When at last the month of May 1727 arrived, and the Assembly met, the great case that was in dependence was the subject of every minister's and every elder's talk, as they paced the lobby of St Gile's Church. It was made the subject of the opening sermon; it exerted its influence upon the choice of the Moderator; it was expected to occupy the greater part of the Assembly's time. The principal articles of the libel were that Professor Simson had denied the necessary existence of the Son; that he had said the necessary existence and independence of the Son were things we know not; that he had affirmed these things were philosophical niceties; that he had taught that the Trinity was not numerically one. Before the Court proceeded to consider the relevancy of these articles, the Professor protested that he held no opinions contrary to the Confession of Faith; that if necessary existence and independency on the part of the Son were to be held relevant, they must be inserted in the Standards of the Church; that he had gathered his notions of the Trinity principally from the writings of Dr Owen; that he was afraid some of his brethren were tending towards Sabellianism, making the Three Persons but modes or relations, which was more to be dreaded than Arianism; that when he delivered the discourse referred to in the libel, he was very unwell, under opiates prescribed by his physicians; and that if he used such expressions as were attributed to him, he now retracted them. He concluded by saying that he was now sixty years of age, and had not long to live, and that in all his teaching he had had nothing in view but the glory of God.1

This touching appeal did not soften the hearts of the champions of orthodoxy. There were fierce debates regarding the relevancy of the different articles of the libel and regarding their proof. It was at length held as proven that he had denied the necessary existence of the Son, and the numerical oneness, in substance, of the Trinity. At this stage in the procedure the heretical Professor appeared at the bar, and read a paper containing his sentiments upon the articles found proven against him, in which he expressed himself in such an orthodox manner that people remarked he was like Charles I.—he made many concessions, but they always came too late.

So much time had now been spent, and so much yet remained to be done, that it became evident the trial could not

We have here given the substance of two separate addresses given by Simson before the Assembly.

be brought to a conclusion before the rising of the Assembly. It was therefore resolved to remit the matter to the presbytery and committee to proceed still further in the case, and ripen it for the decision of the next Assembly; and in the meantime to suspend Professor Simson from his functions, in consequence of what had already been proved. So the matter ended for a season; but the whole Church had been intensely excited, and awaited the final issue with breathless suspense.

The presbytery, assisted by the Assembly's committee, again set to work. They considered the articles in the libel which the Assembly had not been able to overtake, and pronounced them, with one or two exceptions, to be relevant and proven. They did more-they broke new ground. They commenced a fresh libel, charging the speculative Professor with violating the Act of 1717, and using expressions capable of an Arminian signification. They summoned fifteen witnesses to prove it. With two libels hanging over his head, how could the unhappy man hope to escape?

Again the month of May came round, and A.D. 1728. again the Assembly met. The excitement was now, if possible, greater than before, for it was known a decision must be given. George II. was now upon the throne, and the Earl of Loudon appeared as his representative. The sermon preached at the opening of the Assembly, and the sermons preached upon the Sunday before the Lord High Commissioner, were full of the great subject which occupied everybody's thoughts. When the case was taken up, there was a protest lodged on behalf of the University of Glasgow, to the effect that no determination of the Assembly should affect their rights to judge their own members. After some discussion, the protest was received, but the Assembly, nevertheless, resolved to proceed with its work. Professor Simson now appeared at the bar, and gave in a paper, in which he strongly declared his adherence to the Westminster Confession, and his belief in the necessary existence of the Son, and declared that he knew not language in which he could assert the doctrine more plainly than he did; but that, if any member of the House would state his scruples, he would remove them.

As the trial proceeded, the too speculative Professor was allowed to make an exculpatory defence in regard to his alleged denial of the Three Persons being numerically One in substance. This done, the discussion broke out again and waxed warmer than ever. The finest metaphysical distinctions

used by Aristotle and the Schoolmen were employed on both sides. There were discourses upon the terms homoousian, hypostasis, substance, essence. It was urged on the one hand, both at the bar and in the House, that Professor Simson had denied numerical oneness only in Aristotle's sense of the phrase; that Dr Stillingfleet had used similar language; that the Socinians, whose doctrines were to be avoided, insisted greatly upon numerical oneness; that there was a controversy in the days of Athanasius about the "one hypostasis" and the "three hypostases," and yet that both parties were regarded by Athanasius himself as orthodox; and finally, that Simson used every term that was used by the Confession of Faith. It was maintained, on the other side, that Simson's fault lay in applying Aristotle's sense of numerical to the Deity, and in applying his definition of person to personal unity; that his deviation from sound doctrine was to be inferred from the distinction which he made between the Divine substance and the Divine essence; and, in fine, it was asked, in the words of Cromwell at the trial of Archbishop Laud, "If the archbishop thinks as we do, why does he not speak as we do?" The Assembly finally agreed that there was no exculpation in what had been pleaded, but some ground for alleviation, the consideration of which they reserved till they should come to their

censure.

This done, the Assembly proceeded to consider Simson's refusal to give distinct answers to the Presbytery's interrogatories; and the whole question of the propriety of putting queries to persons who were suspected of heresy, with censure annexed to refusal, was opened up. Some members argued that the truth should be extracted by any process and at all hazards. Others argued that if a course so inquisitorial was sanctioned, they might themselves be subjected to a process of questioning on account of what they had said in the course of the trial. No one would be safe, when on the merest tittletattle any one might be brought before this inquisition, put to the question, and punished if he refused to reply.

Lord Grange, one of the Senators of the College of Justice, who took a profound interest in ecclesiastical affairs, and of whom we shall hear more anon, spoke for an hour on the question. He argued that there was nothing in law or liberty against putting queries in cases of suspicion, "unless," said he, "we are to have a new law, as we are like to have a new gospel palmed upon us." The civil magistrate, he said, had

power only over men's bodies and estates, and not over their opinions, so long as these were buried in their breasts; and therefore the process Super Inquirendis was declared to be a grievance in the Claim of Right. But the Church had a law of faith, and a right to inquire into the opinions of all its members; and in vain had the Church any power to inquire, if it had no power to censure the obstinate.

Mr Dundas of Arniston rose to reply to the severely orthodox and inquisitorial Lord of Session, who had a strange history locked up in his own bosom, if it could only have been extracted. He said he would not limit supreme judicatories in extraordinary cases, but he thought it would be very hazardous to give such a power to inferior courts—a power which might lead to a tyranny worse than was exercised by the Inquisition, for even it was restricted by rules. He could not believe that the Church of Scotland was warranted by law to pry into people's breasts upon mere suspicion. If a man had his doubts, as almost every man who reasoned had, it were hard to wring these out of him by interrogatories; and while the Church had a clear right to be satisfied of every man's faith before she received him as a minister, or even as a member, after he was received he ought not to be questioned, unless upon some overt act.

From the way in which the vote was ultimately taken, the Church did not give a direct decision upon the important point which had been raised; but the resolution come to was thought to imply an abandonment of the right to question a man who was suspected of heresy, and punish him if he refused to reply; a wise and righteous resolution, which brought the ecclesiastical into harmony with the civil law of the land.

It still remained for the Assembly to see what heterodoxy could be extracted from the papers given in by the Professor. He had spoken of the matter and modus of the oneness of God; and this he explained by distinguishing between the matter of the Divine perfections, and the modus of the personal relations. But the debate ran principally upon the necessary existence of the First Cause, as used in the Deistical controversy, and how far this was applicable only to the Father "being of none," and how far to the Son, as it was alleged that Simson had made it personal to the Father. Pictet, Damasus, Clarke, Jackson, and Waterland were

1 Wodrow, Correspondence, vol. iii.

brought to bear upon the subject. Mr Goldie, afterwards well known as one of the leading men of the Church, stood forth as the champion of the accused, and adduced passages from Athanasius and Eusebius, from Potavius and Sandius, from Bishop Bull and Bishop Pearson, in which self-existence was taken for the personal property of the Father. The term at best, he urged, was ambiguous, and therefore it were hard to make its use a subject of censure. Mr Hamilton of Glasgow, and Principal Haddow of St Andrews, on the other hand, maintained that words used at first in a good sense by the Fathers, were subsequently used in a bad sense; that at the Reformation these ambiguities were laid aside, and Christ acknowledged as very God, but that such Arminian writers as Curcelleus, Episcopius, and Vorstius, had reintroduced them, and infected many of the English divines. They argued that in the Deistical controversy necessary existence behoved to be essential necessary existence, for Reason knew nothing of persons, and Revelation was no argument with Deists; whereas Mr Simson had made it personal to the Father.

This lengthened trial was now drawing to a close. The consideration of the proof was finished, and the pleadings began. Mr Simson's counsel pleaded that there were twentyseven witnesses to establish his soundness, and only three to gainsay it. They brought a proof from Reinerus, who was Inquisitor-General, upon the prosecution of heretics, that heretics who had heresy proved against them by the oaths of witnesses might purge themselves by an oath on the Gospels. They cited from history the case of Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had a renunciation offered him, and, refusing it, was condemned; and of Eusebius of Pamphila, who had joined the Arians, but who, upon his recantation, was acquitted. As if in pursuance of this argument, a member of the Assembly was now permitted to ask Mr Simson whether he owned that the Son of God was begotten by nature, in opposition to fate and co-action? and whether he believed Christ had all the Divine perfections, and necessary existence in particular, as a person, as the Son, in the same way as the Father had ? To these questions the Professor gave in his answers in writing. He declared that it was his constant opinion that the Son, as Son and a person, was possessed of all perfections and necessary existence in the same way as the Father was, and that by His generation, which he believed to be by necessity of nature, and not by co-action and fate; and