habits were different; and in a free country it was impossible to avert religious animosities. And why charge patronage with the schism? In so far as patronage had anything to do with the matter, the blame lay with those who instilled into the minds of the people the pernicious and unfounded idea that they had a divine right to choose their own ministers, and thus stirred them up to oppose every licentiate who came to them with a presentation. Had not men of the greatest ability and the purest piety been resisted by the contentious spirit of people thus goaded on to violence and tumult? Were not patrons in general much better able to choose suitable ministers for the parish churches than the illiterate peasantry who attended them? If the election lay with the people, would not sound be preferred to sense, and men of an inferior class find an entrance to the Church? Would not contests arise about competing candidates more bitter than those which had occurred under patronage, and destroy the peace of parishes and the respectability of the clergy? But while some might doubt this, did any doubt that patronage was the law of the land? It now formed an integral part of their ecclesiastical constitution, and its repeal was altogether hopeless. All opposition to it was a flying in the face of the law; and the present movement would only encourage the people in their resistance, instead of teaching them that obedience which became them. The Church had the remedy in its own hands-it might be more careful in regard to the men whom it licensed.

Principal Robertson, as might be expected, took a prominent part in the debate. He gave a sketch of the history of patronage in the Church of Scotland, to show its beneficial influence in elevating the character of the clergy. He alleged that the ministers at the Revolution, and for a considerable period after it, were men indeed of virtue and piety, but of mean abilities and little acquaintance with the world. He affirmed that the Act of Queen Anne was no sooner passed than young men of a higher class began to educate themselves for the ministry; that the character of the clergy had gradually improved; and that never had it been higher than it was at that present time.

On the opposite side, it was maintained by the advocates of popular rights, that the schism was a great and growing evil, and, unless checked in time, would eventually ruin the Church. But though they saw and lamented the increase of Secession, they declared that, so far were they from wishing to persecute

the Seceders, they wished to remove the reasons of their separation from the Establishment, and so open a door for their return. In regard to the cause of the schism, there could be no doubt. Patronage, if not the only cause, was the great cause. Had they not seen many examples of whole parishes abandoning the Establishment when a forced settlement took place? Nor was this to be attributed to the men who advocated the rights of the people. They taught no such doctrines as were imputed to them; they made no such seditious harangues as they were charged with. Instead of fomenting discontent, they had often done all in their power to allay it, though they could not surrender the principles which they cherished. It was vain to defend patronage after the experience which the Church had had of its working. Every day was revealing the unhappy consequences of it. Patrons were looking upon their rights simply as a species of property to be turned to the best account; shameful practices were resorted to in order to obtain presentations; simony was scarcely concealed; and the good of the Church was never considered. If the people had been sometimes unreasonable, had not the patrons been unreasonable too? had they not often been worse? What could be more melancholy than a parish upon which a minister had been thrust contrary to the wishes of the people? How small was the prospect of either usefulness or comfort?

But it has been alleged, said the Popular orators, that the uniform enforcing of presentations will ultimately lead to peace and good order. When the people see that resistance is hopeless, they will quietly submit. The truth is, the people of Scotland will never submit. When they are driven to despair they will abandon the Church, to swell the ranks of dissent. The people of England, never accustomed to anything else, willingly receive every new incumbent whom the patron may send them; but it never will be so with the people of Scotland. Their ideas are different, and too deeply rooted to be plucked up. You must make them indifferent about religion before you will make them indifferent about their ministers. It is true, patronage is the law of the land; but are we not entitled, as free subjects, to seek a change of the law? Are we not accustomed every year to instruct our Commission to take every opportunity of seeking a redress of the grievance? But while we do this, we are inconsistent with ourselves. The law, hard in itself, has been made harder still by the decisions

of the Assembly. A construction is put upon it which it was never designed to bear; all liberty of objecting on the part of the people is taken away; and our parishes are handed over to the tender mercies of patrons who care nothing for the spiritual interests of the people.1

When the speakers had exhausted themselves, and the vote was taken, eighty-five were found to be in favour of the overture, and ninety-nine against it. The Moderate party had once more asserted its superiority.2 But the energy with which the debate was maintained shows the alarm which had arisen from the spread of dissent; and the eighty-five champions who did battle for popular election proved that the cause was by no means a lost one. The contest, lost in the Assembly, was continued in the public prints; and an agitation was begun to have the Act of 1732, touching the calling of ministers, revived; for the act of the Moderate party, which drove Ebenezer Erskine from the Church, would have abundantly satisfied the Popular party now.

The section of the Church led by Principal Robertson was subjected to another imputation besides that of binding the yoke of patronage upon the neck of the people. They were accused of sheltering clerical delinquents. Unhappily, about this period, several cases of immorality were brought before the Church Courts; and in some instances the offenders escaped either from some error of form in the process, or from an alleged defect in the evidence. There were other cases of men, formerly deposed, restored upon proof of their penitence and reformation. The opponents of the Principal declared, that by this course of conduct he was lowering the standard of morality in the Church, and bringing the sacred office of the ministry into disrepute. It was ill done, they said, for clergymen to employ their subtlety and sophistry upon terms of law and rules of evidence unknown to ecclesiastical courts, in order to set aside sufficient proof in the eye of every sensible man.3

The friends of the Principal, on the other hand, maintained that the greatest service which he rendered to the Church was 1 Scots Magazine. Morren's Annals, vol. ii. I have here given a condensation of the speeches made in the Assembly on this occasion. also My Own Life and Times, by Dr Somerville, vol. i. p. 80-89.

See

2 While the vote was being taken Dr Jardine sank back upon his bench and expired-a tragic incident, probably partly due to excitement. Somerville's Life and Times.

3 Scots Magazine, vol. xxix. p. 125.

his improvement of its judicial procedure. They remarked, that a court so popular in its constitution as the General Assembly was but ill calculated for the administration of justice. Its members were too numerous to be free from passion and to feel responsibility, and too fluctuating to be well acquainted either with the form of process or the law of evidence. How was it to be expected that a court consisting of nearly four hundred members, many of whom sat in it for the first time, could patiently and dispassionately investigate evidence, so as to arrive at a proper conclusion? In such a multitude of undisciplined judges there was a constant tendency to set aside all forms together, and to give judgment from their own convictions, apart altogether from the evidence led. Principal Robertson vigorously opposed himself to such loose practices. He wished to see justice dispensed in the General Assembly with the same gravity and attention to rule as in the Court of Session. He insisted upon a scrupulous observance of every form, and would rather allow a delinquent to escape than have him convicted upon evidence which might satisfy some minds, but which did not amount to legal proof. The principles he unfolded gradually gained ground; and the series of righteous decisions which, during a long course of years, he dictated, formed a directory for the future guidance of the Church.1

But

When the Seceders abandoned the Church, they carefully kept themselves aloof from it, as from a thing that would defile them if but touched. They regarded the Church of Scotland as the zealous Protestant regards the Church of Rome. not so with the members of the Relief Presbytery. Their old ecclesiastical sympathies did not die when they retired from the Establishment. They never brought a railing accusation against their mother-Church. They did not regard themselves as organising a hostile community-as setting up altar against altar-but rather as opening a sanctuary to which those oppressed by patronage might flee. They wished to occupy the same position in regard to the Church of Scotland which the Wesleyans did for a time in regard to the Church of England. From the very first they cherished catholic ideas of Christian communion. They desired rather than avoided ministerial fellowship with their brethren in the Church. The position which they thus occupied, and the ideas they

1 Hill's Sketch of Robertson's ecclesiastical policy in Stewart's Life of Robertson.

cherished, led several probationers and ministers in the Established Church to join them, believing that by joining the Relief they scarcely deserted the Establishment.

This was seen in the case of Simson. An unacceptable minister had been settled at Bothwell; and the people, unable to reconcile themselves to his ministry, gave a call to Simson, a licentiate of the Presbytery of Paisley. Simson accepted the call; asked from his presbytery an extract of his licence and a certificate of his character, as if he had done no wrong; received ordination from Gillespie and the Presbytery of Relief: and entered upon the discharge of his pastoral duties. Some of the ministers of the Church at once recognised him as a brother, properly invested with the ministerial character. In the High Church of Paisley he administered the sacrament of Baptism; in the College Church of Glasgow he dispensed the sacrament of the Supper. There were some, however, inclined to censure such divisive courses; and in January 1764 Simson was brought before the Presbytery of Paisley. He readily acknowledged the facts charged against him, but pleaded that the Presbytery of Relief did not teach the principles of separation; that he was only affording a temporary relief to a part of the parish of Bothwell who were anxious to continue in connection with the Establishment; and that he conceived he was doing the Church good service rather than injury. For himself, he added, he greatly desired to continue within the Establishment, and that he did not think he had done anything to prevent it. The presbytery gave no decision; but the Commission of Assembly declared Simson no longer a licentiate of the Church.1

The case of Mr Bain, minister of the High Church of Paisley, made a still greater noise, and exhibited more fully the position which the Relief wished to maintain toward the Establishment. Mr Bain resigned his charge in Paisley, and accepted the pastoral charge of a Relief congregation in Edinburgh. In his letter to the presbytery, containing his resignation, he declared "that this change in his position made no change in his Christian belief; none in his principles of Christian and Ministerial communion; nay, none in his cordial regard to the constitution and interest of the Church of Scotland, which he had solemnly engaged to support more than thirty years ago, and hoped to do so while he lived." The presbytery were at a loss what to do with this letter; 1 Morren's Annals, vol. ii. pp. 292, 293.