brilliancy of his abilities, have had a powerful and salutary effect upon the members of the General Assembly. Thus, both indirectly and directly, Dr. Chalmers has been the means of turning the balance of power in that body, until in the year 1834 an evangelical majority was obtained, and the Veto Act, having been brought forward in another shape in 1833 and rejected, was finally passed. By this measure it is made a rule of the kirk, that if the majority of male heads of families being communicants forbid the induction of a presentee (whence the word veto), the Presbytery shall forthwith refuse to "take him upon trials," or to give ecclesiastical force to the presentation.

A con

I shall not attempt to state all the reasons which have been urged for and against this measure. Suffice it to say, that with a few exceptions on one side and the other, it may be generally stated that the evangelical party are in favour of the veto, and their opponents are against it. The rationale of this difference is evident. sistent evangelical Christian, who believes religion to consist in an entire change in the heart and character, operated by the Spirit of God, and who believes that change to have taken place in himself, esteems as brethren all who "have obtained like precious faith with him," and does not regard as a Christian in the true sense, any man, whatever his status in the nominal church, whom he believes to be yet a stranger to regenerating grace. To such a man, the difference between a pious Christian, and a person of a contrary character, is all the difference between light and darkness. But to a man who does not entertain evangelical opinions, every communicant is equally a member of the church of Christ, every clergyman is equally a minister of the gospel. The evangelical member of the General Assembly will therefore sympathise with a congregation, wishing to prevent the intrusion of "a preacher of another gospel, which is not a gospel," while the low churchman (as the anti-evangelical party are termed in Scotland) will, necessarily, have no such feeling.

It now remains to state the practical results of this measure; results which, if confidence can be placed in great principles, must terminate in the subversion of the Scottish establishment.

The first case which arose under the veto law, was the celebrated Auchterarder question. Mr. Robert Young, a licentiate of the church, was presented, by the Earl of Kinnoul, to the parish of Auchterarder. His appointment was vetoed by the communicants, only two persons, it is said, and those under obligations to the patron, signing the call in his favour. The Presbytery refused to induct. The presentee appealed to the higher ecclesiastical tribunals, which confirmed the decision of the Presbytery. He then appealed to the Court of Session, the highest civil court in Scotland, who pronounced a decision in his favour, and found " that Lord Kinnoul had legally, validly, and effectually exercised his rights as patron, and that the Presbytery had acted to the prejudice of the pursuer, illegally, and in violation of their duty, and contrary to the provision of the statutes." The Presbytery referred themselves for direction to the General Assembly, which met in May, 1838. It was there resolved to appeal to the House of Lords; where, after the

most ample arguments, the judgment of the Court of Session was, in May, 1839, affirmed, the Lord Chancellor and Lord Brougham declaring that they never entertained a doubt on the subject. The law of the land has thus declared that there is an obligation upon Presbyteries to induct any presentee whose moral character and orthodoxy are irreproachable, without reference to his accordance with the religious feelings of the people. Mr. Young has it in his power either to apply to the court to compel the Presbytery to induct, or to sue the Presbyteries for damages for the loss of his stipend. It is understood that he is about to pursue the latter

course.

The next case which arose was that of Lethendy, in the Presbytery of Dunkeld (Perthshire). In 1835, Mr. Clark was appointed by the Crown (the patron), on the application of the then incumbent, to be his assistant and successor in that place. Being vetoed by the people, the Crown appointed another clergyman, Mr. Kessen. As soon as Mr. Clark received notice of this second appointment, he applied to the Court of Session for an interdict, forbidding the Presbytery to give effect to the presentation. The injunction was granted, but was disobeyed by the Presbytery; who acting by the advice of the General Assembly of May, 1838, proceeded in defiance of the court to settle and induct Mr. Kessen. For this offence the members of the Presbytery were summoned to the bar of the Court of Session, where they appeared in June last, accompanied by some of the leading clergymen in Edinburgh. They were solemnly reprimanded, and were told that they had violated the laws of their country, that they would in this instance be dealt with leniently, but that if they or any other clergymen should hereafter commit a similar offence, they would be committed to prison. Mr. Kessen is at this moment fulfilling the duties of pastor of Lethendy, with no dependance but on the voluntary offerings of the people who are attached to him; and it is optional at any time with Mr. Clark to move the court to put him in possession of his legal rights.

The most serious case of all has occurred, at least has come to a crisis, within the last fortnight. I allude to the Marnoch case. Marnoch is a parish in Aberdeenshire, in the Presbytery of Strathbogie, containing a population of 3000 persons. A Mr. Edwards was appointed to the living, who is said to be so unpopular, that when the Presbytery met "to moderate on the call," as it is termed, only a single parishioner, out of 3000, could be found to give his voice in his favour. Out of 300 male heads of families, being communicants, 260 protested publicly against the presentation. After the rejection of Mr. Edwards, the patron presented another individual, towards whose settlement certain steps were taken. The Court of Session, on the application of Mr. Edwards, pronounced a decree against the legality of the second appointment. The Presbytery having to choose between disobeying the judges of the land and disobeying the veto law of the church, determined to obey the civil courts, and to disobey the ecclesiastical. The commission of the General Assembly (which is in fact the General Assembly itself, kept alive from May to May under the character of a committee of

the whole house) being specially summoned to Edinburgh, resolved, on the motion of Mr. Candlish, supported by Dr. Chalmers, to punish the clerical majority of the disobedient Presbytery by suspending them from their pastoral charges! A committee was appointed to intimate this judgment to the clergymen, and to make provision for the discharge of their parochial duties by other persons to be substituted in their place. The seven clergymen, aware of the approaching storm, put themselves under the protection of the Civil Court, by whom an "interlocutor" was pronounced on the 20th of December, interdicting the individuals authorised to that effect by the General Assembly, or any persons appointed by them, from preaching in or obtruding into the churches, churchyards, or schoolhouses in the parishes of the complainers, from promulgating the sentence of the General Assembly, or from using the church bells in any of the said parishes. It appears that on Sunday the 22d, the whole of the clergymen in possession refused to surrender their churches, but that the parties deputed by the Assembly made their appearance, and preached and read the sentence of the commission in the open air. As the courts are not sitting at present, it is not as yet known what course will be pursued by the judges in vindication of their authority.

Within the last few days a case has arisen at Daviot, in the presbytery of Inverness, where a presentee anticipating the opposition of a majority of the communicants, obtained an interdict of the civil court, forbidding them to exercise the right which the kirk has bestowed on them, of vetoing the appointment. The Presbytery met to moderate on the call, when the communicants put in a petition, stating that they were under coercion by an extra-ecclesiastical power, and praying the Presbytery to defer proceeding in the settlement until they had liberty to avail themselves of their rights. The Presbytery, by a majority, has acceded to the petition, and postponed further proceedings until after the next meeting of the General Assembly in May, 1840.

These circumstances are sufficiently indicative of an approaching crisis in the collision between the Church and the State. But in the midst of these proceedings there has just appeared one of the most important publications that the country has yet seen on the subject. I allude to Dr. Chalmers's "Remarks on the present Position of the Kirk of Scotland." I shall not attempt to do more than direct your readers' attention to the book, which will well reward a perusal, as it will give them a thorough insight into the actual position of ecclesiastical affairs, and the enthusiastic feeling of the great party now in the ascendant, of which Dr. Chalmers is the leader. Be it remembered that the writer is Dr. Chalmers, who came up to London from Scotland at the request of a large party of advocates of the Establishment in 1838, to deliver Lectures in favour of National Churches. His sentiments on that occasion have been adopted by the Evangelical party in the Church of England as their own. By their approbation of his lectures, and by the subsequent comments of the newspapers and magazines representing their opinions, they have identified themselves with the eminent and honoured lecturer. Hear,

now, his deliberate opinion upon the principles laid down by the most eminent lawyers upon the sister questions of the rejection of presentees, and the rejection of communicants.

"He (the Dean of Faculty, the leader of the Scotch Bar) tells us of the right of church membership, which is neither more nor less than a right of admission to the sacraments; and which right, he gives us to understand, may be prosecuted by any of the citizens at a court of law-so that, if armed with their authority, he could force his way to the communion table, even though by the judgment of the church and of all its consistories, he should thereby profane the ordinance, and bring damage and condemnation upon his own soul. Ere he can forfeit the privilege, there must be a corpus delicti -some specific delinquency, palpable enough for cognizance and condemnation by a bench of secular judges, at whose mandate the prostrate church must receive into her inmost sanctuary men who, in her own judgment, though living without any gross or definable immorality, are yet living without God in the world. In vain would she lift her reclaiming voice, by telling of a morality without godliness of the virtues of society, which may exist in a state of utter disjunction from the virtues of sacredness of the difference between those earthly moralities which accomplish and adorn the citizen of this world, and those saintly graces which alone qualify for the citizenship of heaven. Such things are vastly too shadowy and ethereal for the vision of this world's tribunals-yet at their bidding, by the doctrine of the Dean of Faculty, we must receive not only their ministers into our pulpits, but their communicants into our solemn festivals. If this be state religion, the sooner it is banished from our land the better for the good of the church, and for the moral well-being as well as peace of the commonwealth. If such be indeed the necessary consequences of an ecclesiastical establishment, in the name of all that is sacred, let our establishments perish; but let it never be forgotten that the authors of this their fearful degradation-that they and they alone are responsible for their overthrow." Now I venture to affirm, without fear of contradiction, that the principles of law which Dr. Chalmers thus forcibly states to be contrary to the principles of the gospel, are part and parcel of the politico-ecclesiastical system, both of England and of Scotland. Dr. Chalmers has thus (if this legal opinion be correct) declared, in terms, at least, equalling in strength those which have been employed by any advocate of the voluntary principle, that "THE SOONER STATE RELIGION IS BANISHED FROM OUR LAND THE BETTER," and has expressed a desire that "IN THE NAME OF ALL THAT IS SACRED ESTABLISHMENTS MAY PERISH." And this is the same person who less than two years ago, lectured in favour of Establishments. Who does not honour him for the manliness of his avowal? No one who knew Dr. Chalmers ever doubted, that whatever consequences were involved in a straightforward declaration of opinion, he would ever shrink from making it, whether it told for or against his previously recorded conclusions. But who, after this manifesto, from such an eminent friend of the Kirk of Scotland, will hesitate to investigate the general question of Establishments? Dr. Chalmers elsewhere

66

THE

says (page 110-address to the Bishops and Clergy of England) that if a blow is struck at the spiritual independence of the church, TIME CANNOT BE FAR DISTANT WHEN THE CAUSE OF RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS SHALL BE ABANDONED, AS HAVING A TAINT AND LEPROSY OF EVIL ESSENTIALLY AND INCURABLY ADHERING TO THEM." The Kirk of Scotland will endeavour, early in the approaching Session, to obtain a change in the law of the land, sanctioning the veto. I shall, in another letter, give my reasons for believing such an attempt to be as hopeless as the success of it would be fatal to the liberties of the country. In the meantime I trust that many of your readers will make it a subject of serious prayer, that the approaching crisis in the general question of Establishments may be met by all parties in a right spirit; that we may all be willing to hear what others have to say; and that God may incline the hearts of His people, of all denominations, to try the soundness of their opinions by the only infallible test of truth, His Revealed Word.

I am, Sir, your faithful servant,

Bedwell Park, Jan. 1, 1840.

CULLING EARDLEY SMITH.

FRAGMENTS OF PURITAN HISTORY.

No. II.

THE principles of nonconformity, which had prevailed in the reign of King Edward, were revived and greatly extended in the reign of Queen Elizabeth. The blood-stained cruelties of Mary could not destroy human thought and sacred principle, and the fires of Smithfield enkindled that flame which no power on earth could extinguish. But that which gave the most powerful impulse to better principles was the numerous English exiles scattered among the reformed churches, who, associating with foreign Protestants, were induced to examine, with becoming attention, the grand principles of the Reformation; and they did not forget those principles when, on the accession of Elizabeth, they returned home, but endeavoured, as the times would allow, to obtain a purer reformation of the church.

Among the learned exiles was Dr. Thomas Sampson, who had been ordained by Cranmer and Ridley, and who was Dean of Chichester, and accounted one of the most famous and useful preachers in the reign of Edward. He not only assisted Mr. Fox in obtaining materials for his "Acts and Monuments of the Martyrs," but also united with his fellow-exiles in publishing the Geneva translation of the Bible. While abroad, he formed an acquaintance with Peter Martyr and other continental reformers; and, on Elizabeth's accession, when returning to England, he received information that a bishopric was intended for him. This intelligence involved his mind in some perplexity, and he addressed a letter to Martyr, requesting his opinion, whether it was lawful to swear "that the queen was supreme head of the church under Christ." He considered that