if this writer will tell us when these documents were emitted, and where they are to be found. Well, Dr Candlish's overture was dismissed because it was considered to be exceedingly superfluous. Let the reader bear that in mind-because it was exceedingly superfluous. Was there no other reason for its being withdrawn? Our author says there was. 'Besides,' says he, 'we have reason to know, that the most staunch friends and advocates of our national covenants in the Free Church, cordially acquiesced in the proposal that that committee should be discharged, being resolved to prosecute their views through the medium of their several synods and presbyteries, as the method most likely to advance and promote the good cause.' Observe the self-destructive nature of these statements. In the first place, Dr Candlish's overture is said to have been dismissed because it was considered to be exceedingly superfluous. In the second place, it was dismissed because the most staunch friends of the national covenants were resolved, in their synods and presbyteries, to advocate the good cause.' This looks exceedingly like fast and loose pleading. Why was the Free Church testimony dismissed? Oh, that depends on circumstances. How on circumstances? If, for example, you fall in with persons who appeal to the dismissal of the overture as a proof that the Free Church is unwilling to have a testimony for the Covenanted Reformation, you can say that they quite mistake the matter; that it was dismissed, not because of any specific disagreement with its contents,' but because it was considered to be exceedingly superfluous.' If, on the other hand, you fall in with another person who is anxious that the Free Church should do something more than she has yet done in the way of identifying herself with the Covenanted Church of Scotland, to him you can say that you have reason to know that it was dismissed not because it was considered to be superfluous, but because it could be more successfully advocated in synods and in presbyteries. None of these reasons have been assigned by the Free Church herself, and as our author has not been very correct in the representations he has given of his own church, he must excuse us, in the meantime, for believing, until the church herself declare otherwise, that Dr Candlish's document was dismissed because the church, as a church, is not prepared to receive it; and not being prepared to receive it, much less will they receive the much stronger sentiments contained in the pastoral address. Thus we dismiss our author's first proof, that the church has already judicially avowed the Covenanted Reformation.

His second proof is drawn from the 'claim of Right Declaration and Protest.' 'We have,' says he, a copy of these deeds before us, and shall only say, that if any man, after reading them, would persist in saying that the Free Church had failed to identify herself clearly with the church of the first and second Reformations, we would despair of conviction reaching him through any channel or evidence of any kind.' We have these deeds before us also, and can see nothing in them by which the Free Church identifies herself with the church of the covenanting period. But when the author points out the passages in which this is done, we will consider them.

His third proof is drawn from the Free Church Catechism, which

was formally approved of by the Assembly in 1847, and he has quoted several passages from that catechism, and also the act of Assembly by which it was sanctioned. His proof from both sources is a failure. The Assembly,' says the act authorising, 'approve generally of the same, as a valuable summary of this church's history, and an exhibition of her distinctive principles from the beginning of the Reformation to the present time.' Now, in the first place, although this catechism were found testifying for the Covenanted Reformation, it would not follow that the Assembly did so, because they only 'approve generally' of this document. In the second place, the catechism is received by the church as a valuable summary of this church's history, and an exhibition of her distinctive principles from the beginning of the Reformation,' and therefore, in its reference to the past, it shows rather what the church's testimony has been, than what is now the testimony of the church. In the third place, the catechism was unanimously sanctioned by the same Assembly that refused to receive Dr Candlish's overture, and therefore it must have been understood by them, either that the catechism did not contain those sentiments which in the overture were so obnoxious, or that their approve generally' did not sanction these obnoxious sentiments. In the fourth place, this is proved by a question quoted by our author. Quest. 198, 'Were not the Erskines and their brethren who founded the Secession Church, Mr Gillespie who founded the Relief, and the many thousands of the people of God who gave up their interest in the Establishment that they might escape from the intrusion of ministers, sufferers in what was SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME CAUSE?' Answer, 'Yes.' The Free Church cause is here declared to be substantially the same as the Relief; but who ever heard that the Relief was substantially the same with the Covenanted Church of Scotland? It is no doubt also said to be substantially the same with that of the Erskines; but this means that they were substantially the same in reference to 'the intrusion of ministers,' which was the cause that produced the Secession, not that they were the same in reference to the Secession cause, as stated in their testimony, which was for the Covenanted Reformation. We have, therefore, the authority of this catechism for saying that the Free Church cause is, substantially, the same with that of the Relief, which consisted in giving relief from patronage, but had no judicial testimony for the Reformation.

That the Free Church has no judicial testimony for the Covenanted Reformation, may be inferred, in the first place, from the fact that this is called in question by so many, and she being aware of this, must be held as acquiescing in this opinion, aye and until she uses means to remove all doubt upon the subject.

In the second place, it must have been the opinion of Dr Candlish that she had no such testimony, when he brought forward his overture for a testimony. He must also have been deeply impressed with the same conviction, when, on withdrawing his overture, he declared that the subject of it was one which they could scarcely avoid if they were really in good faith to maintain their testimony in the land.' Dr Candlish evidently thought they had no testimony for the Covenanted Reformation, and that they ought to have one; and we take it,

that Dr Candlish is as likely to know about the matter as the author of this pamphlet.

6

In the third place, in proof of the fact that the Free Church has not such a testimony as she ought to have, we appeal to the declarations of this writer himself. In one passage, page 25, he thus writes: That a considerable difference of sentiment and opinion prevails amongst the pious and godly in the present day on the subject of our national covenants, their nature, extent, and the various obligations resulting from them, is true, and is deeply to be regretted; and that the Free Church may, for this reason alone, be unwilling to encourage debates and discussions on such questions in her supreme court, is also not improbable.' This extract plainly implies, that the Free Church has refrained from debating the question of the covenants, in her supreme court, and not having discussed it there, it cannot have been decided there; but if it has not been decided there, it is no part of her testimony. In another place, page 31, he states that at the Disruption the Free Church was ready to receive Original Seceders with open arms, to co-operate with them in securing a triumph also in due time, for the entire principles of the Covenanted Reformation. This shows that a battle has yet to be fought in order to secure a triumph within the Free Church for the entire principles of the Covenanted Reformation; but if she has a testimony for these, their triumph is already secured. What we take to be the better sense of the author here, is, that she has not yet such a testimony.' And in a third place, already quoted, he expresses his hope that the Free Church will be led to take up more decided ground than she has even yet taken in that direction.' But if she already has a testimony for the Covenanted Reformation; if she has put forth 'so many documents, and such explicit confessions on this subject,' how can she take up more decided ground? If she be already, on this subject, radiating light from every pore of her body,' where will she get a pore through which to perspire that more decided light which the author still desiderates? The fact that he wishes her to take up more decided ground, seems to indicate, that he is beset with the hankering consciousness that she ought to have a more explicit testimony than she yet has, and this is all that ever we demanded. We only said, that she ought to take up more decided ground than she had taken, and that until this was done, there could not be a union on honourable terms between her and the Original Secession. But the author of this pamphlet charges the Original Secession with having overlooked the altered circumstances of the Free Church, and with demanding more than would have been accounted eminently faithful ten years ago. The spirit to which we refer,' says he, 'became more apparent when propositions for negotiating union with the Free Church could not, with consistency, be longer deferred.. And now, notwithstanding that that church has made advances in Reformation work and purity far beyond what the Original Secession Synod, ten years earlier, would have deemed eminently faithful and satisfactory, yet attempts are being made in certain quarters to perpetuate a separation between the two bodies, on grounds which, to

say the least, we cannot but regard as weak, illiberal, and even untenable.' This implies that the negotiation for union was deferred till a considerable period posterior to the Disruption; whereas the fact is, that the committee for corresponding with the Free Church was appointed within two months after the Disruption, and a meeting of Synod was held, so early, for the very purpose of taking their altered position into consideration, and adopting such steps as might be considered proper in consequence of the origination of the Free Church. No doubt several members of Synod considered it inexpedient and premature to enter into negotiations with the Free Church; but the whole Synod, with the exception of five, were in favour of the appointment of a committee for this purpose; and the party represented by the five were more favourable to the Free Church then, and have been since, than ever they were before. And whereas this writer affirms that the Original Secession have too long overlooked the altered circumstances in which Providence has placed them, we think it will appear from the following motion, which was adopted at the meeting of Synod, 16th August, 1843, that they recognised the alteration which had taken place from the very first :'That in consequence of the late faithful contendings of those now forming the Free Protesting Church of Scotland, and particularly of their struggles in defence of the spiritual independence of the church, our relation to one another is materially altered; therefore the Synod consider it to be highly desirable, in order to the faithful discharge of their public duty, to ascertain as speedily as possible the precise nature of that relation; and for this purpose they appoint a committee to correspond with any committee that the Free Church may appoint, to see whether there still exist sufficient grounds for this Synod remaining separate, or whether, by mutual explanations, we may not be able to remove any obstacles to an honourable union.' And whereas Original Seceders, generally, and Mr Murray, and the author of the article, in particular, are charged with demanding more than would once have satisfied the Original Secession, let it be observed that this charge is a mere assertion, without the least attempt to prove it, and which the author cannot prove by a reference to Original Secession documents. Whether the position presently occupied by the Original Secession be right or wrong, candid persons who know her history must admit it to be that which she has always held. Let the following things be considered in proof of this assertion :

This is the position held by the Original Secession Church in 1843. Among the instructions given to the Committee on Union, this was one: That no terms of union that do not include a judicial recognition of the whole of the Covenanted Reformation can be considered adequate on our part.' The Edinburgh Presbytery of Original Seceders also, in an act for a fast and thanksgiving, dated 28th Nov., 1843, referring to the large body of ministers that left the Establishment, say, We regard it as matter of thanksgiving, that, followed by such a large proportion of their people, they should have been enabled to bear such an open, honourable, and decided testimony to the royal prerogatives of Christ as the only King of his church, as

well as to the power of christian principle in general. At the same time, we have yet to learn, what it would rejoice us to hear, that they are prepared, explicitly and judicially, to acknowledge the cause of the Reformation, in both its periods, with the solemn covenants by which it was ratified, to confess the several steps of defection from it in former and later times, and to join in renewing these solemn deeds in a bond suited to present times and circumstances.' From these extracts it is apparent that in 1843 Original Seceders felt and spoke in the same manner as they are now doing; that they did so then in the very best spirit to the Free Church, which spirit they are resolved still to cherish.

But this author will tell us that matters were changed in 1843 from what they were ten years before, and that in 1833 it would have been accounted sufficient, if patronage, Erastianism, and intrusion had been done away. Well, precisely ten years before, on the 30th of January, 1833, Dr M'Crie, in his anti-patronage speech, contained in Appendix to his Life, page 480, thus declared: 'I must say, that though patronage were abolished to-morrow, I could not forthwith enter into the Establishment.' We here see that the greatest of all who ever bore the name of Seceder, and one of the greatest and the wisest that ever bore the name of Presbyterian, and one of the most candid, disinterested, and catholic spirited of all that ever bore the name of Christian, after having made ecclesiastical relationships the study of his lifetime, was 'resigned to perpetuate a rent in the church,' as this author speaks, even after patronage, the original cause of the Secession, was abolished. But how can this be justified? Was it not, it may be asked, because of the Moderates, that Dr M'Crie would not join the Establishment? No: it was because he could not approve of the constitution which the church received at the Revolution. This is expressly stated in his Life, p. 340,- He could not,' says his biographer, 'wholly approve even of the constitution of the present Establishment. The following extract may explain the position in which he stood in regard to it:-"Our objections to the Established Church of Scotland are not confined to her administration; we cannot unreservedly approve of her constitution as it was established at the Revolution."

The latter sentence is an extract from a paper drawn up in 1834 by our Synod, the authors of which were Dr Stevenson and the present Dr M'Crie; but it is stated to have passed through the late Dr M'Crie's hands, and is given in his life as expressing his sentiments. If our readers would take the trouble of reading the whole extract, in the page above named, they will see that it takes up precisely the same ground as the article in our last Number, both in respect to the design of the Secession, and in respect to the terms on which Seceders could honourably rejoin the Church of Scotland. After stating that the aim of the first Seceders, and the aim of the Synod, was to bring back the church to the reformed constitution between 1638 and 1650, it is said: We are aware that the Established Church of Scotland has it not in her power to correct all the evils of the Revolution Settlement which they feel themselves bound to point out; but they cannot quit their position of Secession until the Established Church show a dispo