accordingly, it was abolished by an act passed under the usurpation. At the restoration it was again recovered, but it was retained only for a few years; the revolution having introduced a new system, which vested the right of election in the heritors, elders, and heads of families in the parish. The 10th of Queen Anne at last restored the rights of patrons, but the exercise of these rights. was found to be so extremely unpopular, that ministers were generally settled, till after the year 1730, in the manner prescribed by the act of King William.

During this long period, an aversion to the law of patronage took deep root in the minds of the people; and the circumstances of the times were such as to render it inexpedient for the church courts to contend with a prejudice so inveterate and universal.

When the presbyterian establishment fell a sacrifice to the policy introduced at the restoration, the ministers who refused to conform to prelacy were ejected from their churches, and underwent a severe persecution. The firmness which they displayed on this occasion exhibits a strength of character which has never been surpassed; but their situation, while deprived of the countenance of law, and left entirely to the guidance of private conscience, was necessarily such, as to inspire independent principles inconsistent with regular subordination and discipline; and, accordingly, at the revolution, when the presbyterian government was reestablished, and many of the ejected ministers restored to their pulpits, they brought along with them into the church a spirit scarcely compatible with the connexion in which it stood with the paramount authority of the state. Their successors, trained in the same sentiments, saw the right of patronage revived in times which they regarded with a jealous eye; and, without allowing themselves to weigh the expediency of that mode of settlement, they considered it as an appendage of episcopacy which it was the duty of every good presbyterian to oppose. While the people, therefore, resisted with violence the first attempt which was made about the year 1730 to exercise this right, the church courts, although they could not entirely disregard the law, con

trived, in many instances, to render it ineffectual; and sanctioned by their authority the prevailing prejudices against it. They admitted it as an incontrovertible principle in presbyterian church government, that a presentee, although perfectly well qualified, and unexceptionable in life and doctrine, was nevertheless inadmissible to his clerical office, till the concurrence of the people who were to be under his ministry had been regularly ascertained. The form of expressing this concurrence was by the subscription of a paper termed a Call; which was considered as a step so indispensable towards constituting the pastoral relation, that the church-courts, when dissatisfied with it as an expression of the general wishes of the parish, sometimes set aside the presentee altogether; and when they did authorize a settlement, proceeded in a manner which sufficiently implied a greater respect for the call than for the presentation.

The circumstances understood to be necessary for constituting an adequate call, were unsusceptible of a precise definition. The unanimous consent of landholders, elders, and heads of families, was seldom to be looked for; nor was even an absolute majority considered as indispensable, if the concurrence afforded a reasonable prospect of an harmonious and useful settlement. This principle of decision was so vague in itself, and so arbitrary in its application, that much was left in the church-courts to the private judgment of individuals, and much to their prejudices and passions; while the people, finding that a noisy and strenuous opposition seldom failed of success, were encouraged to prosecute their object by tumult and violence. Many of the clergy considering it as a matter of conscience not to take any share in the settlement of an obnoxious presentee, refused on such occasions to carry into execution the orders of their superiors; and, such was the temper of the times, that the leading men of the assembly, although they wished to support the law of the land, found themselves obliged to have recourse to expedients; imposing slight censures on the disobedient, and appointing special committees (whom it was found some

times necessary to protect by a military force) to discharge the duties which the others had declined.

Measures of this kind, pursued with little variation for about twenty years, had so relaxed the discipline of the church, that individuals openly claimed it as a right to disobey its sentences, whenever their disobedience was justified, according to the best of their judgment, by a principle of conscience.

Such was the state of the ecclesiastical establishment in Scotland when Dr. Robertson and his friends began to take an active share in its business. Dissatisfied with the system adopted by his predecessors, and convinced that the more free any constitution is, the greater is the danger of violating its fundamental laws, his vigorous and enlightened mind suggested to him the necessity of opposing more decisive measures to these growing disorders, and of maintaining the authority of the church by enforcing the submission of all its members. The two capital articles by which he conceived presbytery to be distinguished from every other ecclesiastical establishment, was the parity of its ministers, and the subordination of its judicatories. "Wherever there is a subordination of courts," as he has himself observed in an authentic document of his ecclesiastical principles, “there is one court that must be supreme; for subordination were in vain, if it did not terminate in some last resort. Such a supreme judicature is the general assembly of the church of Scotland; and therefore, if its decisions could be disputed and disobeyed by inferior courts with impunity, the presbyterian constitution would be entire

overturned. On this supposition, there is no occasion for the church of Scotland to meet in its general assemblies any more; its government is at an end; and it is exposed to the contempt and scorn of the world, as a church without union, order, or discipline; destitute of strength to support its own constitutions, and falling into ruins by the abuse of liberty."

A question which came under the consideration of the assembly in the year 1751, when he spoke for the first time in that supreme court, afforded him an opportunity of unfolding his general principles of ecclesiasti

cal government. The conduct of a clergyman, who had disobeyed a sentence of a former assembly, gave rise to a warm discussion; in the course of which, Dr. Robertson, supported by a few of his friends, contended for the expediency of a severe and exemplary sentence. But this doctrine was then so little understood or relished, that he was left in an inconsiderable minority.

The commission of that assembly, at their meeting, in November, 1751, ordered the presbytery of Dunfermline, which had already been guilty of disobedience, to admit Mr. Richardson as minister of Inverkeithing; intimating to them, at the same time, that in case of their continued contumacy, the commission was to proceed, at their next meeting in March, to a very high censure. The presbytery again disobeyed; and yet the commission, with a preposterous lenity, suffered their conduct to pass with impunity. The inconsistency and inexpediency of this sentence were urged strenuously by Dr. Robertson and his friends, who in their dissent, or protest against it, have left a valuable record of the general principles on which they acted. The paper is still extant, and though evidently a hasty composition, bears, in various passages, the marks of Dr. Robertson's hand.*

*The paper referred to in the text is entitled "Reasons of Dissent from the Judgment and Resolution of the Commission, March 11, 1752, resolving to inflict no Censure on the Presbytery of Dunfermline for their Disobedience in relation to the Settlement of Inverkeithing." It is subscribed by Dr. Robertson, Dr. Blair, Mr. John Home, and a few of their friends. I shall subjoin the two first articles.

"Because we conceive this sentence of the commission to be inconsistent with the nature and first principles of society. When men are considered as individuals, we acknowledge that they have no guide but their own understanding, and no judge but their own conscience. But we hold it for an undeniable principle, that as members of Society, they are bound in many instances to follow the judgment of the society. By joining together in society, we enjoy many advantages, which we could neither purchase nor secure in a disunited state. In consideration of these, we consent that regulations for public order shall be established; not by the private fancy of every individual, but by the judgment of the majority, or of those with whom the society has consented to intrust the legislative power. Their judgment must necessarily be absolute and final, and their decisions received as the voice and instruction of the whole. In a numerous society it seldom happens that all the members think uniformly concerning the wisdom and expedience of any public regulation; but no sooner is that regulation enacted, than private judgment is so far superseded, that even they who disapprove it, are notwithstanding bound to obey it, and to put it in execution if required; unless in a case of such gross iniquity and manifest violation of the original design of the society as justifies resistance to the supreme power, and makes it better to have the society dissolved than to submit to established iniquity. Such extraordinary cases we can easily conceive there may be, as will give any man a just title to seek the dissolution of the society to which he belongs, or at least will

Dr. Robertson argued this 'cause in the general assembly, 1752; and, such was the impression made by the argument contained in the protest, and more fully

fully justify his withdrawing from it. But as long as he continues in it, professes regard for it, and reaps the emoluments of it, if he refuses to obey its laws, he manifestly acts both a disorderly and dishonest part: he lays claim to the privileges of the society while he contemns the authority of it; and by all principles of equity and reason is justly subjected to its censures. They who maintain that such disobedience deserves no censure, maintain, in effect, that there should be no such thing as government and order. They deny those first principles by which men are united in society; and endeavour to establish such maxims, as will justify not only licentiousness in ecclesiastical, but rebellion and disorder in civil government. And therefore, as the reverend commission have by their sentence declared, that disobedience to the supreme judicature of the church neither infers guilt nor deserves censure; as they have surrendered a right essential to the nature and subsistence of every society; as they have (so far as lay in them) betrayed the privileges and deserted the orders of the constitution; we could not have acted a dutiful part to the church, nor a safe one to ourselves, unless we had dissented from this sentence; and craved liberty to represent to this venerable assembly that this deed appears to us to be manifestly beyond the powers of a commission.

2. "Because this sentence of the commission, as it is subversive of society in general, so, in our judgments, it is absolutely inconsistent with the nature and preservation of ecclesiastical society in particular. The characters which we bear, of ministers and elders of this church, render it unnecessary for us to declare, that we join with all protestants in acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ to be the only King and Head of his church. We admit that the church is not merely a voluntary society, but a society founded by the laws of Christ. But to his laws we conceive it to be most agreeable, that order should be preserved in the external administration of the affairs of the church. And we contend, in the words of our confession of faith, That there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and the government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature and christian prudence according to the general rules of the word, which are always to be observed.' It is very evident that unless the church were supported by continual miracles, and a perpetual and extraordinary interposition of Heaven, it can only subsist by those fundamental maxims by which all society subsists. A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand. There can be no union, and by consequence there can be no society, where there is no subordination; and therefore, since miracles are now ceased, we do conceive that no church or ecclesiastical society can exist without obedience required from its members, and enforced by proper sanctions. Accordingly, there never was any regularly constituted church in the christian world, where there was not at the same time some exercise of discipline and authority. It has indeed been asserted, That the censures of the church are never to be inflicted, but upon open transgressors of the laws of Christ himself; and that no man is to be construed as an open transgressor of the laws of Christ for not obeying the commands of any assemby of fallible men, when he declares it was a conscientious regard to the will of Christ that led him to this disobedience,' This is called asserting liberty of conscience, and supporting the rights of private judgment; and upon such reasonings the reverend commission proceeded in coming to that decision of which we now complain. But we think ourselves called on to say, and we say it with concern, that such principles as these appear to us calculated to establish the most extravagant maxims of independency, and to overthrow from the very foundation that happy ecclesiastical constitution which we glory in being members of, and which we are resolved to support. For upon these principles, no church whatever, consisting, as every church on earth must consist, of fallible men, has a right to inflict any censure on any disobedient person. Let such person only think fit boldly to use the name of conscience, and sheltered under its authority, he acquires at once a right of doing whatsoever is good in his own eyes. If anarchy and confusion follow, as no doubt they will, there is, it seems, no remedy. We are sorry to say, that brethren who profess to hold such principles, ought to have acted more consistently with them, and not to have joined themselves to any church till once they had found out an assembly of infallible men, to whose authority they