tricts their interest, not merely in the organic working of the Church, but in the state of religion within the bounds of their subordinate jurisdiction; and if it were true that this visitation had been productive of some prejudicial effect, I should still feel bound to consider and inquire whether there was any evidence that the unhappy effect had been produced by the wish of the General Assembly to get at that element. When I say that, I have not the slightest wish to deny that this is a matter in which the General Assembly should be very desirous to take great care that, by no means--whether by the natural working of the matter, or by any exceptional circumstances connected with it should any right be interfered with; and I think that if upon a fair and due trial there is not sufficient provision for guarding against evils of this kind, it will be very fitting for the inferior courts to come up by the way of overture to have the matter better regulated; but surely we would require something more than the overture of this single Presbytery to satisfy us that there is a ground to go upon, as we stand in regard to this matter. There is evidence in the act itself of the Assembly's care to guard the interests of the inferior court, for the deputations were specially instructed to confer with the Presbyteries of the bounds, and in concert with them to visit any congregation. That called upon the Presbytery to enter cordially into the matter, and if any Presbytery did not see its way to do that, it might very naturally follow that difficulties would arise; but otherwise the likelihood was, that no difficulty would be found in carrying out the objects of the Assembly. The reference in this case alludes to certain instructions which were given to the deputation. The Assembly appointed a small committee, along with the persons who composed the deputation, to draw up such instructions for their guidance as might seem suitable, and I understand that this is held to be an interference with the constitutional rights of the Presbyteries concerned. Now, it is quite clear that under the act these instructions could only be within the limits of the act itself. They could only be instructions to regulate the deputies in the discretionary sphere of their operations. There is nothing in the act to hinder the Presbytery from disregarding the instructions, and nothing to hinder the Synod from justifying them in doing so, if it turned out that they were instructions going beyond the proper and constitutional discretion of the deputation. That was part of the duty of the Synod. They should have seen if there was anything in the allegation. These are the grounds on which I do not think we cau take any action on the ground of the overture, and why the reference of the Synod ought to be dismissed. If there is anything in the case the Synod should have sifted it, and what they should have done was to take great care that no person, on the mere pretext of questioning the lawfulness of an Act of the General Assembly, was in reality crossing and interfering with the execution of the Act. In conclusion, I have to state that if the Assembly sustains the reference, I do not see how any Act can ever be enforced at all, because it is clear that, on the ground stated, whenever anybody chooses to say he cannot conscientiously hold that Act lawful, instead of the Synod watchfully sifting the allegations, the party might take the same ground next year, and say our decision to-night was not lawful, and the Synod in the same way might come up next year to the Assembly. Mr M'CORKLE, St Ninians, said this case had evidently arisen out of a jealousy on the part of Presbyteries who thought they were over-ridden

by committees. The danger was, lest the duties of Presbyteries in regard to their congregations should be so far neglected or superseded by the appointment of such deputations.

Mr WOOD, Elie, seconded Dr Rainy's motion.

Mr BALFOUR, Holyrood, while thinking that there was not a prima facie case before the Synod for referring this matter to the Assembly, thought the Synod were justified, and had very good grounds for referring the constitutional question. He moved that the overture and the other matters should be taken up.

Dr G. G. BROWN thought Dr Rainy's motion was meant to kill two dogs with one stone. (A laugh.)

Dr RAINY-My motion is simply, dismiss the reference, and nothing is said about the overture. We are surely entitled to say nothing about the overture. That might be wise or not, but we are surely entitled to do it.

Mr BALFOUR moved that the Assembly dismiss the reference, but consider the overture, and any other matters connected with the appointment of Commissioners of the Assembly.

Dr G. G. BROWN seconded the motion.

Mr WOOD, Elie-Settle the question of the reference first before you take up the overture.

Dr Rainy's motion was then put to the House by the Moderator, and declared to be carried.

The MODERATOR-The reference is dismissed, and the overture is now in the hands of the Assembly.

Mr STARK, Greenock, proposed that the overture be taken up when it was proposed to appoint the deputations.

Mr BURNSIDE, Falkland, seconded the motion.

Mr BALFOUR moved that the overture be taken up at present.

Mr CRICHTON (elder) seconded the amendment.

Dr BUCHANAN hoped the Assembly would not take up the overture at the present late hour. The Assembly had sat late the last sederunt, and had to look forward to a late sederunt next day; and he asked Mr Balfour not to do anything unreasonable at that hour.

Mr BALFOUR-I do not wish to do anything unreasonable. I sat to the close of last night's sederunt, and will likely sit to the close of tomorrow's sederunt; but I will withdraw my motion if the House wish it-only, however, if a proper time be arranged for the discussion of the question, so that it should not be shelved.

Dr BUCHANAN-It is quite clear the House cannot just now fix the time for this question, as the report of the order of business was not before the House. But, of course, justice would be done to the case. Mr BALFOUR-Then I withdraw

my motion.

PASTORAL ADDRESS.

Mr WILSON, on behalf of a committee formerly appointed to prepare a pastoral address on prevailing errors, explained that as the address had not been issued, it was thought better to submit it in draft to the General Assembly for its sanction. He therefore asked that the committee should be authorised and instructed to print copies for circulation among members of the House, to be taken into consideration at a future diet. The committee were authorised and instructed accordingly.

THURSDAY, MAY 30.

The Assembly met this morning at ten o'clock. The Hall was crowded

in all parts.

THE UNION QUESTION.

The Assembly called for the Report of the Committee on Union.

There was laid on the table and read an extract minute from the records of the Synod of the United Presbyterian Church, along with a letter from the clerk of said Synod to the clerk of this Assembly.

An extract minute was also read from the records of the Synod of the Reformed Presbyterian Church.

The overtures on the subject of union being printed and in the hands of members, were held as read.

The Report of the Committee on Union being printed and in the hands of the members, was referred to by Dr Robert Buchanan, the Convener, who addressed the Assembly thereanent.

Dr BUCHANAN, who, on rising, was received with loud cheers, said :— The report on union among the Churches, which I have now laid on the table of the Assembly, has been for several days in the hands of the members, and will not, therefore, require any minute or lengthened exposition. Although the subject to which it relates is not now as fresh and new as when we took it up four years ago, it has not, on that account, lost anything of its intrinsic importance. It is only too possible, indeed, that not only may the keen interest with which it was at first regarded have been somewhat lessened by the lapse of time and by the frequency of the discussions which have taken place regarding it, but that feelings even of weariness and impatience may have arisen in many minds, on account of the entanglement and uncertainty in which the whole question has, every now and then, been apparently involved. No one, however, will allow himself to be much or long influenced by considerations like these, who truly and adequately realises the magnitude and the sacredness of the object at which this union movement aims.

That object is not a matter which we may prosecute or let alone just as we please. There are both principles and precepts in the Word of God by which we are imperatively required to keep it always in view. No enlightened Christian can look around him on the broken and divided condition of the Christian Church without being moved sorrowfully to say, "An enemy hath done this!" To rest satisfied with such a state of things, is to assume that it involves no sin-that it does no hurt to God's cause and no dishonour to His holy and blessed name; an assumption which is emphatically contradicted by the whole teaching of Scripture, and by the whole testimony of experience.

Of that ideal of the Church-not only as it is in heaven, but as it ought to be in this world-whieh Scripture sets before us, unity is beyond all question the most characteristic feature. It is a tree, it is a temple, it is a human body. It is a house, it is a city, it is a kingdom. It is described as having one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all. And no sooner had its members begun to fall out with each other, and to gather into separate sects and parties, than an inspired apostle was commissioned, with a voice of

earnest remonstrance and rebuke, to say, "Is Christ divided ?—for whereas there is among you envying and strife and division, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?" To aim, therefore, at union among the Churches, at bringing together branches of the Church which, even in the same land, have been living for generations in separation and estrangement from one another, is a great duty lying upon God's people at all times—a duty in order to the fulfilment of which they are bound to seize every favourable opportunity which God in His providence may afford. I know that in saying this I am giving expression to a truth which no member of this Assembly would, for one moment, call in question. But I also know that it is a truth which, in dealing with the subject before us, is not always sufficiently borne in mind. I do earnestly hope, therefore, that in addressing ourselves once more, in this General Assembly, to the consideration of matters so high and sacred, we shall be enabled to do so in a fitting frame of mind-that we shall not allow our convictions of what ought to be done in this great business to be warped by local prejudice or personal feeling-that we shall endeavour to approach it and to look at it from that point of view in which it is presented by the Word of God.

I need scarcely say that, in using such language, I altogether disclaim the idea of seeking to bring to bear, on the decision of this question, any other influences but those which properly and rightfully belong to it. But, undoubtedly, the position we occupy in entering on this discussion is one of profound responsibility. That responsibility would have been great in any circumstances, but I am sure there is not a member of this Assembly who does not feel that responsibility to have been increased tenfold by the truly admirable tone of the discussions on this union question which have just taken place in the Synods of the Reformed Presbyterian and of the United Presbyterian Church. (Applause.)

In the more limited body of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, the harmony of sentiment and feeling, though not less gratifying, was perhaps less fitted to awaken surprise. But that in a body so large as the United Presbyterian Church, and which at one time seemed to be so widely removed and so unhappily estranged from us, there should have been exhibited such a seeing of eye to eye, and such oneness of heart and soul, on all that is most vital on the question of union between them and us, was truly wonderful, and cannot have failed to make a powerful and solemnising impression on every thoughtful Christian mind. (Applause.) I believe there were few among themselves, and few who were looking on, who have been able to resist the conclusion, that it was the doing of the Lord. All the more does it concern us this day to take heed to ourselves. Not merely upon the conclusions to which the discussion may bring us, but upon the very tone and spirit we give to the discussion itself, consequences of the greatest moment will depend; consequences that can hardly fail to tell powerfully, for good or evil, as the case may be, upon the welfare of all the Churches concerned, and upon the interests of vital religion in this land for generations to come. (Applause.)

Before going further in this opening address, it may be suitable and necessary that I should call the attention of the House to the precise stage which these union negotiations have now reached.

Twelve months ago, the committees of the several Churches had gone

over, both separately and conjointly, the whole of those matters of inquiry which their programme embraces. At that date, however, they had done so only in a preliminary way. Upon most of the matters in question they had, indeed, bestowed a large amount of careful investigation; but, at the same time, with the fully understood and expressly recorded intention of going over all of them again. Before entering, however, on the final revision of the findings at which they had arrived, they deemed it to be highly expedient and desirable that they should have before them any suggestions for their guidance which the Presbyteries of the several Churches might think it useful or needful to offer. The Supreme Courts of the different Churches having proved to be of the same opinion, and having in consequence taken last year the steps requisite for putting the Presbyteries in motion, numerous suggestions have been sent up to all the committees. With these suggestions fully in view, the work of revising the previous findings of the joint-committee has since been proceeded with, and the results, so far as the revision has gone, are given in the present report.

In this revised form the findings, under the first and second heads of

the programme, are now before the Assembly. It is quite unnecessary for me to say how highly important the matters are to which these heads of the programme relate, both in their own nature and in the bearing they have on the question of union. Let me call the special attention of the House to the statements the report makes regarding those two great branches of the inquiry in which the committees have been engaged.

The first head of the programme, to which chiefly I intend to refer, deals, as is well known to the Assembly, with "the extent to which the Churches agree as to the province of the civil magistrate in relation to religion and the Christian Church." This, as every one competently acquainted with it knows, is both a large and a deeply important subject. And surely it cannot fail to be most gratifying to this Assembly to find, that after closely and carefully examining the entire field which that wide subject embraces, the committees have found that they differ in nothing save as to the one single point of setting up and endowing a civil establishment of religion. (Applause.) Let me ask the House to listen while I read the following " Articles of Agreement :"

"I. That civil government is an ordinance of God for His own glory and the public good: that to the Lord Jesus Christ is given all power in heaven and on earth; and that all men in their several places and relations, and therefore civil magistrates in theirs, are under obligation to submit themselves to Christ, and to regulate their conduct by His Word.

"II. That the civil magistrate ought himself to embrace and profess the religion of Christ; and though his office is civil and not spiritual, yet, like other Christians in their places and relations, he ought, acting in his public capacity as a magistrate, to further the interests of the religion of the Lord Jesus Christ among his subjects, in every way consistent with its spirit and enactments-(applause)-and that he ought to be ruled by it in the making of laws, the administration of justice, the swearing of oaths, and other matters of civil jurisdiction.

"III. That while the civil magistrate, in legislating as to matters within his own province, may and ought, for his own guidance, to judge