jugate the Church, and the two, bent on moral conquests alone, walk together as fellow-helpers towards the achievement of that great pacific triumph—the Christian education of the people."
The indifferent success with which the latter part of the labours of Dr. Chalmers in behalf of church extension was followed, could be but too easily explained. The Church of Scotland had now entered the depths of her trial; and while the issue was uncertain, the public mind was in that state of suspense under which time seems to stand still, and all action is at a pause. The urgent demand that was pressed upon society was for money to erect more places of worship—but what the while did the State mean to do in this important matter? Would it take the whole responsibility upon itself, or merely supplement the liberality of the people? And if the latter, then, to what amount would it give aid, and upon what terms? When a cautious benevolence is thus posed, it too often ruminates, until the hour of action has knelled its departure. Such was the condition to which Scotland was now reduced. In tracing its causes, we must revert to the last five years of our narrative, and those important ecclesiastical movements with which Dr. Chalmers was so closely implicated.
In obtaining the veto law, Dr. Chalmers was far from regarding it either as a satisfactory or a final measure. Instead of being an ecclesiastical reform, it was but a half-way concession, in which Church and State would be liable to much unpleasant collision. This result must sooner or later be the case, and in such a shock the weaker would be driven to the wall. This Dr. Chalmers foresaw, and it required no extraordinary sagacity to foretell which of these causes would prove the weaker. And yet the veto, like most great changes however defective, worked well at the commencement. So remarkably had the evangelistic spirit been revived by it, that in 1839 the revenue collected for Christian enterprise was fourteen times greater than it had been five years previous. Another significant fact of its usefulness was, that notwithstanding the new power it conferred upon the people, that power had been enjoyed with such moderation, that during these five years it had been exercised only in ten cases out of one hundred and fifty clerical settlements. All this, however, was of no avail to save it from ruin, and even the beginning of its short-lived existence gave promise how soon and how fatally it would terminate.
The first act of hostility to the veto law occurred only a few months after it had passed. The parish church of Auchterarder had become vacant, and the Earl of Kinnoul, who was patron, made a presentation of the living in favour of Mr. Robert Young, a licentiate. But the assent of the people was also necessary, and after Mr. Young had preached two successive Sabbaths in the pulpit of Auchterarder, that the parishioners might test his qualifications, a day was appointed for their coming forward to moderate in the call, by signing their acceptance. Not more, however, than two heads of families, and his lordship's factor, a non-resident, out of a parish of three thousand souls, gave their subscription. As this was no call at all, it was necessary to obtain a positive dissent, and on the opportunity being given for the heads of families, being communicants, to sign their rejection, two hundred and eighty-seven, out of three hundred members, subscribed their refusal to have the presentee for their minister. Thus, Mr. Young was clearly and most expressly vetoed, and his presentation should, according to the law, have been instantly cancelled; but, instead of submitting, he appealed against the refusal of the parish, in the first instance to the Presbytery, and afterwards to the Synod; and on his appeal being rejected successively
