tants of a parish, than to have a minister forced on them by a stranger who has no connexion with them, but who has a son to provide for, and seeks for nothing but his family convenience or political aggrandizement.

"3. The system in 1649, in my opinion, would not at all suit the present time. It would satisfy neither the proprietors of land, who are the permanent inhabitants and better educated class of the parish-nor the heads of families; to place the election of the minister in the session. I think it right that elders should have a share, but to give to them in the first instance the whole nomination, would be to give to them more than they ought to receive, and would excite through most parts of the country great dissatisfaction.

"4. Were the heritors of the parish, members of the church of Scotland, in the proper acceptation; and the elders, men who had been for a time tried and respectable persons, I think the act 1690, would be on the whole a salutary enactment. But in my opinion, it would be better and more gratifying to the country to give to heads of families who had seats in the church, were communicants, and had resided four or five years in the parish, and not mere temporary inhabitants, some share also in the nomination. These different bodies I conceive, however, must not be amalgamated in one body, which would give the whole power to the working classes, but should be counted by their orders; and in my opinion, should make

U

their choice through delegates. On these principles, I think, the amendments suggested by the presbytery of Glasgow deserve serious consideration.

"5. I doubt very much the wisdom of leaving the plan entirely to the assemblies of the church. Had this been the commencement of the reformation, such a reference to the church would have been probably the best: But when I think, that though there has been a great change in our clergymen during the last 30 years—yet that the great body have been trained under an adverse system,-I should fear that great delay and many obstructions would follow. The business would be referred to a committee, to report after a long period; perhaps referred to presbyteries to report. In the meantime, the country is kept in a state of suspense and excitement; many speculations afloat, and plans proposed; and at last the whole ends in some improvement probably, but inadequate to public expectation, and greater discontent ensues than was before; nay, what would have been accepted as a boon, is rejected with indignation. But while I am doubtful in this, I must add that this reasoning proceeds on the supposition that parliament was willing to make the necessary change. If they are averse to do any thing, then a reference to the church, by securing something, might perhaps be preferable.

"6. Any acknowledgement of the necessity of a call, so as to check the arbitrary and reckless use of patronage, would be an improvement. But I do

not think the motion of Dr. Chalmers a good remedy for the evil. 1st, It is not the best kind of call. It requires a negative consent of the communicants. If this negative consent be mere silence or acquiescence, it is consistent with the greatest disapprobation. The people are indifferent about the whole matter-despairing of a remedy—or they find their remedy in deserting the church, and going where they meet with more attention. If, on the other hand, this consent is positively refused, and a real veto is offered; then, in my opinion, the power is given to the labouring classes, which is not the way to get the most able, efficient, and pious clergymen ; would displease the more permanent and better educated classes; lower the standard, in a short time, of clerical qualifications; take away all interest in our church among the higher orders; and lead them to leave it, and form chapels for themselves. Such a kind of call is new in our church. In former times the call was signed in three separate columns; elders, heritors, heads of families concurring. The plan which will best support the interests of our church -secure an efficient clergy, acceptable, and respected by all classes of the community-is that which will secure talent and learning and spirituality of mind, united with those popular habits and talents which will enable the minister to address with simplicity, yet deep impression, every class of men; lead him to delight in visiting the dwellings of the poor, while he ably maintains the cause

of the gospel, and meets with the respect due to his office among men of the highest order. The fear which is felt by many excellent men against the rescinding of the law of patronage, is because they have associated with its abolition popular election; which, at least in the manufacturing districts, would be fatal not only to learning and talent, but to all serious religion in the church.

"7. Every person should be admitted to be a communicant who feels his lost condition, his need of a Saviour, and is willing to receive him as he is offered in the gospel; though his mind should be weak, and his attainments small. He is not to be excluded though his station or circumstances have kept him as a babe in Christ. The qualifications which may allow him to be admitted to communion, may not fit him to be a good judge in the selection of a minister. Nor would it be wise to give the power to one class of the community, even if it were generally the best qualified. Each class have their prejudices, and their peculiar taste, which require to be counteracted; and each have also their good predilections, which ought to be infused into the spirit of the electors.

"8. The link between the church and the state, I conceive, is best maintained by giving to property such an influence as would secure to the church the willing and affectionate support of the stable and permanent inhabitants of the country. But if you discard all attention to property, and

give to proprietors no interest in the church; still more, if you disgust them, by introducing an illiterate and low order of men, who accommodate their manners and preaching to a low and vitiated taste, I apprehend the connexion betwixt the church and state would very soon be dissolved, and the heritors of parishes and the wealthier orders of the community, would very soon fall upon plans to disencumber themselves of a body of men whom they regard with distaste, perhaps with contempt.

❝9. I conceive that the great body of the people, and of the middle classes, have been in every period averse to patronage. The upper classes, for these last 80 years, have generally supported patronage; but I think they did so, not because they had any liking to the plan, but because they disliked and dreaded the effects of popular election. They always confounded the abolition of the one, with the establishment of the other. In regard to the clergy, the moderate party have always, so far as my knowledge extends, supported patronage; and from long disputes and party differences, have seemed to act on it, not only as the law, but as the best; though I think they felt in this way very much from their dread of popular election, sharpened by the experience which they often had, of the desertion of their people to popular teachers. I believe also, that the same cause operates on the minds of many excellent men of the popular side of the church, who, from a fear of too great a change, would be satisfied with the improvement of a call.