church. To be sure, her collective representatives could all lift up their voices together, but, unless the homily was prepared beforehand, and was therefore a formal ecclesiastical document,' they could not all speak the same things, and though they could, perhaps a single discourse thus delivered would make even yourself to take refuge in a book of homilies. It may, therefore, perhaps, be as well not to insist upon the church, in her old age, beginning to preach as a church, and just to allow individuals to preach to her, as heretofore. Meanwhile, and until the Free Church, or some other church, has gone through her Trial Sermons, your analogy need not be the subject of farther discussion.

Proceeding to speak of the continued obligation of the Covenants, you say, 'This is a doctrine which is not contained in the present Confession of Faith-a doctrine which none of them in subscribing it, in entering upon office in the church, understood that they professed. To adopt this principle would therefore just be to alter the church's terms of communion-it would be equivalent to adding another chapter to the Confession of Faith, and making such a material alteration in the standards of the church as would inevitably constrain all who did not believe this dogma to demit their offices in the Free Church.' Let us then consult the Confession of Faith together, and see whether your assertion be correct, that it does not sanction the doctrine of the continued obligation of the Covenants upon posterity. And, first, let us turn to chapter xxii. section 4, which treats of oaths and vows. 'An oath,' it says, 'is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation. It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to perfor mance, although to a man's own hurt; nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics and infidels.' This doctrine applies to all oaths. Every party capable of taking an oath is thereby bound to perform the thing sworn to. If a nation engage, therefore, by solemn oath, to do anything that is not sinful, it is bound, as a nation, to its performance, and bound permanently, if the object be permanent. This is the doctrine of the Confession; for, in illustration and confirmation of section 4, the following passages are quoted from the word of God:-Joshua ix. 18, 19: And the children of Israel smote them not, because the princes of the congregation had sworn unto them by the Lord God of Israel, and all the congregation murmured against the princes. But all the princes said unto all the congregation, We have sworn unto them, by the Lord God of Israel; now, therefore, we may not touch them.' With 2 Samuel xxi. 1: Then there was a famine in the days of David, three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, It is for Saul, and his bloody house, because he slew the Gibeonites.' By fradulent pretences, the Gibeonites prevailed upon the princes and elders of Israel to enter into a covenant of friendship with them. Many centuries afterwards Saul slew the Gibeonites, and thus violated this covenant, on which account a famine was sent upon the land in the days of David. The covenant entered into with the Gibeonites was therefore binding on posterity. That covenant being adduced in the Con

fession of Faith, as an illustration of its doctrine about the obligation of oaths, it follows, according to the Confession of Faith, that oaths entered into by nations, in reference to matters of a permanent kind, are binding on the nation in future ages. How, then, can you affirm that the doctrine of covenant obligation is not to be found in the Confession? When you signed the Confession of Faith, did you not sign it as resting on the word of God? Did you not sign the chapter on oaths, as resting, among other passages of scripture, on the account given of the covenant made with the Gibeonites? But the account given of that covenant shows that it was binding on posterity. How, then, is it possible for you to separate the doctrine of covenant obligation from your ordination vows? Have you not sworn that all oaths of a similar nature are binding in the same manner as the covenant made with the Gibeonites? And allowing you had not sworn this, the case of the Gibeonites is in the bible; and how can it be got out of the bible? or how can it remain in the bible without teaching that lawful covenants are binding on posterity?

Having subscribed the Confession of Faith, you have solemnly professed your faith in the doctrine contained in the case of the Gibeonites, and have thereby homologated the doctrine of covenant obligation in general. Having subscribed the Confession of Faith, you will have some difficulty in showing that you have not already homologated our national Covenants. The Westminster Confession of Faith stands in so peculiar a relation to the Solemn League and Covenant, that no person who subscribes the former, in obedience to the church, without explanation, knows what he is doing, if he supposes that he has fairly and honestly got quit of the latter. That invaluable standard was drawn up professedly as the means of attaining the end which our forefathers had sworn to accomplish in their League and Covenant with England. Accordingly, if you consult the Act of Assembly prefixed to the Confession of Faith, it will be found that it was received by the Church of Scotland as one of the standards of the covenanted uniformity with England. 'A Confession of Faith,' says that act, 'for the kirks of God in the three kingdoms being the chiefest part of that uniformity in religion which, by the Solemn League and Covenant, we are bound to endeavour; and there being accordingly a Confession of Faith agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines, sitting at Westminster, the General Assembly doth therefore, after mature deliberation, agree unto, and approve the said Confession, as to the truth and matter, and also as to the point of uniformity, agreeing for our part that it be a common Confession of Faith for the three kingdoms.' The General Assembly having received and ratified the Confession as 'the chiefest part in that uniformity in religion which, by the Solemn League and Covenant, we are bound to endeavour,' if you have subscribed the Confession, as it was received by the church, then you have subscribed it as the chiefest part of that uniformity which, by the Solemn League and Covenant, we are bound to endeavour,' and have thus homologated the Covenants; but if you have not subscribed the Confession in the only way in which it was ever received by the Church of Scotland, it remains with you to vindicate your consistency.

You have stated, that to adopt the principle of covenant obligation 'would be equivalent to adding another chapter to the Confession of Faith, and making such a material alteration in the standards of the church as would inevitably constrain all who did not believe this dogma, to demit their offices in the Free Church.' But from what was said in the former part of this letter, it must be apparent that the Covenants were one of the standards of the Church of Scotland, ratified by her in the most solemn manner, and having the same rank and authority with the Confession of Faith. These acts having never been repealed by any church court, are possessed of all the ecclesiastical authority which they ever had. Being so, the Covenants are, by ecclesiastical authority, part of the constitution of the Church of Scotland, and the friends of the Covenants within the Free Church, alone stand upon constitutional ground. It is true the Covenants were set aside, civilly, by the infamous Act Recissory, under Charles II., but they were never disowned by the Church of Scotland; and the laws respecting them were never annulled. Mr Hislop, therefore, stands upon the laws of the church, and takes his Confession of Faith in all the extent which the church received it, while you, disregarding the unrepealed laws of the church, are content to hold your creed in the mutilated and scanty form in which it was reluctantly granted by the state at the Revolution. Mr Hislop, in effect, maintains, that the laws of the church, having never been repealed, are still binding; while you in effect maintain, that these laws, having been repealed by the state, are not binding; and thus you appear, practically, to attach more weight to the Recissory act of Charles, than to the reforming acts of the free and independent Church of Scotland.

You have no doubt denied that the Covenants were entered into by the church, as a church: Mr Hislop has asserted, but it has yet to be proved, that the Covenants of the Reformation were entered into by the nation, as a nation, or by the church, as a church.' Look again to the National Covenant; read over the laws by which it was ratified, as placed at the head of it; do the same with the Solemn League and Covenant; and then deny, if you can, that the Covenants were more frequently and solemnly sanctioned by the national authorities than ever the doctrinal confession was. You may deny that the doctrinal confession was ever received by the nation, as a nation, with far more appearance of truth than when you call in question whether the Covenants were entered into by the nation, as a nation. As to the church, the matter is still more undoubted. It is wonderful, indeed, that any Scotchman could possibly be so ignorant, or so forgetful, as to doubt whether the church, as a church, entered into the Covenants. The Assembly, 1639, says, We, by our act and constitution ecclesiastical, do approve the foresaid Covenant in all the heads and clauses thereof, and ordains of new, that all the members of this kirk and kingdome subscribe the same;' and yet Mr Lumsden denies that the church, as a church, received the Covenants. The Assembly, 1640, ordains that such as have subscribed the Covenants, and speak against the same, if he be a minister, shall be deprived; and if he

continue so, being deprived, shall be excommunicated; and if he be a layman, shall be dealt with as perjured, and shall satisfy publickly for his perjury.' This shows that offences against the Covenants were placed on a level with offences against the Confession of Faith; and yet Mr Lumsden still doubts whether the Covenants were ever received by the church, as a church. The Assembly, 1643, appointed 'that every synod, presbytery, and parish have a copy of the Covenants bound in quarto, with some blank paper, whereupon every person may be obliged to subscribe; and that the Covenants of the synods and presbyteries be kept by their respective moderators; of universities by their principals; of parishes by their ministers, with all carefulness; and that a particular account of obedience to this act be required thereafter in all visitations of parishes, universities, and presbyteries, and in all trials of presbyteries and synods.' But all this is nothing to Mr Lumsden, and he is still in doubt whether the Covenants were ever received by the church, as a church. Baillie tells us that the Solemn League and Covenant, being well prefaced in the Assembly by Mr Henderson's most grave oration, it was received with the greatest applause that ever I saw anything, with so hearty affections, expressed in the tears of pity and joy, by very many grave, wise, and old men. It was read distinctly the second time by the moderator. The mind of the most part was speared, both of ministers, where, in a long hour's space, every man, as he was by the moderator named, did express his sense as he was able. After all considerable men were heard, the catalogue was read, and all unanimously did consent.' This is strong enough, one should think. Yet such is the power of incredulity, that Mr Lumsden smiles at the 'tears of pity and joy' in the many grave, wise, and old men,' and, despite the reading of the catalogue, after which all did unanimously consent,' he remains still in doubt whether the Covenants were ever received by the church, as a church; and his hesitation, therefore, it is to be feared, does not admit of being cured by evidence.

เ

What leads one to fear that evidence alone will not cure your aversion to the Covenants, is the expression of contempt which you have publicly expressed for the doctrine involved in the claims of these venerable deeds. You are reported to have said, 'He confessed that he could scarcely look on it (the doctrine of the continued obligation of the Covenants,) with any other feeling than that of contempt.' In respect to this, you must admit that impatience of mind is not one of those qualities under the influence of which one is most likely to arrive at truth. One might cut you short here, by taking up a position behind Alexander Henderson and Dr Thomas M'Crie, and inquiring whether the contempt even of the Reverend Mr Lumsden does not become contemptible, when directed against a doctrine which these distinguished men accounted one of transcendent importance. What they held can never be rendered contemptible by your bare dictum, nor by that of the best ecclesiastic in Scotland; for there is no living man among us that can once be compared with these two in native grandeur of soul. But let us have a few words further about contempt. Let us take a lesson, together, at the feet

of a great departed teacher, on the value of contemptuous epithets: 'A thoughtful judge of sentiments, books, and men,' says Foster, 'will often find reason to regret that the language of censure is so easy and undefined. It costs no labour, and needs no intellect to pronounce the words, foolish, stupid, dull, odious, absurd, ridiculous. Thus the most excellent performances, whether in the department of thinking or of action, might be consigned to contempt, if there were no better judges than the authority of those who could not even understand them. A man who wishes some decency and sense to prevail in the circulation of opinions, will do well, when he hears these decisions of ignorant farrogance, to call for a precise explication of the manner in which the terms apply to the subject.' Now, without charging you with ignorant arrogance, I would take the liberty of craving a precise explication' of the manner in which the term contempt applies to the question of the Covenants. Pray, what do you mean by contempt? Had you, as you pronounced that word, 'a very precise conception, in your mind, which you can give in some other word, and fix the charge? or, is this a word which, because it is often used in some such way as you have used it, may be left to tell its own meaning better than the speaker knows how to explain it?" Did you mean that the doctrine of the continued obligation of the Covenants was associated in your mind with that class of subjects to which the term contemptible is usually applied, and that, whenever you thought of it, or heard of it, images instantly arose in your mind of what is low, drivelling, worthless, despicable? Well, then, bring your censure into a discriminative form. Explain with precision the chief points in which the doctrine of the continued obligation of the Covenants appears to you to be either intellectually low and drivelling, or associated with what is morally worthless and despicable. Is there anything intellectually, morally, or religiously despicable, in maintaining that this nation is bound to adhere, through all ages, to its renunciation of Antichrist, and its adherence to Christ? Is it contemptible to believe that nations are bound by their engagements as much as other parties? Is it contemptible to maintain that this nation is still bound by its oath of allegiance to the Prince of the kings of the earth. Has Punic faith, in the revolution of ages, at length become the creed of all enlightened men? Shall the doctrine of repudiation, which would at once be scouted in any commercial or political transaction, be regarded as sound doctrine when the claims of our Redeemer are concerned? Surely this is not the requittal which the church should make for his steadfast adherence to his covenant engagements in her behalf. Did he consider himself bound by his engagements from all eternity down to the fulness of time, and shall it be accounted contemptible to hold that his church, as his church, is bound by every engagement to him, aye, and until it is exhausted? If you think this doctrine contemptible, perhaps the best thing you can do is to expose it to contempt. It is understood that those holding the doctrine of continued, are excessively curious to see what a refutation of it would be like, if framed on Free Church principles. They know what Voluntaries can say, but