Page:The American Cyclopædia (1879) Volume VII.djvu/480

468 FREE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND were identified; and though as yet a mere handful in the church, they were every day increasing in numbers and power. Under the leadership successively of Erskine, Sir Henry Moncrieif, Andrew Thomson, and Chalmers, the evangelical party became stronger and stronger, until a fair opportunity for testing the power of parties in the church occurred in 1834. In 1707 the treaty of union between England and Scotland was consummated. It contained a special guarantee for the integrity of the church of Scotland as established in 1689 under the reign of William and Mary, free from prelacy, from the royal supremacy in things spiritual, and from the law of patron- age. But in 1711, four years after the con- summation of the treaty of union, the British parliament violated its pledge, and under the leadership of Bolingbroke lay patronage was reimposed upon the Scottish church. Such was the sense of the wrong inflicted by this act, that the Scottish church for a long period annually renewed her protest against it ; and during several years after it was passed no patron was found to appropriate the powers which it conferred upon him. Toward the close of the century, however, forced settle- ments of ministers upon parishes became fre- quent, and multitudes of the best people were driven from the church. Against such pro- ceedings it was in vain that the evangeli- cal party earnestly and frequently protested; their protests were those of a small minority, whose principles the majority despised and hated. But that minority grew in numbers and in power, especially from the beginning of the present century, and under such leaders as Thomson and Chalmers one abuse after another was rooted out; and at last an act was passed by the general assembly in 1834 designed to be a corrective of the evils of lay patronage, which gave to the male heads of families in every parish the right of objecting to any presentee whom the patron might wish inducted into the pastorate over them. This act, commonly called the "veto act," though proposed by Lord Moncrieff, one of the sena- tors of the college of justice, and though be- lieved by the church to be entirely within her power as a church established by law to enact, very soon brought her into conflict with the patrons, and through the patrons with the civil courts. On a vacancy occurring in a cer- tain parish the patron presented his protege^ who was vetoed by almost the entire body of inhabitants. The presentee appealed to the civil courts, which at once commanded the presbytery to proceed to his settlement. The presbytery refused. The civil courts of course stood mainly on the interpretation of the law of 1711-' 12. The evangelical party, now the majority in the general assembly, believing that law to be both unconstitutional and con- trary to the word of God, resolved to abide by the decision to which they had come in 1834, viz. : that the Christian people had a right by law and by warrant of God's word to be heard in regard to the appointment of a minister over them ; and that the acts of or- daining to the ministry and of inducting into a pastoral charge were spiritual acts, in regard to which the church alone had jurisdiction. The supreme civil court of Scotland also in- terposed its authority against the ordination and induction of a minister. The assembly, when appealed to for advice, by a large major- ity authorized the presbytery to proceed with the settlement. The presbytery were threat- ened by the civil court with imprisonment and fine should they dare to set its interdict at de- fiance. The ordination and induction of the presentee were consummated, and immediate- ly a complaint was laid against the presbytery before the civil court. They were summoned to appear before the bar of the court, June 14, 1839, which they did. The judges heard their reply, and took four days to consider the case, during which it was understood that five of the judges voted for a sentence of impris- onment, and six for a rebuke. The rebuke was accordingly pronounced, and the presby- tery were dismissed from the bar with the intimation that a sentence of imprisonment would certainly be pronounced against any presbytery that should afterward be found chargeable with a similar offence. Other cases involving the same principles rapidly arose, and elements of a still more deplorable char- acter were brought into the arena of strife. The civil court required a presbytery to take a clergyman on trial, admit him to the office of the ministry in a particular charge, and in- trude him on the congregation contrary to the will of the people. It also interdicted the es- tablishment of additional ministers to meet the wants of an increasing population. It in- terdicted the preaching of the gospel and all ministration of ordinances throughout a whole district by any minister of the church under authority of the church courts, as well as exe- cution of the sentence of a church judicatory prohibiting a minister from preaching or admin- istering ordinances within a particular parish, pending the discussion of a cause in the church courts as to the validity of his settlement there- in. It also interdicted the general assembly and lower judicatories of the church from in- flicting church censures : in one case where the minister was accused of theft and pleaded guilty ; in another where a minister was found guilty of fraud and swindling ; and in another where a licentiate was accused of drunkenness, obscenity, and profane swearing. It suspend- ed church censures when pronounced by the church courts in the exercise of discipline, and took upon itself to restore the suspended ministers to the power of preaching and the administration of ordinances. It assumed to judge of the right of individuals elected mem- bers of the general assembly to sit therein. As a last resource, the church appealed to the parliament of Great Britain. Her u claim of