were raised and placed in trust for the maintenance of the principles for which the Free Church stood. The property acquired-now, as stated, valued at upwards of two millions. sterling-was, as regards the greater part of it, vested in trustees and applied to the general purposes of the Church; the remainder of it, belonging to individual congregations, was vested in trustees appointed by those congregations, who held it under trust deeds drawn up, generally speaking, upon a model framed by the Free Church in the year following the disruption.

Amid all their heroic sacrifices and magnificent enthusiasm, the founders of the Free Church were blind to one thing. There was much talk in those days of the Eternal Decrees of God, as they affected man's destiny in the world to come. But there is an Eternal Decree whose foundations are as deeply laid as those of intelligence itself. It is that rational beings shall be free to think, to search for new light, and to mould their convictions according to the light that is given them, asking no other leave; and the possibility of that kind of freedom never entered into the minds of Chalmers and his friends. It is one of the smaller but very real ironies of history, that these men, full of earnestness and zeal, should almost unconsciously have forged fetters and laid them with a heavy hand on the vigorous life of the young new Church. The weight of the dead hand has led to the result which has astounded the public to-day. The Free Church went out only to seek liberty from the unjust encroachments of the State control. They believed, and declared again and again, that it was still the duty of the State to legalize and support the true religion. They said: "Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle; we quit a vitiated Establishment, but would rejoice in returning to a pure one." They distinguished their position from that of the voluntary dissenters of whom we spoke, who had left the Church of Scotland in earlier days. "The theory of the Free Church," said Lord Robertson, "was that amid right-hand and left-hand defections she was the true Church of Scotland-the burning bush never consumed." She pledged herself to the Westminster Confession as being the very truth of God.

She proclaimed these things upon the housetops and

in the most solemn and deliberate of her testimonies; and it was in support of these testimonies that funds were raised and placed in trust. What has been the result?

man.

The sixty years that have elapsed since the disruption are the period of greatest change in the whole spiritual outlook of The application of evolutionary science to every departinent of human activity, and the comparative study of religions, have made it impossible for the Free Church, or any other Church, to stand still. Calvinism is dead, save in a few places where thought remains stagnant like the backwaters of a river. The Westminster Confession is a creed outworn. And the views of Chalmers on the connection between Church and State-views that were sincere, even noble, but utterly visionary and impracticable-had to be abandoned. The Free Church began to assume her freedom.

She moved, but moved slowly and reluctantly. With regard to Calvinism, a "Declaratory Act" was passed, in 1892, to the following effect: "That this Church also holds that all who hear the Gospel are warranted and required to believe to the saving of their souls; and that in the case of such as do not believe, but perish in their sins, the issue is due to their own rejection of the Gospel call. That this Church does not teach, and does not regard the Confession as teaching, the foreordination of men to death irrespective of their own sins." Notwithstanding the last sentence, it is evident that the essential point of this declaration is not an interpretation, but a contradiction of the Westminster doctrine of Predestination. It marks the extreme point to which the Free Church was prepared to go. The Confession, thus dubiously qualified, was still regarded as binding on the Church; and by her attitude towards "heretics" -such as the late W. Robertson Smith, the Rev. W. Knight (afterwards Professor at St. Andrews), and others-she showed how she was prepared to suppress and punish broader thought.

In another respect also the Free Church began to move. There is an evil fate that dogs the steps of every successful Church to make of herself a sect, eager for worldly power and advancement, jealous of all such power won by other

bodies, arrogating to herself the preposterous claim that she alone is worthy to be trusted with the worldly influence which she desires. To that temptation the Free Church began to yield. She grew jealous of the privileges of the Established Church (now long purified of the old abuses). So far had she departed from the position of her first founders, that she devoted much of her time and energy to bring about the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland.

We mentioned the existence of other bodies which had left the Church before the great disruption. These had already (1847) amalgamated under the name of the United Presbyterian Church. They were "Voluntaries," and all along had openly renounced all idea of a connection between Church and State. Their position was the same as that to which the Free Church had moved, and at the close of the last century, these two joined forces under the name of the United Free Church. This result was chiefly due to the indefatigable zeal, ambition, and church statesmanship of one man-Dr. Robert Rainy, Principal of the Free Church College in Edinburgh. One motive for this union was to strengthen the hands of the churches which were rivals to the Establishment; another, and we may hope the principal, motive, was to heal useless divisions. For this reason the union was welcomed throughout the Christian world. In consummating this union, the United Church adopted its formula of subscription in the terms of a "Declaratory Act" which had been passed by its smaller constituent branch (the United Presbyterians) in 1879, and which professed only to interpret the Confession of Faith, but which was even more emphatic than the corresponding Free Church Act in repudiating the Calvinistic doctrine, in affirming the "evangelical" view that in the Gospel salvation is freely offered to all who will accept it, and in affirming the possibility of salvation even for those who are without the pale of the ordinary Gospel ordinances. Years of controversy were necessary to secure this modest concession to morality and reason! It is a curious specimen of the logic of the ecclesiastical mind, that this doctrine should be regarded as not inconsistent with the Westminster Confession. In the immediate context of the passage

quoted above, the Confession declares that all men, in virtue of their descent from Adam, inherit an original and essential corruption of nature; from this corruption all actual transgressions proceed; this inherited nature is inherited guilt, meriting "all miseries, spiritual, temporal, and eternal"; from this state, no man is capable of saving himself; a certain number are rescued by divine decree alone.

There was a minority in the Free Church, few in number but very earnest and very stubborn, who would have none of all the changes that we have mentioned. They stood still where their fathers stood, and kept all the old views unchanged -Predestination, Eternal Punishment, the Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures, and in short the whole of the Westminster doctrine in the form and spirit of its framers. Its members are the lineal descendants of the original Covenanters, and its position, held with unquestionable sincerity, is purely reactionary. It is probable that if the leaders of the unionist party had endeavored to come to terms with the minority, and had offered to give into their charge a just proportion of the property that the Free Church had possessed, an arrangement might have been effected. Instead of that, Dr. Rainy and his friends took measures to have the dissentients dispossessed. If it were only in self-defence, they were compelled to take action. They claimed before the law that they alone were the rightful possessors of all the property that the Free Church had taken into the union, for they alone stood by the principles that Chalmers and his friends had held; they claimed that the funds raised after the disruption were raised for the maintenance of those original principles, and that when men subscribe money for a particular object, and leave it behind them for that object, their successors have no right to change the object. The official utterances of the dissentient minority in support of their claim were characterized to a remarkable extent by masterful determination, legal acumen, and calm dignity. They were, however, compelled finally to appeal to the highest court, consisting of those Judges who are members of the House of Lords; and that court justified their claim. There is no firmer principle of British law than this, that money subscribed for one purpose

shall not be diverted to another. The result is, that some twenty-five congregations in the outlying districts of Scotland became the legal possessors of all the funds, lands, colleges, and churches previously belonging to the majority who had gone into the union.

From the practical point of view, the situation was found to be absurd and indeed impossible, and many methods of compromise were discussed, until at the beginning of the present year the Government, as had been expected, intervened with the appointment of a Royal Commission to consider the application of the judgment. This is of vast importance to the persons whose property is concerned; and the attention of the public and the press has been almost exclusively occupied with this aspect of the case. There has also been much criticism of the spirit in which the victors and the vanquished have met the situation. But all this does not touch the principle which is the real cause of the difficulty. The founders of the Free Church tied down their successors to a creed; and because man is rational, no fixed creed can be binding on him; hence the property held on that impossible basis has been lost. It is indeed hard that able and intelligent men should be reduced to penury for trying to escape from the fetters of the past; but those fetters never ought to have been made. The law of the United Kingdom says that money left for one purpose shall not be diverted to another, and in this the law is just; the Free Church claimed her right to grow, and she was not wrong to move towards the Light; but what was radically wrong, and hopelessly vain, was the attempt to bind and fix men's thought concerning the supreme problems of life, duty, and destiny; and this is what the founders of the Free Church tried to do. The decision of the House of Lords, though outwardly it only binds again the fetters of the past, is in reality a powerful blow struck on behalf of progress and enlightenment. An acute observer has thus stated its inward meaning: "The constitution— doctrinal and general-of a Church is an obligation or bond which the Church places permanently upon itself. Unless there is express provision for altering the constitution, or for affording discretionary powers to its administrators, it must