and again, both to-day and in previous speeches, what he could construe in no other sense than this, that the United Presbyterians must abandon their distinctive principles and come over to the Free Church; in which case he (Dr Gibson) would be very happy to unite with them. (Cheers.) But what kind of union was that? (Renewed cheers.) Dr Gibson did not expect that the Free Church was to abandon her distinctive principles; nobody asked him to do so; and yet he seemed to expect the United Presbyterian Church must abandon her distinctive principles. He (Mr Douglas) did not expect this, and did not ask for it. Upon that point Dr Gibson said there is to be no forbearance, no open question, the differences are to be arranged; but how in this way could there be uniou? (Hear, hear.) How could there be union if the United Presbyterian Church was not to abandon their distinctive principles, and the Free Church was not to abandon theirs, and there was to be no forbearance? Then some of Dr Begg's party said they would not unite with the United Presbyterian Church, because they did not hold the question of endowment. But what if there are some among themselves who do not hold the principle of endowment? He wished to ask whether he was at liberty or not to regard this an open question. He should be very careful if he found that in any statement he had signed there was anything requiring him to maintain that element of an establishment; but he had never heard that the Larger Catechism bound him. He was bound by the Confession of Faith, but not by the Larger Catechism. He must say that he had no great love for Church Establishments, and no great confidence in the principle of national endowments; in fact he was having less and less every year, and he was not sure but he might almost go as far as a brother elder at the last Assembly when he declared himself a Voluntary on that subject of endowment. (A laugh.) He (Mr Brown Douglas) must protest for himself, and he believed for others, against the interpretation which had been given in the course of the debate to certain passages of Scripture, as if these warranted or commanded national endowments. For instance, it was said that kings shall be nursing fathers, and queens nursing mothers of the Church. No doubt that previous promise will one day be fulfilled, but in what sense? In the sense of forcing a reluctant people to pay for the propagation of the gospel? Certainly not. (Applause.) But in the sense that kings and queens and all in authority were to glorify and honour Jesus Christ. (Applause, and some expressions of dissent.) They are to bring their own gifts, not the forced contributions of the people, and lay them at the Redeemer's feet. That was the way in which he interpreted the passage. (Renewed applause.) He begged to add that it seemed to him very unwise to strain passages of Scripture to a meaning they would not bear; this would necessarily diminish their confidence in those to whose interpretation of the Bible the people naturally deferred, with the respect to which, from their study of the Word of God, they were most justly entitled. But let him state to this House there was another passage of Scripture which pressed itself on his mind. He read of the importance of being "established in the present truth." And what was the present truth? Was it the question of endowments? Some one had said last night that since the days of Knox, he was thankful they had had an Established Church. Well, they might have had benefits from it, but he suspected that they had also suffered from their State connexion; and this he knew, that when they tried to lean on it

in the time of their great need and extremity, they found it a rotten branch that could not bear them. (Loud applause.) In the same hour of need they turned to the Christian people. And had they been disappointed? Had they not found that from year to year the contributions of the Christian people were such that they had astonished not only the Church itself, but all who had heard of them. Were they to disregard that lesson? (Loud applause.) Mr Stark, when arguing on the first head of the programme, had most unnecessarily drawn in the subject of the Sustentation fund, which was in no possible way connected with it, and he referred to some eight persons who had somewhere gone from the Free Church to worship in the U.P. Church, that they might escape from paying their contributions. What was the value of this argument or statement? If their people went to the United Presbyterian Church Mr Stark might draw a very different conclusion-it seemed to him to show these eight persons thought there was very little difference between the two bodies. (Laughter.) Present truth was not the endowment of the Church. But he saw another present truth which they ought to be established in-he saw in the distance and everywhere infidelity abroad, in their schools, and amongst their men of scholarship and science; he saw superstition in a neighbouring Church and throughout the world; and what he wanted was an united phalanx-at all events in Scotland, if they could have it, to contend against the terrible enemy with which their Churches would have to struggle. (Applause.) For his own part, he could most honestly say that his mind was as free on the subject of union as it was upon any subject which was open for consideration. He was not called upon at present to make up his mind upon it, and he had not done so. Professor Rainy's motion did not commit us to any theories as to union, that decision must be adopted in different circumstances and on a future occasion, all they were now asked to decide was this, regarding the distinctive principles of the United Presbyterian Church on the one hand, and those of the Free Church on the other, could they regard the admitted difference on the subject of the civil magistrate's duty as an open question. A difference which in itself need not keep the Churches separate. He thought they could, and he supported the motion most cordially because he believed that in this point the differences formed no insuperable barrier to union. (Applause.)

Mr THORBURN, Leith, said that reference had been made by Dr Buchanan, in his able and eloquent address on giving in the report of the union committee, to what had been said by him and Dr C. Brown at Assembly 1863, relative to bygone times and bygone actings. With reference to actings in the times alluded to, there were two things which he (Mr Thorburn) had never ceased to regret. One of these was, that the evangelical party in the Established Church, on obtaining a majority in 1834, should not have signalised their victory by instantly taking the requisite steps for disowning, disclaiming, repudiating, and condemning all those actings of the moderate party which were the originating cause of the secessions of the last century, and for throwing wide open the doors of the Established Church for the entrance of those noble men to whom and their predecessors, not Scotland alone, but Great Britain, owed so large a debt of gratitude for keeping the lamp of spiritual religion burning bright, when it had well nigh been extinguished within the pale of the Established Church; and for maintaining throughout

the country such a warm attachment to the British constitution when the revolutionary wave was flowing over the continent of Europe, and was even heard resounding on the shores of the British isles; and, the other was, that the committee, appointed by the Free Church at the Disruption, for the purpose of promoting a co-operative union with other evangelical Churches-Dr Candlish and Dr Buchanan joint-conveners―― should have ceased to prosecute that object after, if not in consequence of, the painful discussions which took place in connexion with the formation of the Evangelical Alliance in 1846. What had been done by them had no doubt been done for the best, and was calculated to impress upon the minds of all that if they wished the movement so auspiciously inaugurated in 1863 to be crowned with a blessing, they should avoid taking any step whereby the consciences of brethren would be wounded, or discussions provoked whereby the object aimed at might, and in all probability would, be indefinitely postponed.

What with reference to the past history of the union movement was well deserving of notice was the unanimity in which it had originated, and the spirit in which it had been prosecuted. With reference to origin. It had been his privilege to be present at the discussion in the United Presbyterian Synod in 1863, and he gladly embraced the opportunity of bearing testimony to the admirable tone pervading it. He could truly say he had never listened to speeches more happily conceived; and that he had never been present at a meeting where there was a greater indication of all assembled being under an influence from above; and it was in the highest degree gratifying to him at the time, and the memory of it was fragrant still, that the kindly feeling towards the Free Church displayed by the esteemed fathers and brethren in the United Presbyterian Synod was so cordially reciprocated by all who took part in the subsequent discussion within these walls, and striking testimony had been borne by Dr Buchanan at last Assembly to the spirit in which the movement had been prosecuted. From what was then said, there seemed reason to believe that the time was at hand when the hopes which had been entertained as to the accomplishment of the object for which the union committee had been appointed were to be realised. And in so far as related to the other negotiating Churches, nothing had been said or done calculated to frustrate their realisation. Very different was the state of matters in this Church, a state of matters in which on the issue of the discussion there being engaged in depended whether the movement was to proceed as hitherto, or to be summarily arrested; or if not arrested, prosecuted in a manner entirely different from what it had hitherto been. It had been said by Mr Brown Douglas, that the supporters of Dr Begg's motion were opposed to union. That for himself and others he emphatically denied. In so far as he (Mr Thorburn) was concerned, the union movement in the Presbytery of Edinburgh originated in the following overture, which was submitted by him :—

"It is humbly overtured by the Free Presbytery of Edinburgh that the General Assembly take into their consideration the efforts made by this Church towards union with other sections of the Christian Church; the causes which rendered these efforts abortive, or prevented their further prosecution; the obstacles still resting in the way of the accomplishment of the object aimed at; and the means to be adopted for their removal, and the realisation of that unity for which the Saviour prayed, and the

manifestation of which will be the crowning demonstration to the world of His divine mission." Nor was this all that had been done by him. At the Assembly 1860, a committee, on motion made by him, was appointed-Dr Buchanan, convener for the purpose of considering what measures should be adopted towards securing the full accomplishment of the great aims and objects of the Scottish reformers. He proposed that the report which was given in at Assembly 1861 should conclude as follows:

"Amongst the questions relative to the means to be adopted towards securing the full accomplishment of the objects aimed at by the Reformers, your committee beg in conclusion to call the attention of the Assembly to the following:

"1. Whether the time has not arrived for the Free Church taking the requisite steps for bringing its claim of right anew and formally before the Imperial Legislature? or, should it be deemed inexpedient so to do,

"2. Whether there is not a loud call upon it to take the requisite steps towards the formation, if not of an incorporating, at all events of a cooperative union, among those sections of the Protestant Church which, however differing from each other in points regarded by them severally as of such importance as to warrant their continued existence as distinct and separate communions, are yet of one mind in regard to the great fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith; and which, more especially, are of one mind in regard to the following particulars :

:

"1. In regarding the Catechisms, Larger and Shorter, of the Westminster Assembly, as containing a sound statement of Christian doctrine and duty, of what man is to believe concerning God, and of what duty God requires of man.

"2. In regarding the thorough evangelisation of the country as the only effectual cure for all the existing evils of our social condition.

"3. In holding that the existing relations between certain sections of the Church and the State are unscriptural, and that the legal obligation at present resting upon members of other sections to contribute to their support, is not only inexpedient, but unjust.

"4. That the appropriation of national funds for the support and propagation of error of any kind, and more especially for the support and propagation of Romanism, is a course of policy dishonouring to God, and fraught with danger to the country.

"5. That all existing national institutions, and more especially those for the religious instruction and general education of the people, should be remodelled and suited to the existing circumstances of the country.

"In so far as relates to those sections of the Church which are of one mind in regard to such particulars as the above, there not only seems to be no insuperable obstacle in the way of a co-operative union, but, in the existing circumstances of the country, and more especially in the determination, on the part of those invested with political power, to uphold existing national institutions in all their rights and privileges, however unjust to those not connected with them;-in the increasing tendency to appropriate national funds for the support and propagation of Romanism, and the failure of all attempts to secure such alterations in existing institutions, as the circumstances of the country obviously demand, there seem to be most powerful inducements towards their seek

ing to form such an union as would enable them to bring their combined influence most successfully to bear towards procuring the adoption of the requisite measures for the effective cure of all the enormous evils of our present social condition."

It had been further said that the adoption of Dr Begg's motion would put an end to the negotiations which had been going on for the last four years. If so, it was enough to solemnise all their minds. But what was

more solemnising still was, that on the issue of that day's debate depended whether the Free was to remain a united Church; or to be divided into two parties as diametrically opposed to each other as were the two parties in the Established Church previous to the Disruption; or whether the Free Church should continue or be broken up. He felt strongly tempted, from the remarks made by Mr Brown Douglas, to enter into a statement of the causes for the existing state of things on the union question in this Church as contained in a pamphlet recently published by him. But he would not yield to the temptation, and carefully eschewing all expression or even indication of his opinion, and leaving consequences in the hands of Him who sat King upon the floods, for He, blessed be His holy name, sat King for ever, he begged the House to consider what was really the present state of the question. What in connexion with that was deserving of notice was, that no decision had been pronounced by any previous Assembly, nor even by the union committee, calculated to interfere with the freedom of this Assembly to discuss the union question in all its bearings, or to dispose of the report now on the table in whatever way it deemed most expedient. All that had been done by previous Assemblies was to approve of the diligence of the union committee, and to reappoint it with the former instructions. And all that had been done by the union committee in its successive reports was to communicate the results which had been arrived at. But whether, or how far these results afforded ground for believing there was no insuperable bar, or no bar of whatever kind to the union contemplated, the committee pronounced no deliverance, nor even expressed any opinion. And this of itself instituted a powerful reason why the Assembly should decline in hoc statu to pronounce any deliverance on a question so grave in itself, and so momentous in its consequences. The reason stated in the report of the union committee why no deliverance had been pronounced on the bearing of the differences which had been brought out under the first head of programme was, that doubts were entertained as to the competency of the committee to pronounce a judgment on such a question. But although there were doubts as to the competency to pronounce a judgment, there was nothing to prevent them from forming and expressing an opinion. And had the resolution proposed by Dr Candlish, and submitted by Dr Rainy, embodied the unanimous opinion of the committee or of its members, it would have been, if not a substantial, at all events a plausible reason, why the Assembly should pronounce the deliverance sought. But such was not the case. As in regard to other matters in the programme, so also in regard to that on which deliverance was sought, the committee were divided in opinion. Not only was there diversity of opinion within, but also beyond the walls of the committee. Were it the case that the diversity of opinion was not of a formidable kind, the Assembly might, without fear of consequences, pronounce the deliverance sought.

But