Church, Glasgow--his first and only charge. This was in the year 1822 when William was only in his twenty-third year. At the time he entered upon the charge of John Street Church, the congregation was in anything but a flourishing condition. Rent by dissentions from without and from within, it was in a lamentably disorganised state, and presented a decidedly uninviting sphere for the maiden efforts of a young and inexperienced minister. But William Anderson was neither disheartened nor dismayed. He approached the work of reconstructing and assimilating his congregation in a spirit of love and charity, which, mingled with tact and firmness, succeeded in subduing the anarchy and mismanagement that had previously prevailed. His victory over the turbulent spirits under his charge was as signal and complete as that he had achieved over the Presbytery, which in March, 1822, consented to his ordination, after having threatened to ostracise him on the ground that he would persist, under all circumstances, in reading his discourses. But that which George Gilfillan has happily described as the "tender mercies of a Scotch Presbytery," did not induce him to turn aside from his purpose, or to make an abject and inglorious submission. From his first start in life, Dr. Anderson showed that he not only held opinions of his own, but unless there was some cogent reason to the contrary, he clung to them tenaciously. So it was with the _casus belli_ of manuscripts in the pulpit. Failing to understand that the use of "the paper" could interfere in the remotest degree with the due and proper effect of the pulpit, and knowing that he could not do either himself or his congregation adequate justice by extempore preaching, Dr. Anderson continued to adhere to written sermons, until the Presbytery at last gave way, leaving him master of the situation. The feud between Dr. Anderson and his Presbytery has been described by himself as "the eleven months of anguish to which I was subjected by the prosecution--I do not say persecution--of the Presbytery for my using my manuscript in the pulpit, and for certain alleged errors and improprieties in my preaching, such as--that in two of my sermons I had quoted Shakespeare." This contretemps proves that the Presbyterian Church was as strongly opposed to the use of manuscripts in the pulpit half a century ago as it is now--or was until lately--to the introduction of organs as accessories of public worship. Fortunately, we have fallen on more tolerant and tolerable times.