404
CASES
FROM
THE
OLD
ENGLISH
LAW
REPORTS.
II. DISPUTES ABOUT CHURCH PROPERTY.1 BY A. WOOD REXTON. AT the time of the Reformation, the Es tablished Church of Scotland cut itself adrift from the Catholic Church. The Epis copate was sacrificed, and, in accordance with the maxim ubi episcopus ccclesia, a purely Protestant body took the place of the an cient Catholic Church of Scotland, which still survives north of the Tweed in the socalled "Scotch Episcopal Church." A fissiparous tendency soon displayed itself in the Scotch establishment. In 1737 four minis ters, one of whom was a Mr. Wilson of Perth, seceded and were consequently (in 1740) de prived of their livings. Mr. Wilson's con gregation adhered to him, and purchased a piece of ground on which they built a chapel where he might exercise his ministry. The money was raised by voluntary contribu tions, recommended at a general meeting of the whole congregation. Most of these were in very small sums, the highest not exceed ing ¿2i; many were raised by personal labor or sacrifice on the part of members of the church, e. g. by the use of their carts and horses for so many days, weeks and months; and the minister's "stipend" was paid, repairs made, and debts paid off by contributions at the church door. The point on which the secession arose was not a serious one, and the seceders retained the plan of ecclesiastical government that prevailed in the establish ment, and regulated their internal economy accordingly. The ground acquired for Mr. Wilson's chapel was conveyed to trustees for and in behalf of the subscribers to the build ing of the meeting-house. Ere long a dis pute arose in the sect about the lawfulness of a clause in an oath imposed on persons iCraigdaffiez/. Aikinon, 1813. i Dow P. C. I.: Eng. Rep. 3 H. L. 601; 2 Bligh 529; Eng. Rep. 4 H. L. 435.
elected into the magistracy in some of the royal boroughs. There was a farther seces sion. A minority of the ministers, homing the oath to be unlawful, separated them selves from their co-religionists and formed a distinct sect—"the Anti-Burghers." Mr. Brown, who had by this time succeeded Mr. Wilson as minister of the Perth congrega tion, and a majority in point of numbers (as was alleged) joined the new sect, and gave up the chapel to the rest, containing a major ity of the original money contributors, who adhered to the old Burgher sect and prin ciples. These events occurred in 1745. hi 1795 a further dispute arose. At this time Mr. Jarvie was minister of the Perth con gregation, Mr. Aikman being his colleague and successor. The main point at issue was the power of the magistrate to suppress heresy. Mr. Jarvie and a majority of the money contributors took one view, which happened to be the traditional one. Mr. Aikman and a majority of the congregation took the other. Under these circumstances the ques tion was sharply raised to which of the parties the chapel belonged. Mr. Aikman and his friends claimed it on the ground that they represented the majority of the congre gation, and that their view was accepted in deference to their ecclesiastical judicatorv— the Associate Synod. Mr. Jarvie and his ad herents, on the other hand, rested their claims to the property on the grounds that they adhered to the original faith of their sect and represented a majority of the original contributors in money toward the erection of Mr. Wilson's chapel. There was naturally an appeal to Caesar. The Lord Ordinary of the Court of Sessions decided
