IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (.WT-3) 1.0 I.I 1.25 M 12.5 Mj^ Ui Itt US US u 2.2 1^ li£ 12.0 I m M u ^^s^ ^J^ Hiotographic Sciences Corporation 23 WEST MAIN STREET WEBSTER, N.Y. 14580 (716) 872-4503 L^ CIHM/ICMH Microfiche Series. CIHIVI/ICIVIH Collection de microfiches. Canadian Institute for Historical Microreproductions / Institut Canadian de microreproductions historiques vV Technical and Bibliographic Notat/Notes techniques et bibliographiques The Institute has attempted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reptoduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. □ □ n Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagde Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurde et/ou pellicul^e Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque I I Coloured maps/ Cartes giographiques en couleur n^„° Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ ere de couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) I — I Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ D D D D Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relid avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serr^e peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distortion le long de la marge int^rieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajoutdes tors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela dtait possible, cos pages n'ont pas 6t6 filmdes. Additional comments;/ Commentaires suppl6mentaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a 6X6 possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut-dtre uniques du point de vue bibliographique, qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite, ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la m6thode normale de filmage sont indiqu6s ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Pages de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagdes □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restaur^es et/ou pelliculdes Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages d^color^es, tachetdes ou piqu^es □ Pages detached/ Pages d6tach6es r~J' Showthrough/ I I Transparence r^ Quality of print varies/ 1*^ I Quality in^gale de I'impression I I Includes supplementary material/ D D Comprend du materiel supplementaire Only edition available/ Seule Edition disponible Pages wholly or partially obscured by errata slips, tissues, etc., have been refilmed to ensure the best possible image/ Les pages totalement ou partiellement obscurcies par un feuillet d'errata, une pelure, etc., ont 6t6 filmdes 6 nouveau de facon d obtenir la meilleure image possible. The to tl The pos oft film Ori] beg the sioi oth firs sioi or i This item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est film6 au taux de reduction indiqu6 ci-dessous. 10X 14X 18X 22X The sha TIK wh Ma difl ent be( rigl req me 26X 30X v/ 12X 16X 20X 24X 28X 32X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: iVIetropoiitan Toronto Library Canadian History Department L'exemplaire IWmi fut reproduit grAce A la gAnArositi de: Metropolitan Toronto Library Canadian Hiittory Department The images appearing here are the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in keeping with the filming contract specifications. Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition et de la nettetd de l'exemplaire filmd, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Original copies in printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, and ending on the last page with e printed or illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol —♦-(meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. Maps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right and top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les exemplaires originaux dont ia couverture en papier est imprimde sont film6s en commenpant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illustration, soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exemplaires originaux sont filmJs en commenpant par la premidre page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou r^'illustration et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur ia dernidre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbole —► signifie "A SUIVRE", le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent dtre filmis d des taux de rdduction diff^rents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seul clich6, il est film6 A partir de Tangle supirieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas, en prenant le nombre d'images n6cessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la m6thode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 vv/ i> A. REPLY r TO TlIK "REVIEW REVIEWED" oil' thk REV. D. INGLIS : AND A VINDICATION OF A " REVIEW OF THE STATE AND CONDITION OF THE CANADA PRESBYTEUIAN CHURCH, SINCE THE UNION IN 18C1." BY THE REV. ALEX. F. KEMP, M. A., SARNIA : PRINTED AT THE "OBSERVER" STEAM JOB Ol?FICE. isoy. •'••ii •:>- ( Py e^ ^ ^ --^ DL0 3 ^.riz 935 .A. I=rEr»T^Y TO THE cc REVIE^\r IIEVIE\\^ED," &c. THE UEAai':AV OF THE STATE AND CON- dition (if the C'liniidii I'rcsliytiMiiiii (,'luircli, .liiici' the ITiiion in 1801, wliicli I IiUlI ,• [Hili- i lislic'd, lias eJicitt'd two very anient rcpli 'K ; oni- in till! sliaiic of a imlilislicd Addii'ss, by the llcv. Mr. Kinf,', of 'J'oronto; the otlicr, a paiiiplilct by i the llfv. i). Inu'lis, of Hainilton. The iirst has i lici'ii written with a liitternessof feeliii;^' ((iiite iiii- I jtistifiahle ; the other, while avoiding' the teiiiiier I of the Address, yet uses a lieensi' of e|iitliet and i ]ilirase ineoiisistent with the eliaraeter of a fair and candid lleviewor. 15ut I ilo not eoniplaiii of these things ; I merely note tlieiii. I am well ; aware that those who aim at reforniiiif;' abuses in > either State or Clnireh, must ex|)eet to be called hard names, to have their failings magnihed, and | tlieir motives maligned. Thee is, how<'ver, no reason why tlic! disciis- mon of the questions involved in the " Jleview " should excite so much feeling us my antagonists manifest. The matters are jiublic, and fairly open to criticism and debate. If they do totieli ottieial jiersons, this cannot bo liel|)i'd. They must accept tlieir honors with this disadvan- tjige.* Public discussion, when conducted by gentlemen, Christians, and scholars-;, cannot fail to be jiroductive of good. It (luickeiis alike the sense of responsibility in those who are invested with power, and the lethargy of those who are not. In this case it has awakened reflection in the Church, has elicited elaborate di'fenct's on the part of the advocates and niaintaiiiers of a centralized system of Church administration, and sliowu how little they have to say for themselves • and their schemes. Apjiearance having thus been 'iin, in for both sides — the Government and the Ov'iiosition — let us hope that when the Sy- nod meets we shall be able to deal with the ques- tions .at issue with the calmness that should cha- raeli rise masters in Israel. * The power of passing censures on the oonduct of public men, in the name of right and wrong, is one which, in some form or other, has existed, and ought tvi exist in every well-ordered community. The most effootive, and least objectionable iustru- i mcnt of f.uch criticism, is the public press, as it is cnndueied at the present day. — Frov:'!. .''i';'^''>>d, vol. 0, p< 6 446. I have already briefly rejilied to IMr. King in the (ild/ic of 'I'Ah March last. As, however, tho space allowed did not |)erniit an extended and detailed exposure of his fallacies and errors, I therefore intend alluding to several points in his address in the course of my reply to the (lampli- let of Mr. liiglis. At the outset I remark, that it seems strange to me that in this land of liberty there should bo shown so iinieli of the spirit of intolerance on tho part of my Ue viewers. Tiiey apjiear, as it were, to iiold u[) tlieir hands in holy horror at my lie- view, us if it were a piece of audacious sacrilege. Jlr. Inglis gravely characterises it as "contrary to the good order of our I'resbyterian Church Oo- vernmeiit," as if, forsooth, that government was inimical to the liberty of debute which is so dear to every citi/en of a free country. It is a libel against one of the best forms of Church order, to make it an ally of a species of jiriestly intoler- ance. It is the old ami easy way of doing things, to i)Ut tlown opposition by an apjieal to Cliurch Courts and (,'hurch allegiance ; but it won't do in these days. Men of inde])endent minds, and who have just conceptin tli iillciw tlic linmcs to he (|iiitr <(ir- roct, luiil tliiit tiny sjiow nil iiuri'iisi' nf Miiiis- t, or H.H 7 jicr crnt. |K'r annum; and an incrcaKc in tlu' (.". I'. Cliurili, lor tlic foiM- years ending witii 1«U0, of (udy 17, or 1.8.') per cent, per annum. Wliil(! my Reviewers eannot get riil of tliese filets, tliey nay they tan expluiii how nil this )iappened. The expiuniitions they attempt aro mainly these two, \i/,. : 1. Tiiat fewer Ministers cnmo to us from the ohl country in tlie period endiuK with IHGG, thiiu in tliat endint; with IH.jl). 2. That it is not fair to JudKe of the Chureh liy a comparison of per-ci'iitaj.;es. In reply to the first of tliese apolo^cies I would say, tliat 1 attaelied little importa e(! to tlu! suji- ply of Ministers at eitlier jieriod in my Review. in tlie ('(lition jjUhlished in tiie Surnin Ulixeri)cr, I did not refer to it at all. Tlie item was only inserted in the pamphlet after a hasty ratheriiif,' of the |)arti(iilars from tl;.: iinperfec t r-'ports of Presbyteries. Uy way of |)recaiitioii, 1 f,'ave these reports as my authoritie.-i, ln-iiif; myself doui)tful of th(dr aceuraey. Hut as I founded nothin;f on the item, 1 let it ])ass as it was. Had I thoiifiht it would liave lieeii seized on with such avidity by my opi)onents, 1 "ertainly would have worked it U]), ami set it tbrth in its true li now proceed to do. Mr. Kimt says that G2 Ministers were received from foreiffu parts i)y the churches here, during the four" years endinp; with 18.")!), and only 15 durinf? the four eiidin;ir with ISGG. Mr. Inglis states the case soinewliat differently, and says that 4.') Ministers were on the Rolls of the two Synods in 1859, who had been received from abroad durinj,' the four precediufj years, and tliat only ]r> had been so received during the four years ending witii 18G6. I am not in a position to say whether thesc! figures lie right or wrong. To make them out they require an acquaintance with i\m jienonnel of the Ministry wliich I do not ])088esR, and am not able to obtivin. I am wil- ling, however, to accept them provisionally, on the authority of my Reviewers. They go on both to say in effect, that these KUi)plieK from abroad account for the large in- crease of settled Ministers in the period ending with 1859, as compared with that ending with 18GG. They certainly tell us where the increase came from. Had there b(!en few or no Ministers to settle, it is obvious that few or none would have been settled. The very fact that more were settled during the former period that the latter, shows that tliere was more material in the first, out of which settlements could be made. All this is plain, and needs no special sagacity to discern. But this does not settle the question. It may still be lusked, How did it Iiappcn that so many ^ht, as I shall more Ministers came to us from foreign parts during tile llrst period than the hist? It is not enough to say there were more — that tlie supply was greater at tlie one period tlinn at the other. Tliis just drives tlie iiKpiiry a step farthiT back, and we now want to know wliy it was so, Wu may be sure it was not a mere chance; but the result of some (h'sigii and elVort on the part of the Cliurch. Mr. King overlooks tliis (|Uestiou altogetlier, and tliiiiks lie settles the business by siiiii)ly naming tlii^ fact. Mi'. Iiiglis, with a truer insight into the matter, nceounts tor the increased supply by saying, that ''formerly the U. P. (Church of Scotland (Ik^ might have also said the Free (,'liiircli), paid the passage money and outfit of Preachers and Ministers coming to this coun- try, bi'sides giiaranteeing to eacli $500 for three years," and that through private liberality a number of (iaelic preachers were sent to the Free (,'hurcli in Canada. Here, tlii^n, is the cause of the large supply of Slinisters diining the four years ending with 1H59. 'J'he Churehes in t!an- ada sent jiressiiig solicitations to tln^ Churches in Scotland for them ; aiiu liilliicioiiH, 1111(1 my coiiiiiutiitiouH iimc- fiiriiti.'." Now priiy, Mr. Iii^'Hh, wlicrc liiivc you shown thin? 1 fail to h(.'(' it. Voii Imvc ^(/(W it, mill tlmt is nil. Shown it you liiivc not. You liiiv(^ not touclicil citlicr ^h^•. one or tlic otlicr. They stimd out rlciir iin "Vct ; fcood, HulmtJintiiil ruHiiItK, and t'liir up|)ro.\iinations to iictuiil t'lictH. I now turn to the sniijct't of pcr-ccntajrcs, to wliifh my llcvicwcrs iilludc. Mr. Kinjjr iliinkK tlidt tlu! cftk'uliitionw liy iicr-ci'ntiij^cK art', likely to lirin>{ out ii liirj;cr nilio of incrcusi; in the car- liur ntdffi'H of the (Jhunli t''aii in tin: later. ]ly way of illuKtnition, ]\r addiiccH the ciise (»f a eon- Krcffntion with 100 mendiers, which in one year adds SO more to its lioll, and asks, When itH iiieniliersliip is 300, must it add 150 the next year to its memliers ? In reply, 1 say, this altogether depends on eir- cunistances. If in tin- last ye/ir it had as much proportionate material to work on, why, then, it Hhould ; but if it had worked uj) all, or nearly all its material, wliy, then, it should not. Increase will always hear a projjortion to lahor, anil sup- I)ly of material. Mr. Kin;; can easily for himself apply the solution of his riddle to the Chureli at larjfe. l!ut further, 1 have not in any part of the Review said tluit a Cliurch must always, and un- der all conditions, increase from year to year at the same ratio. I knew Ix'tter. What I did was to tjike the average increase for one period, and compare it with tlu; avernp' increase of an- other. There is nothing unreasonable in this. It is a fair way of comjiarison. 1 said in effect, that if the (.'liurch has increased at such a ratio 5n one [x'riod, why sliotild it not increase in a like ratio in another and similar ix'riod? I am not asking either arithmetic or geometric pro- gression, but a proportionate average. It is a question of like causes i)roducing like results. If we do not find the result, wc conclude that there is either an absence or a hindrance of the cause. In this case, the lack of the projiortion- ote result imi)lies the absence of that old activity by which the result was accfunjilisheil. Besides, I do not com|iar(^ the earlier stages of the Church with the later, as Mr. King insinu- ates. The i)eriod ending with 1850 is not the earlier stage of cither the U. P. or the Free Churches in Canada. The one was ten years of ago in lHr>'>, and fourteen in 1850, and the other was somewhat its senior. Both had then grown out of the unsettled jteriods of their infancy, and assumed the normal state fif a well-conditioned youth. With such a period and the present, the comparison is therefore very fair. Mr. Inglis, in attacking my jHT-ccntages, docs it heartily, and shows them no mercy. He pur- sues a line of inquiry at once bold and original. He thinks the estimate by per-centagcs alto- gether fallacious, and goes on to say that it may he tested by applying it to the population of U. Canada. He then proceeds, as he imagines, to do so. At the outset I nuist lu)wever say, that Mr. Inglis' mode is not mine ; it is his own, ami quite original. He takes the increase of the po|)ulation of U. C. from IHll to 1H41, thirty years, and linds it to be 10.81 per cent, per annum. Then he takes the two ajiparent decennial periods, (nding, tho •me with 1H")1, and the other with 18(11. Ho then ccmipares the per-centnge of tln^ last (4.I10) with that of the first period (Ki.Hl), and niakoH out the difl'erence in favor of the first to be \'i.l5 per cent. ; while yet, says he, with a sort of tlou- risli of trumpets, the popululion has actually in- creased frcmi 4()5,:i57, in 1841, to l,:tO(i,001, in 18(J1. This, when one gets to understand it, looks Very plausible. But let m(^ note in reply, that Mr. Inglis com- mits tlu^ fatal mistake of comparing the per-eent- ages of greatly unequal jieriods. Tliis is radically wrong in jirinciple. It is absurd. I have not attenqited anything so outrageous as this. Per- centage comparisons, to be of any use, must bo made with equal and nimilar periods of time. This is my way, .vnd the true way. Mr. Inglis, besides, compares an early and abnormal iieriod of thirty years, with a late and ordinary one of ten. This is also jialpably wrong. If he had only carried out his own plan, he would have seen his own folly, and found a strange scries of per-centagcs of no value whatever. If, for ex- ample, he had stretclied his first i)eriod of thirty years to forty, he would have found the per-cent- .age to be 28 ; and if he had made it fifty years, by carrying it down to 18G1, he would have found the increase l?5 jier cent, per annum. Now he might just as reasonably have compared this 35 ]ier cent, of the fifty years, with the IG of tho thirty years, as comjmred the 4.6(> per cent, of the ten years with tlie 1G.81 of the thirty years. There is no sense in such a calculation. No wonder Mr. Inglis got confused in his own fig- ures, and that he determined to get rid of the jiesty jier-centages altogether. But it is not the per-centages that are wrong — it is Mr. Inglis. He is more nearly right when he compares the assumed last decennial periods, but here again he falls into a grave error. He supposes tlmt lie has a decade from 1851 to 1801, when in fact the statistics are for 1852 to 1801, a period of nine,* and not of ten yean. I wonder at my most ex- acting Reviewer making such a mistake as this! Had lie only turned to the Census Act of 1851, he would have found it recorded, " That the cen- sus of the Province shall be taken in the month of Jan'y 1852, and in the same month in 1801." The last census is thus for a period of nine years, and not ten. This affects the per-centage calcu- lation, — makes it 5.20, and not 4.00. A small matter, perhajis ; but just like the sma.l matters aliout wiiich my critics make a great noise;, and for which they do not hesitate to api)ly to me such sweet terms as " careless " and "reckless." Will Mr. Inglis ajijily his own rule to himself? The comparison of the census of 1 852,-'Cl witli that of 1842,-52, is however fair enough. In tho first period, the increase per annum is 10.40, and 6 In tlic Hi'idiid if \n "i.'Jii |icr cent. ; or alMHit nnr- hiilf li'NH tliiiii tlint (iT till' tii'Kt. 'I IiIm, Ii t nil' luitc, ItriiiKN ont H stnli' <>l tilings lictwcin IM.'i'J and IHiil, in ii'poil to the |iii|iiiliiti<>n (if till' I'roV'- Jncc, inTiisi'ly like llmt uliirli we liml in tlii' ('liiiicli ('(PI- till' Innr yiiiis iiuiinn witli Imci;, nnil in liki' nianiiri' atli iliiiliilili' In indrnal ami nut I'NtrniaJ < aiiHi'H. W'liit liiis iinl liraiii |iiilitii'ianH 111 llic Iti'Ciiiiii |iarty t'nr tlic paHt ten mium iimi- plainiiiK <>! lliiN iiiicht in lii;' tniinliy'N ^nowtli, ami asiiiliinLT it to a luiii (Jum riinii nt, — to tlu' inal-ailniinistiMliiiii of tin' jinlilir IiiikIk. — to tlic want of loailK anil snivcys, — to tlic liandiil inlln- cncc of N|icciilalion in wllil lands, — and to liii';.^c landed coi'|ioralions. 'I'licsc, and llie lack of di- rect ellorts to pronioti' ininiif;iation, have licen over and over ayain assiunid an tlu^ causes of the ancstcfl (growth of tlic i-oiintiy. ]tut in disi'iissini; those matters |ioliticians do Tiot (|iiarrel «ith the |irr-i ciitaues. No. 'I'liey rather acce|it of (heir dietn, and go to work hy new and refornicd nntliods of iidininisliation to repair the sjiortcoiiiiiius of the imst. This is the true way. It is niy way, iMr. lii^;!is would on tlie contrary conceal the facts, explain them away, and, like a true Tory, say '• Well enough !" Let Mr. Inglis also note that my tahles of com- parison for the lirst jicriod I'uding with 1H")1I, are taken from years that lie in the very heart of this less prosperous period of thi' country. 'J'his af- fords another incidental jiroof of the fairness of niy calculations. Mr. InKlisgdeH on to notice the fact that there is a gradual decna.se of the pei-ccn(ages of Min- isterial increase, from the earlier times down to the hiter, and thinks 1 have overlooked this point. 'J'o illustrate this he has given a tulile of the Ministry from IH4,"> to IHOl. lint while he se<'nis to see this feature of the calculations, he 8eems not to he aware of the principle on which it proceeds, and of its jirojier application to the case in hand. This decicase in the iK'r-ccntnges in certain cases rc(|uire.s to he understood, if we would use and interpret tin ni aright. If, for example, tln' increase per annum hiMit the ti.xed rate of so many jicr hundred, then it is ohvious the per-centages will icniain the same from year to year, iiut if the increase per an- num he a lixed amount, irrespective of the am- ount of the principal sum, why, then, the per- centages will show a regular ratio of deeri'iise from year to year; and any exceptional increase or decrease will he marked liy a corrcs|)on(Iing exceptional increase ov decrcasi' in the rate per cent. Ai»i>lying this |n-inci]de to the ca.se of the (.'hurch, we find (Ij^t the increase of its Jlinistry from year to year has not in general heeii a tixed nuinlier ])er hundred, lint a rixe\liich wo lind when wc enter \\ithin the yeaiN of the Un* ianiplilet, they have heen universally re^riirded by statists as a me. thod of f;re4it value liy which to K""K<' tin" l"""- f^ress or decline of a country or a Church. I therefore, and others, will, notwithstnndinK this flolcnin decliiratioii of Mr. IiikHs, Htill hold fust Jiy per-centiiges. Whatstriingo logic Mr. Tnglis now proceeds to indulge in? "For every Minister," says he, "added during the first [leriod, tlii^-e were IT)! added to the niemliership, lint for every a(Uli- tioniil IMinister in tin; second period there were 'M't additional nii'inliers, a ditfereiice of 214 in favor of the Church since the Union." In other ■words, he regards the fewer Ministers that there are to the uiemhership, as a favorable condition of the Clnircli. According to this theory, the Church would have been more highly favored if there had heen no inereiise in its Ministry at all, fluring the second jieriod ; for then the whole increase of its members might have been com- pared with a cipher; or better still, if there hud been an actual decrease in the Ministry, for then a large jiliii of members could have been com- ])ared with a larg(! niiniin of Ministers. O, Mr. Inglis, you must mend your logic ! This folly will never do. The numerical relation of the memliershii) to the Ministry is a nice and interesting question, liut if we would treat it properly, it must he in a dilferent way from that of my lleviewers. VVe must as II tirst step in our eniiuiry, ascertain, if possible, the ordinary or normal proportion of the one to the other. Having got this, we have then a good standard of comparison. If, for example, we take the ordinary average of menilx-rs in our Church to each Minister to be 14(1, we ctin then say, that if at any time tlie avemgc rises above this, there is a decline in the pmper number of Ministers, and if it falls below this, that there is ft decline in the projier number of members. Tried by this fair rule, it will be seen that the increase of 151 members to each additional Min- ister in the period ending with 1850, is nearly an ordinary number, and therefore that the increase of the MiniKtry to the ineniherHhIp in normMly pidportioimte ; but by the same rule the increuM, ill the [leriod ending with IHiiii, of ;iii5 niembeiH to each additional Minister, Is abnormal, and in- dicates a great decline in the proper number of Ministers. This is the true way in which to reiid the tigiires, the meaning of which Mr. Inglia ho griivously niisapprehendH. Mr. Inglis now brings Mr. King to the rescue, and introduces ii long paragraph from his lul- drcss, on the subject of iiniiiigration. Here Mr. Iving<|uarrels with tin; dates at which I estimato the immigration from Scotland, and pro|)08CH others of his own. Nothing ])leases Mr. King. It is a paltry |>oint, and amounts to nothing. H(! next tries to niak(> a great question of tho way in which the immigriition entiTS the Church. This he concciven to be by a slow and gradually percolating process. He aHsumes that the largo influx of Scotch people into (,'anada, from say IHOO to 1854, had been slowly dropping or ooz- ing into the Church, as into a fountain, up to tho year 1H5'J, and there had found rest. He will not allow the ]ieri(Ml ending with 180G to have been to any great extent influenced by this percolat- ing process. It is a tine theory, no doubt, to suppose that a great ocean of Scotch people were settled all of a sudden in Canada, and gradually percolated into the Church down to the year 1859; but un- fortunately for its inventor, it is a mere hypo, thesis, unsupported by a single fact. Granting that there was a percolating process, why stop it at 1859? Why not suppose that it still con- tinues, and is even now replenishing the Church with its drops. I lately visited some Scotch Presbyterians who came to the country in 1803, and are only now beginning to drop into con- nection with the Church. The fact is, that the great immigration from the Highlands of Scotland, to which my Review- ers attach so much apologetic importance, ter- minated almost entirely before my calculations begin. Nor did that inunigration come at any time in a grcjit rush, but at an almost uniform annual rate, for the thirty years ending with 1854 ; the largest number in any year being 7000 in 1851. There was thus no such extraordinary influx of peo]ile at any jieriod, as to give an ab- normal character to the growth either of the po- pulation of the Province or of the membership of the Church. The statistics of the Free Church show an almost uniform rate of increase from their first publication in 1847, on to 1801. The only exceptions to this were in 1851 and 1860, when tilt; increasi' of members in each was about :»000. Hut as if to show how little the immigra- tion had to do'with this, it can be shown that the immigration was at its maximum of 7000 in the one year, and its minimum of 900 in the other. This line of argument, to which my Review- ers attncli so much importance, might do very well if it could be shown that our diminished increase during the past four years, arose from a lack of people out of wliom to nuike members. y mm^w^ m^^ 8 IliN, (IiIm Ih nut the caMc. The (iiiic liax not vil (i'inKinK lorwanl tin' Mi'thodiKts, my criticN tail to note adiDi'icnci' Ixtwci'n thmi and UH. They Ijavi? for thr inoHt part to nin/cf Ihrir |it'o|)l(' ; we only p'tln'r thcni. 'I'licy have to HOW and ^I'l^^i i^** ^^'t'll aM to rca)) ; we havi' only to reap. 'I'hcy have to srck and liml the wan- (h-rin^ Khccp; we only to fold the waitin;; lloik. Hcm't' it is that their incrciiKc, an a \n\r, is U'ss at any time tlian ourH. When' oiirs was \2 per ci!»t., theirs was only 5 ; and when om's was '•, theirs was only 2.24. Hut how do my lleviewcrK know that this diminished inerease of the Me- thodists is not due to eauscB within theniselvcH? Sonn- of tlieir own Ministers think so. 'I'lie same kind of ri^'id <'enti'ali/iition which is hein^ im- posed on us, is said hy some to he injurionsly uf- i'ui'tiiiK them. 15ut whatever may he tlie cause, it is )v very narrow way of testinf; our |)roKress as a Chiircli, in relation to the f;eneral reli^'ioiis pro- ftress of the country, liy selecting one denomina- tion only as an example. To arrive at a ri^rlit conclusicjii on tliis point, we must take in all th<> leadiiifj Trotestant Clinrches, and compare our own incr('i(S(! witli theirs. 'I'liis ncithi'r of my critics have attempted ; and even if they liad, this would not have altered the sjiccial conili- tions wliicli we thid in our ("hurch, or the com- plexion of eitiier oin' virtues or our vices. 1 (lemur further to Mr. Kinj;'s jiroposal to cs- iimftt(! the increase of the C. I'. Church, for the ]>tiHt len years. Why! The Church is only live ycarH old, and to estinuitc its increase for ten is almnrd. J^etter far to look the facts in tln^ face, and do tlie best we can to mend them. Another jjoint to wliiih my critics attach f^vcat imi)ortanc(' is the alleged more unfavorahle st.-te of the country in the period endin;,' with \HM, as compared with th.-t cndinj; with 185I). Mr. In- glis f;ives great eni])liasis to this, and even ac- cnscH me of ignorance of ll])per Canada, hecansc I do not agree with him. He says that the years 18r)(),-"r)7,-'r)rt, were years of iiifrdinp/ed /iron/irji/;/ ; that the lirst really had harvest was in IH'>\) ; tliiit not till 18()() was the commenial depression felt; that lS(;2,-'(;3,-'0t, were tlii; very worst ycavs, and so on. \Ver(! 1 to accuse Jlr. Inglis of ignorance of U. Canada in making these grossly iuan'nrate state- ments, I would, 1 am sm'o, be thcnight riglit liy intelligent commercial men. I will, liowiiver, be more gentle with my critic, and simply say that luR zeal beclouds his memory. My statement is, that tlie two periods selected for comparison, the one ending with 18;V.», and the other with 186G, are, as regard the state of the; country, as near'y as possible alike ; that botli liave their lips and downs, tlieir summer and their winter. Ker evidence on this point I would adduce the statistical lleport of tlie Kre<' Churcii for IHri". It says, "Till' history of the past year iia.4 been 4 I'l'iiiarkabh^ for the pressure on the (.'ommercial woild, and no doubt this pressure has atVecled many of the friends of oin' schi'mes. On the whole it would be imfaii to estimate the pros- pei liM' amount of our congregational beiielae- iloiis IVom data alforded by a year of uinixiiidrum- imrriiil ilf/irriiniiin." Again, for IHfiH the Ue|iiirt says, " Milt your Committee are ipiite prepared to lind that in the peculiar eirciimstiinees in which the country is placed, that tlien^ Nhould lie a diminished income,'' Kor the same year '' the Hepoit of the lliixton Mission says, " The (•ommercial distress thiu has swept over the land, the derangement of our tinanciul ufl'airH, and the almost total suspension of business of th of the (U'esent year, (an authority second .(> none in Ihe I'rovinee), the following in reference to lI,Ciina,-'0() wc^re further as good years as any the country has ever seen. !My critics are themsidvea very particular in noting the ]U(isi)erity of at least the year 18GC, when discussing the finances of the (Jhureh, but they seem to forget, in their one-sided zeal, that it is from this very full-favored year tluit 1 take one of the items of my cnlcidations. With great inconsistency they yet accuse me of comparing an ad\erse with a iirosjierous period. There ia no jdcasing my Reviewers. They are determined to make nie out wrong. It is the old story of the wolf and the lamb, I have now shown, in the department of the JIenibcrshi|>, that notwithstanding the allied as- sault of the Address and the l'iinii)hlet, my co- lumns yet stand firm as a rock. The fiBsumed external causes of my critics have been shown to be mere theories, without a shadow of fact to sidistantiatt^ them. If they existed at all, they affected the first period c(iually with the last. There is tlius no escaping the conclusion, that within the Church itself we must look for the evidences of its own decline. After all, this is a more hopeful view of the case than that of my ir tlu-lr inter. I. o|)|>on(*ntM. Tt hIiowh tli.it thit Ohiircli tinM tliu power, if it iiiily wi"i to ieineiiy the eviU (((in- pilijlied (if, mill to Met ill tliiiti(ili n new Het (if ili- tlueiieeH tliut will eurry it on with ii new tide of 1 Iinwpcrity. Ill— TIIK HTII'KNl), On tliiH item ill my tuiiieH, repeated and fiiri. OHM iiMHunltN liHve lieeii miiiie. Mr. IiikMh, in k'iv- inK »>.v t'^l>l<''*, HtriiiiKely omitH my per-centiiKiH. }(e cHNtM them (Hit of tlie Hynii(;(iKile. 'I'heKe t4k- hicN hIiow nil iiveriiKe iinniuil inereitHe in tlie Krue {."liiiiih for the four yeiirH ending with lH!"i)>, of $4,745, or 10. .1(1 |ier ("eiit. ) in tlie U. 1'. Church, of $2,fi, witli stipend promised in IH.'ili. Mr. KiiiK even returns to tlie assault, in his passionate let- ter in the (ilolir of April 4tli, and challengoB mc to single comliat on the point. In rejjly I say, that 1 have dntihcratdy chosen the column of stipend for Iflrifi, as a fair repre- sentative, on the whole, of the stipend ^jro/niVr/. It is the only column in the statisticB. It is not headed "Stipend paid," but "Ministers' (Sti- pend." Mr. Inglis is clearly wrong in saying that this column contjiins "invarialily " the am- ount fiaid. In jiroof, I refer him to the return for St. Gabriel Street (Jhurch, Montrc^al, which he knows of. On this vt^ry point there was, I re- member well, a discussion in the Fre>' (Jliurch Synod in 185(!,when it was debated wheilier jiro- mised or paid was, or should be, returned. It was then ascertained that for the most part it was the promised, and not the paid that was gfiven. Then only it was thought better to get at the amount actually jiaid ; and hence the heading in the following year was altered to "amount l)aid to Minister." But even this did not secure the end contemplated. Many still persisted in returning the amount promised. This led to the introduction of the two columnB, which we find for the first time in 1859. This is the true his- tory of tlH! matter. On a critical examination of the column for 1855 it will also be found that for the most part it contains Stipend joromwrf. In the Presbytery of Montreal, of which I was thtn the acting Clerk, it is entirely so. In three other Presbyteries it is tlie Rnme, witli tlic exce|ili(in of one or twoeiuwi. In the three leniMJiiiliK I'll HJiytiricH, the excep- tiiiiiN are more iiumeidUM ; but (III as ( anful a Ncrutiny of the ( iilunin its is now possible, the dilference iietweeii the proiiiiHiil iiiid paid is not more than $l,'2i;o, ami tliis amount (loes not, I aviT, alb'ct " the fair approxinintioii of my tables to the a< tual facts." In my Ibview I was ( iiru- ful to note that the sbitistics for tlie Memlieihiiip and the Stipend were not \\\\\U: so ridialiie iih those for till! Ministry, and ((iiild only be taken as a "fair apprdxiiiiatioii." TIiIh caution nei- ther of my Reviewers have hud tlie ( andour to notice, but the rather have preHsed my ligiires intoa pt'eeision I never claimed for them. I took the statistics just as I found them, confident that they would yield, to those who could read them, a fair index of the state of tlie Chiircli. What, after all, does all tlu! pother of my ileviewers amount to? Why, only to a paltry amount, not worth while arguing about. Jt does not atfect my tables to any appreciabii! extent. I can af- ford to give it up to them. Tht! result will then, be, that insteiul of i\w increase in the Vti'v. Church of $4,74.'), or 10.20 per cent, for the term ending with 185!t, it will be $4,421), or y.fiO per cent. ; and insteiKl of the per-( entJig*; for the two (.'hurdles being II. (JO, it will be 11.25. A piti- able (ine-lhird qf one prr out. is all they gain, and for which Mr. King has lost his temper and IiIk courtesy. Ill regard to the stipend account of the U. P. ('bun h for 1H55, Mr. King wants foolishly ti> mend it, in the same way as he proposed to do with yie membership. Here also Mr. Inglis' an- swer is adequate ; " We must deal with the sta- tistics as we fiiul them." Tiie rule is to mend all or mend none. I now turn to the tables of 18G2,-'0G, about which my critics are (|uite Jubilant. Here I al- low an error in my figures, into which I was in- advertently led by taking it for granted that the condensed tables of the Ileport for 18()2 wen^ in the same order as the actual returns. I had made tlie right calculations, but in the confu- sion incident to a chang(\ in the form of my Re- view, was incautiously led to take the first co- lumn of the condensed table, instead of Stipend promised. But after all, this is but a venial er- ror, the correction of which makes things worse for my llcviewers, instead of better. Mr. King in his fiery letter won't even look at the correc- tion. Not he I If he had, it would have cooled his heat. He must look at it, however. It is so damaging to his own cause that it can't be over- looked. Note well the correction, Mr. King, and be comforted if you can. Stipend promised in C. P. C. for '62, $10fi,776 do. do. do. for '66, 129,711 Increase in 4 years, $22 935 Average annual increase $5,734, or about 5.40 per cent. This corrected table reduces, as is apparent, the annual increase for the period ending with 1866, from $6,028 per annum, to $5,734 ; and the 10 }HT-<'<'ntiij,"! tVom ", to :>.4(»: or Ichh l>y $l,3(il, or ..I.H.") per (flit., tliiiii that of the period ciidiiif; xvitli IHTiK. On lookinn lit I'lis rcHiilt, doulitli'ss inyiistulc Ucvicwcrs will wisii tiicv inid Icl't Mr. K<'1i»|p'k tiKurcH MJiiiic, mid iicccptcd tliciii us on the wliolu "a liiir approximation to tlic iR'tual facts." Hotli Rovicwi IS iiioci'cd further to fiivc a dif- ferent set of euiciihitinns from those contained in my tahles. They tiilnlt of a Biiecial {'tt'ort on the part of the Synod and Pres- byteries. In 18(34 a Synodical Committee on ar- rears jKiS'apixiinted : in 18(i5 they reported, but regretted their failure to acconiplisli much. — They were re-appointi,'d, and re])ortcd again in 18G(), but with wliat result the Minutes omit to 8;iy. It is however known, that they did some- liug, and that Presbyteries took action in the cas^.tte result of which was a reduction of the J annuill arrears of Stij)end to about i?9,/ for IHdC, with its item of arrears paid, and the result Ik; calls " average stipend." This UK'thod is both fallacious and foolish. Ih; miscalls it, by calling it precise. He is, too, very dogniptic in his way. AVithout revealing his process, he says that "the average Stipend in the Free Church in 1855, according to Mr. Kem]), is $541 ; in reality, $;!44 " ; and so on he goes through three long sentences, com- paring Mr. Kcmj) and " reality." Hut how he gets at his '' reality " noliotly knows. In his fiery letter in the d'/che he very modestly says that he is little acquainted with the subtle '-W, — According to ftlr. Kemp, is was S.")"i:!. Now which of these is tint most correct? nei- ther is more tlian an approximati' estimat<^ Mr. King hy some unknown sulitlety readies his re- Kidt and calls it "reality.'' Mr. Inglis, thougli differing in method, yet like Mr. King takes Sti- pend jinid as the hasis of his calculations, where- as 1 make Stipend [ii-omised the basis fif min(^ M}' calculations tiius show the actual average Stijiend per annum; theirs the average amount of Stipend jiaid in jiarticuhir years. Mine is thus not contradictory to theirs, nor tlicirs to mine. Hoth are independent calculations ; true, each in its own place, and telling each its own tale ; mine gives the average /ironiU'-tt stipend ; tlieirs the average paid ; but mine sJiows the Church's ])ro- gress or decline; theirs only the increase or di- nnnutirinciple.i to represent.' Wholly perverting my meaning, he goes cm to say, '• If the Church has no prinri/t/rs," &c. He might have supposed that 1 was not (|uite so foolish as to say that tin; <;hurch had " no principles." No attempt has been madc^ to deny or controvert its principles. He might as well have accused me of denying the existence of the Church itselt. as of denying its principles. AVhat I manifestly allude to are those '' sjiecial principles" vt'hich belonged, as spcrific characters, to the Chnrches of the past. Tlu'S" F say we have vt'ry much lost, and we have not yet found a new set. In regard to tlie partisanship of which Mr. King speaks as existing before the Union in the <:hm'ches, I can only say, that whatever it was, it lias not to my observation abated since the Union. Yea, I ffo further, and say that I have Keen more of it since, than before the Union ; «nd that it does not cease to mar the harmony that should exist between many of the congre- gations of the United Church. Wc are yet far from having i)urged ourselves of the idola triliis. As regards the Home Mission scheme, I said of it, and I say again, that it is a cumlirous piece of machinery ; that it interferes with the proper rights and liberties of Presbyteries ; thiit it is part of a central system of things that is yearly •acquiring larger dimensions, that threatens to suck the life out of the Churcli, and to impair the the free activity of Presbyteries. Such is my so- lemn conviction, and hence my uncompromis- ing opposition. I do not, however, deny to it the power of doing some work ; but yet all it can do could, I l)elieve, be better done by a sys- tt^m less fraught with evil. The advantages, if any, which a central has over a dcccntral system are those only which an absolute has over a con- stitutional government ; which a Nicholas of lUissia, or a Napoleon of France, lias over n <^ueen Victoria or a President Lincoln. But \\>!iat of that? Who that loves liberty or pro- gress, or the true greatness of a people, would exchange the system of the one for that of the other? To tell us therefore of the good the Cen- tral Ccmimittee has don<', or may do, is not to rec(mcile us to it. We still dislike it as an ii# truder into the sacred pre( incts of the Church, and a bar to its real progress. It is generally f(dt to do its work in a rigid way, and there is a red-tJipeism al)out it extremely oilensive. Mr. Inglis is jdeased to say that 1 am alike ig- norant of the past history and the present opera- tions of the Homo Mission. That nmy be jjlea- sant for him to say, but it is all a dream. The misfortune is, I know tin- Home Mission, both past and luesent, too will. The history of the past, Mr. Inglis will allow, I have "digested.',' In the process of doing so I have discovered that a central system of Home Missions was never contemplated by the Free Church. Once on a time, in its infancy, it did no doubt attempt to impose on its congregations one of the most cu- rious central financial schemes that ever was de- vised, — a plan to be oflministered solely by lay- men, and by whom all contributions to Stipend were to he received and administered; hut it perished in its very inception. And the Church seemed to have been so alarmed at this daring attempt at its subjugation, that a reaction im- mediately followed, and a thoroughly decentral- ized scheme of Home Missions was ingtitnted. The S}iiodical Committee was instructed only to issue recommendations to Presbyteries. It handled little or no money, and only distributed to Presbyteries the Missionaries they asked for. At the end of the year it made up a report of such scraps of intelligence as its convener could squeeze out of Presbytery Clerks. This order of things was not inconsistent, as Mr. Inglis sup- poses, with the appointment of a Superintendent of Missions. It was never intended he should do more than follow the instructions of Presby- teries. As early as 1850 the Rev. Mr. Johnstone of Govan was appointed to this office, but never entered on its duties. In 1853, the venerable Professor Gale, to whom the College and the Church owes so much, was created Superintend- ent of Missions, and Agent of the Widows' Fund, but Mr. Gale's lamented decease put an end to further action. What he might have done had he lived, we cannot say ; but this we may ven- ture to aver, that he had too sacred a regard for the constitution of the Church, to have violated any of its provisions, or to have interfered with the proper episcopate of Presbyteries. It is there- fore an entire mistake in Mr. Inglis to say, that a central system of Home Missions was ever at- tempted by the Free Church of Canada. At- tempts were no doubt made in this' direction from time to time by individual Ministers, but in every case these were defeated by the all but unanimous voice of the Church. So inveterate, indeed, was this feeling, that even an overture in las'?, for a supplemental fund, for weak char- ges, was rejected, not because of the contem- plated Union, for it was then far off, but because of the fixed antipathy of the Church to a central 1^ would of the Iv. Cvn- not to •in ii# J'liurili, Inomlly Ici'u in a. like ig- opeiu- |)t! plfll- Tlie li, Iiotli of tlic 18 schfinc, govi'rnfd by central men. The Church then tlouriKhed by diHtriltutiiig, not by concen. trating its power. There wiis little or no debt in thoKc iliiyH, and much Presbyterial work. The ^Jebt« to which Mr. Ingliw iilludcH as having been paid oil' by the CVntral Committee, were not due entirely to the old Hystem ; most of them were incinred wince 18(51, and those which were not could easily have been paid off by the I'resby- teri(iH themHclves. Hut the new Hystem will not jwevent the accumulation of debts. Already considerable sums are duo to the Missionaries, by the i)laceK they have supplied ; and if the Presbyteries are to be held responsible, as they used to be, for those amounts, they have no re- xources under the central scheme, from which to /iieet them. This is an a8i)cet of the case that seems never to have occurred to the central gen- tlemen, and one that will ere long denuind seri- ous attention. Mr. Inglis attempts to show that the district or deeentralined Mstcni of conducting our Home Mission work, wliich numy of the best men in the Church urge»l on the Synod, would be more cumbrous and mechanical than the central plan. I have no doubt it would, had the central gen- tlemen the framing of it. They would make it complex enough. But if it fell into the hands of men of larger and more generous minds, care would be t^iken that the District Committees would possess no more jwwer than would be ne- cessary for cohesion, — that they would not be the sole receivers or distributors of the Church's bounty, — and that Presbyteries would be allowed to retain a part of their own contributions, to be administered according to their. own jndgment, — and that the Committee would be composed of men fitly representing the Presbyteries, and personally acquainted with their fields of labor! The living judgment of Presbyteries would thus have due weight, and the claims of congrega- tions would be determined by an intelligent ac- quaintance with their peculiar wants. Other Committees than those would be quite unneces- sary. Each District Synod would send up its Annual Report to the General Assembly, with- out the intervention of any other mechanism. Our Ministerial independence and self-reliance would thus not be interfered with, and a larger number of the active men of the Church would be personally engaged in prosecuting the Home Mission work, than is possible under the present hystem. The Committees would thus take their proper place as the servants, and not the masters of the Presbyteries; and all temptiition to the abuse of power would thus be removed. There is, I apprehend, great danger of injury to the life and liberty of the Church, by the evil habit of these days, of appointing central Com- mittees with large administrative powers. The old and simple way of doing our work by means of the divinely ordered Committees called Ses- sions, Presbyteries, and Synods, seems in a great measure to have been abandoned. Almost every thing, but the matter of speech-ninicing, is now relegated to Bureaus called Committees. In our own little Clmnih there are no less than twenty- seven of these } at least t^'n of which are en- trusted with large ecclesiastical i)owcrs, in the use of which Ihey are all but supreme. The Church rarely knows anything of their rctingt* till they are accomplished facts. If we must have Committees, — if the constitution of the Chinch requires supplementing in this way, — we would do well to reduce their number to a minimum, to define their work as strictly us pos- sible, and to liring their proceedings under the I direct review of the Courts. In olden times Mo- j d(!rators anny for the truth of tJod. It is a contemptible i)lea, and unworthy of a re- ply. It exists only in weak and narrow minds. It is an insult to the Church to think it, much mon^ to speak it. The truth d(>es not, thank (toil, dejjend for its permanency or its ]iower, on the best of tt'achers ; nay, it has more to fear from being allied to a name, than from being left to its own simplicity. The day has gom^ by when the Church can be led by leaders ; or when its fidelity to trutli can be affected by any of its professors. There is an emlmrrassmcnt in speaking of the College, in one's being constraine(l to use, for the most part, a general term. One feels a delicacy in being more si)ecial. Yet such general terms may seem to reflect on those who are entitled to esteem and honor. I would like to except from the language of complaint the venerable Ur. Ikirns, who in his own place has served ti# Col- lege with signal devotion, and adorn^jiir by his rare erudition. There are few mitn^hose ac- quaintance with the literature of tjfeology is so varied and extensive as is liis. ^^n hour's talk about books with Dr. Burns, isjb, great pleasure and profit to any student. lie nuiy be said to have created the exi'elleut library of Knox Col- lege, and otherwisi! to occujiy an honorable po- siticm in botli College and Church. For Profes- sor Cavan I entertain a like esteem to that irt which he is universally held by his brethren and the Cliurch. In therefore s]>eaking of the Col- lege, I speak only of the major features of its teaching. Before dismissing the question, I would only further advert to what is said by Mr. Inglis as to the willingness of the Synod to institute a se- cond College at Montreal. This is an entire mis- talie. When first the matter was spoken of, it was scouted by many ; and it was only with extreme difficulty that a majority could be got to pass even the modified permission given by the Sy-' nod. It was like drawing teeth to get what was 16 I then ftot' 'i'''^* •'|'l'"**'t''"i t" 't wivH stionK nnd urik'ut. MoH! cordiality ou tlic jiiirt of tlic Sy- nod iiud a moll' (,'i'iii'r()us trcatiiicntot' tliosi; wlio wen- and arc williiiK t" nnstaiii it, woidd havr •((•cured itH cKtaMiHlimcnt some time a(,'o. At first it was iDiisidcrcd necessary by itH j)r<)jector8 that its IJoard of jranapenient slioidd liave the nomination of its I'rofessorK, siiliject to the aji- jjroval of tlie Synod. 'J'liey felt that in the Sy- nod's past niaJiaKcnii'nt of Knox Collegia theri^ Mas no security for any better restdt in Mf)ntreal than that which they witni^ssed in Toronto. — Even now this conviction K"''^tly Idnders the profiress of the Endowment scheme in the East. Tliere is an apprehension, not without founda- tion, tliat the special interests of the East would lot meet with a liberal and generous considera- tion at the hands of the central men, but would be controlled witlu)ut regard to local feelings and convictions. If the Synod has a just re- gard to the progress of the Church in the East, they will in futures act towards its people in a more fratm'nal way than they have hitherto done, and yield to the decided convictions of tlie brethren there, who, with an untiring zeal, arc amidst many obstacles, upholding tlie standard of the Presliyterian Church. If they do not, but determine as heretofore to look East with West- ern eyes they will irritate and discourage a large, influential, and important section of the Church. I have now done what I cumtem plated doing, when I commenced this work of Ileview. I have presented to the consideration of tlu; Church facts and opinions which I deirm important. I have vindicated, against intolerant and passion- ate criticism, the uceuracy of my caluulationH and th<' JuHtice of my remarks, I have pro- tested, in the name of many, against the blind ]iolicy of centridi/.ation which is marring the beauty and ])araly/,ing the life of the Churcli. 1 have npoken words of earnest renxuistrance against a scheme of Missionary administration which I sincendy believe to be fraught with in- jury to the (,'hurch. I have sought to awaken the Ministry out of their sinful disregard to the interests of students, and to the evils which are ackiu)wle