of the United Presbyterian Church, the existence of a difference of opinion which cannot be compromised or explained away is manifest. They do not see any prospect of ever coming nearer to one another about this difference than we have already come. But, then, Dr Wood tells us that we do not know that we have already come even to the state of agreement in which we might seem to be. He has brought forward an argument to prove that the declaration of the United Presbyterian Church, the other day, carried by such an overwhelming majority-(hear, hear) -with a minority just enough to show what the real meaning of the declaration is-(a laugh)-Dr Wood tells us that it does not mean what it seems to mean, and that our friends in the Synod have been paltering in a double sense. When Dr Cairns made a motion expressing satisfaction with the progress made and the amount of harmony prevailing, in all honesty and fairness they are to be understood as saying that they are well pleased with the articles, in so far as they show an amount of harmony, in so far as they imply agreement on the part of the several bodies in the committee. But Dr Wood said that the meaning of the United Presbyterian Synod was, that the whole matters of difference were to be made matters of forbearance. So far, of course, as there remains any difference, it was to be a matter of forbearance. The question is, What does there remain of difference, does there remain anything of difference that is not expressed by means of the articles? They virtually tell us that we need not go into committee again with them, if we do so under the influence of the imagination, that we may thereby induce them to abandon their Voluntaryism, such as it now appears to be in their distinctive articles. They do not expect to persuade us that our opinions in favour of the establishment principle are erroneous. der the guidance, as I conceive, both of common sense and Christian consideration, they virtually ask us to tell them whether the ascertained difference between us be sufficient or not to prevent our union. If you think that it is sufficient to prevent our union, then you are trifling with the real character of the question at its present stage when you propose to go into a motion for the re-appointment of the committee. In making that proposal, do you wish the joint-committee to resume consideration of the first head of the programme? I do not ask whether you wish that head to be looked at again in connexion with the results which may be arrived at as to the remaining heads. I take for granted that we all admit the propriety, and even the necessity, of estimating the effect of the difference about the first head of the programme, when viewed alongside of any differences which may arise under the other heads. But do you wish, I ask, that our conferences about the first head of the programme, looked at by itself, should be resumed, so as to open up again the articles of agreement? Do you mean that we may still hope to find out that our agreement is actually greater than those articles show? Then you ought to say so, to prevent misunderstanding. If you were to say so, I could not concur with you; for I feel assured that we have now gone as far as it is reasonably possible to do in making it clear that we are agreed as to all that is vital in what the Word of God indicates on the subject of the civil magistrate in his relation to religion and the Church. But this is not what those appear to mean who support the second motion now before the House. And therefore, I ask further, Do you mean that you hope to convert our friends of the United Presbyte

Un

rian Church to your own views in favour of the Establishment principle? Are you going to try to drive them out of their Voluntaryism altogether? Whatever you may intend, you may rest assured that to re-appoint the committee without saying that there is no bar to union under the first head of the programme, viewed by itself, you will be understood, and fairly understood, to be aiming at that kind of dealing with our United Presbyterian brethren which my excellent friend, Dr Rainy, has characterised as involving an endeavour to school them into your views in a manner they cannot be expected to submit to. It is very plain Dr Begg means something of that kind. He says when the United Presbyterians insist upon the condition of the negotiations being carried on, that we are to say there is no bar to union, it means that we are to abandon our principles. It is very easy to use vague and general language in that way, and talk of abandoning principles and maintaining our testimony, and so on; but if Dr Begg were always to translate these assertions into what they must necessarily be resolved into when you look closely at the question, I don't think they would have the same effect, because what it really means is, that we are not to insist upon making these points terms of communion. The real question is, whether you are prepared to insist upon what Dr Begg maintains to be part of your testimony, the Establishment principle, as a term of communion. We are told that our United Presbyterian friends will give up nothing, and that they are asking us to give up everything. But observe that Dr Begg asks them to abandon their personal opinions which they conscientiously hold. Do they ask us to do that? They do not ask us to abandon an opinion which we hold. They are willing that we should continue to hold as strongly as we like all our views in favour of the Establishment principle; but what you are insisting upon is, that they shall abandon their personal opinions on the Establishment principle before you will allow them to unite with you. We often testify for a great many things that are never made terms of communion. There are some things we think it right to testify always about, and even some of these we do not make terms of communion-(hear, hear)—and it does not follow that everything we hold and testify about should necessarily be made a term of communion. It appears to me it would only be reasonable that all those who support Dr Begg's motion should consider very carefully what they are to do under the first head of the programme. (Hear, hear.) There are other reasons brought forward to show that it is very objectionable for us to give this declaration at present. We are asked to support Dr Begg's motion, because this Assembly contains only one-third of our ministers, or because the people have not yet been consulted. Even if this objection were well-founded, it would still be equally reasonable, to say the least, that we should instruct the committee to abstain from any further conference about that first head, until the mind of the whole Church and the whole people could be ascertained as to the effect of the articles of agreement. Whether such a course would be reasonable or not I shall not say, but it would at least be free from all misunderstanding, and would be a fair method of dealing with our United Presbyterian brethren. That would be a right course if the objection were a good one; but I do not think that it is the right course at all. If we cannot, as an Assembly, express our opinion on an important point like the present, because the ministers here only form one-third

part of the Church, then I ask what is the use of our being here at all? (loud cries of "hear, hear")—what is the use of our appointing a committee, and what is the use of our being here to receive the report? What is the meaning of the representative principle in our General Assembly? Not certainly that we are to tyrannise over the Church. There is plenty of security against that. But can it be denied that we are here to guide the Church? And what is the principle of the Barrier Act? Is it not to reconcile the free expression of opinion by the General Assembly with the expression of opinion on the part of the Church? Is it not the right way to form an opinion first, and then send it to the Presbyteries to say if they agree to it? We do not come to a final conclusion till it comes back. That is not merely the technical form, but it expresses the spirit of our constitution. How can we

send down a question to Presbyteries unless we tell them what we think of it ourselves? It is not our part to command or dictate, but it is our business-the business laid upon us by the Head of the Church, according to our views of Presbyterianism-to help them towards a scriptural view and a reasonable line of action. To adopt the second motion appears to me to discredit our Presbyterian constitution altogether. No doubt, it was said that the Assembly might come to the conclusion to have perpetual moderators. That would be very unconstitutional, but if a majority of this Assembly did not think it unconstitutional, they could come to that agreement if they liked, and send it down to the Presbyteries to decide. If they came to an unconstitutional resolution, the Church would judge of that when sent down; but, however unconstitutional, the proper order for the Assembly was to express its own opinion first. Then something was said about what took place in America about its being settled that no union should take place till three-fourths of the Presbyteries approved. I would go further than that. I do not want any union till a much larger proportion than that is agreed. (Applause.) But that is all proceeding on the delusion that the first motion, which simply gives an opinion on the case as it stands before us just now, with reference to this head of the programme taken by itself, is carrying you the whole way into the union. That is a kind of delusion indeed that may be fostered by some of the eloquence we have heard to-night; but nobody can put it on any sound foundation, it is merely thrown across this House to carry it away. (Applause.) A great deal has been said about hurrying on this union, but what is the real meaning of all that cry about hurry? The objection is not really against hurrying; the real objection is to our being willing to entertain the idea of this being a matter of forbearance. There has been no hurry-nothing of the kind; but some of us think this might be a matter of forbearance, and thinking that we think it right to say so. (Applause.) This Assembly cannot decide the question for the Church, but it may give its opinion. The Assembly giving an opinion will, of course, be of value; and I agree even that it will be important in the history of the Church; but I deny that, if in this Church there be these views at all prevailing which are represented by our friends who supported the other motion, our giving this opinion will in the least degree prevent parties who hold these views giving to them all the effect they can. But we, having that opinion, is it fair to any party that we should be silent? It is unjust to ourselves, and unjust and ungenerous to others; and it is still more unjust, if this

Assembly itself thinks there is a bar to union in the documents now laid on your table, and you do not say so. In connexion with this question of principle that is said to stand so much in the way, it is said that through the ten years' conflict the Establishment principle was maintained as strongly as the duty of the State to recognise the true religion. It is true that, following the light given to our fathers, exhibited as we thought in the Confession of Faith, we believed that an established and endowed condition of the Church was a legitimate application of the principle set forth in the Confession of Faith. The ten years' conflict assumed the truth of this view rather than contended for it. We contended for it in the Voluntary controversy; it was assumed in the ten years' conflict. There was no question between us and the parties then opposed to us in this matter. But then I have to look a little into the question with regard to the principles which must be made terms of communion in a Church. It is admitted that the Establishment principle was always a principle of the Church; but the question might always have been raised, whether it was a term of communion? There was a principle of the ten years' conflict which was made a term of communion, and that was Erastianism. And when I am speaking of the formula, I may just say, that no one ever maintained there was any change made on it with the design of putting out the question of Establishments; but the clause of the formula founded on was framed for the purpose of bringing in the point about the independence of the Church, and making that a term of ministerial communion. It was seen you must refer to the claim of right and protest, and yet it was seen there were a great many things in that claim and protest to which you could not pledge your future ministers, because it involved a great amount of constitutional knowledge they could not be expected to possess. Our ministers, therefore, are not bound by the formula to hold the principle of an Establishment, except in so far as the Confession of Faith might be supposed to bind them. My opinion is, that the Confession binds us to great principles, but does not necessarily involve all the applications of them. I am inclined to speak rather strongly about what Dr Begg spoke of as to the theory on which we would now proceed being an infidel theory. Really he carried his eloquence to an amazing point when he came to say that, because we say there are things sanctioned by the Word of God which we do not make a term of communion, we are giving in to an infidel theory. Dr Begg thinks if we think a thing to be sin, we are bound to shut out all who cannot purge themselves from it, before we admit them to communion. Now, I believe there are ministers of our own Church who conscientiously believe that, according to the Scriptures, it would be sin in them to eat things strangled or flesh prepared with the blood; and if they were to become a majority in our Church, would they ever dream of making that a term of communion? They would think it sin in themselves, but they would not force their view upon us. It is a principle which will not hold water-this principle of insisting that whatever you count sin must be a term of communion. The only thing which has any force in what is said is, there is a thing the Church has testified for three hundred years; will you give it up? And, after all, that comes to be a matter of sentiment and feeling; for unless you can show that the Word of God warrants you to insist on it as a term of communion, then, however much your feelings may incline you to do it, I hold that

we are not warranted to impose it as a term of communion. But I have no difficulty in saying we shall be able to bear our testimony in substance as well in the United Church as we have any reason to expect we could do otherwise, as regards all that is future and all that is essential. There is just one thing I would like to notice. Reference has been made to the open question in regard to the Irish Church, and our intercourse with them, and also to Dr Cairns's statement in the United Presbyterian Synod. I think those who referred to that statement forgot what took place before he made it; because the question was put whether, in sending that deputation, there was to be any approbation of the position they occupied. Dr Cairns was necessarily led to say that he would dissent from the sending of a deputation in such a way as would imply an approval of the position in which that Church stands. I know perfectly well from others of the United Presbyterian Committee, as well as Dr Cairns, that they are not prepared to object to you sending a deputation, but they of course are prepared to protect themselves against being supposed to approve of the position the Irish Church occupies by receiving the Regium Donum. That of course is clear. In conclusion, Moderator, allow me to say that the strongest feeling I have at this peculiar juncture arises from my conviction that the proposed union cannot possibly be hurried on to a rapid conclusion. If you agree to Dr Candlish's motion, you may nevertheless reckon upon a very considerable delay before a union can be carried out, and I would deprecate any step that implies the putting of an unnecessary arrest upon our progress. I hold that it will be a very fearful and ominous thing if this Church put a kind of arrest, such as Dr Begg's motion will put, upon the question. If we now know the extent of the difference about the civil magistrate, then the proper time has come for saying we think that difference should prevent our union or that it should not. That you allow that time to pass, and do not indicate your mind, appears to me, not only unjust and ungenerous towards our United Presbyterian brethren and injurious to our character for candour and sagacity, but also destructive to the whole movement. On the whole, a motion that declares that the difference is such as to form a bar to union would not do more harm than the carrying of a motion of this kind, which, as everybody who speaks in favour of it shows, indicates there is a bar, but refuses to tell our brethren that such is the case. (Loud applause.)

Mr NIXON, Montrose, said it appeared to him that it was not desirable to insert in any motion the clause that was in Dr Candlish's motion, towards the end of it. He would just say that from the very first he had had but one feeling on the subject. He was not liable to any of the charges that had been insinuated by some of those who had supported Dr Candlish's motion. He had never done anything, he had never said anything, and he had never felt anything that subjected him to such charges as were implied in the remarks of those who supported Dr Candlish's motion. His hope had been that Dr Begg's motion would have been sufficient; but an impression had got abroad in the minds of many that that motion meant more than it said that a barrier was intended to be thrown by it in the way of the negotiations. It appeared to him to be necessary-it was their duty so far-that they should have a motion submitted that would leave no cause for such mistaken views being entertained on the subject. When the proposal for union was first submitted, he remembered that this Church had been raised up in the providence of