in his Institutes on the subject of 'reprobation,' and the absolute decrees,' most men will admit; but no one who reads the writings of these seceders can rise from them without a thorough conviction that the Scottish Dissenters were mighty men of God, and animated by a power which is rarely felt in these days of intellectual refinement and professional etiquette. Like a modern pulpit giant, who was once a blacksmith, and hammered out his burning bars, careless of how the sparks flew or fell, they preached the gospel with tremendous power, and in all their public hammerings of the truth never feared the face of man.

And the moral influence of this teaching and preaching was felt within the pale of the Established Church. The great majority of the Scottish clergy were cold, legal preachers, and belonged to what is called the moderate school, but there were amongst them a few susceptible minds, in whose hearts the power of the gospel was felt, and these, with a few devoted laymen, took a high stand as ministers and evangelists preaching in the open air, and going from town to town in furtherance of the cause of Christianity. Two brothers, Alexander and James Haldane, pious men and wealthy, having resolved to go and preach the gospel to the heathen, were disappointed in working out their scheme, but giving themselves to the evangelization of the masses at home, they were honoured to do a greater work than they might have done had they gone abroad. A revival of religion all over Scotland was the happy result, an earnest and persevering effort to work out Christianity as an aggressive system of truth, and not one, but every denomination of Christians in Scotland were engaged in bringing it about.

Rowland Hill came down from London, and took part in these preaching tours; and the English ministers crossed the Tweed on the same gracious errand.

Dissent in Scotland soon after this exhibited a new phase. The original seceders were Presbyterians, but English Independency, or Congregationalism, got a footing about the close of the last century, and took root in several parts of Scotland. The seceders, or first organized Dissenters, did not look very blandly on this movement; they were great sticklers for ecclesiastical form and clerical authority; and the Independents being, like the Friends, not only free to think, but free to act, set up their lay preachers, and were always ready to ordain those who gave themselves wholly to the work, whenever they found such men evincing talent and exhibiting godliness, although they might be as ignorant of the Confession of Faith as John Bunyan, and could speak only their own native Doric. Yet these Independents were not neglectful of educational training, and from necessity their first preachers were for the most part without a clerical education; but afterwards they instituted a theological academy, and encouraged all the students to study the dead as well as the living languages, turning out from time to time some of the greatest of ministers, and the most learned of men; and in less than thirty years they had eighty churches, and not a few itenerancies in Scotland; the other

Dissenters having increased, under various names, to upwards of two hundred churches, and raised large sums of money for missions both at home and abroad.

The people of Scotland being generally an intelligent people, those who were in the Establishment could not fail to be impressed with the fact that there was in Dissent a power and earnestness which StateChurchism did not exhibit; and not a few were now bold enough to assert and maintain that this difference was mainly owing to the freedom which Dissenters possessed in the choice and election of their ministers.

A succession of forced inductions under the law of patronage, in some of which the clergyman was ordained at the point of the bayonet, gave point and poignancy to the arguments of these reformers; but it was not until the late Dr. Chalmers took the field in opposition to patronage, and in furtherance of a bold scheme for obtaining new endowments to the Church of Scotland, that the grand contest between the Church and Dissent began, which ended in the disruption of 1843. The disruption was the result of causes which the dissentients themselves did not understand. The immediate cause was a legal oppression, real or fancied, but the remote cause was an enlightened public opinion, created, concentrated, and well directed by the Scottish Dissenters, who, with few exceptions, manfully contended for religious freedom in opposition to the claims of the evangelical section of the Established Church. The way for this contest was well cleared by a pamphlet by the Rev. Mr. Ballantyne, of Stonchaven, a small seaport town in the north of Scotland, entitled, A Comparison of Established and Dissenting Churches; and among the first and ablest champions of voluntaryism was the Rev. Mr. Marshall, of Kirkintulloch, who, in 1829, preached a sermon in Glasgow on Ecclesiastical Establishments,' which called forth an able paper, a review of it, in the Edinburgh Christian Instructor,' by the editor, Dr. Thomson, of Edinburgh. This brought out Mr. Marshall a second time, and soon after the whole of Scotland was filled with the controversy; and so warm was the contest, that for a time Churchmen and Dissenters, who were wont to fraternize in the advocacy of many public questions, would scarcely speak to each other, far less appear on the same platform, to promote any cause, however good. The controversy was distinguished by close argument on the side of Dissent, and angry declamation on the side of the Established Church, with constant appeals to the Jewish economy for precedents. The voluntarics were classed with infidels, demagogues, destructionists, and revolutionists; and even the great Dr. Chalmers did not hesitate to speak of them as dangerous subjects to the State. But they were not to be dismayed. They felt that they were contending for great principles, and they were thoroughly in earnest in all their contendings.

6

6

The evangelical party in the Church of Scotland fought this battle at first on the anti-patronage ground, their watchword being, NonIntrusion.' This term they coined from a popular maxim of the Covenanters, Nae (no) man sae (shall) be intruded into a congrega

·

tion contrary to the will of the people.' Dr. Chalmers and others argued, that this was the great question of spiritual independence for which the Covenanters shed their precious blood, and marvelled greatly that evangelical Dissenters should oppose the demands of the Church now, to secure it. But the evangelical Dissenters replied, that while they accepted the maxim as an abstract truth, and acted on it in their own ecclesiastical fellowship, they yet felt, that as the Church of Scotland was a political and public institution, it would be manifestly unjust for the nation to denude itself of the right of control, and at the same time have to pay its independent servants; and, therefore, if the Church wished to be free, she must separate herself from the State. This was quite a modern reading of the Church's ethic of spiritual independence, but it had obviously so much truth and common sense meaning in it, that the more it was discussed in public meetings, and by the press, the more popular it became.

And a new phase of the contest gave a fresh character to the controversy. Realizing the evils of spiritual destitution, Dr. Chalmers and his coadjutors set themselves to promote the cause of Church extension. They collected statistics of Church accommodation, and made out what appeared to be a case of appalling deficiency in the means of spiritual instruction. But on examination by the leading Dissenters, it was found that in enumerating the places of worship in the country, and placing them before Parliament, in a petition for new endowments, they omitted the Dissenting chapels, and when the defect was pointed out, the advocates of endowments only replied, that as the law of the land did not recognise Dissenters, they could not legally include the Dissenting churches. They annihilated the churches, but they did not annihilate the Dissenters themselves. The statistics, too, were shown to be in other respects at fault; and Government appointed a commission of inquiry, but the result, while it showed that the amount of spiritual destitution had been exaggerated, yet brought out facts that showed the need of increased machinery for Christian instruction, and then the battle for endowments was again begun. The Scottish Dissenters organized a religious freedom association, and had an admirable board of management at Edinburgh, its minutes, addresses, and protests, being perfect models of statistical, logical, and forensic compositions; while its lecturers were sent to every town where the Church party held public meetings, there to hold similar meetings on the other side, at which the speeches of the former were canvassed and exposed. The practical result of this was, that Government refused to grant the endowments prayed for, and the Church extensionists were thrown on the voluntary principle to raise funds to build and endow the churches they desiderated. In this they succeeded well. Large sums were subscribed. Many new churches were built; and the Dissenters now felt that they had achieved a victory which entitled them to a little repose.

Meanwhile the elements of disruption were working mightily within the Church of Scotland herself. In 1834 the General Assembly passed an act authorizing members of the Church to say No,' when dissatis

fied with a presentee, without assigning reasons for this dissent. The legal rule made it obligatory in dissentients to assign reasons in writing, or which might be reduced to writing, and give the Church courts power to decide on them. This law of '34 was called the Veto law, and a presentee to the parish of Auchterarder having been vetoed, protested, appealed to the civil courts, and had a judgment in his favour confirmed by the House of Lords. In the face of this judgment, the Church of Scotland still maintained its dogma of spiritual independence, and was heartily supported by the great bulk of the people, who, though but in few cases able logically to discriminate like Dissenters, could yet appreciate the value of popular election, and this impelled them to push their ministers forward until they were so committed that they must either leave the Church and cast their endowments to the winds, or falsify their principles by remaining in connexion with the State.

6

Then came the disruption--an event which constitutes a new era in the story of religious freedom in Scotland. But the real character of this secession has been greatly misunderstood. The popular notion of it is, that the seceding ministers voluntarily and on high conscientious grounds left the Established Church, and, like Abraham, went forth from their churches, and, in many cases, their kindred, not knowing whither they went.' Now this is quite a mistake. They were compelled by the force of circumstances and the power of public opinion to secede. And as regards the endowments, doubtless there was a sacrifice; but with the great majority of the Scottish people with them, and the experience of the Scottish Dissenters before them, it was comparatively an easy matter to throw their endowments to the winds. A contribution of half-a-crown a head per annum would make up for the loss of stipend, while a contribution of ten shillings a head per annum would give them half a million pounds! The average contributions of Dissenters in Scotland was known to be about ten shillings a year for each member. Surely, then, with many well able to give large sums, the new seceders had nothing to fear. And all this was well calculated before a single step was taken towards the disruption. Dr. Chalmers was a master of finance, and when the secession did happen, the ministers were well assured that it would involve no great hardship. Unlike the first Dissenters in Scotland, the Dissent of the Free Church was one of good prospects, and the result has more than realized the most sanguine expectations. Three million pounds have been raised by the Free Church since she was instituted; WHILE ANNUALLY SHE RAISES BY THE VOLUNTARY PRIN

CIPLE FOR ALL HER RELIGIOUS PURPOSES NEARLY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WHICH WAS PAID IN STIPENDS TO THE WHOLE OF THE MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND BEFORE THE DISRUPTION, AND THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS THE FREE CHURCH MINISTERS THEN RECEIVED FROM THE STATE. Moreover, by the repeal of the corn-laws, and the consequent fall in the price of corn, without the prospect of its rising again, the stipends of the ministers of the Establishment, which are monthly paid in kind, or the average

price of corn, which practically amounts to the same thing, has fallen already twenty-five per cent.; while those of the ministers of the Free Church must gain by the low price of bread without any fall in the price of labour.

But the disruption, nevertheless, was a great fact;' and the Free Church, with all her defects, is a noble institution. She is testifying to the efficiency of the voluntary principle as a means of supporting and extending the cause of Christianity; and although she still maintains the principle of an Establishment, the friends of religious freedom will set small store by the theory, so long as she exhibits the practice of an active voluntary church.

And now it will be asked, what are Dissenters doing? Are they still resting themselves on their oars, or again urging forward the cause of religious freedom? As a body, they are in a dull and languid state. Instead of following up their victory, they have for years laid aside their armour. The Church of Scotland has been lengthening her cords and strengthening her stakes, and Dissenters look on with apparent indifference. They are prouder of the laurels they have won, than the vantage ground they have gained. They drove the enemy back, but they did not take possession; and although they compelled a large secession from his ranks, they stand side by side with their new allies, without asking them to fight. And what is worse-this silence is oftentimes interpreted as a sign of cowardice, while their fraternizing is in some cases looked upon as obsequiousness.

But there are signs of action. A new organization has been formed, and the Scottish Dissenters, we firmly believe, will not much longer remain quiet. The master spirits of the last struggle may not now be all able to take the field, but they have yet amongst them a Ritchie, and a Young, and a Wardlaw, as veterans; and the Scottish Antistate-church Association presents an executive which, if well supported, will yet do a great work. By enlightening the Free Church on the one hand, and laying siege to the strongholds of the Establishment on the other, she may accomplish a triumph; and by practical co-operation with her elder sister, the British Anti-state-church Association in London, may prove herself worthy of the Scottish name. Onward, then, ye Scottish Dissenters! You have done much, but much yet remains to be done. The divine command is, 'Go ye up and possess this land.' The Canaanite is still there. Remember Israel's sin. Take warning by Israel's degradation. Your work is only done. when State-Churchism is annihilated, and religious freedom reigns in the intelligence and affection of Scotland.