of patronage. It is a consummation to which I look forward without uneasiness.... The time is fast approaching when our political constitution will be greatly more popularised; and it is one of the reasons why I plead so strongly at present for the independence of the Church, that if we are obliged to give it up now to the patrons, we must give it up then to the people.”

Under an order from the Court of Session, the suspended ministers of Strathbogie inducted Mr. Edwards in the church of Marnoch, on the 21st of January, 1841. The proceedings, which took place on this memorable occasion have been fully described by eye-witnesses, are well known, and need not be repeated. But the majority of the General Assembly, the non-intrusion body, had been driven into a position by the decisions, interdicts, decrees, and orders issued from the Court of Session, which had rendered it impossible for them to entertain any compromise, or recede from their original conception and fundamental principles. Accordingly, the General Assembly of 1841 deposed the Strathbogie ministers. Very different views have been taken of the action of the majority of the Court of Session, for, on the main principle involved, the bench, as a whole, never agreed. Looking at the matter as a historian, all forms of constitutional law and common law are grounded upon history and usage. The first point for consideration therefore is, was the interference and consequent decisions of the Court of Session historically justifiable? It is a fact, that the theory of the Court of Session since its institution, in 1533, has been that it was a court for the administration of justice in civil cases; it was never specially empowered to determine ecclesiastical cases or issue orders for proceedings in such cases. There were always courts for settling ecclesiastical matters within their own jurisdiction. Of course, from the Reformation to the Revolution the powers assumed and exercised in the courts of the Presbyterian Church were often questioned, interfered with, and their decisions and proceedings reversed and repealed by the Government of the country, but not by the Court of Session; or if it ever intermeddled in ecclesiastical cases, it was under special instructions from the Government of the day, not from any power inherent in its own constitution. This was the state of the question till the Revolution.

After the Revolution in 1690, the Presbyterian polity was re-established by statute. At the same time, patronage was abolished in this way: when a vacancy occurred, the heritors and elders had to nominate a minister for the approval of the congregation, and if the congregation disapproved of the nominee, they were required to adduce their reasons before the Presbytery, and in its hands the final settlement was left.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
196‒197.

In the Treaty of Union, by a special and emphatic article, the polity, privileges, and ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland were to continue inviolable “to the people of this land in all succeeding generations,” There is no reservation to the effect that the Court of Session shall have the power of overriding the proceedings of her courts.

But, contrary to the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Union, and to all conceptions of a just and wise policy toward the Scottish nation, the British Government imposed upon Scotland a new Patronage Act in 1712. It is historically true, however, that this Act was not generally enforced against the sentiments and feelings of the people, even by the ecclesiastical courts, till past the middle of the eighteenth century; and it was observed in a preceding page that the sentiments of the people were invincibly against its practical application. Keeping within the lines of just and reasonable historic exposition, the point under consideration naturally assumes this form:――When an effort was made by the supreme ecclesiastical court of the nation not to violate the highest sentiments and aspirations of the people by intruding spiritual instructors upon congregations, what had the Court of Session to do with that? This is the historic and constitutional question.

It seems obvious that this was not a question for the Court of Session at all, but one for the British Government, if the ecclesiastical court had not the power to settle it. The Court of Session has no legislative functions, hence when it interfered in this matter, it only looked at one side of the shield――namely, the rights of patrons and presentees. It began and ended with these, declaring that the people had no right to a voice at all in the choice of their spiritual and moral instructors. Thus the Court of Session succeeded in dragging the constitution and the principles of the Church of Scotland through the dust. When this Court saw, as it could not but have seen, that it could only deal with a mere fraction of the great questions and interests involved in the struggle, it should have stood aloof, and allowed the Government to interfere when it became necessary. During the three centuries and a half of its career, the Court of Session has done many curious and questionable things, but history cannot point to a series of its proceedings more signally illegal and disastrous than those which it enacted in connection with the Disruption of the Church.

For several years the whole country rang with the clamour and talk of non-intrusion and spiritual independence. Pamphlets, speeches, and ballads were circulated through the country in hundreds of thousands, most of which were serious and earnest, but vehement and impassioned. In short, the excitement and agitation, the controversy and discussion of the engrossing subject, and the interests involved in it, occupied the attention of every family and household, and many a family became disunited in religious feeling. The popular party put forth extraordinary efforts, and sounded the kingdom from end to end.

The non-intrusion party repeatedly approached the Government, and laid the state of the Church before it. But seeing that the Court of Session, in its wisdom and unmatched foresight, had assumed the function of government in this conflict, the British ministry felt a strong desire to let it run to the end of the course on which it had entered, for neither the Whig nor the Conservative Governments were at all anxious to try their hands on this difficult matter. The Whigs had little love for Churches, and it was only for its patronage, and chiefly for the politics of the moderate party, that the Conservative in general had any respect for the Church of Scotland. Hence the Court of Session was allowed to enjoy its glory to the end of the conflict.

When the General Assembly of 1842 met in May, the anarchy within the Church was fearful. Under a warrant from the Court of Session, the deposed ministers of Strathbogie had met and elected two of their number, and an elder from Aberdeen, to represent them in the General Assembly, with a commission, in the usual form, to take their place amongst its members. On a division these commissions were rejected by a majority of one hundred and thirty. But the Court of Session and the deposed ministers went further; they interdicted and discharged the members elected by the other party in the Presbytery of Strathbogie from taking any part in the Assembly. The Assembly ignored this interdict, and the members took their seats. This was a state of matters which could not continue.

A motion for the abolition of patronage was proposed, and carried by a majority of sixty-nine. The claim, declaration, and protest, or, more shortly, the Claim of Rights, was moved and discussed at great length, and finally adopted by a majority of one hundred and thirty-one. It is a very able and well-known document, and was drawn up by Mr. Alexander Dunlop, Advocate, an able, calm, wise, and resolute gentleman. Mr. Dunlop gave much of his time and thought to the service of the Church, for which he never accepted a single farthing. He was one of the ablest and most honourable men who appeared in the Assemblies of the period. The Claim of Rights is a memorable specimen of his spirit and powers.

But the claims and the attitude of the Church of Scotland were grossly misrepresented in Parliament, especially in the House of Lords, and by no one more so than the rambling and bombastic Lord Brougham. On the 7th and 8th of March, 1843, a debate took place on the Church of Scotland’s Claim of Rights in the House of Commons. The subject was introduced by Mr. Fox Maule in a very clear and able speech. Sir James Graham followed him, and in the course of his speech said:――“These pretensions of the Church of Scotland (Claim of Rights), as they now stand, of a co-ordinate jurisdiction, and the demand that the Government should establish one law on the subject of parishes, and should allow the judge, by the interpretation of the statute judging of his own case, to set up another law co-equal with, and paramount to the law of the realm, did appear to him an expectation so unjust and unreasonable, the sooner the House extinguished it the better, because he was satisfied that any such expectation never could be realised in any country in which law, equity, or order, or common sense prevailed.” Other members spoke in favour and against the claims of the Church, but the Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, was vehemently opposed to her claims, though it is evident that he had not taken the trouble to understand them. He declared that the Church, in its proceedings against the Strathbogie ministers, had laid claim to greater powers than ever were claimed, even before the Reformation by the Church of Rome herself. Touching the question of the limits of the civil and ecclesiastical power, it seemed to him that this should be determined by the English law lords. When the division was taken, the motion was rejected by a majority of one hundred and thirty-five, but out of the thirty-seven Scotch members who were present at the division, twenty-five voted in favour of the motion. Thus the Claim of Rights was rejected in the British Parliament, but not by the representatives of Scotland.

On the 5th of April, 1843, Lord Campbell, in the House of Lords, introduced five resolutions, which were to this effect:――1. That the House was desirous that the Church of Scotland should freely possess and enjoy her rights, government, discipline, and privileges, according to law, in all time coming. 2. That she is an excellent Church. 3. That, with a view to heal the unhappy discussions now prevailing, “this House is of opinion that the demands of the Church should be conceded by the legislature, in so far as they can be safely conceded; and that when any measure for correcting the alleged abuses of patronage shall be constitutionally brought before this House, this House will favourably entertain the same, and anxiously endeavour that the end of the said measure may be attained.” 4. That, in the opinion of this House, the demand that patronage be abolished, as a grievance, is unreasonable and unfounded, and ought not to be conceded. 5. “The demand of the Church that the law shall be framed so as to give the Church courts absolute authority, in every case, to define the limits of their own jurisdiction, without any power in any civil court in any way to question or interfere with their proceedings or decrees, although they may exceed their jurisdiction,” etc. That this claim of “exclusive spiritual jurisdiction is unprecedented in any Christian Church since the Reformation, is inconsistent with the permanent welfare of the Church, and the existence of subordination and good government in the country”. This is a misrepresentation.

In the debate which followed, the speakers maintained that even if some redress were needed, none should be given until the Church should obey the existing law. Lord Brougham said “he would not be a party to the suicidal, to the self-destructive folly of giving men new laws to break until they had consented to obey the old law”. Referring to Lord Aberdeen, Brougham said “his noble friend, who seemed to be a non-intrusionist――What! Would he have that principle not only established in Scotland, but carried south of the Tweed? Would he have it eat into our English system? Would ♦he seek, by means of it, to destroy our Erastianism?” Such was the twaddle and rant which the House of Lords thought proper to vent on this momentous subject. No thought of what was due to the people of Scotland ever entered into their minds.

♦ duplicate word “he” removed

The popular party of the clergy were now everywhere earnestly preparing to leave the Establishment, as it was hopeless to prolong the contest. The forethought, the systematic order, the discipline of the rank and file, and the completeness of all their arrangements were truly wonderful. In short, the final scene of leaving the Establishment presented the characteristics of the closing act of a noble, a memorable, and well-played drama.

On the two Sundays before the meeting of the Assembly many congregations throughout the country had been moved to the core by farewell sermons from ministers to whom they were deeply attached. It was known that an extraordinary move was about to be made; but the uncertainty as to its extent and form had produced an anxiety and uneasiness of feeling unexampled in Scotland since the battle of Culloden. How would the Royal Commissioner act? Would he dissolve the Assembly, or would he recognise the minority as constituting the Assembly?

The Assembly met on the 18th of May, 1843. Dr. Welsh of Edinburgh opened the proceedings by delivering a sermon before the Royal Commissioner in St. Giles’, in which he announced what was going to happen. Dr. Welsh then proceeded to St. Andrew’s Church, where the Assembly was to be held, and took his place in the Moderator’s chair; and the Commissioner entered the church a few minutes after. The church was crowded, and Dr. Welsh rose and engaged in prayer. After the members had resumed their seats, he again rose, and announced that, in consequence of certain proceedings affecting their rights and privileges, which had been sanctioned by the Government of the country, and more especially seeing that there had been an infringement on the liberties of the constitution of the Church, so that they could not constitute this court without violating the terms of the union between Church and State in this nation, and, therefore, “I must protest against our proceeding further.” Accordingly, amidst profound silence and intense alarm on the moderate benches, he read the protest, which fully explained the grounds of the step they were about to take. When he had read the protest, he handed the document to the Clerk at the table, bowed to the Commissioner, quitted the chair, lifted his hat, and walked away. Instantly, Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Gordon, and what appeared to be the whole of those in the left side of the church, rose and followed him. About two hundred walked out; and they were joined outside by three hundred clergymen and other adherents.

Dr. Welsh wore his Moderator’s dress; and as soon as he appeared on the street, and the people saw that principle had risen above interest, shouts of triumph rent the air, such as had not been heard in Edinburgh since the days of the Covenant. They walked down Hanover Street to Canonmills, where a large hall had been fitted up for the reception of the disestablished Assembly. They elected Dr. Chalmers Moderator, and formed themselves into the first General Assembly of the “Free Church of Scotland.” Four hundred and seventy-four ministers left the Establishment in 1843; they were also joined by about two hundred probationers, nearly a hundred theological students of the University of Edinburgh, three-fourths of those in Glasgow, and a majority of those in Aberdeen.

The Free Church commenced to work with earnestness and vigour, and her success and usefulness from the first has been remarkable. As this is well known, I need not dwell on it; it is more in character with the scope of this History to remark on the peaceable and orderly features of the “Disruption:” I call it a revolution of a peculiar character, because it was effected without violence or bloodshed. In rebutting the charges brought against the Scotch Reformers of the sixteenth century touching the excesses which occurred, and especially the destruction of religious buildings, I then said:――“Each party has striven to lay the blame upon the other, to exaggerate or extenuate these excesses, according to their respective standpoints. But it should be remembered that there never was a revolution without excesses, and the reason of which is not difficult to find. The amount of outrage and the destruction of property which a revolution may entail mainly depends on the strength and completeness of the organised moral force in the country at the time of its occurrence. If the moral sentiments and ideas of the nation are but imperfectly formed, the guiding and restraining feelings and influences only partly developed through the social organisation, and the intelligence of the people is very limited and dim, and, as it were, only awakening to a consciousness that they have been long deluded, then, in such circumstances, a revolution cannot be effected without anarchy and excess in various forms. The same undeviating principle comes into play in this as in everything else; when the moral organisation is sufficiently developed and ripe, the desired and needful reform is gradually brought to pass by peaceful means.”¹

¹ Mackintosh’s _History of Civilisation in Scotland_, Volume
II., pages 94‒5.

The creation of the Free Church, in the month of May, 1843, is the best illustration of the principle stated above which has as yet occurred; and it affords ample and striking evidence of the moral change of the people of Scotland since the sixteenth century, and that the very principles which were introduced at the Reformation have contributed greatly to place the Scottish nation upon the moral elevation which was so palpably and beautifully manifested in the peaceful and orderly revolution which gave birth to the Free Church of Scotland. It was an event charged with a moral power of vast import, and which could not fail to produce beneficial results.

The Established Church for a time was greatly crippled, and her pre-eminence has not been restored. But she has worked steadily and well, and extended her lines on every side. The Roman Catholics have increased more, comparatively, especially in recent years, than any other denomination, in the present century. The Roman hierarchy has recently been restored in Scotland. As observed in preceding chapters, toleration and liberty of thought have made remarkable progress within the last fifty years; no one need now be afraid to announce their opinions, if they have anything to tell worthy of attention.