The Rev. Mr Hill observed, that the simple ground upon which he gave the overture his support was, that it was agreeable to the spirit and constitution of our ecclesiastical establishment.

Dr Bryce, of Aberdour, said he had been revolving in his mind the application of an allusion that had been made to the olden times. He thought he had hit it at last; and that it referred to none other than the great founder of the reformed churches of Europe, John Calvin; who, at the same time that he most zealously and faithfully performed the duties of the ministerial office, was himself the founder of an academy at Geneva, where he preached on theology to students from all Europe-" Ay, and from Scotland too."-(Laughter.) He would name another distinguished individual, famed for the strict and energetic discharge of his pastoral duties, who had favoured the world with two volumes of

very excellent sermons; and whom it was surely no disparagement to place by the side of Calvin. He meant the good Sir Henry Moncrieff, collector of the widow's fund, and first minister of St Cuthbert's, a parish with a population of 50,000 souls. After these illustrious instances of pluralism, he should only add, that whatever they did in this case, he hoped it would be done with due regard for the memory of departed worth, and for the feelings of the living.

Principal Nicoll would submit to the Assembly the view that he took of the case, as it could be got from books.

66

66

the church, or with its usages at the present period of its history. He might here remark, that there was a slight mistake with respect to the name pluralists." The overtures were against a union of offices. "Union of offices" was a correct term; but pluralists" applied only to the junction of situations, to which was attached the cure of souls. In using the words "genius and spirit of the constitution," he meant to contend that there was nothing in the union of a professorship and a parochial charge, which was at all inconsistent with the immemorial practice of the church. He began with the oldest of the church standards. The first book of discipline, compiled by John Knox, but which had never received the sanction of Parliament, contained not a word on the subject, except what was found in a small paragraph, which said that ministers ought not to become curators, or engage in employments which would withdraw them from their ecclesiastical duties. This exception made in favour of Dr Nicoll's argument. John Knox, who had studied at St Andrews, where there were three professorships united with parochial charges, could not be ignorant of the practice, and, if it had been considered an abuse in those days, Knox, "who never feared the face of man," would not have hesitated to point them out. The mind of that great reformer was not against the practice, nor did he ever give an opinion on the subject. Calvin, (as had been noticed by a reverend doctor,) the founder of Presbyterianism, was himself a professor and a minister. Luther, though hardly an authority

in our church, was a professor at Wittenberg. Melancthon was a professor and a minister. Calvin's successor held a professorship and a church. Dr Nicoll read a passage from the second book of discipline, compiled by the famous Andrew Melville, which, he contended, fortified the practice. They had not only Melville's opinion but his practice also. Melville was, at one period of his life, obliged to leave Scotland; but, at another period of it, he was Principal of the College of Glasgow, to which he gave a new constitution; he being at the same time minister of Govan, a parish three miles distant. The same practice existed in Edinburgh; and in a university founded at Fraserburgh, the minister was required to be the Principal. It was a universal practice then, and he could show that it had continued from the reformation till now. The case of Robert Hamilton was the only exception; and it, instead of making against his general argument, was rather in its favour, because that case, as appeared from the record, was decided expressly on special circumstances. At that time Hamilton had, in addition to his duties as a teacher, to look after the spiritual concerns of two whole parishes, and part of other two. It was also worthy of remark, that Hamilton paid no attention to the sentence of the Assembly, from what cause he could not say; but the fact was, he held these two offices for three years after that judgment, and continued to do so till within a few months of his death. Then came the case of Arbuthnot, who was appointed Principal of King's College, Aberdeen, in June 1669, and on the 25th of July following, was inducted to the parish of Arbuthnot, distant several miles. At all periods of our history, it had been the desire of the leaders of the Reformed Church to draw close the cords of their connexion with the universities. The kirk sent

committees to inquire into their state, and exercised an authority over them, which in these days would be thought little short of absolute tyranny. In that section of the 17th century, which was counted the period of the most perfect Presbyterian party, we find Sa muel Rutherford refusing to be one of the masters of the New College of St Andrews, unless he was joined in the parochial charge with one of the four ministers of St Andrews. Many other individuals of celebrity in the church had held the double office. He would mention Ramsay, Henderson, Boyd, and Smith. In Edinburgh, too, many held the office of professor or principal, conjoined with their parochial charges. As to the 18th century, the whole was still fresh in their recollections. He would only refer to the case of Princi pal Hill in 1789, where the judgment of the Assembly sustaining his appointment was unanimous. Dr Hunter, than whom a more conscientious man never entered the hall of the Assembly-he also held a parochial charge in union with a professorship. Dr Nicoll trusted gentlemen would pause before they severely condemned a practice of 250 years standing-a practice never till lately objected to, except by Mr Burns of Forgan. Is Melville, is Rutherford, are the Wisharts, is Blair, is Robertson, are all the individuals who have held these offices to be stigmatised as pluralists? Is it fitting on us to cast a slur over the memories of such men? To sound the tocsin of alarm, as if the hedge of the vineyard of the Lord had been broken down, that the wild boar might trample that vine which our fathers had planted and protected with their lives?

He was old-fashioned enough to believe that a university was not the worse for containing within its walls two or three clergymen. Would any man say that Dr Hunter did not perform his duty?—for that was the proper way to put the question,—that

he did not do as much duty as a professor as any member of the university, and as much duty as a minister as was performed by any of his brother clergymen? Did not Principal Hill do the same? What would be the conse quences, he would ask, if the object of the overtures were allowed? Where would you get a man of talent and character to accept the office of a prin cipal for L.100 per annum, a divinity professor for L.150, or a professor of church history for L.200? Under the proposed regulation, he was convinced the interests of religion and of literature would suffer. It was, no doubt, a part of the scheme to apply to Government to increase the salaries

of professors; but he thought that was beginning at the wrong end. He would say, get your provision first, and make your disjunction afterwards. The Rev. Doctor made a very feeling allusion to his own cure-his having resigned his parochial charge in St Andrews, because, however this might end, he would not have his children taunted that their father had set an example of ruining the church. The Reverend Doctor concluded by recapitulating the heads of his argument, and by imploring the Assembly not to break the last link of the chain which bound the church and the universities together, and which it had been the uniform policy of their reforming ancestors to draw closer and closer.

Mr Thomson, advocate, Mr Carment, Mr Robertson of Cambuslang, Mr H. Grey, Mr Kirkwood of Holy wood, and Mr Bennie of Stirling, all supported the overtures at considerable length.

The Rev. H. Anderson said this was perhaps the first instance in which a national church had to deliberate whether it would consent to cut up by the roots its ancient and established connexion with the education of the people, and

practically separate itself from those who are intrusted with the education of the influential part of the community. Mr Brown, of Turiff, supported, at some length, the overtures.

Mr James Moncrieff thought the House should adjourn, as many gentlemen had yet to deliver their sentiments. The debate should be resumed to-morrow at one o'clock.

Dr Nicoll proposed a motion, that this Assembly, apprehending no danger from the junction of offices at present allowed by the laws of the church, refuse to sustain the overtures on the table.

Dr Andrew Thomson thought this a question of such importance, that a full opportunity should be given to both parties.

The vote was called upon the question, adjourn or not, when there appeared-for adjournment, 108; against it, 134; majority, 26.

When the vote was announced, the Lord Commissioner retired, and the Assembly resolved into a committee of the whole House.

Dr Begg spoke in favour of the overtures at great length; as did Dr Brown of Langton.

Mr Walter Cook, W. S. never had felt greater satisfaction than when the act of 1817 was passed. He conceived that even now, and with regard to some professorships in universities, they were incompatible with the proper discharge of the parochial duties of their incumbents. But he thought, on the other hand, that nothing was more important to the interests of religión, than that certain chairs in every university should be held by those who are in the daily and constant practice of the duties of religion. Had the overtures been modified in this shape, he for one should have supported them; but as they at present stood, he must vote for the motion of the reverend Principal.

Mr Paul supported the overtures. Sir Patrick Murray supported Dr Nicoll's motion.

Mr James Gibson Craig said, that if the House refused to adjourn just now, he would compel them to adjourn by repeated motions to that effect.

The Rev. W. Liston said, that in consequence of the learned gentleman's threat, he should propose, that if such motion of adjournment were made, the motion of the Rev. Dr Nicoll should be the counter motion.

Principal Nicoll was not aware what principle or usage in this church could warrant the learned gentleman to hold out such a threat.

Mr Gibson Craig said that it was the practice in the House of Com

mons.

Dr Nicoll replied, that he never heard the practice of the House of Commons stated as a rule for guiding the proceedings of the Assembly; and he was sure that there was not a man in this House, who, whatever be his respect for the House of Commons, would allow its usages to be any rule for guiding the deliberations of this

court.

The Solicitor-General and Lord Justice Clerk thought it would be now the most advisable course to adjourn. This was unanimously agreed to; and the House adjourned at half past twelve o'clock.

26.-The Assembly met this day at noon; and resumed the debate on the overtures relative to the union of offices.

Professor Jardine was understood to support the overtures; but he spoke in so low a tone as to be almost inaudible throughout the house.

The Procurator, in opposing the overtures, contended, that before they made a new law, the supporters of the measure should establish a strong case of necessity.

W. Menzies, Esq. advocate, at some length supported the motion of Dr Nicoll.

Dr D. Ritchie was one of those who were against making alterations. As to the importance of the duties of a minister or professor, he felt as much perhaps as those who made more noise about it. According to the reasoning of the supporters of the overtures, there must be a great weight of duty in those parishes where there were ten, twenty, or even fifty thousand inhabitants, if five hundred was the maximum which would occupy the whole and undivided attention of a minister. How did it happen that a parish of fifty thousand did not require as many ministers as the proportion of five hundred was to fifty thousand? That was a question of arithmetic, and required little calculation. They were not here to point out the beau ideal of duty; they were to legislate for men of ordinary average intellectnot for a Galileo, or a Bacon, or a Newton-but for the general rate of clerical duties; that was all they were entitled to ask or to look for. Had professorial duties been neglected? Let them look to their Campbells, their Hills, and their Hunters. Did not all these discharge their duties in a conscientious, an honourable, and a profitable manner? It had been said that few literary works had come from the pens of the clergy; and that falling off arose from the union of offices: where were Campbell and Robertson? Clerical professors had many opportunities, in the course of their prelections, on the spur of the moment, of making allusions and giving hints to their pupils-that he could say from experience, he had found to be most beneficial, while it associated religion with science. He much doubted, however, if that could be expected from secular men; and even suppose a clergyman were to give up his charge and be

Mr Hodgson, and Mr Donald, adcate, supported the overtures. Principal M'Farlan said, that bee entering into a more minute disssion of the subject, he begged to ter his protest against a number of ose overtures which said that the ion of offices was against the constition of the church. In coming to right conclusion on this subject, here could they look but to the states of the church? And did they t find from these statutes, that the actice of the church, from the Rermation and the Revolution, was bstantially the same as it is now? he church statutes have uniformly nctioned and confirmed all such ions of offices. A great deal had been id about a minister of a parish; that s duties required his undivided atntion; and that his mind ought not be distracted, and rendered ineffient and useless by holding any other fice. He was sure that no one who new him would suspect him of having y wish to undervalue the great imrtance and sacredness of these duties; t with the most energetic talents, ow limited was the success of all huan effort? There was no maximum clerical duty; but there was a maxium of human power-a going beond our powers, which will either end mental aberration, or premature Path. Did the objection apply to a

minister more than any other man? If applied to a lawyer holding a professorship, it would amount to this, he must not accept fees, or he would injure both his clients and his pupils. No man should fill the office of a sheriff and practise at the bar; nor no member of the bench should accept what was called a double gown. Mercantile men must not fill those municipal offices they have been accustomed to do. That was all truly ridiculous; but it followed from the principle which is laid down in this motion. Surely he might be permitted to pause before he subscribed to a theory, the arguments in support of which had been merely a ringing of changes. Of the importance of the ministerial office, all were agreed. It was of the utmost consequence that the people should have faithful, pious clergymen for public preaching, for private instruction, and for aiding the devotions of the dying. of the dying. Where was the proof that the whole time of a clergyman was occupied with his parish? The thing was assumed, and held as proved. It had been stated that our church was behind in theological knowledge to a sister church. That was an imputation which the overtures, if approved of, would countenance and support. It was, however, contradicted by the influence they exerted over aspirants for literary knowledge. To cut off the connexion which existed between the clergy and the universities, would be to divide them into rival bodies. There would be nothing to prevent their universities from being filled with lay professors and principals. The evil consequences of disconnecting the clergy from the laity in the universities had been illustrated in other countries. It was surely worth while to guard against the recurrence of such an evil in our own. To adopt these overtures would be to weaken the safeguards of the