We

matter. (Cheers and hear.) Only after having obtained all that information would I proceed to do the thing we are asked to do now and at once. I am exceedingly glad that since our friends the deputies from America thought it right to speak on this question, though my opinion, with all respect for them, is that it is better for strangers not to speak on questions which perhaps they do not understand fully,-I am exceedingly glad to import a piece of good advice from America. It is a very practical country, and if an American tells you to go very quick-I beg to tell you from experience-in travelling, for example-he goes very cautiously himself. (Laughter.) Well, they have a union-a far easier union than ours-and they have resolved as follows:-I read from the American Presbyterian, which came yesterday :-"The report will be laid before both Assemblies "—(remember it is a complete report)" and in the near approach of the meeting, it is regarded inexpedient to make it public." (That is another piece of good sense.) "It is, however, proper to say that no hasty action is counselled; it is proposed that a year be given for full discussion before any formal action is initiated, and the committee recommend that the vote of three-fourths of the Presbyteries in both bodies be made necessary for ratification, whenever the sense of the Church is taken." Well, I call that good sense. have hitherto been discussing this matter very much in private, and have had opportunity to know very little of the feelings of the people. Even if you were able to decide the question in that state of matters, it would be wrong. If you pretend to decide this question now-now, even ad interim, without going to your people-and that virtually is the state of the matter if you do that, you will find every congregation in the Free Church divided and torn in pieces on the subject-(hear)-and probably the Free Church itself placed in a difficulty out of which it will never extricate itself. I do therefore earnestly press upon the Assembly the importance of suspending their judgment upon this whole matter until it is more fully investigated, and until we have a full and final report before us, and time enough to consider it. Upon the decision of this night, I repeat, will in my opinion depend the future, probably the very fate of the Free Church, humanly speaking. When, some time ago, we brought up from Tanfield our unanswered and unanswerable protest to the very door of the old Assembly Hall, little did we think that this noble hall was to become the grave and mausoleum of that protest. (Hisses and cheers.) I have no hesitation in saying, in reference to the appeal which has been made to us in regard to the times which are passing over us, that I look at the matter very differently indeed from my excellent friends on the other side. I think I can say something in regard to the struggle with Romanism, in which I have taken some little part. (Hear, hear.) But I have yet to learn that some of those men have done anything, or are likely to do anything, to give us effective aid in that struggle; and in that struggle I do not think that anything will avail but the uncompromising maintenance of His truth, and especially the maintenance of the Headship of Christ over the nations, in opposition to the pretended supremacy of a usurping vicar who sits in the temple of God, and shows himself to be God. The people of this country have looked to us, as representatives of the old Reformers, of the men who faithfully maintained these principles for so many years.

And if we are prepared to give up these principles, it would be strange to see it done at this time. It is just three hundred years this year since the Church of Scotland was endowed by the civil magistrate. During all the interval-through many dark and troubled days-the old principles have been maintained through good and bad report, and now, without a struggle, it is proposed to give them up, and to haul down the old blue flag in the sight of the country and of the world. (Hear.) No, my friends. Shall we do it when we know the future? I care nothing about what people say about expectation. What do I care about expectation? I know that Jesus reigns, and must reign, until He has put all enemies under His feet. I know and maintain, as a proper homage to Him, that the nations shall serve Him with their substance. I for one will resist, in every competent form-anxious as I am for union, and while I have laboured in committee to bring about a right state of feeling-I will resist any attempt to destroy the testimony which we have maintained, and especially to destroy it probably within hearing of the advancing footsteps of the Prince of Life, and of that great proclamation which is to go up under the whole heaven"The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ." (Applause.)

Mr DENNY, (elder,) in seconding the motion of Dr Begg, said he had always heard ministers of the Church regetting that so few of the laity took part in the discussions of the Assembly. Now, he appeared there not only to speak for himself, but also for such of the laity as might hold the same views as he did about the union movement. If there was anything disagreeable to himself in the position he now took up, it was in appearing in opposition to their reverend father and his (Mr Denny's) most esteemed of all friends, Dr Candlish-(hear, hear)-but he resolved to follow the course he now did after a full consideration of both motions before the House. On first reading Dr Candlish's motion, he thought that he saw his way clear to agreeing with him, but he found that he was mistaken, and Dr Buchanan's eloquent appeal had left a most disagreeable impression on his mind—namely, that a sort of coercion was brought to bear upon the Assembly by the threat of dissolving the committee; but with all deference to Dr Buchanan, he thought that if the responsibility of such a disastrous consequence should come to pass, it would devolve entirely upon the other side. He was not prepared to accept the first head of the programme so implicitly as Dr Buchanan, or those who supported him; and he would just say that, if there was so little difference between the negotiating Churches on this first head as was represented, what was the use of Dr Buchanan holding over the heads of the Assembly the threat of breaking up the conference? (Hear, hear, and laughter.) He for one declined to be committed to the matter of union in detail. He wanted the whole project before him before he said "Yea" or "Nay." (Hear, hear, and applause.) While saying this, however, he begged to assure the Assembly that he was sincerely and truly anxious for union with the United Presbyterian brethren, and was prepared to make personal sacrifices to accomplish it. He was not pledged in his own mind to any particular course when the issue of this union movement came up. He was not bound to any party or to follow this or that doctor of divinity-(laughter)—but was as free to act upon his own judgment, at the proper time, as any man in the Assembly. (Applause.)

Dr JULIUS WOOD rose to speak, when

Mr ADAM, Aberdeen, said-While it will be perfectly right and proper that all parties should have opportunity to speak, I would make this observation, that I trust members of the union committee will feel that, while they are not to be excluded from a fair share in this discussion(hear, hear)—they will endeavour to give those outside the committee, who have had very little opportunity of expressing their opinions, the fullest liberty.

Mr NIXON-I beg it to be understood, then, that members of the committee will assert their full right as members of this Assembly. hear," and applause.)

("Hear,

Mr ADAM-Of course. (Continued applause, and cries of "order.") Mr NIXON-The members, generally, will be the better able to speak on what has been done in the committee after they are told of it; and they cannot be told of it unless we are allowed to tell it. (Hear, hear.)

Dr GIBSON-At a former Assembly I made this statement, that as a member of that committee-and my opinion was publicly canvassed and misrepresented-I must have as full a right as any member of their House to state my views. I say that still, whether it may compromise the time Mr Adam may wish to make a speech in or not. (Applause.)

Dr CANDLISH Said Mr Adam, while he wished as full liberty as possible for members generally to speak, did not wish to interfere with the right of any individual in the House.

Dr WOOD said-I present myself thus early in the debate, because, as a dissentient from the findings of the committee on both the heads of the programme, I may, in following up my dissent, be able to lay before the House statements that may be useful in the debate on the important question now before the General Assembly. I am strongly impressed with the conviction that, in what are called the articles of agreement under the first head of the programme, there is, to a considerable extent, a covering up of differences rather than a statement of agreement; and I will try to tell you why I have this conviction. The first head of the programme, the relation of the civil magistrate to religion and the Church, occupied the union committee the whole of the first year after our appointment. Our report to the Assembly, 1864, was wholly anent this matter of the eivil magistrate. And it has occupied much the larger portion of our time and attention during the whole year since last Assembly. Very nearly two years have thus been spent by the union committee exclusively on this question of the civil magistrate. We were occupied all that time in what we sometimes called minimising the difference. Now, it does occur to one either that the difference between us in the committee was at first very great, or that the work of minimising was very hard and difficult, seeing it required so long a time and so many meetings. And I have no difficulty in saying that there is truth in both views, that there was a great difference between us when we began our negotiations, and that we have found it hard work in dealing with that difference. Be it observed, the difference between us to which I refer, does not relate merely or chiefly to the matter of endowments. That difference was recognised and admitted at the very first, and, without any difficulty or expense of time, was embodied in what we have called our distinctive articles. It is matters of difference between the Churches, outside the question of endowments, that have occupied the union com

T

mittee for about two years out of the four that have elapsed since their appointment-matters outside the question of endowment altogether, I repeat. Is not this proof that there is much more between the Churches than the question of endowments? We made up our mind at the very first that there was a difference about endowments; no time was spent by us on that. And if there was no other difference, what have we been doing all these two years, and in those innumerable, anxious, weary meetings that we held on the first head of the programme? What is the meaning of our being so laboriously and anxiously, and for so long a time engaged in minimising the difference, if, in point of fact, there be little or no difference to minimise. I hold that our numerous and anxious meetings prove that we felt there is a difference between us and Voluntaryism, outside of, and over and above the question of endowments. (Hear.) But it may be said that this great difference was only a supposed one, that it was a mere misapprehension of one another, and that through the conferences that have taken place the misapprehensions have been cleared away. Hard work it has been to clear away the misapprehension, if it has been no more than misapprehension. But if you had heard the earnest statements and debatings, meeting after meeting, throughout these two years, you would have felt that there was surely more than a mere misapprehension between us-that there was some hard, dry reality, which it was found very difficult to grapple with and get out of the way. Surely if we had really been at one on the relation of the civil magistrate to the Church, apart from the endowment question, we would have been able to find out the agreement, and state it distinctly, in much less time than two years, with their numerous and protracted meetings. But the truth is, we found there was a difference besides the endowment question, and we have been occupied these two years in trying to bring one another into the views that we respectively held regarding the relation of the rulers of nations to religion and the Church. In my judgment, we have met with indifferent success in this our long and laborious work. For what have we done? We have carefully, at much expense of time and talk, selected and arranged phrases and expressions, and carefully weighed and balanced statements and sentences; and the result is, no doubt, a fair appearance of agreement; and I have no doubt it is looked upon as such in many quarters. In some quarters, however, not so. But when I think of the difficulties encountered in the committee in selecting and adjusting the phrases and sentences, and the sentiments which were ever and anon coming out in debate on both sides, I feel persuaded that not intentionally but really the result has been, to a large extent, the covering up of differences rather than the statement of a real and true agreement. To explain and make good what I mean, I have to remark that it is one of the leading principles of Voluntaryism to regard the civil magistrate simply in the same light as any other Christian man-an obligation lying on him, as on all men, to act in accordance with the revealed will of God as an individual man, like all other individual men, whatever their trade, or profession, or office may be. Our view of the civil magistrate is, that in addition to what belongs to him and is incumbeut on him as a Christian man, like other Christian men, he is bound officially and as a magistrate to countenance and promote religion and the cause of Christ. Now, these two views of the magistrate and his duty to the Church and religion are very different, the magistrate simply as a Christian man, acting on Chris

tian principles; and the magistrate, further, qua magistrate and officially, seeking to promote Christ's cause. It was between these two principles that the battle was really waged in the many anxious meetings of the union committee during the two years out of the four that have elapsed since their appointment. It may seem, when you look at the articles of agreement, that whatever difference there existed between the views of our Voluntary brethren and our own has been removed in these conferences, and that we are now at one. It is here, I think, that the fallacy is to be found. There is an apparent agreement, but I believe the original and real difference remainscovered up, not removed. For observe, you have both the language that expresses the Voluntary view, and that which expresses our view of the civil magistrate, used in the articles of agreement" like other Christians," and "as a magistrate." Now, I have to tell the Assembly that we had many a hard battle to fight to get in the words "as a magistrate;" if I mistake not, they were out and in several times, as the tide of battle inclined to this side or that; and when the expression, "by his official acts," was proposed to be used, it was objected to and withdrawn. Covered up, then, and very much out of sight, is the distinction between the magistrate simply as a Christian man, which is the Voluntary view of him; and the magistrate not only as a Christian man, but also as a magistrate and officially furthering the cause of Christ, which is our view of his position and duty. You can find the language of both of the views in the articles of agreement. Not that it is so by design, but probably from the strong desire and earnest persevering endeavour of each party to have their own views brought out and expressed in the articles. And the consequence is, that some interpret them as meaning one thing, and some as meaning another. Many Free Churchmen, I believe, regard them as containing a goodly measure of Free Church principles. They think that we have brought the Voluntaries a great way up from their principles towards ours, and that we may hope, if time is given us, to talk them into being true and real Free Churchmen. (Applause.) On their part, the Voluntaries generally vehemently deny that they have moved one step from their position, or that they have given up any of their principles. And I take leave to remark that their speeches and conduct on public questions show that their estimate of themselves is right-that they have in no degree been induced to give up their principles, and that the judgment of some of our friends to the contrary is a mistake. And with regard to the articles of agreement, many Voluntaries are greatly dissatisfied with them because of their ambiguity, or because they think that they compromise Voluntary principles. And I am convinced that the Voluntaries generally do not accept the articles of agreement that they are not willing to become Free Churchmen, even leaving out of sight, and setting aside the matter of endowments. I repeat it, that the Voluntaries are not prepared to become Free Churchmen by accepting the articles of agreement-a thing which they would do if these articles of agreement do contain and conserve the principles of the Free Church. But, then, some one will point me to the recent decisions of the United Presbyterian Synod as a proof that the United Presbyterian Church almost unanimously accepts these articles of agreement. I must be permitted to say that the motion which became the judgment of the United Presbyterian Synod is a very cleverly framed one, and has wonderfully cast