A MAJOR rift has emerged between the Church of Scotland and the Government over the failure to safeguard the Kirk's position in the Bill of Human Rights, set to reach committee stage in Parliament this week.

There was anger at the opening session of the Church's General Assembly at the weekend as the apparent unwillingness of the Government to recognise the Kirk's exclusion from secular law - in matters deemed to be of a spiritual nature within the Bill - was outlined.

The 1000-strong gathering expressed concern that the Government's failure to address the issue could create conflict between Church and State. It called for assurances that the Bill would not affect the Church's sovereignty on spiritual matters.

Leading Church figures attacked the Government's position with a strength rarely seen during the Conservative administration.

The move came only a short time after the Lord High Commissioner, Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld, had urged the assembly in his opening address to ''occasionally make the Government feel uncomfortable''.

The assembly's principal clerk, Dr Finlay Macdonald, claimed the Bill presented ''a significant constitutional issue'' regarding jurisdiction and the rights of the Church to be independent on issues defined as spiritual, as laid down in the Church of Scotland Act 1921.

The Act recognises the Church of Scotland as the national Church and outlines its spiritual independence.

It is on this basis that civil courts have ruled they have no power to become involved in the Church's jurisdiction on such matters.

Dr Macdonald explained: ''While welcoming this Bill to bring in the European Convention of Human Rights, the fact is we had asked the Government to enact the Bill in such a way that they clearly recognise this spiritual jurisdiction of the Church which has been recognised in court cases since 1921.

''We have had numerous meetings with the Secretary of State, the Home Secretary, and the Lord Advocate, where we have made these points.

''We have now received the Government's considered response to these representations in the form of a letter to the Moderator from the Secretary of State, and letters to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Cardinal Hume from the Home Secretary, and the Government makes the point quite clearly that it does not wish the Bill to be a vehicle for undermining the position of the Churches.

''But the Government has declined to make any amendment to the Bill which would specifically meet our concerns and the concerns of the other Churches, and this has been a matter which causes us great disappointment and indeed, concern.''

Dr Macdonald said a clause had been inserted during the Bill's Third Reading which safeguarded its position, but had since been told this would be removed when it would advance to committee stage.

He was supported by former moderator and retired principal clerk, the Very Rev James Weatherhead, who described it as ''a matter of profound constitutional importance for the Church''.

Continuing the argument, he explained: ''It is amazing to me that the Government should have drafted a Bill on human rights in apparently total ignorance of the Church on this matter, and drafted a Bill which could allow civil courts to extend their jurisdiction into an area of the Church's sovereignty.''

He added: ''We are not asking the Government to say anything new; merely to confirm what has been the position.''

He added that such an Act with the potential for conflict between Church and State could only be described as ''a reprehensible piece of legislation''.