165 rough miles, to assist in the services elsewhere."

A general spirit of increased freedom and toleration among the various branches of Presbyterianism in Scotland at the beginning of the nineteenth century issued in a period of greater communication leading towards various negotiations regarding the union and reunion of Presbyterians. The New Light Burghers and the New Licht Anti- Burghers of the First Secession began to move in the direction of union, Auld Licht Burghers were ready to begin considering reunion with the Established Church as the 1820's came to a close. Neverthe­

less, this spirit did not extend across all boundaries. And one of the areas which continued to witness to the divisions within the Reformed Church in Scotland was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. For while there was a general uniformity in the mode and customs of celebrating the sacrament among all Presbyterians, each division

segregated its communion table from the other branches of the Reformed faith. The notable exception was the Relief Church. The leader of this second secession church body was Thomas Gillespie whose motto

IG^Edgar, cit. , p. 109.

was; "I hold communion with all that visibly hold the Head, and with such only."^^^ Thomas Boston, Gillespie's colleague in constituting the Presbytery of Relief in 1761, also advocated freedom of communion. as a corrective to the close and exclusive principles which were

gaining ground in the Secession Church and in the Church of Scotland. He "desired to love all those, of whatsoever denomination they be, that love our Lord Jesus C h r i s t . G i l l e s p i e , Boston, and their like-minded brethren conceived of their presbytery as a complement to rather than an opponent of the established church. Their objective was to offer an alternative or relief, from the system of patronage. Thus, the first principle of the Relief Church was the right of the people to elect their own minister and office-bearers. The second principle which they established was that of free communion. The result was that all professing Christians were invited to the Lord's Tablé in the Relief Churches and that the Relief ministers were free

to invite assisting clergymen from other denominations. This principle was submitted to its first serious test in the summer of 1769. Some .of the elders of the Relief Church of Dunse complained to the

Presbytery that Mr. Monteith, their minister, had gone to assist the celebration of the Lord's Supper at an Independent Church in

Newcastle. Though the Presbytery did not hold a formal trial, it did hear the parties on both sides of the issue and then gave its opinion that Mr. Monteith had done nothing wrong. In noting this case, Gavin Struthers further observed that the decision of the Presbytery rendered a valuable clarification of the Relief principle

^^^Gavin Struthers, The History of the Rise of the Relief Church, p. 123,

of free communion relating to other dissenting churches. The decision "showed that it was not merely with godly ministers in the Establish­ ment, but in other religious denominations also, that they were

prepared to hold fellowship as God gave them o p p o r t u n i t y . H o w ­ ever, inspite of this clarification, the conditions of free communion were debated again in 1772. The Relief Church had bused its policy of free communion upon the conviction that all who were visible saints were worthy to participate in the Lord's Supper. In 1772, a dispute arose over the interpretation of the term "visible saints." On the one side there were those who contended that the term was intended to refer only to visible saints among Presbyterians. On the other side were those who declared that the term applied to all

Christians, not as they belonged to a particular denomination, but as they appeared to be the children of God by their visible conduct. The decision of the Presbytery of Relief was in favour of the latter interpretation, i.e., that the Lord's Table is for all who profess to be Christian by their deportment. In 1773, the previous year's

decision was upheld by the Presbytery, And the following year the principle of free communion was again explained and defended. In its most concise form, Struthers quoted the principle of free communion as

saying: "'as none but believers have a right to the holy supper, in the sight of God: so all believers have this r i g h t . A n o t h e r writer who defended the religious system of the Relief Church was Patrick Hutchison. Writing in 1779, Hutchison made the following statement regarding the Lord's Supper: "It is the Lord's table, . . . For whom then? For the children of God, not as they belong to any

^^^Ibid., p. 233. ^^^Ibid., p. 316.

particular clcaominaUiou oi: professors, but as they are his cliiUlren, in reality, and appear to be so, by their deportment. It is the most daring presumption in any to deny the children's bread to the children of God."^^^ .Thus, throughout its history, the Relief Church stead­ fastly maintained the principle of free communion. Still, through 1843, it was the only branch of Presbyterianism in Scotland to offer free and open communion. Cunningham summarised the contribution of the Relief Church to the history of Presbyterianism in Scotland by emphasising its "large ideas" of Christian communion. ’The Presbytery of Relief revived a truth that was ready to die, when they taught that, notwithstanding the multiplicity of sects, there was but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. The commu­ nion-table, said they, is spread not for the Burgher or the Anti­ burgher, not for the Independent or the Episcopalian, not for the Churchman or the Dissenter, but simply for the Christian.

The innovation in connection with the mode of administering the Lord'8 Supper which caused the most controversy was that of serving the elements to the people in their pews rather than at the traditional communion tables. When or where this change began is not known. For by the time that public attention was alerted to it, the innovation had already taken place in several churches in Western Scotland.

During the last year of Thomas Chalmers' ministry in St. John's Church, Glasgow, the innovation was adopted in that parish. A certain number of middle pews in the lower part of the sanctuary were turned into communion tables. The paslmbook shelves on the back of these pews

170_{Patrick Hutchison, Messiah's Kingdom, p. 73.}

171_{John Cunningham, The Church History of Scotland, vol. II,}

were covered with white cloth. The elements were brought to a communion table which was placed in front of the pulpit and from which, according to custom, Dr. Chalmers presided over the distribu­

tion of the bread and the wine. This plan accommodated a much larger number of persons at a "table service." Therefore, the number of table services with the accompanying ministerial addresses was re­ duced. This arrangement seemed to achieve the goals of more

competently serving the large number of communicants who crowded into St, John’s Church and of abbreviating the great length of the entire communion service. Hanna testified that "this plan was follow­ ed to the great comfort of the worshippers in St. John's, and with a

17 2