vour of the Presbyterians both of England and Scotland. But in the election of the members of the new Parliament, an excessive loyalty mixed up with high Tory principles and zeal for the high Church pretensions of the hierarchy, carried the day. The consequences were; the acts of uniformity; the expulsion of 2000 of the very best men of the church; and the ascendancy of a tyrannical junta both in church and state. The measures of the five men who formed what is wellknown by the name of the Cabal,* from the initial letters of their names, at length disgusted the Commons; and the popish alliances which Charles had formed, and the base acceptance of a pension from the king of France as the reward of professing himself a papist, irritated many enlightened men in both Houses of Parliament. Accordingly, in 1673, the Test act was passed for guarding against the aggressions of Popery and securing the interests of Protestantism. By this act, every one was excluded from offices of trust, who did not make a solemn declaration against transubstantiation, and partake of the holy Sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England. It is easy to see that such an act directly tended to desecrate the holy ordinance of the Supper, by making its participation the test or condition of admission to civil offices; and yet so zealous were the Protestant

* The names of the members were Clifford, Arlington, Buckingham, Ashley Cooper, and Lauderdale. All of them were either Roman Catholics, or infidels and libertines.

members of Parliament in support of what they considered essential to the security of the Protestant interest, that even Alderman Love, one of the city members, did, in name of the Presbyterian party, readily acquiesce in a measure which necessarily excluded Protestant Dissenters, and members of the Church of Scotland residing in England, from all offices of trust, equally with Roman Catholics. This has always been held out by writers of various sentiments as one of the noblest acts of selfdenial; and so it was. But it was the dictate of a narrow short-sighted policy. Alderman Love was one of those pious and moderate men of whom we have not a few in the present day, who refuse to study the plainest political questions, and sacrifice essential rights at the shrine of religious bigotry and the doctrines of passive submission. He excluded himself from all office; but this would have been a small affair, had he not at the same time entailed for a century and a half, on the members of the Church of Scotland, and on the Protestant Dissenters of England, the ban of disqualification from all civil offices under the crown, except at a sacrifice of conscience which pious men will scorn to make. The worthy alderman was promised a second bill, to protect the rights of the Dissenters; and on this promise he relied. It shared the fate of all such promises. The two Houses of Parliament disagreed about its terms. The high Churchmen of both

C

branches opposed all concessions; and in the meantime Parliament was adjourned.*

In the course of last century various attempts were made to get the act repealed, but these attempts were confined exclusively to Protestant Dissenters in England. It was not till the commencement of the present century that the attention of the members of the Church of Scotland was powerfully called to it; and then, the whole weight of the moderate party in the General Assembly was thrown in with that of the Tory party in the state, to crush the rising hopes of the friends of purity in Christian ordinances, and fairness in civil rights. Sir Henry Moncrieff was ably seconded by Dr. Macgill,† Dr. Balfour, and other good men of the west, but all their efforts would have failed, had not the rise of the middling classes to political importance united with the advancing influence of the Dissenters in both parts of the kingdom, to give success to the measure of repeal. Twenty years

* The best account of this matter may be found in Dr. Somerville's History of Charles II. and William III., pp. 23, 24.

It is an interesting fact in national history, that the only opposition made to the act of Uniformity was by the Peers! These noble men were far in advance of the Commons of that day, in whom bigotry and ultra-loyalism seemed to be the predominating principles. Several of the worst acts of that Parliament continue to disgrace the Statute-book to this day.

† An able pamphlet on the subject, published in 1811, was ascribed to the pen of Dr. Macgill; but this was a mistake. It could not have been written by him, because it advocated the Catholic claims, which Dr. M. always opposed; and in fact, it was written by a respectable lay-Dissenter then in Glasgow, of the name of Meliss.

have not yet elapsed since this statute, so discreditable to the Statute-book, and so dishonouring to the Saviour, was swept away.

In proof that the remarks we have made are by no means foreign to the life of Dr. Macgill, even at this early period, we shall insert the following extract of a letter from Professor Young, dated "Glasgow College, May 8, 1791," very soon after Dr. M. was appointed to Eastwood. While the subject of the Test Act is introduced into this letter, there is another subject referred to as at that time engaging public attention. This was the African Slave Trade. In consequence of the numerous petitions which were sent to Parliament from different counties, cities, and towns of Great Britain, in the year 1788, for the abolition of the Slave trade, it was determined by the House of Commons to hear evidence upon that subject. This was accordingly done in 1789, 1790, and 1791. It was on April 2, 1792, that Mr. Wilberforce made his long and splendid speech on the subject, in which he was supported by the talents and eloquence of such men as Fox, Whitbread, and Pitt. The latter, indeed, went so far as to congratulate the House, that "mankind in general were now likely to be delivered from the greatest practical evil that has ever afflicted the human race.' Humanity sighs over these blighted expectations! It is of importance, however, to see how such men as Professor

”来

* Debate on the Slave Trade, 1792, p. 139.

Young felt on such a subject, and it is gratifying to observe, how soon the attention of such benevolent and enlarged minds as that of Dr. Macgill was directed to the subject.

"We are all erect here with the expectation of the issue of Sir Gilbert Elliot's motion on the Scottish Test. Is it not rather delayed too long? Will not the near approach, in time, of the motion, to the Meeting of the General Assembly, give some plausible colour for deferring the business till the tone of the Assembly can be known? Will it not also tempt the enemies of the measure to multiply their intrigues, and diversify their machinery, to work on this Assembly to annul or modify the resolution of the former? Pray, are they succeeding to any degree in those intrigues?

"Among the different views that have been taken of this subject, has it ever been closely considered as a naked question of Law? Suppose, for instance, a hard-headed Scotchman in the predicament of those who are personally interested in the repeal, or explanation, instead of petitioning, should stand out, and say, "I have nothing to do with this law." Has it ever been settled by legal men, what would be the full operation of Law, quoad this hard-headed Scotchman? Could the experiment not be made? Is there no machinery by which such a case could be brought to issue?

"You will have seen by the Newspapers what is the tone of this place, both city and university, with regard to that great question in which nation