they were merely in favour of union with the United Presbyterian Church, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church; whereas they were just equally fitted to prove the expediency and the duty of union with the Established Church of Scotland, and indeed with all Churches whatsoever. He (Mr Stark) would undertake to show that every one of the passages which he quoted, if good for union with the former Churches, was good also for union with the latter. They must look not only upon the general reasons for union, but the practical advantages of it; and he would not like to be tied down to this programme unless they first of all settled how the ministers of the Church were to be supported. He thought the country brethren had not looked upon the matter sufficiently in that light. He knew that some of them said it would look selfish if they were to do that, but it was not selfish; they ought to look what the effect of this union would be on the Church. It was said, for example, that they would be able to reduce the number of churches in some localities. The thing was impracticable, as he knew. In a district with which he was acquainted, where there were four churches, a recent attempt to reduce their number had increased them only by one. (A laugh.) The whole result in this respect would be just that they would take in 300 or 400 congregations to the Free Church, and put down 300 or 400 of those they had. For two ways of supporting the ministry in the United Church would never work. Reference had been made to the Voluntary controversy, and Mr Adam's modest proposal was that the older ministers who had taken part in that controversy should leave the matter alone to young men, who would be free from the entanglements, as he called them, of that controversy. He could only say that they were free of a great deal else-they were free from any knowledge of that controversy. (Laughter.) He had put the question to a young minister of the Free Church whom he saw there, and it turned out that he did not know anything about it-("hear," and laughter)—and that was the case with many. He was not disposed, therefore, to agree to Mr Adam's proposal; he thought those who knew something of the Voluntary controversy should take some part in getting it "redd up." He had no objections to open questions if there was nothing practical in them. He was a member of the committee of union between the Church of Scotland and the Associate Synod, some thirty years ago, and there was one open question then- the descending obligation of the National Covenants but it had never turned up all that time, and, so far as he saw, never would. But the open questions here are of a very different nature, and will be certain to trouble the Church. There is, for example, the matter of the annuity tax, and that of teachers' salaries; while the question of endowment-the one Church holding that endowments are lawful, and the other that they are a great sin-involved, as it was easy to see, a vital question. The truth was, and he had no hesitation in saying it, that in principle they were far nearer to the Established Church than they were to the United Presbyterian Church. (“No, no,” and hear.) We do not know what may be in the future. A Tory Government are just now giving household suffrage-the most extraordinary thing he had ever heard of. (Laughter.) A Radical Government may next take it into its head to endow the Free Church of Scotland. (Renewed laughter.) He did not care a bit for the question of endowments, however; it was but a poor rag of an important question. But he cared for this he did not wish to be tied down to any opinion, and so tied

down for the future from judging as to the propriety or otherwise of accepting an endowment. Dr Rainy said as other doctors had done before him that the principle of endowments was not in the Confession of Faith; and it was thus intended to convey the idea, that it was not in the Standards of the Church; but he would tell him where it was to be found. [A voice-"Where?"] In the Larger Catechism. ["Quotation"] In the second petition of the Lord's Prayer-Thy kingdom come. In the Larger Catechism, in that part, it is distinctly stated that the magistrate is bound to support the ministry. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it would not do to say that this doctrine was not in their Standards. Sir Henry Moncreiff had said that they were not to be in a hurry; and another respected father had said that not "a single hoof" was to be left behind -not a very respectful way of speaking of the brethren who had some difficulties on this point, but it was kindly meant. (Laughter.) This was gratifying if it should not turn out to be like the rate of progress pointed at in Dr Guthrie's "unspoken speech," where the engine was to go on clearing obstructing gates and bars in its way, only forgetting that the result would be an awful smash. (Laughter.) What he objected to in the motion of Dr Candlish was, that it tied them down to one head of the programme, leaving the others unsettled. (Hear.) He was not willing to be committed in this way until, at least, the two questions— the sustentation of the ministry, and what was to be done with the schoolmasters were settled. (Hear.)

Colonel DAVIDSON said-Moderator, I had intended to speak very briefly on the merits of the question before us at an early period of the discussion of last night, but gave way to others who were more anxious than I was to occupy the time and attention of the House. Since then, such a tone has been given to the discussion by the speeches of fathers and brethren in whom the spirit of the old Voluntary controversy has been so unhappily revived, that I have no heart to enter into the merits of the question now. I am filled with feelings of sad and bitter disappointment. (Hear, hear.) For four years I have been a constant attender at the sederunts of the committee on union, having scarcely missed one of its meetings, and I will admit that my attendance there has been very pleasant and satisfactory to myself. I have felt it a privilege to hold intercourse with brethren of other denominations, and it was my experience there, as in India, that Christian communion may be very precious even when we have each of us something, if not to give up, at least to keep under, and when all the lesser distinctions of opinion are lost sight of under the dominating_influence of love to a common Redeemer. (Applause.) And further, I confess that the longer I have sat on that committee, the more have I been impressed with the conviction that the differences betwixt us and our United Presbyterian brethren are, for the most part, rather apparent than real-(hear, hear)—and that, under the light of discussion many of them have become "small by degrees and beautifully less." (Hear.) Again, some of our differences, though important in themselves, are not of so practical a character as to form an insuperable barrier to union. I hold most strongly the opinion that in the economy of the gospel there is provision for union between the Church and State, but I hold that opinion with some important reservations. I hold that, as in marriage, union between a Christian man and a woman is right and holy, only on the supposition that the

woman is a Christian also, so I hold that the union of a Christian Church with a State is right and holy, only on the proviso that the State is Christian also. (Hear, hear.) But while I hold, with such reservations as these, that the union of Church and State is compatible with the Word of God, I cannot, in the present dispensation of the world, regard this as a practical question, and to my mind it forms no barrier to union. I see no prospect of the Church and State being united in a right and holy manner till that time when the kingdoms of this world shall become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. (Hear, hear.) And when that glorious time shall arrive, and the knowledge of the Lord shall cover the earth, as the waters cover the sea, we may rest assured that any difficulties we may now have with our United Presbyterian brethren as to union of Church and State will be fully and satisfactorily adjusted. (Applause.) Dr Buchanan, in his most able address in submitting the report, has truly said that in the history of the Church since the apostolic times there is but one instance of a proper union between a Church and State. But I would go somewhat further, and say that all was not quite right even in that union. In the sight of God, I believe the Church was vindicated in the union she then formed with the State, because she entered upon it in the belief that the state was honest in her professions of Christian principle; but she found to her sad experience that she erred in putting confidence in princes, and she has been forced by the sin of her partner to dissolve the alliance. (Hear, hear.) Again, I can suppose a case where a government is Christian, and the people are Christian, but equally divided into several denominations. In such a state of matters should the government single out one of these denominations, dignify it with the appellation of the State Church, and foster it with endowments at the expense of the others, I hold that such a union, even if it could be termed right and holy, would certainly be inexpedient. (Hear.) I am not one of those who are in favour of hurry and hard driving. The question of union is a great and vital question, and it should have time to permeate into every corner of the Church; or, to use a significant Scotch phrase, to "seep" into the heads and hearts of our people. (Applause.) But while, on the one hand, there is danger in undue haste, on the other, we must beware of assuming such an attitude as shall put a stop to progress altogether. (Hear.) When I went to the committee on union four years ago, I went at the unanimous call of this House, in its cordial response to the overture for union made by our United Presbyterian brethren. But should the House now divide on the question of reappointing the committee (" No, no")--and divide after such a painful discussion, how shall I then return to that committee? I should be ashamed to hold up my head in the presence of the brethren of the United Presbyterian Church, towards whom, during the past sittings of the committee, my heart has been drawn more and more in respectful love and admiration. (Applause.) The United Presbyterian Church has done nothing to forfeit our confidence. On the contrary, as the discussion has proceeded, she has manifested an expected amount of harmony with the other Churches negotiating for union. And shall we at this stage betray a suspicion to which we gave no expression at the beginning? I trust not, and I entreat my beloved friends and brethren on the other side to pause before they take upon them the solemn responsibility of dividing this Assembly on the motion

of reappointing the committee-("No, no")-and so placing its members in a most painful and humiliating position. (Hear, hear.)

Dr CANDLISH directed the attention of the House that the adjournment had been agreed to on the condition of the vote being taken before five o'clock to-night. That implied that a little time would be preserved to the mover of the motion for his reply. He had to submit, therefore, that the general discussion must necessarily close at four o'clock. (Hear, hear.)

Mr CHARLES COWAN said that there was nothing more unusual or more ungracious in the House of Commons than resistance to the introduction of a bill. Now, the present position of this question was this, to ask consent to the introduction of a series of bills not yet before them, relating to the organisation of the Church, the rights of property, and a great many other matters which must necessarily occupy the attention of the Church for years to come. Having nearly one thousand individuals in his employment, during a pretty long experience, he would say this, that he owed to the United Presbyterian Church and its ministrations much of his happiness and success in life, in their having reared up a body of servants, many of whom occupied positions of trust and confidence in this and all parts of the world. This was a solemn day. It was twenty years, this day, since the illustrious Chalmers was gathered to the Church Triumphant. During even the fierce period of the Voluntary controversy, often had he heard Dr Chalmers say that they owed a deep debt of gratitude to the fathers of the Secession Church for having kept alive in the land the lamp of evangelistic truth during the long and dreary reign of Moderatism; and if Chalmers had been spared till this day, he would have been one of the very first among them to do everything in his power to bring about this hallowed union. He (Mr Cowan) rejoiced that they were done with the crazy and rotten crutches of State endowments. (Applause.) Had they been the losers in consequence of the withdrawal of these endowments? Had they not gained tenfold beyond that which they were unjustly deprived of (Applause.) He believed that this union, when it took place, bringing so many large-minded, liberal givers together, would tend greatly, by the blessing of God, to the continued prosperity of the Church in this land for generations to come. He did not despair of embracing even the Established Church in union at a future day. The Established Church was doing much to increase the scanty livings of their ministers, and there were many ministers in that Church doing Christ's work efficiently. He hoped that many of these ministers would yet be included in a united Church, though he did not expect to live to see that day.

Mr BROWN DOUGLAS, elder, felt much regret at the tone of the discussion yesterday and to-day, and he also felt strongly that Dr Begg's motion did not clearly raise the issue which it professed to raise. He (Mr Douglas) was therefore anxious to state the grounds on which he for one could not agree to that motion; and he hoped that the House would be almost persuaded by the speeches which had been delivered on the other side not to agree to it. He took the liberty of expressing his own opinion very strongly that Dr Begg's motion was a motion against union. ("No, no," and cheers.) He knew some people said "No;" but let them hear his reasons before they questioned his right to characterise the motion as one implying that there was a hindrance to union; and

therefore, in so far a motion against union. (Renewed cries of "No, no,” and prolonged applause.) He noticed, in the first place, that every motion which the House had adopted for the last four years expressed the extreme desirableness and duty of promoting union. This was omitted in Dr Begg's motion, and he thought the omission remarkably significant. Then, when they came to interpret the motion by Dr. Begg's own speech, he thought there was ample reason to say that the motion which professed to be a motion for the reappointment of the committee was, as explained and illustrated by Dr Begg's speech, a motion meaning that there was a bar to union. (Loud cheers.) Farther, he looked to the supporters of Dr Begg's motion, and he found among them those who were, as he thought, opposed to union-at least, in the only sense in which union is practicable. (Cries of "No, no," "Name, name," and some hisses, followed by loud and general cheering.) He had no difficulty in naming them. (Cries of "Go on," and "Name, name.") Well, he might perhaps name Professor Gibson; he thought he might name Dr Forbes. (Cheers, and a cry of "No, no.") Some one said "No." What, then, was the meaning of the motion seconded by Dr Forbes at last Assembly, that the union committee be discharged? (Loud and prolonged cheering.)

Dr DUNCAN here rose and disclaimed being an opponent of union.

Mr DOUGLAS said that Dr Duncan had seconded Mr Nixon's motion, and that he did not refer to him. What to him (Mr Douglas) was conclusive in the view he had taken was, that Dr Begg put his motion as an amendment to Dr Candlish's or Mr Rainy's motion, which required them to say that, so far as they had gone in their negotiations, they saw no bar to union, while Dr Begg asked them to exclude that important statement. (Cheers.) He would now mention very shortly what occurred to himself on the question before the Assembly. In the first place, he had not heard a single reason why, if they did not see a bar to union, they should not say so. If any one saw a bar to it, he did not object to his stating it; he thought it was but fair and honest that this should be said, and said now: but professing, as he and those who agreed with him in this matter, that he saw no bar to union, he had not heard a single reason why a motion which made a declaration to this effect should not be agreed to. Further, the question necessarily presented itself, whether it was very respectful to the United Presbyterian Church to withhold an opinion or judgment on this subject. (Cheers.) Their United Presbyterian friends were as clear-headed and intelligent as any among themselves (a laugh)—and they would readily see through the veil which Dr Begg was trying, by means of his motion, to throw over the real point at issue. It is recorded in the minutes before us, that the United Presbyterian Church, through their committee, requested an answer to the question, Does the difference between us imply that we cannot unite? The Free Church committee did not feel warranted in answering that question; but it has now come before this supreme Court of our Church, and if we refuse to answer it, the United Presbyterian Synod can put but one construction on that refusal, and that a most natural construction that we do see a bar to union. But some say we do not mean that; we are not against union. But what union were they not against He had listened to Dr Gibson with the respect and attention to which he was entitled; and he had heard him repeat again