The rights and privileges of the Presbyterian church of Scotland, guaranteed by the revolution settlement, were expressly secured by the treaty of union, and jealously reserved from the power of the British parliament; yet within five years afterwards, when Jacobite counsels prevailed in the court of queen Anne, an act was passed for the restoration of patronage in Scotland, with the design of advancing the Jacobite interest by rendering ministers more dependent on the aristocracy, and less strenuous advocates of the most liberal principles then known. This act soon became the cause of within the church of Scotland, and of separation from it; effects which have continually increased to the present day. How the church at first earnestly protested against the act; how this protest gradually became formal, and was at last relinquished; how the church-courts themselves became most active in carrying out the settlement of presen tees, notwithstanding all opposition of congregations, are points to which it is enough here to allude. It is important, however, to observe that in all the enforcement of the rights given to patrons by the act of 1712, during the 18th c., and considerable part of the 19th, no direct invasion of the ecclesiastical province took place on the part of civil courts or of the civil power; the presentation by the patron was regarded as conveying a civil right at most to the benefice or emoluments only, whilst the church-courts pro ceeded without restraint in the induction of ministers; and in a few instances it hap pened that the benefice and the pastoral office were disconnected by the opposite decis ions of the civil and ecclesiastical courts. And even the "forced settlements," in which the fullest effect was given by the church-courts to the will of patrons, were accom plished according to the ancient form, upon the call of the parishioners, inviting the presentee to be their minister, although the call was a mere form—in the words of Dr. Chalmers, "the expressed consent of a few, and these often the mere driblet of a parish." • When the "moderate" party, long dominant in the general assembly of the church of Scotland, became again the minority in 1834, the accession of the "evangelical" party to power was at once signalized by an attempt to restore the call to efficacy. This was done by the famous veto law, by which it was declared "that it is a fundamental law of this church that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people," and enacted, in order to give effect to this principle, that a solemn dissent of a majority of male heads of families, members of the vacant congregation, and in full communion with the church, shall be deemed sufficient ground for the rejec tion of the presentee. The veto law thus determined rather how strong an expression. of dissent by the parishioners should be requisite to invalidate a call, than how strong an expression of assent should be requisite to give it validity; a circumstance which was afterwards much turned to account in controversy; as the vets were a new and unconstitutional principle introduced; although it was certainly adopted as the least. extreme mode of giving effect to the old princiiile which the law declared.
The same general assembly by which the veto act was passed, is memorable for the assertion of the constitutional principles and inherent powers of the church in another important particular, the admission of the ministers of "chapels of ease" to the same ecclesiastical status with the ministers of endowed parishes, in consequence of which they became members of church-courts, and had districts assigned to them quoad sacra,' with full parochial organization.
The veto act was soon the subject of litigation in the court of session. A conflict arose which in various forms agitated the whole of Scotland, and which, ere long, related as much to the status of chapel ministers as to the rights of presentees to parishes; and indeed involved the whole question of the relations of civil and ecclesiastical powers, at least as far as the Established church was concerned. The first case carried into the
civil court was that of a presentation to Anchterarder, in which the call to the presentee was signed by only two parishioners, whilst almost all who were entitled to do so accord ing to the veto act, came forward to declare their dissent. The decision of the court of session, which, upon an appeal, was affirmed by the house of lords, was to the effect, that the rejection of the presentee on the ground of this dissent was illegal; the opinions of the judges in the Scottish court were indeed divided; but those. in accordance with which the judgment was pronounced, asserted the right of the civil courts to review and control all proceedings of church courts, a power which it was speedily attempted to put forth in other cases, to the extent of requiring presbyteries to proceed to the settlement of qualified presentees without respect to the opposition of congregations; interdicting the admission of ministers to pastoral charges even when no question of emoluments was involved; interdicting the quou4 sacra, division of parishes or any inno-.
on the existing state of a parish as to pastoral superintendence and the jurisdic-, ion and discipline of the kirk-session; interdicting clirch-courts from pronouncing ecclesiastical censures, and suspending or revoking them when pronounced; interdict. fag ministers from preaching the gospel and from administering the sacraments within certain parishes; determining who should and who should not be deemed entitled to sit and vote in general assemblies and other courts of the church; and other such things, wholly subversive of the independence of the church, and reducing it, if acquiesced in, to the condition of "a creature of the state." They were not, however, acquiesced in, and although in one instance ministers were brought to the bar of the court of session, and reproved for disregarding its authority, their protest against its claim to authority was maintained even there; and in the far greater number of instances its interdicts were broken without any attempt being made to call those who did so to account. It is impossible here to enter into the details of this struggle, which was brought to a final Issue-by the judgment of the house of lord in Aug., 1842, affirming a decree of the court of session, which required the presbytery of Auchterarder to take the ordinary steps towards the settlement of the presentee to Auchterarder, without regard to the dissent of the parishioners. The law of the land being thus decided by the supreme court to be such tis they could not with good conscience comply with, and parliament having rejected an application, in the form of a "claim of right," for an act such as would have reconciled the duties of their position according to the law of the land, in the church by law established, with what they believed to be their duty towards Christ and accord ing to his law; it now seemed to the greater number of ministers and elders holding the principle of the independence of the church that the only course open to them was to retire from their position by the sacrifice of the emoluments and benefits of an estab lishment. And this they did at the meeting of the general assembly on 18th May, 1843. Headed by Dr. Chalmers, Dr. Welsh, and others of the most eminent in the church, they left the appointed place of meeting of the general assembly, St. Andrew's church, Edinburgh, and proceeded to another place, previously prepared, Tantield Canonmills, where, in the midst of a great concourse of people, the first general assem bly of the Free church of Scotland was immediately constituted, and Dr. Chalmers was unanimously called to the chair as its moderator. Four hundred and seventy-four min isters renounced their connection with the establishment, and along with them a great body of its elders and members.