State interferes.

State control is little more than a name. It is represented in the General Assembly by the High Commissioner, who says nothing and does less. He in no

wise interferes with the action of the Church.

The only deprivation of freedom of which the Church of Scotland had to complain was in the exercise of patronage. By the Union settlement the right of presentation was vested in the people. In 1712, by Act of Parliament, it was transferred to the patrons. This was long endured, though under protest. The democratic spirit which produced the Reform Bill and stirred the stagnant waters of Church matters in England affected the advanced party in the Church of Scotland. In 1830, an act was passed in the General Assembly, on the motion of Dr Chalmers, that no minister be presented to any parish against the will of the people. In the following year another act was passed, claiming the right of veto on the nomination of any patron. Here Church and State were sure to come into collision as soon as there was a case in which the patron chose to resist the exercise of the veto. Four years later this happened. The patron had the victory in the civil courts. Other cases followed. The Church courts refused to submit to the decisions in favour of the patrons. The moderate party wished to submit on the ground that the Church had no authority to act contrary to the law of the land. Their leader, Dr Cook, argued that there could not be two independent legislatures in one country. Society could not exist if the law of the land was not supreme. A Church, even an Established Church, is bound to exercise authority, but every subject of dispute between the spiritual and the civil is not spiritual but civil. The party which contended for 'ecclesiastical independence' appealed, they said, to higher laws than the civil. They sacrificed their position in the Church to obey what they regarded as the law of God rather than the law of man. The result of this action is, that the Church of Scotland is now independent of even the limitation of its liberties which once existed in the exercise of patronage, and such is the irony of events, that the Free Church, led by Dr Chalmers, flourishes on the voluntary principle which he

WITH

CHAPTER VII

PROPHECY

some English theologians prophecy has always been a favourite study. It was a subject of jest for Voltaire that the discoverer of the law of gravitation should have written a commentary on the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the wisdom of Calvin has been commended that he abstained from any interpretation of the visions of St John. The study of prophecy in England received a fresh impulse by the events of the French Revolution. The series of rapid changes in government and society, and the convulsions that affected all European nations, seemed a clear unfolding of the drama of the world's history as seen by Daniel and the seer of Patmos. The interpretations were often ingenious, sometimes amusing, and are now mainly valuable as lessons of warning to future interpreters. Even sober writers found in the prophetic books what neither God nor the prophets intended to be in them, and they were so certain of the train of events which were in progress, that they themselves became prophets, even fixing the dates of the things which were shortly to come to pass.

If the subject were not too serious, it might be amusing to dwell on the vagaries of interpreters of prophecy. The orthodox Protestant generally found the little horn, the man of sin, the Antichrist and the Apocalyptic harlot to be the Church of Rome. Sometimes they represented the persecuting powers, Pagan, Papal and Mohammedan. That the Pope was

State interferes.

State control is little more than a name. It is represented in the General Assembly by the High Commissioner, who says nothing and does less. He in no

wise interferes with the action of the Church.

The only deprivation of freedom of which the Church of Scotland had to complain was in the exercise of patronage. By the Union settlement the right of presentation was vested in the people. In 1712, by Act of Parliament, it was transferred to the patrons. This was long endured, though under protest. The democratic spirit which produced the Reform Bill and stirred the stagnant waters of Church matters in England affected the advanced party in the Church of Scotland. In 1830, an act was passed in the General Assembly, on the motion of Dr Chalmers, that no minister be presented to any parish against the will of the people. In the following year another act was passed, claiming the right of veto on the nomination of any patron. Here Church and State were sure to come into collision as soon as there was a case in which the patron chose to resist the exercise of the veto. Four years later this happened. The patron had the victory in the civil courts. Other cases followed. The Church courts refused to submit to the decisions in favour of the patrons. The moderate party wished to submit on the ground that the Church had no authority to act contrary to the law of the land. Their leader, Dr Cook, argued that there could not be two independent legislatures in one country. Society could not exist if the law of the land was not supreme. A Church, even an Established Church, is bound to exercise authority, but every subject of dispute between the spiritual and the civil is not spiritual but civil. The party which contended for 'ecclesiastical independence' appealed, they said, to higher laws than the civil. They sacrificed their position in the Church to obey what they regarded as the law of God rather than the law of man. The result of this action is, that the Church of Scotland is now independent of even the limitation of its liberties which once existed in the exercise of patronage, and such is the irony of events, that the Free Church, led by Dr Chalmers, flourishes on the voluntary principle which he

CHAPTER VII

PROPHECY

WITH Some English theologians prophecy has always been a favourite study. It was a subject of jest for Voltaire that the discoverer of the law of gravitation should have written a commentary on the Apocalypse. On the other hand, the wisdom of Calvin has been commended that he abstained from any interpretation of the visions of St John. The study of prophecy in England received a fresh impulse by the events of the French Revolution. The series of rapid changes in government and society, and the convulsions that affected all European nations, seemed a clear unfolding of the drama of the world's history as seen by Daniel and the seer of Patmos. The interpretations were often ingenious, sometimes amusing, and are now mainly valuable as lessons of warning to future interpreters. Even sober writers found in the prophetic books what neither God nor the prophets intended to be in them, and they were so certain of the train of events which were in progress, that they themselves became prophets, even fixing the dates of the things which were shortly to come to pass.

If the subject were not too serious, it might be amusing to dwell on the vagaries of interpreters of prophecy. The orthodox Protestant generally found the little horn, the man of sin, the Antichrist and the Apocalyptic harlot to be the Church of Rome. Sometimes they represented the persecuting powers, Pagan, Papal and Mohammedan. That the Pope was

State interferes.

State control is little more than a name. It is represented in the General Assembly by the High Commissioner, who says nothing and does less. He in no wise interferes with the action of the Church.

The only deprivation of freedom of which the Church of Scotland had to complain was in the exercise of patronage. By the Union settlement the right of presentation was vested in the people. In 1712, by Act of Parliament, it was transferred to the patrons. This was long endured, though under protest. The democratic spirit which produced the Reform Bill and stirred the stagnant waters of Church matters in England affected the advanced party in the Church of Scotland. In 1830, an act was passed in the General Assembly, on the motion of Dr Chalmers, that no minister be presented to any parish against the will of the people. In the following year another act was passed, claiming the right of veto on the nomination of any patron. Here Church and State were sure to come into collision as soon as there was a case in which the patron chose to resist the exercise of the veto. Four years later this happened. The patron had the victory in the civil courts. Other cases followed. The Church courts refused to submit to the decisions in favour of the patrons. The moderate party wished to submit on the ground that the Church had no authority to act contrary to the law of the land. Their leader, Dr Cook, argued that there could not be two independent legislatures in one country. Society could not exist if the law of the land was not supreme. A Church, even an Established Church, is bound to exercise authority, but every subject of dispute between the spiritual and the civil is not spiritual but civil. The party which contended for 'ecclesiastical independence' appealed, they said, to higher laws than the civil. They sacrificed their position in the Church to obey what they regarded as the law of God rather than the law of man. The result of this action is, that the Church of Scotland is now independent of even the limitation of its liberties which once existed in the exercise of patronage, and such is the irony of events, that the Free Church, led by Dr Chalmers, flourishes on the voluntary principle which he