it was well known that in the opinion of many the differences brought out under the first head of programme were so serious as to form an insuperable bar to the union contemplated. Knowing this, it seemed to him passing strange that Drs Candlish and Rainy should have united to propose such a resolution as that now on the table. There were two other courses open to them, one or other of which, as members of the union committee, they might have been expected to have adopted: either to have proposed a private conference before engaging in public discussion, or to have proposed that the committee should be reappointed, with special instructions to take the question as to the bearing of the differences brought out under the first head of programme upon the contemplated union into consideration, and to report thereon to next Assembly. Considering that at the meeting of Presbytery of Edinburgh on 9th January last, on motion of Dr Bannerman, seconded by Dr Guthrie, supported by Sir Henry Moncreiff, Drs Candlish, and Rainy, it was resolved to transmit an overture to this Assembly, calling upon it to take into consideration the whole principles which should regulate the duty of union between separate Churches, as embodied in the Word of God and recognised by this Church: the latter is the course which they might have been expected to adopt. Considering what subsequently took place in the same Presbytery, viz., that at a meeting on 27th March, on the motion of Dr Begg, seconded by him, (Mr Thorburn,) supported by Drs Bonar, M'Lauchlan, and Smith, Mr Main, and Mr Balfour of Holyrood, an overture of a different kind was adopted; the former is the course which they might have been expected to have pursued. Mr W. Balfour had read the one overture, he would now read the other. It was as follows:-"It is humbly overtured by the Free Presbytery of Edinburgh that the General Assembly shall give no deliverance on any branch of the question of union among other Churches, until the existing inquiries under all the heads of the programme are laid before the Church, and the Assembly is enabled to take a conjunct view of the whole question." The course actually adopted seemed to demand explanation. But whatever might be the explanation, what the Assembly were called upon to consider was, whether it was prepared to say that as regarded the first head of the programme, considered in itself, there appeared to be no bar to the union contemplated. For himself, so far from thinking there was no bar, he agreed with those who thought that the differences which had been brought out under that head presented an insuperable bar to the union contemplated. What was essential to our incorporative union was this, that it should be in, or on, and for, the truth-a union having truth for its basis, and the unfettered promulgation thereof for its object. When He whom they called Lord and Master, and in regard to whom they said well, for so He was, was arraigned before a human tribunal on the charge of perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute to Cæsar, saying that He himself was Christ, a King, in reply to the question, Art thou a king? we are informed He said, "Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth." What He came into the world to do, they, His professing servants, were required to be witnesses to. What was the function of a witness but to bear faithful testimony to the truth-the whole truth-nothing but the truth. But in this projected union it was proposed that in so far as related to one particular

subject, that of the endowment of the Church by the State, there should be no witness-bearing as to what was truth. Its component parts, its individual members, might continue to retain their opinions, but not to express them. Mention had been made of open questions. That he could understand; but in so far as related to the endowment of the Church by the State, it was to be the one question on which the United Church was to be silent.

Were it the case that the projected union was one of the same kind, with these numerous religious and benevolent associations, for certain well-defined objects, whose members it was understood might differ widely from each other in regard to other objects, and into which individuals were at liberty to enter, and as they pleased, he could understand the proposal made. But that was not the footing or ground on which they were called upon to enter into the proposed union. The footing or ground was this, that the negotiating Churches could not remain separate without sin, without opposing the Saviour's prayer, and grieving His Holy Spirit. With regard to that he agreed with what had been said by an esteemed co-presbyter, Dr Horatius Bonar, in the inferior court, as to the impropriety of the references which had been made to the Saviour's prayer in connexion with the proposed incorporating union. But assuming the references which had been made to it at last, and at the present Assembly, to be perfectly legitimate, what he asked every member of the House to consider was this, Whether the Free and United Presbyterian Churches continuing as hitherto in two distinct and separate organisations, or being blended into one on such a basis as that proposed, would be the greater sin? For himself he had no hesitation in saying, that whilst in the one case the sin was problematical, either no sin at all, or only a sin of one of the parties, or if of both not necessarily so in the other, both parties would be involved in sin of a far more highly aggravated character, than that arising from these continuing in two distinct and separate organisations.

Neither party, neither those who held the principle of an Establishment, nor those who held the principle of Voluntaryism, were at liberty to enter into such a compact as that proposed-into a compact in which the parties entering into it, agreed to cease to bear witness, in their corporate capacity, on behalf of what they severally believed to be part of the revealed will of God.

There were other remarks which he intended to have made relative to the subscription of the Confessions of Faith; the nature of the question. in the formula relative to the claim of right; the question of endowment of the Church by the State, and other matters, but considering the length of the debate, the exhausted state of the House, and that other members were desirous to express their opinion, he would not longer occupy the time of the Assembly. And in conclusion he had simply to say that the way in which they would most effectually promote the cause of Christian union was not by the compromise or abandonment of any of their distinctive principles, but by holding them fast, and straining every nerve to secure that they should be recognised by the Government of the country, and the whole people of the land.

Captain SHEPHERD wished to detain the House a moment merely while he replied to what his excellent friend, Colonel Davidson, had said in regard to the appointment of the committee. He was sure there was

Z

no opposition raised in any motion to the appointment of the committee. His excellent friend, Mr Brown Douglas, had said that Dr Begg's motion was a decided motion against the union. Now, he (Captain Shepherd) did not view it in that light. There was just this in the motions-that of Dr Candlish said that they should proceed at once, but said also that there was no insuperable bar to union under the first head of the programme; Dr Begg's motion said that it was premature to express any opinion of that kind, but the committee was to be continued. He was sure Mr Douglas, as an excellent lawyer, if he had a case presented to him, would desire to consider the whole case before he gave judgment. That was all that was required by Dr Begg's motion. (Applause.) But while he said that, he also wished to say, he felt anxious for union till lately, and now he could not see for the life of him how they could go into union without sacrificing those principles which the Church had held at the Disruption. He was grieved to differ from such eminent men as Dr Candlish and Dr Buchanan, who led them through that memorable Disruption, but he had tried with all his heart, but in vain, to see how he could consistently enter into that union and hold Disruption principles. His Bible told him, if he read it correctly, that it was the duty of kings and queens to support the Church, and he tried to make his Bible his chart and compass to steer by; and that was distinctly said in it. He could not, then, see how they could hold the principles they had at the Disruption, and still say there was no bar to union. If they would only look at the education question-he was sure it would grieve the heart of their excellent friend, the convener of the Foreign Committee if they were to be told, as they had been told by their United Presbyterian brethren, that it was sinful for Government to give money to teach the heathen of Christ. What would Dr Duff

say to that? and what would they say of it in reference to all their schools? He held that it was a great boon to have government aid for education. (Loud applause.) He would say more than that, that in the country to which they belonged it had been seen to be the greatest boon. And if they came to them and said that this is a sin, how could he and others feel then! Colonel Davidson and he had sat on the union committee together, and he had received benefit from having communion with their brethren, with whom they were desirous of co-operating; but, while he loved them as Voluntaries, he could not say he loved Voluntaryism. (Applause.) He had not got the length of that yet, and as far as he had light at present, it was his clear conviction that he did right in supporting Dr Begg's motion in the meantime. He did not wish them to think, however, that he was objecting to union; far from it, but let them finish their work. He would, if he were going to sail, have all his cargo shipped before he took the pilot on board; let them, therefore, have their work complete before they proceeded to union. (Applause.)

Captain PATTISON was understood to counsel the Assembly to proceed with caution.

Mr WALKER, Carnwath, replied to the arguments of Dr Begg, and remarked that he could not forget that Dr Begg had been one of a party who had taken an active part in promoting the union of the Churches in Australia, on the very basis hinted at in these articles of agreement. (Loud applause.) It used to be said of Anglo-Indians in the beginning

of this century that they left their Christian principles at the Cape of Good Hope, and forgot to pick them up as they came home again, and it almost looked as if the Confession of Faith had had some portions of its contents dropped about Cape Horn. (Hear.) Dr Begg had denied that those who took up his (Mr Walker's) position could do so and be faithful to those who differed from him, but he thought the articles of agreement contained the soundest principles for the regulation of Church and State, and said he wished for no more on the question of the civil magistrate than what the articles contained. It would be something marvellous, indeed, if that Assembly should not agree to embrace the opportunity of union with such articles coming before them at such a time as this. (Loud applause.) They were bound by the spirit in which the union question was opened in the Free Church to support Dr Candlish's motion. The scope and extent of it was, that when the committee was first appointed there was acknowledged to be one great difficulty in relation to the position the civil magistrate occupied to religion. It was, if there was a fair prospect of agreeing about that, then the union would be a natural thing. Now, they had found out what they started to discover, and it would not be in the spirit in which the negotiations commenced if they refused to agree to what Dr Candlish's motion required of them. (Hear.) If they looked at the motion of Dr Begg, he thought they would see it to Le utterly impossible, if it were carried, for the negotiations to be continued. (Loud applause.) Looked at in the light of Dr Begg's speech, he felt that it would be insulting their United Presbyterian brethren to go on with the union. (Applause.) Suppose, when the union movement commenced, that Dr Begg had begun in such a style, would the movement not have been knocked on the head at once (Hear.) Then they would observe that Dr Candlish's motion did not commit them finally, and it was not for them to say that the matter was to be altogether and finally settled by any resolution the Assembly might come to on that occasion. The articles were like a treaty, which had to be sent again and again to head-quarters before it was agreed to, and even at the last might break down. In thus dealing with the question, the Church was acting upon the principles of common sense. (Hear.) Looking at the question of endowment, he felt it would be a serious thing were the Assembly, in the present state of public feeling in the country, and with the speeches they had heard from Dr Begg, Mr Fraser, and Mr Stark, to approve of Dr Begg's motion. They were all aware of the feeling statesmen had upon universal endowments, and that the literature of the country was working in the same direction, and if that General Assembly were to give any measure of approval to such a feeling, it would give an immense impetus to universal endowments of religion. Statesmen would say here is a protest, but it is only so much ecclesiastical wind, and we may go on safely with the work. It would be a most perilous thing to follow the course suggested, and disastrous in many ways to our country. (Hear.) He sympathised to a great extent with Mr Brown Douglas in his remarks, but he contended that they had not abandoned their testimony to religion, and that the noblest testimony for religion was when a nation, by the freewill offerings of the people, raised its temples all over the length and breadth of the land. (Applause.) There would, when that was the case, be a far grander fulfilment of the prophecy than Dr Begg had alluded to. (Loud applause.) Then in

regard to open questions, the Church had never been without, and never could be without them. (Hear.) But the gentlemen who had spoken on the opposite side did not seem to have made a sufficient distinction between what was essential and non-essential. Open questions were one of the fundamental ideas of the Protestantism of the country, and there was nothing so likely to damage the principles of the Church as thrusting into them all sorts of minute points. Sir Robert Peel had said, "The worst injury you could do to a great question was to put it in abeyance;" but the worst thing they could do to a secondary question was to put it too high; the result being that it narrowed the life of the individual, and would also narrow the life of the Church. (Hear.) He did not, as some supposed, give up points because he left them open questions. Then, he was interested as well as his brethren in the history of the Church, and he was not about, by what he was doing, to cast any slight on the historical Free Church of Scotland. It was for the spiritual liberty of the Church that, in the 17th and 18th centuries, the martyrs died. Martyrs dying for the endowment principle ! (Loud applause.) He had taken a deep interest in the struggle of the Free Church, and he ventured to say that not one of those who had taken so active a part in it would have been so stirred in it if it had been for the comparatively paltry question of the endowment principle they were contending; but what they contended for was the Church's spiritual liberty. It was because of this historical testimony that he liked the union, which would form a combination of all that was best in the history of the Scottish Church. The Cameronians were the descendants of the brave hillmen who were the forlorn hope of liberty of Scotland and England; nay, of all the world they might say. Then their United Presbyterian brethren had borne good testimony to evangelical doctrine and the rights of the people in matters ecclesiastical, and he was not sure that the old Relief Church had got justice done it in that matter. Then they had the history of their own Free Church, with its grand struggle for the crown rights of Christ-they had all these three streams about to be combined into one grand stream, and flowing in a river of life through their native land. (Loud applause.) They had not given up the claim of rights, but they did not press it. They had been told of their old Scottish forefathers. He had read Scottish history too, and he had found that over and over again there were small extreme parties who had done immense injury to the Church. He spoke of the struggles of the 16th century, and said the Cameronians, when bearing the burden and heat of the day, had had their influence marred by the small extreme party. He concluded by calling upon the Assembly to follow in the footsteps of such men as Alexander Henderson, Carstairs, Thomas Chalmers, and William Cunningham. Thomas Chalmers! Dr Begg had quoted Thomas Chalmers. He thought if Thomas Chalmers had been among them, with his far-seeing wisdom and the good of Scotland in his eye, he would have swept Dr Begg's small arguments all aside. (Loud and prolonged applause.)

Mr R. JOHNSTON, elder, said the first duty they had to perform in considering the question of union was to take care that they were united among themselves. (Hear, hear.) He very much doubted whether the vehemence and the taunts and disparagements of what had been called the extreme small party were at all fitted to promote union. (Hear, hear.)