sion; and these laws have never been repealed by ecclesiastical authority.

Let us now, in the second place, endeavour to ascertain wherein consists the distinctive difference between the Covenants and the doctrinal confession, so that we may see precisely how much of the Testimony of the Church of Scotland is abandoned by those who refuse to own the Covenants. If, then, we look to the Old Scots Confession, or to the Westminster Confession, we find in them the doctrines of divine truth stated in a general, abstract manner, without any formal and explicit reference to systems of error then in existence. But looking into the National Covenant of Scotland, one cannot fail to see, that, while it proceeded on the assured belief of the truth contained in the doctrinal confession, its own distinctive character consisted in an open, uncompromising, and total renunciation of the Roman Antichrist, and of the whole system of error, superstition, idolatry, and blasphemy, of which he was the head. The renunciation of the Roman Antichrist was, virtually, a renunciation of prelacy and erastianism; for the pope's claim to be universal bishop is only carrying out the episcopal system to its natural consequences, and his temporal power is erastianism in perfection; so that when popery was renounced, prelacy and erastianism were also virtually renounced. As some doubts of this were entertained in regard to prelacy, it was afterwards explicitly renounced in the National Covenant, as sworn in 1639; and erastianism was carefully provided against by the clause in which allegiance to the king was limited by his continuing to preserve and defend the true religion and the liberties of the kingdom. The National Covenant of Scotland was, therefore, the church's testimony against popery, prelacy, and erastianism; and the Solemn League and Covenant, stripped of all accidental circumstances, was a solemn engagement between the contracting nations to oppose popery, prelacy, and erastianism. We now see, clearly, wherein consisted the distinctive difference between the doctrinal confession and the Covenants. The doctrinal confession was the church's testimony to what Christ had taught in his word; the Covenants were the church's testimony against those hostile systems by which Christ and his kingdom were opposed in the world. By adhering to the former, the church stood fast in the faith; by adhering to the latter, she made war upon its rivals. By the one she took her ministers and members bound to believe and profess the doctrines of the gospel; by the other she laid them under an obligation to oppose popery, prelacy, and erastianism.

In the third place, by looking to the acts prefixed to the National Covenant, you will see that it was ratified by the highest civil authorities, in as solemn a manner as ever the Confession of Faith has been. From this it follows that the National Covenant had a civil as well as an ecclesiastical aspect, and that it ought to be regarded as a renunciation of Antichrist, by the nation, as well as by the church. It was, therefore, a formal declaration that the power, influence, and authority of the nation would never be given to that man of sin, but would always be used in opposition to his interests. Read, revered sir,

the National Covenant of Scotland, and see if it contains anything less, and try if you can make out of it anything more, than a public and formal renunciation, by the Scottish nation, of their adherence to the side of Antichrist, with a solemn declaration, before heaven and earth, that they were persuaded Christ's side was the right side, to which, at all hazards, they were determined to adhere. In the Solemn League and Covenant, the nation of England became pledged in a similar manner, never to use its civil authority in favour of, but always in opposition to popery, prelacy, and erastianism.

In the fourth place, by means of the solemn oath which they took, to be faithful to one another, and to God, the Covenanters were constituted into a confederation, to see their Confession carried out against popery, prelacy, and erastianism, as trustees are sworn to see a will carried into execution. And when the Covenants were ratified by the supreme authorities of the church and nation, Scotland, as a church and nation, by the National Covenant, and both kingdoms, by the Solemn League and Covenant, were brought under a solemn engagement never to countenance, but always to oppose popery, prelacy, and erastianism.

To us this appears a just explanation of the true meaning of our Covenants. From these premises it follows:

1st. Seeing the Covenants were one of the standards of the Church of Scotland, and have never been repealed by ecclesiastical law, that those alone who adhere to the Covenants stand on constitutional ground, while their opponents disown the laws of the church, and hold their creed on the authority of the state.

2d. It follows that those who adhere to the doctrinal confession alone, do not hold the matter of the Covenants, but want altogether the formal testimony which the Church of Scotland, by means of them, raised against the whole system of antichristianism, in all its forms, in all places, and for ever.

3d. It follows that the Covenants are not, as they are ofttimes represented to be, something mysterious and incomprehensiblesome ærial speculations by which common minds are bewildered, and which all men of sense disown. From the above statement it appears that the Covenants are nothing else than the church's testimony against popery, prelacy, and erastianism, and therefore something which can be easily understood, and which no enlightened christian ought to have any scruple to sign or swear whenever he may be called by the providence of God.

4th. The adherents of the Covenants are generally described as persons whose views are peculiarly narrow; from the above premises it follows that their views differ from others only in being more enlarged, that while others oppose popery, prelacy, and erastianism by particular acts, the adherents of the Covenants lay the axe to the root of the tree, by a stated systematic testimony against these systems in all their various workings.

5th. The Covenants are frequently spoken of as being very seasonable and admirable deeds at the time they were drawn up, but which are now become obsolete and unnecessary. If the above premises,

however, be correct, it follows that they are as seasonable now as ever they were. For, if the Covenants were the church's testimony against popery, prelacy, and erastianism, they will cease to be seasonable, only when the cry has been heard, 'Babylon is fallen, is fallen, and shall no more arise.'

6th. It also follows, that if the Covenants had been faithfully carried into execution, there would have been no popery, prelacy, nor erastianism countenanced in these kingdoms.

7th. In fine, it follows that all the prelacy and erastianism of the English Establishment, all the countenance given to popery at home and in our colonies, all the acts of erastianism that have been perpetrated on the Church of Scotland, in short, all the popery, prelacy, and erastianism that have existed since the year 1660, are owing to the breach of these solemn Covenants. If these had been carried out faithfully, there would have been no persecution, no defective Revolution Settlement, no secession, and no disruption.

These are deductions which the ignorant and half-informed may question, but which no man ever will be able to disprove. And this brings us to the point at issue. It is maintained by the adherents of the Covenants, that the nation, by these deeds, having in the most solemn manner, and in a national capacity, renounced Antichrist, and the church having done so as a church, both parties are bound to adhere to that renunciation so long as the contest continues between Christ and Antichrist-or so long as there is popery, prelacy, and erastianism to oppose. They also unhesitatingly assert, that no circumstances, short of the total downfal of these systems, can ever occur, of such a nature as will free the church, or nation, from these solemn engagements to oppose all forms of antichristianism. The churches in these lands, by disowning the Covenants, and the civil powers, by favouring popery, by fostering prelacy, by Erastian legislation, having violated these engagements, and thereby broken their plighted faith to the King of kings, in consequence of this, guilt is lying on the land; and in these circumstances the friends of the Covenants maintain that it is the duty of the church to keep alive the covenant claims of the Redeemer, and the guilt of the land for neglecting these, so that all ranks and classes may be brought to see their sin, and the nation may be brought to renew its engagements.

Such, substantially, was Mr Hislop's overture. And strange it is that any should be found within the Free Church opposed to such an overture. It is not strange that Voluntaries should oppose such sentiments; for their system rejects altogether the idea of nationality, and knows nothing either of a past or a future; but strange it is, that those who own Christ as at once the head of Zion, and the King of nations, should be found maintaining that the church and nation of Scotland are under no obligation from their vow to adhere to Christ, and to withstand Antichrist, as long as the contest continues between them. Your objections were very solidly and convincingly answered by the Rev. Mr Hislop, in his reply to your speech, and it would be presumption to suppose that the matter could be placed in a better light by your present correspondent.

What he principally intends is, to place your objections side by side with the actual covenant, and leave it to yourself, and all true presbyterians, to judge of their value when so situated.

Your objection to a historical testimony runs in these termsThere are other and available ways of discharging this duty-such as instructing ministers to direct the attention of their people to the wondrous works of Providence in times past; instructing parents, in terms of one of the verses which Mr Hislop had quoted, to teach them to their children, and taking care that by such publications as Mr Gray's Catechism they should be furnished with aids to the performance of this duty.' This is the sum of all you have said directly against a historical testimony. In taking no notice of the arguments from scripture produced by Mr Hislop, you acted with a judgment that does you great credit; for the meaning of these passages is too obvious to be explained away, and the very useful talent of Deny Well, with which you seem to be rather largely endowed, could not have been used against the bible. Look at these arguments again, and, your own though they be, it is impossible that you can suppose them to be possessed of much weight. In the first place, you say 'there are other and available ways of discharging this duty.' Be it so, this is no argument against its being done also in the manner proposed by Mr Hislop. You had forgotten, when this was uttered, that the greater part of duties may be, and ought to be discharged in a variety of ways. Secret prayer is no argument against family prayer, nor is family prayer an argument against social prayer in its more extended forms. And the fact, that God's wondrous works may be remembered in other ways, is no argument against their being remembered by the church as the church. In the second place, you say this can be done by 'parents' and 'ministers.' But how do you make it out that it is a duty incumbent on parents, if it be not a duty incumbent on the church? How do you make it out that this may be done by single ministers, if it ought not to be done by the general assembly of ministers? Is not this idea somewhat tinged with Independency? And have you forgotten what the psalm says? Oh that men would

praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! Let them exalt him also in the congregation of the people, and praise him in the assembly of the elders.' In the third place, you say that the church may do it by instructing ministers and parents. Well, if it be the duty of the church to instruct parents and ministers, she must take the subject into consideration; she must make up her own mind, and give forth the result of her deliberations, and this was all that Mr Hislop proposed. Calmly consider the matter, and see whether you can invent any method by which the church could issue instructions on this subject before she has discussed and determined it. In the fourth place, if it be the duty of parents to make known the wondrous works of God unto their children, have they not a right to look to the church for direction? Have not the parents in connection with the Free Church a right to ask of the church, and a right to have the question answered, whether they should teach their children that this nation committed a heinous sin,

in falling from its covenanted renunciation of Antichrist and breaking its oath of allegiance to Christ? If the nation committed no sin in breaking these Covenants, then, to teach children that the guilt of a broken covenant is lying on the land, is to imbue them with superstition. If the reverse, however, be true, it is of importance to have it instilled into their tender minds, that they may grow up with the spirit of witnesses for God, and that, as praying men and praying women, who advocate the case of their guilty country daily, at a throne of grace, they may, in mature years, become the chariots and the horsemen of Israel. Around the Covenants all that is glorious in the past history of the Church of Scotland is clustered, and a pious and patriotic Scotchman, in making known to his children the wondrous works done by God of old, can no more overlook these venerable deeds, and the sufferings and martyrdoms of the witnesses for their continued obligation, during eight-and-twenty years-no good man, with a Scottish heart, can overlook these, more than a pious and patriotic Jew could have omitted to tell his children of the deliverance from Egypt, or of those seventy years during which the harp of the weeping church hung upon the willow trees of Babylon. If, therefore, the church, as you assert, ought to instruct parents to make known the wondrous works of God, she must be bound to let them know what they are to tell their children about the Covenants; and, before she can do that, the question of the Covenants must be entertained and determined. Besides, if the great spiritual conflict, now going on in the world, be between Christ and Antichrist, and if the Covenants, substantially considered, be a renunciation of the man of sin, and a declaration of adherence to the Redeemer, do you not think that the Head of the Church, if the expressions may be used, is entitled to expect, from his faithful servants, that they will use that independent authority with which he has entrusted them, for the purpose of vindicating his covenant claims, and of pointing out the guilt of the nation in breaking its solemn engagement, to use its authority and influence against his great and noted foe.

It is maintained by Mr Hislop, and those holding similar sentiments, that the church, as a church, can only bear a testimony for the wonderful works of God in the past, by some judicial deliverance in regard to them. In reply to this, you say, 'As for the idea that the church cannot, as a church, discharge this duty without emitting a formal ecclesiastical document, it might as well be argued that the church cannot, as a church, preach, except by the publication of a book of homilies.' This analogy will not stand the test. By the church, as a church, is generally understood the church collective, acting in a judicial capacity, through representatives. It is no doubt the duty of the church, viewed in this light, to see that the gospel is preached; but do you seriously believe it to be the duty of the church collective to preach in her collective capacity? It appears to you very ridiculous to doubt that the church, as a church, can preach in other ways besides putting forth a book of homilies; and perhaps, at some future period, you will be kind enough to mention some of the many ways in which the church could preach, as a