maintaining and extending it by free-will offerings; that this being the ordinance of Christ, it excludes State aid for these purposes; and that adherence to it is the true safeguard of the Church's independence. Moreover, though uniformity of opinion with respect to civil establishments of religion is not a term of communion in the United Presbyterian Church, yet the views on this subject held, and universally acted on, are opposed to these institutions." So I suppose we may state it in this way, that our United Presbyterian friends are practically agreed in taking it that the civil magistrate is not warranted in following out the general principle of his subjection to Christ to the effect of setting up a civil establishment of religion, even though that should be done on the professed ground of being designed to further the kingdom of Christ. And they think so because they believe it sufficiently indicated that Christ's will is not that the civil magistrate should do that thing; and they also hold that it can be shown that he could not do it without trenching on some other principles which he is bound to have regard to. And they say they cannot be members or ministers of any Church in which the contrary opinion is made a term of communion. think, is in substance the difference between us.

This, I

Now, sir, there are two things which those who take the view opposed to that I take, are called upon to do. In the first place, I think they are bound-the presumption being in favour of union unless we can show a bar-to make it out that the lawfulness of civil establishments must always be held as a term of Christian and ministerial communion, and that it must be held and taught apart from any clear providential call to deal with the question for any practical ends. I repeat it. They are bound to show that the principle must be held and taught in all Churches as a term of Christian and ministerial communion, and that it must be held and taught apart from any clear providential call to deal with the question for any practical ends.

I am not to assume what will be said on that point, but that is my view of the state of the question, and of the practical responsibility which lies upon those who take the other side of the question I am now dealing with. The position I take in the meantime, and which I do not feel it necessary to dwell upon at present, is this-that while I hold the lawfulness of civil establishments in religion, when the Church can be satisfied that they can be set up, to speak it shortly, without doing more harm than good-I hold the whole question is a practical question as to the application of principles, one which arises, properly speaking, subsequent to the Church and Church's Confession. (Applause.) I hold that the Church's proper Confession is the general duty of the civil magistrate as Christ's subject, and that the question how far he is to give effect to it, and especially whether he is to give effect to it in ways that seriously involves the Church's well-being, is properly a question. that arises subsequently, and just when God calls in His providence to deal with it. (Applause.) There is not to me any difficulty as to the question whether the principle that he ought to subject himself to Christ does not fairly cover certain applications of it. I have no doubt about it, but I say it is a question that arises subsequently to the complete Church and the complete Confession, and that arises then and there when God's providence calls upon the Church to settle it for a practical purpose. Now, the other side are bound to reargue that. The fair

position that belongs to the other side is to show a bar in point of principle, and to show the general duty of the Church on the grounds of Scripture and principle.

Another thing they will have to do is this--I think they are fairly bound to show that the Confession of Faith binds us all, and binds us plainly, to hold this practical application as part of our Confession of Faith as a Church. They will not find it so easy to do that. (Applause.) They will find it easy to bring an argument satisfactory to me to show that, admitting the principle of the duty of the magistrate laid down in the Confession of Faith, it is a fair practical result of that to say that an Establishment may be set up. I have no objection to that argument, but I say they will not find it very easy to show that the Confession of Faith binds this Church, as a term of ministerial communion, to the practical application that arises subsequently when God's providence calls the Church practically to settle it. My opinion is, that the Westminster Divines had no doubt at all that it was a fair and legitimate application of the principle; and I believe, also, that they were too wise to put in a fair and legitimate application of the principle, when their business was to settle only what was essential to the principal itself.

Now, Moderator, holding that view, I maintain that there is no reason against our taking up the position alongside of our United Presbyterian brethren, of the Church and its Confession antecedent to that subsequent practical question. I believe that is the line of duty and the position we ought to take up; and I believe that, in taking up that position, we put ourselves in the right relation to the practical question, and put ourselves in the right relation to one very important element of the practical question whenever it shall arise-namely, Whether, on any view of it, it is practically expedient, or for the Church's good, to enter into such a connexion with the State, if the Church itself does not happen to be clear about that practical application, or is, in fact, divided with respect to it.

It is quite possible-though the proper argument is that about principle-that a difficulty may be brought forward which, though not strictly a difficulty in principle, has such a connexion with principle as to operate in men's minds on that side. It may be said that you will find that the practical diversity cannot subsist without mischief-it will interfere with your duty; and here comes in the matter of open questions. I wish to place before the General Assembly what I understand to be our position about that. It is the position brought out by the answers to the queries proposed by our committee to those of the other two Churches. Now, with reference to that, you will observe that our United Presbyterian friends have told us in what sense they understand open questions on these important points; and you will also observe that our United Presbyterian friends are willing to make certain matters open questions, and to accept the decision of the united Church about them. They are willing to take it that, on those matters, whatever decision, within certain limits, the united Church may give, shall not be held inconsistent with the understanding on which we are united. They are willing to do that; but they have not pledged themselves-and I never thought myself of asking them to do it, and would be much surprised if any one did it-they never pledged themselves not to follow

their own view of duty as to when or where they would raise a question about these matters.

Use may be made of this to convey the impression that what is before us, in the prospect of union, is an eternal wrangle about the question of the civil magistrate in its application to some comparatively subordinate details, if not in application to the great question of the endowment of the Church. I shall state my impression of the position of our United Presbyterian brethren on that matter. I say it is impossible that our United Presbyterian brethren could come into any union, tying themselves hand and foot about what they were to do, in God's providence, as questions arose, in the way of peacefully and suitably dealing with Christian brethren about what they thought the Church should do in the circumstances. While they are in this attitude, they are also prepared to say, "However the Church decides these questions, we do not regard that as breaking up the union or interfering with the understanding on which the union is formed." But there is something our United Presbyterian friends could not say. There is something they had an excellent right to expect us to say for them. Our United Presbyterian brethren could not add, as an appendix to that statement: —“But we think you may take us as Christian gentlemen and Christian ministers with a fair share of good feeling and practical wisdom." I think we may say that for them. (Cheers.) I think we may take it that they would not come into that union if they anticipated that the line of their duty would involve for them and us such an eternal wrangle. We have made it clear to them what we regard as the meaning of an open question-that the Churches must decide according to the wisdom and light given them, without being held to have departed from the basis of union. They say, "We understand it so; we are willing to go into such a Church, and to experience the common influence of mind upon mind in that Church, each upon the other." And I think we may add for them, with common sense and right feeling at least equal to our own. And as we go forward, if this union shall be accomplished, we do not go forward pledged to forego for ever anything any one holds to be duty in the practical application of it. We go forward with that open in this sense, that while we hold our own principles, and make practical application of them according to the terms of ministerial communion arranged, we remain, on both sides, willing to learn -we from them, if we find they have something to teach us, and they willing to learn from us, if, on further acquaintance with us, they find we have something to teach them.

I now refer to the limitation introduced into this motion, with what seems to myself an almost needless iteration. (Dr Rainy then quoted the language referred to-" As at present advised". reserving final judgment on the whole case, and every part thereof," &c.) I think a great deal less than all that might have satisfied anybody as to the position we take up when we proceed to say that we find no bar to union. The whole question is reserved for final determination, whether even the practical differences on this head, along with other things, might, upon considerations of expediency, make it practically wise to defer, at least, the hope of being united. All questions of that kind are reserved, including the questions of differences in our management and financial system.

From the very first, the question that bulked largest in my mind was not the first head of the programme, nor the second, nor almost any of the others, but the Sustentation Fund. It seemed to me a very serious question, whether two Churches that differed so widely in the process by which they have formed their financial methods, could, without a good deal of difficulty, bring their methods into one; and I have a very strong feeling indeed that it will deserve the very best consideration of the Committee and the Church how this matter can be brought into such a state as to justify us in saying that, in going into the union, we are not resigning and casting away means of influence so distinctly put into our hands by God, that we cannot see it to be our duty to resign it. All that is reserved.

People tell me there are so many people, and people so influential, that have a strong objection, and are very unwilling, and do not see their way even to go along with us, if we go into this union. And I believe precisely the same thing is true on the United Presbyterian side. I believe that in both Churches there are persons, highly estimable and conscientious, who have a difficulty in getting over the practical impressions associated with their historical position and past proceedings. It is a very serious question what is to be done if there should prove to be in the end many in this position. That question also surely is reserved; but I think the right way of influencing the minds of such persons is for us to make clear our own position in this Church and Assembly, according to our own lights, what is the position we are prepared to take up. Perhaps that may be the most likely means by which these Christian persons may ripen their own independent Christian convictions in such a way as shall remove the difficulties that may exist on that score in the one Church or the other.

Finally, there is an argument that I have felt the strength of. "If you go into this union," it is said, "although you carry with you the whole of that which you are entitled to claim to carry, you will still in some sense break with the past. The past history of your Church has been associated with a position practically-whatever you may say about the distinction between a principle and the application of it-practically involving an impression common to us all about what is right and fit for the civil magistrate to do. But when united, the Church will be no longer a Church furnished and possessed with that common impression regarding all those elements of our past history. There will be a certain division on that point." This is an argument derived from the sentiment of the past. Well, I suppose that Churches as well as individuals are sometimes called, in the providence of God, to resign certain aspects of their position in point of sentiment and practice, which they would not on their own motion cast away, but which, in the providence of God, and according to the will of the Head of the Church—the Church, like the individual, feels itself called on to resign to a higher and clearer duty; and that is the question, as to a shade of sentiment on this point —a worthy, dignified, useful sentiment, but a sentiment which may be exaggerated. I do not believe that, if we clear our feet on the leading point of duty, we shall find it turn out that Christ is leading us away from anything in the past that was His gift to us; it will return, it will produce itself in the future. But on this question-this historical question-it will as little do for Churches as for men to guide themselves by

sentiments. We must not, dare not, do it. By all means let us feel what is graceful, noble, dignified; but, in so far as sentiment separates itself from duty, it is from duty that we take the principles we ought to follow.

For my own part, I certainly ought not, as a professor of Church History, to be insensible to the attraction of the past, and of all that identifies us with it. And we shall still truly be identified with all our noble past; but it is natural, I admit, to wish an identification the fullest, and completest, and roundest, and most manifest that may be, with the worthies of the past to whom we cling. Nor, I suppose, are our United Presbyterian friends insensible to the sacrifices they make of the sentiments dear to them, that identify them precisely with the early history of the Secession. But while I think my own natural tendencies are so conservative that I would always gladly cling to the past if I could, I confess I am pressed upon by the present; and still more, I think I hear the future crying to us with a voice we cannot mistake. It is the future that is the great question, the future that lies between us and the coming of Christ. The past!—it is gone, gone with its high memories and grand associations, and worthy deeds, and worthies at whose feet we sat to learn. But the future is before us, and it is gathering for our children. What are we to do for the future? What position are we to take for the future? And if any one says, Do you suppose you can gauge the future-create the future?—I answer, No; I am not so vain as to think that; but, come what will in the future, what calamities, what trials, what hard and doubtsome times may come, with divisions about doctrine wringing men's hearts and rending the peace of families-with practical questions the most difficult to settleonly let us take care that we take up the position our Lord is calling us to take up, in awaiting that future. I know that it is not the decisive argument, but I confess that it would wring my heart to think that after all that has come and gone between this Church and the United Presbyterian Church-I have spoken of them alone, not from any disrespect to our beloved brethren of the Reformed Presbyterian Church, for there the difficulty is so small that nobody thinks it to require discussion; and because they give such an emphatic testimony to this, that the Articles of Agreement save the whole of that Church's testimony; but I say it would wring my heart if, after all that has come and gone, our United Presbyterian brethren, and we, and the descendants of both Churchesnot the ministers and members living now, whatever their prejudices, or prepossessions, or sentiments, but the ministers that might be trained in the same halls, and the people that might grow up in the same congregations, exchanging all the Christian influences that almost all Scotland possesses-if we are to fall back from our approximation and go forth to work apart, and fulfil what seems to be the inevitable destiny of Churches so situated, to make and find out differences-because differences do not exist to find them out, to manufacture them, and to fight for them. Is it in this position we must await the future that lies between us and the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ? (Great and prolonged applause.) Mr DUNLOP, M.P.-I rise for the purpose of seconding the motion, which I have intense gratification in doing. I, too, deeply regret that it was not made by Dr Candlish, with whom I used to be associated in contests before the Disruption. It must, however, be a great consolation