Dr GIBSON-I do not ask the Assembly to receive it. They can receive it or not as they think proper. (Renewed hisses.)

Mr M'GREGOR-Is the Assembly to be understood to receive that, then ?

Dr GIBSON-I said no myself. He pointed also to the fact that the minority of 39 protested against the acceptance of the articles of agreement, and they did so because they knew that they would be supported by their Presbyteries, and were carrying out their instructions. It had been alleged that the Free Church knew from the first that a difference existed between them and the United Presbyterian Church in regard to civil endowments. He admitted that; but he had entered the committee--and he said so at the time, on the footing, not of trying to ascertain differences, but to get differences removed. It had been asked, Did he expect to convert the committee on union of the United Presbyterian Church? He asked the counter question, Did they intend to convert the Free Church committee? (Cries of "No.") No; but they were asked to nullify their testimony. (Cheers, and cries of "No.") He said "Yes." If neither of them were to be converted, one or other of them must be called upon to nullify their testimony, and they must say which of the two parties it was who was asked to stand in that position. The committee had been reappointed in 1864, on the understanding that they should have due regard to their principles; and they did not fulfil the instruction if they consented to this proposal. He had hoped, however, that there would be less difficulty in the United Presbyterian Church giving way upon this point, because they did not hold their position as a matter of doctrine, while the Free Church did, and were not prepared to abandon it. They were called upon now to declare that on this head of the programme there was no bar to union; but who had shut them up to that course? They had been told by their United Presbyterian friends that they were shirking their duty, and were afraid to say frankly that the negotiations must end. He told one of bis United Presbyterian friends that, if he were to consent now to the proposed course, he would do it under concussion. There was no need of this hard driving. The United Secession and Relief Churches took twelve years to bring about their union-the negotiations commencing in 1835 and concluding in 1847. The motion of Dr Rainy was either the result of the threat that the negotiations would be closed, or the result of the knowledge that their United Presbyterian friends would not act upon it if such a motion were carried. From the very first he had said that he could not consent to the principle of forbearance on a great and important question, because, when they did so on one thing, where were they to stop? Sir Henry Moncreiff, in very energetic tones, challenged them to state whether this first head was a bar to union. He would deliberately say "While I honestly declare that I am a friend to union, if we are expected to compromise our own principles, and if discussions are carried on lowering our testimony and injurious to those principles in our own Church, I for one say openly at once, I do consider it a bar to union; and I will go further, and say, if it is to be done in that way, I think it is most injurious. Our Church is distracted largely from its work, and it might be well worth that if we were not at the same time lowering our principles; but with the two united, if we are to be concussed, I say at once I would rather say, let the threat

Y

which our friends have made take effect, and upon them lies the responsibility of terminating the negotiations, and not upon us, or on Dr Begg's motion.

In 1863 I made a motion to the effect to enter into the negotiations on the ground that the Free Church was to hold her principles in their integrity. Dr Buchanan's motion substituted "due regard" for "integrity." I was told on all hands they meant the same thing. I did not believe it. But on that understanding I consented to withdraw my motion. When in the committee it was asserted that the Assembly appointed their committee on the principle that we were willing to modify our views; to put an end to this, I raised the question in Assembly, 1864, intimating that if there was any such understanding, I would not act on the committee; and was again assured, on all hands, as the report in the Blue Book will show, that the committee was appointed on no such principle. Well, we now see what "due regard" in Dr Buchanan's estimate means, though we were told in 1863 and 1864, that it meant the same as our principles in their integrity. Dr Buchanan has asserted in his speech, after a much less strong statement was corrected in his report, that the United Presbyterian committee expressed their belief that this Church would have no difficulty in taking the older formula of 1827, similar to our own in the point of doctrine. That committee said no such thing. It was corrected in the report of our committee, from "the members" to "members of the U. P. committee," and how it has assumed in Dr Buchanan's speech the name of the committee itself, I do not know. Of course, on the subject of the civil magistrate, the U. P. committee has not expressed in even one of its members, their willingness to take it.

Dr Buchanan has made appeals to the political unions of nations for their defence in these threatening times, and to the things coming on the earth. Sir, Mr Fraser disposed of this. As to the future, the only prophesying I can trust is the prophecy of the Bible; and I read there, for the encouragement of the Church, the following words, addressed directly to the Church, and of course by the Spirit to her Head, "The kingdom and nation that will not serve thee shall perish; yea, that nation shall be utterly wasted." And as to the things that are coming on the earth, men's hearts failing them for fear, with perplexity and distress of nations, I desire to place my reliance on the word and promises of God, and not on the predictions and speculations of men; to stand on His authority, and to commit myself and children to Him, assured that then we shall be safe "till all calamities be overpast." An argument was used by Dr Rainy which implied that this was of the nature of a call in Providence. I think that the most dangerous principle on which an individual or a Church can determine.

Dr RAINY-I referred to the question of duty; indeed, I wished to say I was sure it would be in the minds of all parties their duty, as compelling them to feel it was a very serious question. That was the whole.

Dr GIBSON-We must determine such calls by the Word of God, otherwise we will get into confusion, because Providence assumes a thousand forms. And though we are not to overlook the calls of Providence, we must, whether as to private, personal, or public duty, determine our conduct by the Word of God. Dr Rainy referred to Constantine.

The

His name has again been revived, and the assertion made that the Church was pure till his time. Dr Rainy knows better than assert that. Every corruption of the Papacy was rampant before his time. He never endowed the Church. It had immense property in houses and lands, as well as money, before his time. No state in Europe endowed it. tithes were yielded in obedience to ecclesiastical and not civil authority. The Romish property was acquired, and the dominion of the Papacy was secured by the voluntary gifts and the superstition and fanaticism of the multitude of all ranks. It was so even in Ireland. Any one who will deny this must deny all the facts of history.

With regard to the motion now before us, I ask, who has shut us up to the course indicated in it? I say, our United Presbyterian friends, when they proposed to us in the committee two points, namely, that we, as a committee, should take upon ourselves to declare in terms of the motion of Dr Rainy, and further, that we should recommend this to our Assembly. And how are we shut up to this course? That has been told in the committee in terms I do not care to describe-that if we did not do it we were shrinking from our duty, that we were afraid to tell out frankly that the negotiations must end. They told us that in the strongest terms, warning us to beware of the result. Sir, I feel that if I gave my consent I was doing it under concussion-(applause)-because they tell us that if we do not, the negotiations must end. I cannot tell what I consider a bar to union, but I declare honestly, that if we are expected te compromise our own principles, and lower our testimony, I consider that a bar to union; and I go further, and say that if it is to be done in such a way it will be most injurious. If the Church is to be

distracted from her work, I say at once I would rather let the threat of our friends take effect, and upon them lies the responsibility, not upon us. Dr Gibson read a passage from the works of Dr M'Crie as follows. After warning against indifference to the great Cause healing the divisions of Zion, the venerable, sagacious, far-seeing, deeply-read, and highly-accomplished M'Crie, in his deeply-interesting discourses on the Unity of the Church, says :-"It is no less necessary to warn you, on the other hand, against being ensnared by fair and plausible schemes of union. Remember that the spirit of error takes an active part in the unions as well as in the divisions of Christians; and be not ignorant of his devices. Of old he deceived the people of God by raising the cry of peace, peace; and so successful has he found this stratagem, that he has ever since had recourse to it at intervals. There is a rage for peace as well as for contention, and men otherwise wise and good have been seized by it as well as the giddy multitude. If religion has suffered from merciless polemics and cruel dividers, history shows that it has suffered no less from the false lenity and unskilful arts of pretended physicians-the motley tribe of those who have assumed the name of reconcilers. They will say that they have no intention to injure the truth; but it is your duty carefully to examine the tendency of their proposals, and not suffer yourselves to be caught with 'good words and fair speeches.' Have nothing to do with those plans of agreement, in which the corner-stone is not laid in a sacred regard to all that is sanctioned by the authority of your Lord. Beware of all such coalitions as would require you to desert a faithful and necessary testimony for the truths and laws of Christ, would call you back from prosecuting a just warfare against any error or sin, would in

volve you in a breach of your lawful engagements, or prevent you from paying the vows you have made to God. Keep in mind that there are duties incumbent on you beside that of following peace. Violate not 'the brotherly covenant' by which you may be already bound to walk with your fellow Christians in a holy and good profession, from a fond and passionate desire of forming new connexions. Throw not rashly away a present and known good for the prospect of a greater which is uncertain and contingent; and do not suffer your minds to be diverted from the ordinary duties of your Christian vocation, by engaging in extraordinary undertakings, while the call to these is not clear, and you have not good ground to depend on God for that extraordinary aid which is required in prosecuting them."-Dr M'Crie on the Unity of the Church. I counsel my younger brethren to read this little work. I wish I could give his opinion on the subject of forbearance.

Here the audience and some members exhibited signs of impatience, and Dr Gibson paused.

Mr WILSON, Dundee, said a good deal of latitude must necessarily be allowed to parties in such a discussion as this, but it should be taken into consideration that there were 600 members of the Assembly who were equally entitled to speak; and if they were to speak for twelve hours a day, the Assembly would have to sit for six weeks. (Laughter.)

Mr STARK, of Greenock-I think it is not fair or reasonable that the members of the Committee on union should take up nine-tenths of the whole time for discussion.

Mr BAIN, of Chapel of Garioch-It is a pity that there should be an attempt to pour fifty gallons of tea into one poor cup. (Laughter.) Captain SHEPHERD-The other party began the long speeches, and the Assembly should hear the one side fully as well as the other. (Hear, hear.)

Dr GIBSON said he thought that his past history in this Assembly would show that when he saw an impatient house he knew it was no use speaking, and he had never attempted to persevere, and he would not do it now. (Hear, hear.) But he was entitled to say, what he was just expressing to his friends on his left, that he could not go on to the points of doctrine when this outcry was raised against him. He was sorry there were gentlemen present that had no greater capacity than an empty teacup. (Laughter.) I was going to say that I demur to the statement that there has been agreement in doctrine. My motion in committee showed that there was not. Several members expressed this disagreement-Dr Begg and others. And I state this, that I was put on my defence in that committee for four or five hours as guilty of heresy, and I ought to be permitted here to vindicate myself from the charge of heresy made against me in committee, and repeated in the U. P. Synod by Dr Marshall, with the offensive addition that my own brethren concurred in it. Will they do so here? I have to say there was no agreement, but a long contest on that point-and I will say in one word that the motion, whose heresy it took hours to demonstrate, and upon which Dr Marshall spoke of me in his Synod as heretical—was no invention of mine, but was taken from a motion made in the United Secession Synod in 1845, and was lost by 244 to 118 votes-Dr Marshall himself being among the 118 who voted for it; and not only so, but the name of William Marshall, Coupar-Angus, appears as

one of sixty who entered their dissent. (Laughter.) This is the evidence of agreement among us. I have just to say, in conclusion, that I admit the perfect sufficiency of the atonement of Christ for the sins of all men. It was stated in the strongest terms in my book, from which Dr Marshall professed to quote. But I do not admit the double substitution-the substitution in one sense for one thing, and the substitution in another sense for another. And I made this other charge, and Dr Begg and others took my view of it. I said I preached a free gospel without reference to election, because my God commands me, and I do not ask reasons when I have the command of my Master. But what is the doctrine of the other theory? It is that, unless they see a reason for proclaiming this free gospel, they cannot do it. I say that, to me, is Rationalism; it is the principle of Rationalism, namely, that you will not obey God's command till you can understand all the secret reasons for it. And though the preacher may think it gives him freedom, what advantage is it to the poor sinner that the preacher has freedom, while the poor sinner is told that he cannot accept the offer unless he be one of the elect? Such doctrine I hold to be dishonouring to the Saviour and to the efficacy of His finished work.

Mr STARK, Greenock, said that it had been argued by various members of the House who had spoken yesterday, that it was too late now to make the Voluntaryism of the United Presbyterian Church a bar to the union, as it was well known that they were Voluntaries, when it was resolved to enter into negotiations with them. But the question is, Who were the parties in the Free Church who entered into these negotiations? It was the Assembly of 1864-an Assembly of which he was not a member, and with whose proceedings he had nothing to do. He was not even present at the Assembly-certainly had not been consulted in any shape or form -and was he to be told that his mouth must be shut now, because he should have spoken then and there? Dr Begg's motion answered the objection. There was only a third of the Church in the Assembly, and the other two thirds were unrepresented; and if it was desired to commit the Church to these negotiations for union, the proposal should have been sent down to Presbyteries for their approval; and had they approved, then it might have been maintained fairly enough, that, in so far as the mere fact of their Voluntaryism was concerned, there was no room for objecting now. But he was in no way whatever committed to the decision of the Assembly on this point-nor four or five hundred of his brother ministers and he must hold himself at perfect liberty to object if he saw cause to do so. He thought that Dr Rainy had made a somewhat grave mistake in proceeding on this assumption, that an Act of Assembly had as much authority, and was just as binding, as a law of the Church. For what purpose, in that case, was to be served by the Barrier Act? Why, it was simply intended to prevent what had been done on this very occasion-committing the whole Church to a certain course of conduct, without consulting it. He always heard the speeches of Dr Buchanan with great admiration, and he was satisfied, that if he had been a statesman, he would have been prime minister by this time, and so he was all the more surprised with the singularly inconclusive reasoning of his opening speech. The general arguments for union on which he insisted so largely the arguments drawn from Scripture in favour of this unity of the Church-were all very good, but somehow he forgot to show that