and as most of the members of their congregations adhered to them, and others followed, they became the foundation of the Secession church in Scotland. The number of congregations and clergymen belonging to the body rapidly increased, and have continued to increase till the present day.*

Mr. Welwood, and the History by Dr. Cook ; and, on the other, the Life of E. Erskine, by Fraser, and Rev. John Brown's (of Haddington) History of the Rise and Progress of the Secession. Mr. Welwood does not advert to one thing, which had much weight in the minds of the Erskines, in inducing them to secede from the church, viz., the low tone of piety, and the lax views of theology, which existed in the establishment.

* On admission to the privilege of a burgess in any of the royal burghs of Scotland, the following oath was required to be taken: "I protest, before God and your lordships, that I profess and allow with my heart, the true religion presently professed within this realm, and authorized by the laws thereof; I shall abide thereat, and defend the same, to my life's end, renouncing the Roman religion called Papistry." Respecting the propriety of this oath, the ministers of the Secession were divided. A separation, in consequence, between the two parties, took place in 1747; the party in favor of taking the oath being called Burghers; the party in opposition, Anti-burghers. The two parties continued separate till 1821, when, the burgess oath being generally dispensed with or abolished, they again united, and assumed the denomination of the "United Associate Synod of the Secession Church." This synod has now (1840) 19 presbyteries in Scotland, 330 ministers, and about the same number of churches. A few additional churches are found in the adjoining districts of England. The professors of divinity are Rev. Messrs. Alexander Duncan, D. D., MidCalder, Rev. Robert Balmer, Berwick, Rev. John Brown, D. D., Edinburgh, and Rev. John Mitchell, D. D., Glasgow. The divinity-hall opens at Edinburgh on the first Tuesday of August. The course of study, etc., is much the same as in the established church. The number of persons belonging to the Secession has been estimated at 300,000. The congregations of Broughton Place and Bristo-street chapels, Edinburgh, consist of no fewer than 1200 members, exclusive of hearers and. children who are not communicants. The united church abjure patronage; their ministers are chosen by the communicants of each congregation. They disallow and denounce all connection of ecclesiastical with civil matters. They are

The secession of a portion of the established church was attended with important consequences. When the patrons of parishes began to exercise their rights more frequently, and with less attention to the wishes of the people, and when the people saw that they had a ready access to ministers of their own selection in the seceding churches, the opposition to presentees became more inveterate and unmanageable, and it was soon very difficult for the church courts to decide between the patrons and the people. Both parties, who now began to divide the church, admitted the constitutional necessity of a call from a parish, to become the foundation of a pastoral relation between a presentee and his parishioners. But the moderate (or high-church) party affirmed the legal call to be limited to landholders and elders, while the other party contended, as the original seceders had done, for the right of parishioners at large, or at least of the heads of families, to be admitted as callers. The former had the support of the government, who, by this time, perpetually interfered in the management of assemblies, and especially on every point which related to the settlement of ministers; while the latter derived their chief strength from popular favor, and from the influence of those who deprecated every measure which they thought calculated to alienate the people from the established church, and to lessen the usefulness and respectability of the parochial ministers.

Dr. Patrick Cumin, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and professor of Church History in the University, became the leader of the moderate party, under the direction of the duke of Argyle. This party did not pretend to attempt the abolition of calls, in the settlement of ministers, and they always professed to require the call of landholders and elders, before they gave effect to a presentation. But under their management, it was seldom difficult to procure such a call as satisfied them, even in cases where the great body of the parishioners were hostile to the settlements. By the strongly exerted influence of the patrons, and

generally more strict in discipline than the established church. When the Burghers and Anti-burghers united, several congregations of the former declined the coalition. These are called "Original Burgher Associate Synod," and comprehend three presbyteries in Scotland, and two in Ireland; in Scotland, they have 9 churches and 12 ministers. They have a professor of divinity for themselves.

with the help of non-resident heritors, they seldom failed to effect their purpose. Many individuals,* who conscientiously believed that the consent of the congregation was essential to the pastoral relation, thought that they were bound in duty to decline to take any active part in the settlement of ministers to whom a general opposition was made by the parishioners. On the other hand, the moderate party, who controlled the assemblies, were pertinacious in maintaining the authority of their sentences; and the ministers who ventured to disobey them were subjected to the severest ecclesiastical censures. The active rulers of the church affected to despise the seceders. But every church-settlement accomplished by the strong arm of authority, in opposition to the great body of the parishioners,

Among these was the Rev. Thomas Gillespie, minister of Carnock. The circumstances of his deposition were these. A call, sustained by the assembly, to the parish of Inver-Reitting, in the presbytery of Dunfermline, depending, in a considerable degree, on non-resident heritors, was violently and generally opposed. The ruling party in the church determined to apply ecclesiastical censures. They ordered the presbytery to hold a meeting, and admit the presentee, and declared that the quorum should be five instead of three, which is the legal quorum. Only three ministers, however, attended. Of six members, who pleaded at the bar of the assembly conscientious scruples, one, Mr. Gillespie, was solemnly deposed. Three others were afterwards suspended, all men of unimpeachable character. Mr. Gillespie was one of the most inoffensive and upright men of his time. When he heard the sentence of deposition from the moderator's chair, he nobly replied: "I thank God, that to me it is given, not only to be lieve in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, but also to suffer for his sake." Mr. G. was the correspondent of President Edwards. See the Works of the latter, Lond. ed. 1839, Vol. I. p. 120, seq. Mr. G. became the founder of the Relief Synod very unwillingly. On his dying bed, he advised his congrega tion to apply to the church to be restored to her communion; which was accordingly done. The synod now contains 11 presbyteries, about 120 churches, and about the same number of ministers. Professor of divinity, James Thomson, D. D., of Paisley. The Relief church differ from the establishment on no other point than the right of patrons to appoint ministers against the inclinations of the people.

opened a new dissenting meeting, and separated a new congregation from the communion of the establishment.

*

Cases had sometimes

From 1752 to 1763, there were not many examples of the settlement of ministers when the opposition was very considerable. From 1765 to 1774, there occurred some cases, which occasioned more obstinate and protracted litigation than are to be found on record since 1688. But, by this time, the duke of Argyle had died, and Dr. Cumin no longer held the same sway as leader of the church. Dr. Robertson, the great historian, succeeded him as leader of the moderate party. At length, the principle was avowed and adhered to, that a presentation to a benefice was in all cases to be made effectual, independently of the merits of the call or concurrence. occurred, previously, in which presentees were set aside. But this can scarcely be shown to have happened during the time of Dr. Robertson's management, merely from defects in the concurrence of the parish. To his sound sense and splendid eloquence, was conjoined the steady influence of every administration of government. The struggle with the people was, however, perpetual. The opposition to presentees was so decided, as in a great measure to engross the business of the assemblies. The parties in the church were more equally balanced than they were afterwards. The popular party were led by men of great ability and eloquence. Among them were Drs. Dick, Macqueen and Erskine, Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Andrew Crosbie, etc. The zeal of the people was at last exhausted, and the great majority of the church became convinced that the system of patronage was firmly established, partly by a long series of decisions in the Supreme Court. In a few years after Dr. Robertson retired, the people began to leave the church courts to execute their sentences without opposition, and set themselves to rear seceding meeting-houses, which frequently drew away a large proportion of the inhabitants of the parish.

For many years, during the present century, the Rev. Dr. Andrew Thompson was a leader of the popular party in the

* See the Life of Dr. Robertson, by Dugald Stewart. Dr. Drysdale, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and afterwards the principal clerk of the General Assembly, was the coadjutor of Dr. Robertson in the management of the party. He was a man of talents and of indefatigable industry. See Welwood, p. 79,

church of Scotland. In defending the rights of the people, in opposition to a rigorous enforcement of the law of patronage, he, for many years, displayed, says Dr. McCrie, his unrivalled talents as a public speaker, sustained by an intrepidity which was unawed by power, and a fortitude which was proof against overwhelming majorities. One of his distinguished opponents was the Rev. Dr. John Inglis, of Edinburgh.

At length, there having been many violent intrusions of clergymen, and the dissatisfaction becoming general, a statute was passed by the General Assembly, which is known by the name of the Veto Act. This was enacted in 1834, through the exertions of J. C. Colquhoun and Alexander Dunlop, Esquires. "If," to use the words of the act, " at the moderating in a call to a vacant pastoral office, the major part of the male heads of families, members of the vacant congregation, and in full communion with the church, should disapprove of the person in whose favor the call is proposed to be moderated in, such disapproval shall be reckoned sufficient ground for the presbytery rejecting such person, and he shall be rejected accordingly." The act further declares, " that no person shall be held to be entitled to disapprove as aforesaid, who shall refuse, if required, solemnly to declare, in presence of the presbytery, that he is actuated by no factious or malicious motive, but solely by a conscientious regard to the spiritual interest of himself or the congregation.

Difficulties, however, soon occurred under the Veto enactment. In the case of a presentee to the parish of Auchterarder, where the principles of the act were applied by the presbytery, the Court of Session, the highest judicial tribunal in Scotland, to which an appeal had been made, declared the Veto Act to be incompetent and illegal, as incompatible with the full exercise of the right of patronage. On the 3d of May, 1839, the House of Lords affirmed the judgment of the Court of Session. On the 22d of the same month, the General Assembly determined, by a majority of 49, to adhere to the Veto Act, notwithstanding the decision of the Lords. On the 12th of June, in obedience to a summons from the Court of Session, the majority of the presbytery of Dunkeld appeared at the bar to answer for a contempt of court, in having inducted a minister at the church at Lethendy, in defiance of their lordships' interdict. On the 14th, the censure of the court was pronounced against them, and they were found liable in the expenses. On the 14th of