Fund originated. It had long been felt that some such scheme was necessary. When the husband and the father died, the widow and children were turned out of the manse, and too frequently consigned to indigence. So early as 1718 the Assembly had recommended that each minister should dedicate the tenth of his stipend for one year for the relief of the widows and orphans of his deceased brethren, and the injunction was repeated in 1728, and again in 1735; but not being imperative it never became operative. At this period it was customary to make a collection every year at the meeting of the Assembly for the relicts and children of ministers left in poverty.1

To Dr Alexander Webster, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, the Church is chiefly indebted for having originated and brought to maturity the Widows' Fund. All his contemporaries describe Dr Webster as a remarkable man,possessed of a native dignity of manner, readiness of wit, and fluency of speech. When minister of Culross, he was solicited by a friend to bespeak for him the affections of a lady of fortune residing in the parish. Webster pleaded the cause of his employer with such hearty eloquence, that the lady naively remarked, that he had succeeded better had he spoken for himself. He did speak for himself, and the lady became his wife. After he was removed to Edinburgh he soon acquired great popularity as a preacher, and his preaching was of what is called the most purely evangelical kind. When the thousands were gathered at Cambuslang, Webster was there. But neither the high pitch of his evangelicism, nor the solemn scenes he had witnessed on the "Conversion Brae," could restrain his love for conviviality. In too many jolly companies the minister of the Tolbooth Church was the jolliest of all. No one in the city could joke with him; no one could drink with him; when all others were drunk, Dr Webster was still perfectly sober. What is strangest of all, this delight in boon companionship never lessened in the slightest degree the high estimation in which he was held.

But Dr Webster was much more than a mere toper and jester ; he was a benevolent man. He was a profound statisti

1 Morren's Annals of the Assembly, vol. i. p. 28. Sometimes ministers' widows were left so poor that they were assisted out of the funds of the kirk-session. The following entry occurs in the accounts of the kirksession of Crieff :-"1709, Oct. 9. Mrs Strachan, the minister of Weem s relict, 12s."

cian at a time when statistics were very little known. Soon after his settlement in Edinburgh he began to collect information, and to make calculations as to the rates that would require to be imposed upon every minister of the Church to furnish small annuities to their widows. Such computation », easy now, could not be accomplished then without much ingenuity and labour. But Webster set himself to the work, and did it. In these labours he was greatly assisted by Dr Robert Wallace, one of the ministers of St Gile's, an able mathematician, and distinguished as a political economist by his ingenious "Dissertation on the Numbers of Mankind,” a book which contains the germ of some of the principles afterwards developed by Malthus in his "Essay on Population." 1

When the scheme was first laid before the Assembly, it was proposed that every stipend should be assessed in an equal sum, not exceeding £4 yearly, and that out of the fund thus collected every minister's widow remaining unmarried should receive an annuity of £20. This plan, however, was afterwards considerably modified; it was made to apply to the children as well as the widows of deceased clergymen, and an option of different rates was allowed, with corresponding annuities. In 1743 the Assembly approved of the scheme, and resolved to apply for an act of parliament to make it obligatory. The act was obtained, and in March 1744 it came into force. It has, however, been subsequently twice altered by authority of parliament.

Up to 1742 Sir Robert Walpole had maintained his place at the head of the government. His term of power, unexampled for duration, was owing both to his great dexterity in managing men, and to a system of corruption so wide spread that we now find it hard to believe that such things could have been done so recently in our country. But he was at length obliged to yield to the clamours of the Opposition and the strong tide of public opinion. He found retirement in the House of Peers under the title of Earl of Orford. Under the new ministry, the Marquis of Tweeddale had the chief direction of Scotch affairs. Dr Wallace was the man he generally consulted upon matters connected with the Church. We have already spoken of him in connection with the Widows' Fund. He was a distinguished political economist, an elegant preacher, an

1 An interesting picture of Dr Webster is given in Dr Carlyle's Autobiography, pp. 238-43.

2 Morren's Annals, vol. i. p. 38.

accomplished man; and in his old age found relief from severer studies, and at the same time showed the versatility of his talents, by writing notes on Giovanni Galinni's "Treatise on the Art of Dancing "--an odd employment for an aged. doctor of divinity. But every art, and this among others, is based upon a science. Be this as it may, the Doctor was universally respected, and the Crown patronages were so managed by him that scarcely a single dispute arose about any settlement in which he was concerned. Up to this time the Crown patronage, in the Church as in the State, had too frequently been used to subserve political purposes; but the royal presentations were now generally given to such ministers as were desired by the holders of land in the parish, provided they were not obnoxious to the people.1

In the Assembly of 1744 there was an act passed against smuggling, as a practice which encouraged cheating and lying.2 It was not the first act of the kind; and there was great need of the Assembly's care, as smugglers were busy all along the coast. But neither the persuasions of the Church nor the terrors of revenue-officers could put an end to a practice which the mass of the people did not yet conceive to be a sin. Moreover, the smugglers were now bringing into the country new articles of luxury. They were landing not merely kegs of brandy, but chests of tea; and the people were beginning to use this new beverage in place of "twopenny" at their morning meal. It is amusing to read some of the documents of the time in which this article, now almost a necessary of life, is spoken of as sure to enervate the human constitution and ruin the State! Resolutions against its use were entered into by many counties and towns. Total abstinence societies were formed. A body of farmers declared it " a consumptive luxury, fit only for those who could afford to be weak, indolent and useless." Even President Forbes, one of the most enlightened and patriotic men of his time, attributes almost all the misfortunes of the day to "the villanous practice,” and mourns over the degeneracy of a people who could give up their wholesome beer for such a vile drug.3

We have already referred to the change which had come over the usual style of preaching in the Church. The preacher began to aim at purity of language, and, if his genius per

1 See Memoir of Dr Wallace by his son.

2 Acts of Assembly, p. 675.

3 Struthers's History, vol. ii. p. 79. Morren's Annals, vol. i. p. 61.

mitted, not unfrequently illustrated his subject by a reference to the principles of mental or moral philosophy. The unending divisions and subdivisions of the preceding century were discarded. The old custom of making every sermon contain a complete body of divinity was laid aside. One subject was fixed upon, and the whole attention was rivetted to it. Sometimes, to the indignation of many, both among ministers and people, the manuscript was taken to the pulpit-a practice which had hitherto been esteemed characteristic of the Episcopal clergy. Such novelties of course created asperities. Men of the old school began to see laxity of principle, unsoundness of faith, Arminianism, Socinianism, Atheism, in these modern sermonizers. Hence they were continually intimating that there was a scent of heresy where no heresy was. They dragged Professor Campbell before the Church Courts, charging him with teaching that self-love lay at the basis of religion; they arraigned Dr Wishart,1 singularly enough, for teaching the very opposite-that self-love was not a religious motive. The Assembly wisely acquitted both. They accused Professor Campbell of denying that a man could discover the being and attributes of God without a revelation; and now, as we shall immediately see, they accused Dr Leechman for asserting it.

Dr Leechman, while minister of Beith, had preached a course of sermons on prayer. About the same period a pamphlet had got into circulation, the drift of which was to

1 This Dr Wishart was Principal of the University of Edinburgh. In 1738 he was prosecuted before the Church Courts for heresy. The main charge against him was, "That he profanely diminished the due weight and influence of arguments taken from the awe of future rewards and punishments. The Assembly fully acquitted him. Dr Erskine says that he " was unjustly accused of heresy for maintaining that true religion is influenced by higher motives than self-love." In 1745 he was raised to the Moderator's chair. He was brother of Dr George Wishart, minister of the Tron Church, and regarded as one of the finest preachers of his day. Of him Henry Mackenzie has left us this interesting_sketch :-" Of George Wishart, the figure is before me at this moment. It is possible some who hear me may remember him. Without the advantage of that circumstance, I can faintly describe his sainted countenance—that physiognomy so truly expressive of Christian meekness, yet in the pulpit often lighted up with the warmest devotional feeling. In the midst of his family society-a numerous and amiable one-it beamed with so much patriarchal affection and benignity, so much of native politeness, graced with those manners which improve its form without weakening its substance, that I think a painter of the apostolic school could have nowhere found a more perfect model." (Life of Home.)

show that prayer was an absurd and unreasonable, or rather an impious and blasphemous, practice-a vain and superstitious attempt to alter the counsels of the Unchangeable. The pamphlet is now forgotten, but the argument is not; it has frequently been revived. In these circumstances Dr Leechman condensed what he had said in the pulpit, retaining chiefly what he considered was an answer to the pamphlet, and published it, hoping that his sermon would act as an antidote to the poison which had been spread among the young. The sermon bore the marks of a devout heart, as well as of a cultivated understanding; it was much read and admired, and in the course of a few months reached a second edition. The author was soon afterwards made Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, and he appears to have been deserving of the honour. He was an accomplished scholar, of a metaphysical turn of mind; and we have the authority of Sir Henry Moncreiff for saying, that "he was a man of primitive and apostolic manners, equally distinguished by his love of literature and his liberal opinions. In appearance he was like an ascetic monk, reduced to a skeleton by fasting and prayer.2

1

But the minister of Beith was not raised to the academic chair with universal approbation. He was said to be too abstruse in his preaching; his sermon on prayer was pronounced a Christless sermon; and it was insinuated that he might affect the aspirants to the ministry with his dry morality.3 These views soon found an exponent. An elder rose up in the Presbytery of Glasgow, said that many had been offended by Dr Leechman's sermon on prayer, and moved that inquiry should be made as to the orthodoxy of its contents. A committee was accordingly appointed to examine the suspicious discourse.

The committee met, drew up some condemnatory remarks upon the discourse, and then allowed the Professor to append his answers. The chief objection taken to the sermon was, that it did not specially state that all our prayers to God must be offered in the name and for the sake of Christ. To this Dr Leechman replied, that his sermon was never intended to be a perfect exposition of every part of prayer; that it was written with a special object; and that therefore he had con1 Life of Erskine, p. 85.

2 Carlyle's Autobiography, p. 68.

3 Robe of Kilsyth, who published an account of Leechman's trial.