<^, ■^ "^ „0. ^ IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 I.I 11.25 128 Ui ■ 2.2 Ui Its ■u u ■ 2.0 ■ I. ^U4 addad during rastoration may appaar within tha taxt. Whanavar possibia. thasa hava baan omittad from filming/ II sa paut qua cartainas pagas blanchas ajoutias lors d'una rastauration apparaissant dans la taxta. mais, lorsqua caia Atait possibia, cas pagaa n'ont pas M fiimAas. Additional commants:/ Commantairas supplAmantairas: L'Institut a microfilm* la mailiaur axamplaira qu'il lui a AtA poaaibia da sa procurar. Laa dAtaiia da cat axamplaira qui sont paiit-Atra uniquas du point ili» vua bibliographiqua. '^J pauvant modifiat una imaga raproduita. ou qu' pauvant axigar una modification dans la mAthoda normala da fiimaga aont indiquAa ci-dassous. I I Coiourad pagas/ Pagas da coulaur Pagas damagad/ Pagas andommagAas Pagas rastorad and/oi Pagas rastaurtes at/ou paSiiculAas Pagas discolourad. stainad or foxat Pagas dteolortes, tachatAas ou piqutos Pagas datachad/ Pagas dttachtas Showthroughy Transparanca Quality of priit Qualiti inAgaia da I'imprassion Includas supplamantary max«rii Comprand du material supplAmantaira Only adition availabia/ Saula Edition disponibiA r~n Pagas damagad/ I I Pagas rastorad and/or laminatad/ r~2 Pagas discolourad. stainad or foxad/ I I Pagas datachad/ [TT| Showthrough/ I I Quality of print varias/ r~n Includas supplamantary max«rial/ I — I Only adition availabia/ D Pagas wholly or partially obscurad by arrata slips, tissuas, ate, hava barn rafilmad to ansura tha bast possibia imaga/ Las pagas totalamant ou partiallamant obscurcias par un fauillat d'arrata, una palura. ate, ont AtA fiim^as A nouvaau da fa^on A obtanir la maillaura imaga possibia. This itam is filmad at tha raduction ratio chackad balow/ Ca documant ast film* au taux da reduction indiquA ci-daasous. 10X 14X 18X 22X 2SX aox >/ 12X 16X aox 24X 28X 32X Th« copy filmed h«ra hat b««n raproducad thanks to th« 9«n«r(Niltv of: Library of tha Public Arohlvaa of Canada L'axamplaira fllmA fut raproduit grlca i la gAnArosit* da: La bibilothiqua das Archival pubiiquas du Canada Tha imagas appearing hara ara tha baat quality poaalbia eonaidaring tha condition and lagibllity of tha original copy and in icaaping with tha filming contract spacifications. Laa Imagaa suivantas ont 4t* raproduitas avac la plua grand soln, compta tanu da la condition at da la nattat* da l'axamplaira film*, at an conformit* avac las conditions du contrat da fllmaga. Original coplaa in printad papar covers ara filmed beginning with the front cover end ending on the laat page with a printed or llluatrated Impree- aion, or tha back cover when eppropriete. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first pege with e printed or illustrated impres- sion, end ending on the lest pege with a printed or illustreted impression. Lee exempleires originaux dont la couvarture an papier est imprimis sent filmAs en commen9ant par la premier plat at en termlnant soit par la darnlAre pege qui comporte une emprelnte d'Impreasion ou d'lllustration, soit par la second plat, aalon le ces. Tous les eutres exempleires origineux sent fllmta en commen^ent par la pramlAre pege qui comporte une emprelnte d'impresslon ou d'lllustretion et en termlnant par la dernlAre pege qui comporte une telle emprelnte. The leat recorded frame on eech mlcuroflche shell contein the symbol — »• (meening "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol ▼ (meening "END"), whichever epplies. Un des symboles sulvents apparaltra sur la darnlAre imege de cheque microfiche, solon le ces: le symbols — ► signlfle "A SUIVRE", le symbols Y sirjnifie "FIN". IMeps, plates, cherts, etc.. mey be filmed et different reduction retios. Those too ierge to be entirely included in one exposure ere filmed beginning in the upper left hend comer, left to right and top to bottom, ae meny fremea as fraqulrod. The following diegrems illustrete the method: Les certes. planches, tebleaux, etc.. peuvent Atre filmte A dar teux de r4ductlon diff Arents. Lorsque le document est trop grand pour Atre reprodult en un seui cllchA. II est filmA A partir de I'angle supArieur geuche. de geuche A drolte. et de heut en bes, en prenent le nombre d'imeges nAcesseire. Les disgremmes sulvents lllustrent le mAthoda. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 f ai»p , < t I 1>,V..,.U. J,'. .. . "J^ ■''^i-A*. '.'lii^': ?ii ..;:'*.; irV; V ♦■• '<*-; ' ' "■ ■■di- rr!'» No event in the eocIeBiaitical history of modern timea has exeitt d more intcnsn interest than the Disruption in tho Prosbyterian Chureb of Scottand. For two conturias thnt Church had been a model of Christian unanimity ; and the influence it had obtained over the conduct and feelings of the people, conjoined with the admirable syr^tem of its Schoolsi elevated tlie national character to the highest point, with those wlio thought that virtue and rational piety, conjoined with forethought, diligencoi and iDte> grityi wore the highest attributes of the human mind. The circumstances which led to tho scliiem in the Church of Scotland, and to the secession frumtlint Church of a body of ita clergy and people, admit, as usual, of being viewed in various ways ; and while they are held, on the one hand, to be sufficient to induce a large party to leave the Establishment, are deembdt on the other, rather the cons^equcnces of imprudent proceedings and misdirected zeal, than as reasons for disengaging themaelvea from the Church into which they had been baptised. These eonOicting views have had a powerful influence in Canada, where many of the people reside in remote settlements, and seldom hear the particulars of auy case detailed except through prejudiced channels ; and the desire for mote authentic details* and to hear the best reasons, from the mouth) of the most eminent of their teachers, led to the following Discussion. The Rev . Principal Liddell being on a visit to Gait, and having conducted Divine Worship in St. Andrew's Chureb, in that place, on Sabbath, the 10th of May, took occasion to deliver a. short history of the events which had led to the disruption in tho Synod. The congregation, which included some of the most eminent public characters in the Province, compriRed also a number of those who had deemed it their duty to abandon the National Establishment and attach themselves to the Presbyterian Church in Canada. During the succeedintr days, the reasons and evidence adduced by Dr. Liddell became the subjects of animated controversy ; and as most of these controversialists had only their own memories and judgments to fall back upon, either as to the precise course of reasoning and evidence Dr Liddell adopted, or for the fittest nrguments and fucts wherewith to combat them^ they led rather to an increase of confusion than to the elucidatioa of the truth. Under these circumstances it was suggested, that if Dr. Liddell and the Rev. John Bayne (formerly Minister of St. Andrew's Church, Gait, and now of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in the same place) would meek the people, an4 give % detail of the principal facts bearing on each side the queetion, iuch detail »• i!f •I might ImiI Id greater poacb Among tho penplo, and bcftter know- ledge of the real motives under whicli they had aeted. Hornet of the inbabitanta waited upon the Reverend Oentlemeni anlicit* mg their attendance, to which thoy assonted, and the meetini^ ,' Was advetrtiafed to be held oo Tuesday tho SOth of May, in St. Andrew^a Church, Gnit, under tho presidency of the Rev. Jamee Strang, the venerated Minister of the Secession Church, in tho same place. Long before the hour of meeting, the ground around tho Church was crowded With a mass of pbopte from. all parts, even from very distant places in the Provinee ; and the interest was IrttensAk A small sum was intended to bo demanded from each person on entering thb Church ; but when the doors were opened, the rush was so excessive that all previous arrangements were set aside, Vmd the Church was instantly crowded in every corner, witir upwarda of twelve hundred people, forming a meet intelligent and anxious eonirregatiun. The Reverend Spet^kers having taken their places at a table in front of the Precentor's desk, the Discussion bef^an of which the following is a Report. It lasted for upwards of five hours. Dur< ing the whole of that time, the most devout attention wasjfpaid to every word that fell from tbe Speakers. No symptom bt applause or disapprobation,— «f weariness or desire to leave— of dissatisfaction or delight at what waa uttered,--e8caped the audience ; but with a solemn composure that denoted the warm interest they had in the subject, the people sat throughout the whole period, absorbed in the arguments. The interest of the Debate did not cease with the rocetinir ; on the contrary, it appeared greatly to increase ; and as a Report of the Discuaaion h&d been promised in the ensuing number of the Dumfries Courier, the applications from all parts of the Pro^ vince for copies were very numerous. It soon became apparent, however, that the extent to which the Report reached,} would put it out of the power of the Editor to compress it into even half a dozen successive Newspapers ; and he resolved to publish it in the shape it now appears { taking such precautions to insure its norrectnessj by laying the Notes before the Speakers, as would give it a proper title to authenticity ; and having undergone their revision, it is now placed before tiie public, in tho earnest hope, that its contents will tend to I he conviction and peace of the people, and the welfare of the Universal Church. Gait, June I7th, in 49. >;>' -hi KEPORT, Slc. Th« Rev. Mr. S I'RANG* tho Ctminnan, comiaeneed tli« pr«* ce«<1in|f« by reading^ aa follows : " Ladies and Geiitlemeii,— (t is to be distinctly understood bf' the present meeting, that it has been called in cempliance with a requisition to that efl'ect, respectably signed by members and adherents of the Presbyterian Congregations in Oalt, and ad> dreHRed to the Reverend Mr Bayne and Dr. Liddell, expressly for the purpoae of obtaining from the former a friendly explanation of his reasons for dlssedting from the Synod of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in cdnnection with the established Kirk of Scotland, and from the latter, his reasons for remaining in con- nection with that Body. And further let it be clearly manifest, that this meetmg takes place upon the very host terms of feeling on both siden, and not on accouni of any c^iallenge, or other dii- necossary formality ; but simply because of an expressed and well-known desire that exists amongst many deeply interested in the question, to hear from the two Reverend Gentlemen before you a calm, plain and straightforward statement of the Truth. The Rev. Chairman added— It has been further agreed to limit the Opening Speeches of the two Reverend Gentlemen to an hour and a quarter each, and their Replies, one from each speaker, to half aa hour. I have also to state that every manifestation of applause or disapproba- tion will be immediately checked, by the Speaker stopping, and the disorderly person bemg expelled : and if the meeting will not support the Chairman in the exercise of this power, then it will be forthwith dissolved. Let me remmd the audience, that they are not here in the quality of judges, nor are they called on to give any opinion ; but they are here as listeners only, anxious* to be in- formed and enlightened on certain great truths which are about to be discussed. In this spirit, and with these cautioni*, let ue pray to have nur minds quieted and our hearts illuminated by the Al- mighty Grace, for which let as humbly addresa our Saviour in prayer. The Reverend Gentleman then pnt up a H'>1omn and affecting petition that the Almighty would vouchsafe his blessing on tbeir meeting, and mika it advantigeons to nil for the elucidation of B ;i truth, anj ths inertiit ofpitty. lit thfln ctilod on Iht tptUtri to procpod. The Rev. Mr BAYNE commeneed the dis?u«iion Mr. Chairman and Brethren, he enid, the nccmion of our meeting, ai jrou iiave just heard announced, hae been tAe expressed deeir* by many of you to hear full explanations, from the mouths of persons deeply interested, of the causes which led to the late disrup- tion in the Preflbyterian Church in Canada, in connexion with the Church of Scotland, to hear the reaaons which induced me to sepa* rate from that Church, and my reverend opponent, Dr. LiddeU| ^ to remain in its communion. It has been said, tha*. som* pereons among us, from ignoran:o as to the true nature and grounds of the dispute, nre unable to make up their minds with which party to ally themseWes ; and that others, from a like cause, have adopted their parly without any true knowledge of the funda- mental points on which they have differed. Under these circu m- siances, the learned Doctor and himself hnd agreed to appear before them that day, and endeavour to lay as calm, succinct, and intelligible a statement before them, as would enable each man clearly to make up his mind, and render a reason for the impor- tant step of adhesion or separniion which he h?d adopted or might ! hereafter sdopt . If any one had come there for a different purpose, — if nny one was present with tlio expectation of w itneesing' a mere display of intellectual gladiatorship, he would depart miserably dis- eppointec' If any one expected a display of angry feelings, or (ht angry collision of warm partizans, he a'so would be disappointed : for such outbursts of feeling or heat were entirely opposed to what he and his brother Dr. Ltddell intended, which was, as he had already stated, to enable all who took an interest in the question to make up their minds fully, intelligibly, and ai right>thinking and prudent men, and to adopt their course with a sufficient warrant that it was roost agreeable to sound sense, the Word of God, and tbe Doctrines and precepts of the pure Presbyterian Chur ch. The subject of their discussion was one of the deepest impor- tance. It involved the honour of Christ, and the welfare, purity , and utility of his Church in the Province. It was manifeet to all, that both parties, being opposed to each other on essential pointai could not be right. One of them must be doing the will of tha Saviour, and the other fighting against him ; and that they might discover which of the parties was right, and which in error, he entreated his auditorR to purge thoir minds from prejudice, and come to the discusninn with the 'single-minded object of hearing the truth, and acknowledging its power. The qucsiion to be diacusssd is, Was the late diaruptiun iu th« ipor- irity, I call, liointii )f th« light , ha and karini^ ill th« |fr««hyteriiiii (/hnrrh rkIUJ for (ly a dud rejfsnl to tlio lin(ir»iir of «'hriat,Biid thti ilutv tlioy owed to ihefr t'ellow men. Hi (Mr Buynp) took the atHrni&tive ot'thnt propoailion, and eaid it whi ; Bfid his renannh fur *o ■ayiug, and Beting in cunfurmity theretu wnre tlionH :— l«t. The Establiflhed Church nfScntland had done Riiehthnij;a, •a had made] it the duty of all sound ChriatiaDs to aeparatu fruui her communion. £d. That the Synod of the Presbyterian Chnrch in Canadu in connexion with the Church of Scotland hna uncouraired arU aa- •iated the Scottiah Church in its sinful course : and therefore wih art and part with her in the commiflsion of those sins ; and that it is the duty of the people hero to separate frorn that Synod. These were the grounds on which ho (Mr Diyne) jiistillod his ■epnration from tho Church of Scotland ; and as he should succeed or fail in proving them,— as on tho truth or fidtiohood of theac posi- tions, would rest his defence of his own onduci, and the assoil- ment of thai adopted by othurs,— he would wilhoot anotli'^r word of preface proceed to state the facts by which thoso positiuns were to be sustained. Mr Bayne proceeded to say, that if he should bo able to prove that the Church of Scotland hnd sinned in matters fiindanientnl, and if he also proved that the Synod of the Presby terimi Church in Canada in connexion with her hnd become art and part m the , ain, then it would follow as a matter of course that all who did not separate themselves from her, coininitted similar wickedness, and did dishonour to the Christian faith and their great Master and Head ; but if, on the contrary, he did not prove those accusationn, ur his positions were proved to be unsound or untenable, then would he (Mr Bay ne)] give them up and retract them, admit his error, and do what he could to make amends for it : and he hoped *ach of those who had heard him would be ready to adopt a similar course. First, then, he had to prove that the Chur 'i of Scotland had •inned in mutters vital and fundamental. To prove this, he would first lay before the meetinj his reasons for asserting, as he now did, that the Church of Scotland had be- come an Eraslian church ; that she bad become subject to tb« 8tato in matters purely ecclesiastical ; and had virtually denied the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ over his church. These were oerious charges, but they admitted of such easy proof, that he had no hesitation in saying tho evidence he should adduce would confirm them to the very letter. The meeting WBs aware that the disruption in the Scottish Il |£«tablittisient fullowetl iip^in Ui« anactni^nt of wh)«t htd bacit cail«as might be clearly proved in a variety of waysy I' "by t)i« cUiiii of riK^iltf l>y pt litioiia tu f arliaiiieitl, tiid by tli« fJiacuAMton un the Ili>ii. Fox MhuIu'm iiiulii>ii iit Purlittiiioiit. Uut ii« wuultl prefer ttalnbhthiDj^ hm ca.'ie by tlie uvitleiice ut' Uoeimr* <*haiiner« and Gurduii, two iuhu euiiuout iii the Cliurch fur tliatr ulmiu, learning, and piuty. Dr. C'halmora thuB addreiisca the InhabitDiiia ufGlaB^'ow ; •* And Uvsa aa tu the poaaibility of a remedy,— 1 know aumelhinjj^ of petty iiogucialiona that are going un abuut thta uuc niett«ure, and thai oitier ciauao. Why, the tru'h ib, tliai tlie firm wall of circumvallation ia nuw thrown dciwn, and i; ia not by the erectiou uf a furt here and am ther theto that wo can now build up the ruina of ao wide an uverthruw. A mere non-intruaion meaaure will not aatiai'y un, when the Cuurt SeHsion ia pushing ita preten< aionato ihe overthrow of all our diacipline and all our juriadiclion ; and therefore uoD-intruaiun will not Hatiafy us— the abolition ut' patronage itaelf will not aatiafy ua. We muut have an indnpen- dent power ofdiacipline— we inuathavean independent juriadictiuii in thinga eccleaiaaticnl— we inunt have a full and coniprehenaivu iiieaaure of adjuatmonl ; and with anything abort of that it la iiu< j)oaaible to aatiafy ua." "Sir James Graham enqnirea what will aatiafy ua ? Would the 'rejection of the presentee by the people, and that adjudicated upun by the Presbytery, would that aatiafy us ? It never would have aatiafied u^, although' it would have enabled us to remain eon- •cientioualy in the Udtabhshed Church at one time ; and ao far we have been aatiafied. But it will not aatia Luarted .''/ rtahyienaus aub^uitted to these interferences of the civil 11 power w»,*tlitt thty l«fl tb« principle untouched, and only, to g certain extent, interfered with the practice : for aa ihey did not neceaaarily ]ead to the intrusion of an obnoxious man on a congre- gation, they left the fundamental principle of the Church un- •cathed. The people of Scotland, according to immemorial uaagp, had what waa denominated a right of call in the choice of their M iniaters, and in the pureet tiroes of the Church that right was exercised in its fullest extent. The principle above referred to was adopted to prevent, the possibility of the intrusion of an obnoxious Minister on a reclaiming people, which was {an evil eo monstrous that only an Erastian Church and an oppressive Magistrate could unite to sanction it; and he (Mr.Bayne) could positively speak for himself, that if he had believed that the Church of Scotland had not the power to prevent the intrusion of an obnoxious Minister over the heads and the bleeding hearts of a religious people, he would never have been a member of that Church, The design of the Veto Law, then, was merely to enforce this principle of non-intrusion, and to counteract the «vils which resulted from the ascendancy of what was called the " Moderate Party" in the Church ; and as so much had been eaid of that Act, and so much stress laid upon it by the party adhering to the Establishment, and as it was a very short docu- ment, he would beg leave here to read it. The Rev. Gentleman then read the Act as follows : « Edinburgh, May 29, 1835. — The General Assembly declare. That it is a fundamental law of th's Church, that no pastor shall be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people ; and , in order that this principle may be carried into full effect, the General Assembly, with the consent of a majority of the Presbyteries of this Church, do declare, enact, and ordain, That it shall be an instruction to Presbyteries, that if, at the mode- rating in a call to a vacant pastoral charge, the major part of the male heads of families, members of the vacant congregation, aud in full communion with the Church, shall disapprove of the person in whose favour the call is proposed to b«. moderated in, such dis- approval shall be deemed sufficient ground for the Presbytery re- jecting such person, and that he shall be rejected accordingly, and due notice thereof forthwith given to all concerned ; but that, if the major part of the said heads of families shall not disapprove of such person to be their pastor, the Presbytery shall p'oceed with the settlement according to the rules of the Church : And further declare, that no person shall be held to be entitled to disapprove as aforesaid, whr shall refuse, if required, solemnly to to declare. in presenct of ;iif Presbyter;, thai he m actuated by no faction s n in I2i or raalicious motive^ but solely by a coiiacTentiou« regarcl to th« •piritual intareat of himaelf and the congregation." That (continued Mr Bayne) was the moiiatroua Veto Law— ^ law pro|)osed by Lord MoncrieflT, one the moat eminent of the Scottiah Judgea, — approved and aanctioned by the Scotch Law Offieera of the Crown ;-.it8 ezcellenee afftrmed by Lord Brougham^ then the highest.law authority in the United Kingdom^ but who had since, with his uaual versatility, jumped Jim Crow on the queation; and which waa lauded in the highest terms by the then Engliah Attorney General, now my Lord Campbell. If the Veto Law had any defect, it waa that it did not go far enough— that it restricted the veto to the heads of fani'ilies, instead of giving every membei* in communion with the Church a right of ezerciaing it. Bat the Veto Law was not at all palatable to the upper ranks in Scotland » —to those parties who were desirous of turning the Church into a convenient tool for their own purposes. The gentry were opposed to iti because it interfered with their right of presenting the tutors of their children, and other dependants, to vacant bene6ces« and through their influence the bill of my Lord Aberdeen passed* by which the people are compelled to state their reasons for oppose' ing the settlement of an obnoxious Minister, and all the proceed^ inga following thereon left subject -to the controul of the Civil Power. The opposition which haa thus terminated, and not the Veto Law, was the cause of the struggle which finally led to the disruption of the Church. The objections to the Bill of Lord Aberdeen were insurmountable. The people are thereby placed in a position totally incompatible with the fundamental principle of their Church. They are required spe- cifically to state their reasons for objecting to a Miriater, and the Presbytery, who are to judge of the validity of those reasons, might either reject them, or give them effect, as they thought, proper. Now, nothing^could be more delicate than to give tpecific reasons for the rejection of a Minister. For instance, a plain man,^ looking carefully at the person nominated aa his pastor, might come to the painful conclusion that he was not a regenerate Christian, and that it would be a grievous deprivation to ait under him, inasmuch as be could derive no consolation from hia ministra- tions ; but a thousand of the best and holiest feelings of the human heart wonid interfere to keen a man ailent on such a topic, and thus render his power of rejection totally useless. His second . objection to Lord Aberdeen's Bill was, that it left the power still in the bands of the Church Courte to intrude an obnoxious Minister on the people,—* power which even the Cocrts of the Church ought not to possess ; and his third objection was, that it Bvill left the power in the Civil Magistrate to intrude such a Pastor 13 over the heads of Ihe peopUt niul in defiance even of the church ; for the civil court had declared, that not only bad they the power of forcing a Pastor on the people, however disagreeable to that people i or however disqu alified by conduct or otherwise, but they would hold each member of a Presbytery liable in damages to such a nominee, if they refused to give effect to his presentation. These were the points involved in the Marnoch and Culsalmond decisions,— «n asiuroption of p^wer of the civil over the ecclesias- tical body, that awake/ied the indignation of universal cliristendom. The Church of Scotland became a party to this monstrous usurps* | i|g tion. She consented— she submitted; — some o^her members even hailed the decision as one of christian equity ; and therefore it was that he (Mr Bayne) held thai that church had committed a griev- ous sin, by surrendering all the religious rights of the people under her charge to the power of the civil law. He came now to the grand charge againdt the Church of Scot- land, namely, that it had become an Erastian chuich— denying the Headship of the Redeemer, and transfering it to the civil power, and thereby establishing a principle degrading to the Saviour, and obnoxious to the religious freedom of the people. In order fully to understand this charge, it was necessary to refer to the great principle entertained by the Church of Scotland, of the sole Head* ship of the Saviour, and the entire and absolute independence of the Church in all ecclesiastical matters. It was, he repeated, the great and distinguishing fundamental orinciple of the Presbyterian Church, that the Lord Jesus Christ had committed to that Church the sole power, controul, and discipline therein, and the office- bearers of that church were held responsible to him alone atid not to any human power or institution of mere human origin. In other words, that he has instituted his Church, — organized its govern- ment,— enacted its lawrs, — appointed its office-bearers ; — and as he was the sole Head and founder of the system, so to Him only were those office-bearers responsible in their capacities as such in that church* No human power then, under a system so constituted, can con- troul the office-bearers of that Church in the excercise of their spiritual functions. Christ is their Het 1 ; they are to serve and obey him only as their sole Master and Governor ; his people are to obey his laws alone in spiritual things; and if any secular poner should attempt to coerce or controul them in the exercise of their functiou as the freemen of *heir Lord and Saviour, that power is thereby attempting to assume the prerogatives of the Almighty, and to wrest the power of government from the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ. Moreover, not only could no onu interfere, nor any G _ 14 III rnBtitntion intrude^betwcen the Head of the church and hispcople, but the church itpelf, or any nutnber of its ofHce-bcarerR, wer* not Bt liberty to lay down or abandon any of the privileges it enjoyed ; nnd if the Church should no far forget her duty to her Lord and Mneter ns to permit or sanction any interference with her direct powers and allegiance, then did she become a traitrcsSf and practi' cally denied the sole Headship of the Redeemer. Applying these principles to Establishments, it was manifest that no Church could remain true to her principles nnd allegiance^ unless in her connexion with the State to which she is attached, she was permitted to exercise, untramellod and unfettered, the full powers and functions committed to her by her Great Master.— * CiBsar, or the civil power, may take away wiiat he gave, but no- thing more. He gave stipends, manses, and glebes, and he may take them away again ; but he gave not the power of governing nnd legulating'the Church of Christ ; and therefore, without rebel- lion against the King of Kings, he cannot take it away. These wet .3 the principles on which the Church of Scotland was founded ; ns they would be found weP laid down in the following extracts from the Memorial of the Convocation of Ministers of that Church to Sir Robert Peel :— " According to the doctrine of the church of Scotland, in this matter the Church and the State, earh in its own sphere, if, and must be, under all circumstances, supreme. It is true, that being equally ordinances of God, and having certain common objects, connected with His glory 'and the social wHfare, the Church nnd the State may, and ought to unite in a joint acknowledgment of C hrist. nnd in the means and resources belonging to them re- spectively, for the advancement of his cause. But while the church, in this manner, may lend her services to the State as the State may give its support to the Church, each still remains supreme as before. Thus, on the one hand, in regard to the church,— She has received her power of internal spiritual go- vcrnment directly from her Divine Head, and she must, hei«>e'f, nt all times, exercise the whole of it, under a sacred and invio- lable responsibility to Him alone ; so that she has no power to fetter herself, — by a connection with the State or otherwise,— in the just exercise of any part of her spiritual functions. And, in like manner, in regard to the State, — the same is true, on llie name grounds, and to the very same extent, as respects its secu- lar sovereignty, — including therein whatever it is competent for, nr binding upon, the State to do, eirca sacra, or in relation to the church. Its entire secular sovereignty, nnd whatever is therein " included, the Stat© holds, directly and exclusively, from God,— 15 *Ueing the orJiiiaiice ofGoil appainied in that behalf ; and it may not divest itself of any part of that uovertiignty, hut id buund, at nil timea. lu exerciae the whole of it, under ita direct responsibili- ty to Cfod. Nor is this view'of the supremacy ofCiturch and State, each in its own sphere, attended with any practical dJRculty ; tor the sanction with which each enforces its authority beiu<; not less different than their several sphered are distinct, both may fully vindicate their authority without the slightest risk of direct or in- jurious collision. "The result o' these principles is, ttiat while it may be the duty r>f the Church and of the State to prompt and exhort, eacii of them the other, to the right discharge of its proper functions,— it must be equally incompetent for either of them to usurp authority, in any matter that falls under the peculiar province of the other ;— so that neither may the State assert dominion over, or ccmpel, the church, in the discharge of her appropriated spiritual functions, nor yet may the church compel the state, or resist its authority, in anything falling under its secular dominion. If the state, therefore approves of the church, it will confer upon her the endowments ' and other immunities of an Ei^tablishment ; and the happy result of this concurrence between them will be eminently to promote the objects of both ;— each party, however, still in its own province, remaining, of necessity, as free in reference to the other as before, and the church still proceeding unfettered in the exercise of her entire spiritual government. If, again, the state should disapprove of the church's proceedings,— it cannot, indeed, coerce or punitih her in respect of her actings within the spiritual province,— but it may, if it thinks necessary, either wholly or partially, withdraw the endowments and immunities of the Establishment, (the dispo- sal of which fall within its proper couiroul ;) and the church is bound to submit to its determination in these matters, leaving, of course, the responsibility with the state, to whom it exclusively belongs." " This, accordingly, has been the view of the constitution taken ' by the civil courts, down to the present time. Thus', as early as 173:>, the Court of Session adjudged that" the right to the stipend is a civil right ; and therefore that the court have power to cog- nosce and determine upon the legality of the admission of minis* tors, to this eSect,— whether the person admitted shall have a right to the stipend or not." And Hhen, in 1749, the court was asked to interdict a Presbytery from proceeding to admit, as minister of a parish, another person than the patron's presentee, they unani-r moualy refused,—" because^that was interfering with the powe- of 16 !• ordination, or internal policy of the church, with which the Lorde thought they had nothing to do." The earoe principle waa inva- riably adhered to in nuineroue other caaea ; and Lord Kaimea, i na formal Treatiae on the Juriadiction of the Courta, laya it down aa the unqueationable law, that Preabyteriea and the church judica- toriea are aupreme in the matter of the aettlenoent uf miniatera,— *' their aentence being ultimate, even where their proceedinga are illegal,"-~or contrary to the obligation expreaaed in relation tu them in the statute ; the only «check (aa he atatea) provided by law being, that a minister, so settled illegally, ahall not be entitled to the atipend,"—- an arrangement which, he adda " happily recon- cilea two thinga commonly opposite," viz., the necessary freedom of the church, and a competent regard to the civil interests of patrons." Such (continued Mr Bayne) waa the conatitution of the Church of Scotland ; but what waa it noistent with the princi- pies and fealty of the Church ; butthe civil law immediately inter- fered in their behalf, and, in spite of *he Church, and its office- bearers, decided that they were entitled to hold their places, and set the Church and its powers at defiance. Was that not interfer- ing in ecclesiastical matters 1— was that not wresting the Keys from the hands of our Saviour, and transferrmg them to a civil loagistrato 1 The Chairman here intimated that the Reverend Speaker had exceeded his allotted period for addressing the meeting ; but being in the midst of his argument, on receiving the assent of Dr. Liddell, he continued his address.— I regret (said Mr Bayne) having occupied your time more fully than your regulations permitted ; but the importance and compli- cation of the subject, from its extensive ramifications, have com- pelled nw to be more diffiise than I intended. However, what I 18 have now to aay itiall ba condensed into the amalloat posaible compaas ; and if 1 Tail Tuliy to illustrate any point to the satisfuc- tiun of the meeting, I oarneatly trust they ^ ill impute such failure to the brieCuess of the time, and the intricacy of the subject, rather than to the deficiency of evidence, or want of such proofs as would inuke the conviction irresisiable, that the Church of Scotland had tibandoned and traiterously given up the Headship of the Lord Jtisus Christ, and had transferred his authority to the civil court* of the country. In the case of the Presbytery of Dunkeld the courts uf law had conferred on the minority of that body the right of settling a minister, opposed to the wishes of the people, and nppoHcd by a majority of their own body. In the Quoad Sacra districts, the civil courts had declared that Ministers having a cure of8oula,Hiid exercising all the duties of Parish Ministers in the districts to which they were set apart, were yet unfit to sit in the church courts, and all sentences or proceedings they joined in were, for tiiat ruason, worthless and inoperative : and in the case of « person named Livingstone, who had been convicted of theft, and was therefore sentenced to be deposed from his ministerial office — although that conviction proceeded on his own confession, and the theft VI as neither attempted to be extenuated or atoned for— ^ yet the man so convicted and deposed was, not on account of any extenuating circumstance or expression of remorse or repentance, but simply because one o^ these Quoad Sacra Ministers sat among his judges,— was declared by the civil courts to be entitled to exer-^ ciseall the functions of the ministry, and to do all things proper to the ministerial office, including the admiuistration of the sacra-i menta ! After such a detail as that, would it be for a moment denied that the civil power had usurped the powers of the Redeemer — and not only usurped, but set them at naught — treated them with marked contempt and indignity— held them up as unjust and un~ lawful, and declared them impotent ;•— and all for the protection of a thief, and the restoration of a degraded and unrepentant man to thefunctions of the holy Ministry ! Was that — was even that the extreme point of their usurpation ? Far from it* They issued their interdicts, implying that only such persons as they sanc- tioned, should be admitted to sit in the courts of the church, or take part in her deliberations. So that, having divested the church of the power to regulate her own proceedings — to judge of the re- ligious qualifications of those aspiring to be her office-bearers— i having declared her incompetent to prevent the settlement of an obnoxious Minister, and liable in damages for using the powers of the church for that end ; — having issued their decision that those 19 anc- or lurch e re- ao rs of hose whom the church loosed ahould be bound, and thoso whom «ho bound should bo free ;— they next declared that the composition of the Church Courts was a matter of which they alone were thf judges, and that none should take a plnco therein without their, sanction and approval— without bowing down and acknowledging the supreme ppwer of the 8tate over the Redeemer's church. And these (continued Mr Bayne) were no proofs, it would appenr, of the apostacy of the Church of Scotland, or e f her Era«tian sub- mission to the civil power in matters ecclesiastical ! No proofs ! Why, if time permitted, I could muiiiply those proofs fourfold, not from argument, or deduction, or popular facts, but from the records of those very courts which have claimed and exercised the usurped dominion which the Free Church denounces, and from the records of the degraded Establishment. Those who now sun- stitiite the Free Church— those who have left the ancient Estab- lishment because of her truckling and crouching, and abandonment of her rights— those who have deemed it better far to renounce manses, and glebes, and stipends, and station, and to throw all to the winds rather than concede the liberties of the christian people, and submit to Crostian bondage— those who have aban- doned their earthly all fur the glory of their Almighty Head, and come forth from an enslaved and degraded church, to partake of the honour and blessedoess which as Christ's freemen they now enjoy,— they alone, during all these contests with the civil powers, proved faithful to Christ, and stood up for the rights of the people, and the privileges of the church of their fathers. Those now within the Established Church fell down prostrate before the State, and consented to submit to all its usurpations for the sake of its emoluments and connexion. The perfect submission of the Establishment to all these usurpations and encroachments, was the only condition upon which the Church of Scotland was permitted to retain her emoluments, and to these terms has she submitted. She had now put her neck under tiie heel of the civil power — she had become the slavu of the state, and sold her birthright for a mess of pottage. She had denied the Headship of the Redeemer, abandoned his sway, and transferred her allegiance to frail and prejudiced men. She had cast away her ancient constitution, her distinction and glory, and sworn allegiance to tyranny and oppres- sion. She had counselled submission, where she should have en- joined opposition ; and she had shown the example 0/ crouching imbecility, where she should have been the beacon-light of manly courage and christisn fortitude. And standing forth as she doc», a traitress to her constitution, her doctrines, her people, and her Head, she deserves the reprobation of every faithful christian, and ;i • 20 every true-liearted Preibyterian ; und her conduct calU aloud on' all within her pale to come out t'ruiu her, and have no more to d«* with her. The other great branch of the argument, in vindication of the disruption, yet remained to be conaidored, namely, that ae it wbh the duty of the people of Scotland to leave the Kirk, ao waa it equally the duty of the people of Canada to leave the Synod ; but the time (uaid Mr Bayne in cuncluaion) will not permit nieto enter upon it now. Another opportunity will ariae before this meeting closeii, w hen thie important part of my subject shall not be for- gotten. Mr Bayne then eat down, and the Chairman called upon Dr. Liddelh The Rev. Dr. LIDDELL now rose to commence his address. Cordially agreeing, he said, in all that his rev. friend. Mi Rayne, had stated, as to the motives which induced him to becoino a party to the holding of the meeting, and also in the principles on which the diecassion was to be conducted, ho would, without ono word of preface, proceed to give as plain, intelligible, and brief an explanation as possible of the points in dispute, and which had led not merely to a secessioa from the Church of Scotland, but to u separation from the Synod in Canada in connexion with that church » The Church of Scotland was founded on the principle of an Elstablishment, which meant neither more nor less than the recognition by the Church of the Civil Magistrate as the servant of Christ and protector of the Church ; and the recognition of the Church by the State, as the means for disseminating throughout all the land the Gospel of the Grace of God. That principle was contradistinguished from the Voluntary principle, by which is meant, that the civil magistrate ought to have nothing to do with the church of Christ at all ; that the church, as the servant of Christ, is powerful enough of herself to resist all the encroach- ments of her enemies ; and that any interference with her by the civil magbtrate, is fitted only to weaken and deface her. The church of Scotland, adopting the former of these principles, became a branch of the church of the Reformation, which took pjace about the middle of the sixteenth century ; and the first General Assembly of her office-bearers was held in the year 1560, when the subordinate etandarda of her doctrine and practice were 21 frametli which wcrt to regulate hor Aiture p*ococdin(fs ns a chtrch , and kor connexion end intercourse with the attto. Tbe«o standonli wore denomlnnted lubordinetoi in relation to the Oibloi which alono ifl the siipremo standard on which the faith and practice of all churches oro grounded ; and the object of framing those sub> ordinate standardo was, that the civil rulers of Scotland and all the v^orld might know what doctrines the church of Scotland held ; what principles she professed i and what line of conduct she meant to pursue both in regard to the civil magistrate and to her own people. These subordinate standards consisted of a Confcs- eion of Faith, or a systematic arrangement of the doctrines which the chureh held and taught ; and of the First and Second Books of niscipline, which lay down distinctly what are the principles on which the church was to conduct her worship and discipline ; what the stato was expected to do In her capacity of Nursing Father of the church, under the recognised authority of Christ, the common Head and Lord of both. And in reference to the mode in which qualified Ministers should be placed in vacant parishes, the office- bearers of the church laid down the following laws, which, in order that he might be both brief and accurate, ho would read iii their own words as follows :— "Vocation or calling is common to all that should boar oflice ' within the kirk, which is a lawful way, by the which qualified per- 'sons are promoted to any spiritual office within the kirk of God, Without this lawful calling it was never leisom to any person to ineddlo with any function ecclesiastical." " Eloctiuu it) tho choosing out of a person or persons, tnoot able, to tho otiico that vukes, by CIiu judgment of the eldarship, and cunsont uf the coogregatiun, tu which the person ot persons fihall be sppotnteJ." " In tho urder uf electiuu id to be use how ail, that any person 1)1! iiitriided in any oliiuud uf the kirlc, cuutrary tu tliu will of the con({rt>^'iiti(Mi to wittcli they uruappumted, ur without the Vuicd 'ft lliti c'tiicrHliip.' .1) .;'■*: 22 Such wit Ui» Uw of thf Churoh m mpeoleil ihe ilgbti oTtho peoplfl In thn eliol«o of thoir Miniatem. Oefore ho eloMtl the hank, he would reftd anothor ettraot, hearing on another branch ui' liin arifument, to which he would refer by and bye : *'The civil power alioutd command the epiritual to oxercier» and tu do their uffiuo according to tbo wordoTQod ; the spiritual rwlera ahould rcquiro the Ciiriatian nuffiitrate to miuiater juatice and puniah vioo» and ta maintain ttM hberty and qutetneaa of the kirk within their bounda/* ** Thn nmgiat rate neither ought to preaoh« miniater the laora- ntpnta, nor exaeute the cenaurea of the kirk, nor yet prescribe any ' rule how it ahould bo donei but command the ministera io obaerve the rule commanded in the word and punish the tranagresaurs by civil nieaiia. The miniatora exerciae not the civil juriediction but toacli tho magistrate how it ahould be exercised aecocding to the word." lie would now return to his former lino of argument. The ex- tracts first read warrant the belief which he (Dr. Liddeli) cor- ,y other persons than thoao members of the congregation in full communion with the kirk, waadiscoi- dant*'wit\ and contr^y to, tho great and original principles whereon tbe Kirk of SeotUnd was founded ; and farther, that in accordance with sach avowed prmciple, il was the uniform an d continuous practice of the kirki down to a very recent perio !, to crave *from the atate the abrogation of the right of patronage, nnd that the practiee might be made to accord with the prinei- p'e. Patronnge was th^rofor^ pot ^ i^essary or essential part 'JS t/tha OonMitulion of the ChuroN of Btfotltno. On th« oonlrtiy U wMiin oicr«ie«nc« wliieh, tt th« Rafurn :M'.i. and from Ihtt grout Qvoiit iluwnwartlii, tli« ilato wn« oniinu^il/ petjtionoil to da away, lis [Dr. LiilJell] tharafore In loollin{f ttctio Word ol' Gud and tlia ctaiutoa of iho oliurch, waa warraatoil in afHrmin;, tbat the practice of iaierfarinj; -with the aottlement uf ininiatora i*y patrunage, waa repudiated b/ the Church of fieotlaod, and waa contrary to her fundameolal constitutioa. So raoch for the principle of the conatitution of the Churt h of Scotland on thia point. The practice of the church, during thn better part of her biatory, waa enliraly in accordance therewith. During the long and atormy period from MdO to 1090, the Churdi of Seollond held faat by tiiia ({roat principle, and during portions of that time aho waa relieved from patronage altogethor, whilat at. other timea 4he was found remoniitruting againHt ita exerciae, and .craving that it might be abolialied. From 1000, or the period of the Revolution, down to 1712, the manner of appointing Miniatern to vacant congregatlona waa aa followa : The heritora and eldem were, by the Revolution Settlement, appointed the partiea to no« annate or propoae a qualified peraon to be bo the miniater of a vacant congregation or pariah. The heritora, at that time, worn almoat entirely niembera of tho Church of Scotland, and on the day of moderating in a call, the heritora and eldora proposed a Proba- tioner or Miniater to bo the Miniater of the vacant pariah, and if the congregation approved of him, they gave him a call, thereby approving of tho choicd made by the heritora and oldera ; and thon ho partiea laid the call before the Presbytery, who were the sole r 24 judg^ea of the attainments and qualifications of iho person bo no- riiinated ; and if they were aatieiied on these points, the Minister W08 ordained or inducted. But if, on the contraryi a majority of th . ongregntion did not approve of the mnn chosen by their heri- tors and elders, they laid their reasons for such dieopproval befoio the presbytery, who decided upon their validity, and either settled or rejected the Minister as they though't right ; but in all such .cases of opposition to a settlement, they required that tho reasons .,, for such disapproval should bo laid before them, upon the princi- ., pic, that a man in this most essentia] matter, os well es in every other action of his life, ought to be able, and required, to render a i < reason for his conduct. . In the year 1712, during he reign of Queen Anne, tho above ^method of election or choice of Ministers was unhappily super- ceded by Act of Parliament, and instead o*" the power being left in the hands of the heritors and elders, suoject to tho call of tho people, it was transferred to a class of persons called Patrons, who exercised it entirely as a civil right. The Crown ,is tho patron of about ono-third of the parishes of the Church of Scot- land— the remaining two thirds being held by private individi^als or corporations. Cordially did ho (Dr Liddell) agree in every word of condem- nation \fhich had been used respecting thecnactmc.it nf 1712, rp- <' storing putrouagc. It hae been held, and justly, by all who have 25 studied the conatitatidn of the Church and State'of Seotland, aa ah nnrighteoua infringement on the Treaty of Union'* with England, ^rom the time of the passing of that law in XJlif down to 178'4J tfce Church of Scotland wmf year lifted op her Toiiie against thia Unwarrantable Act i' strong langoagi^, abd^#aited'ollly a fa 'oor- able opportunity to have it abolishedl There was a phrase used by Mr BayhC in'hiii address, which, as it would occur probably pretty often in thti' subsequent part of their proceedings, ■ he (Or Liddell)! would ei^lain. Tbe phraao was « the reign of Moderatism." The name <* Modbratea'* waa (irigiaally used as a nickname, aria'aftehirards to designate a paHy in the church who weia averse to' eztritiiie statements of the doc- trines of the Gospel, and extreoib severity in' tHie enforcement of discipline on the ofltce-bearers and' memb^N of the church. Tli^ra was another party also in the churCh, which Was called'the Evan* gelical or po|.u1at party; and tKbse two parties were generally founfd opposed tO Cach otiier in thC church couVts, when any of tho above subjects \Vere under disciVssion :^the Evangelical party generally referrihg to, and acting upon, thd origihal cbristi- tutiCn of the church ; and the Moderates putting up with, or sanctioning, such innovations on her anciedt constitution, as the lapse of tihie, or expediency, or tlie usurpations ot power,* had indicted' U'pon her. In l¥84, this latter' party gaided a decided ascendancy in the church courts, a'Ad from th^t pdriod down to tho year I893'i not another word was heard from tbo Church of Scot* land fn'opposUioti to patronage. Not only did' the Church in that interval become Moderate, but ovcir the whole Nation there was seen to rise, gradually but surbly, a tide of luxury, immorality, and infidelity, against which the good Aenin the E8tablia^lta^ilt, and in the various bbdiCs of the Secessioii, lifted their voice of admoni- tion and warning in vain. The nation and this Church in common were, in faCt, over run with Moderatism ; and genuine piety, and respect for the ancient standards, experienced a mauifbst decline, f n the year l839i the General Assembly's table watf Covered with petitions from almost every parisH ih Scotland^ pfaying the As- Hembly to renew the Church's ancient protest' agaiiiat patronage, lu that year the Evangelical pfcrty Commanded a majority io the Aesembly ; only a small section Of that paKy, however, were in favour of the abolitiun of patronage. An ided' was then pretty generally entertained throughout Scotland, by the well-wishers of the church's ancient constituticn, that the political aspect of iho country was favourable to tho obtaining of a repeal of the ob- noxious statute of 1712. Three diflbrent otrinions respecting Ihu ' ! i 'i! 1 (' 26 matter were held by as many parties in the General Assembly of tiiat year. One party were for allowing matterd to remain as they were ;{ another party wished to adopt a half measure ; while a third, though a very small number, advocated the entire abolition of patronage. Nothing definite was done on this subject hy the Assembly of 18S3. In May of that year, however, much was •aid, though nothing was done, on a subject to which| from the operation of various causes, a greater share of public attention was directed than for more than half a century before. This (said Dr Liddell) is the part of the history of this maUer to which the attention must be directed. The simple questirn is, Which of the three plans just mentioned is the one which, being found in accordance with the original constitution of the Church of Scot- land, must therefore be regarded by every member and office- bearer of that church as most in accordance with the Word of God ? To use a phrase of my friend Mr Bavne, only one of the plans must be right : the other two must be wrong. The state- ments both of Mr Bayne and myself must necessarily and pro- perly be regarded as those of interested parties ; therefore let us call a witness to give evidence on the point. Lot us call Dr. McCrie, the well known Biographer of Knox and Melville. No man was better acquainted w ith the original constitution of the Church of Scotland. No man loved that constitution more. In proportion to his afiectinn for it, was he desirous to see it freed from the corruptions and abuses which unfaithfulness and maU administration had done so much to accumulate around it, and mar its beauty. Dr McCrie was a seceder from the Scottish Establishment : his testimony, therefore, must be regarded as impartial. In May, I9i\3, he wrote a pamphlet bearing the title, " fVhat ought the Genet al ^taembly to do at the pre$ent CrimT* In considering this question, he says, — '> The question adniiis but of one answer,— Without delay. Petition the Legislature for the abolition of Patronage. If there is one prmciple which the Church uf Scotland has decidedly avowed, it 16, timt patronage is an iinscripturai incumbrance, and inconsistent witli the free exercise of her Presbyterian polity ; if there is one int>ttBure which site has sanctioned by her example, and fortified Willi precedents, it is that of applying to the Legislature to be u'lieved from the thraldom of patronage. The fact that, during ifie greater part of her exibtence, patronage has remained the law ut the Uiui (to which some have ignc antly appealed as n proof ihal it is not hostile to her constitution,) has contributed to place ijcT priiiciplesj un that head in the clearest light, by obliging her to 27 repeat, from time to time, her solemn proteitation against it. Scarcely had she assumed the form of a National Church, when «he pronounced her decided judgment on the freedom of election, in opposition to the abuses in the settlement of parishes under that , «cursed papistrie," whose despotic yoke she had just thrown off. When the platform of Presbyterian polity was afterwards drawn up and formally sanctioned by the General Assembly in the Seeond Book of Discipline, she declared that the order prescribed by it, agreeably to the word of Godi " cannot stand with patronages and presentation to benefices," whose names, " with the effect thereof, have flowed from the Pope and corruption of the canon law only." The removal of this abuse she pronounced one of the "special heads of reformation*' which she craved ; and she cea -ed not to crave it ; nor did she ever withdraw her protest against pa> tronage, though, in consequence of the selfish resistance of a feudal aristocracy, and the known inclination of an arbitraty Court to introduce Episcopacy, she deemed it prudent to accept of a ael- tlement clogged with this abuse. Not to specify her other decla- rations, this is put beyond all doubt by her frequent ratifications of the Second Book of Discipline' As often as Government was favourable to her, she sought and obtained redress of the grieve- vance ; as often as it was unfavourable, the badge of servitude was reimposed. On the recovery of its liberties in 16S8, the General] Assembly renewed its adherence to the former principles of the Church in relation to this subject ; and a^er 'procuring, by reiter* ated applications, various improvements upon the law, including the restitution to the Church of the Episcopal presentations, suc- ceeded at last ID obtaining the complete abolition of patronage, by the Parliamentary statute of 1640. At the Restoration, patronage was again imposed on tho» Church, along with Episcopacy. At the glorious Revolution, v. ..or the act 1592, ratifying Presbyterian government, was revived, the clause which reserved the rights of lay patrons was expressly excepted, as known to be highly offen- sive to all Presbyterians ; and by a subsequent act of the same Parliament, patronage was abolished. All who are acquainted with the history of this country krow how shamefully it was re- stored, in 1712, by a Tory and High Church administration, which had notoriously- concerted measures for the exclusion of the House of Hanover from the succession to the throne, and the conse- quent overthrow of the Revolution SeUlemei.t. So much were they aware of the deteroiined opposition which thiw measure would meet with from the Church of Scotland, that it vras introduced clandestinately into the House of Commons. As soon as the fac» ! 28 «ana to b« known, the Commisaion Mnt Mesfrt. Caratairi, Black- well» and JBaillie^ to London, who preaented to the Houae of Peera a repreaentation agaiABt the bill, in the name of their conatituenta, in whteh they declare, "thntfrom the £rat RefortOiation from tPopery, the Chorch of Scotland hath ^AXWArsreckonod patropagea a grioTance and burden, aaia deelated by the Firat and Second Booka of DiacipIioeipubU«bed aoon aAer the aaid Reformation; eince which time they .were atill judged • gcievancej till at length they came by lawfto be aboliahed." Thia repieaentation the aubaequent Qeneial AaaemUy approved and pronounced ** moat faithful and aeaaonable ;" and ita auccea* •ora applied .repeatedly for the repeal of the obnoxioua atatute . In .particular, the Aaaan^ly of 17S6 recorded ita aentimenta aoleronly in an aot)(known to have been drawn by Loid Preaident Duodaa), which atatea that the Church .of Scotland is* by her duty and in- tereat, obliged atiU to j>eraiat in uaing her beat endeavoura, from time to time, to be relieved from the grievance of patronage, unt it the aame ahaU, by the bleaaing of Godi prove aucceaafol ; and for jthat end, that thia Aaaembly^ball empower and direct the Commis- aion to be appointed by them>to make due application to the King and Parliament for redreaa of the aaid griavancQ, in^aae a favour- able opportanity for ao doing ahall occur during the aubaiatence of that Gommiaaion ; and thia Aaaembly doubta not, that future General Aaaerobliea of thia Church will, from time to time, be watchful and attentive to thia weighty concern, and will not fail to make the like proper applicationa, whenever by the providence of God, a fit occaaion ahull ofibr itaelf.-*' *< If ithe enauiag Aaaembly ahall decline theopportunity which the providence of.God now preaenta, will it not ahow itaelf nnfuith^ ful to ita truatt If through timidity or worldly prudence^ or any auch motive^ it allow the « fit occaaion^' to paaa away, can it ex^ ipect that Providence will afibrd another equally fit and propitious 1 Itia cot uncommon at proaent to hear the clergy spoken of as half a century behind the middle cUas of their fellow-countrymen in practical intelligence and liberality of thinking ; but if they should stand backor remain ailent at the preaent moment, they would ahow themaelvea to be whole centuriea behind their fathera, in liberal viewa, in fidelity, in wisdom, in apirit, and in every thing that cnoblea and elevatea t^^q miniaterial character. They will dis- honour the places once occupied by men caet in every difTerent mould : and the ahadea of our Knoxes, Melvilles, and Brucea, our . Henderions, Calderwoods, and Gilleap''^», our Carstairaea, Blac^- 20 •wwlls, and Bailiiice, will frown upon arid disdain' to acknowMdrfe I their degenerate auceeBaors. Nor will our n^try, lawyor», and }»hilo8ophers, who may till the place of ruling • Elders, have Ictis reason to dread the reproach of our Argyles, ll^pes, and Jotiii- stons, our Dakymples, Dundasses, and HutchesMs." " I know tliat there are some good men, with whom it would give mo great pleasure to act, who are ofopinioti that all which ahould be attempted, fur the present at least, is to revive calls, and ID' thia way to prevent intnusions by imposing aicheck on the no- mination of patrons. Wit* it Ihe least wish to throw a reflec- tion either on their candob. 4ir on their judgment, I must be per- mitted to aay that I have never been able to perceive how the right of ]ay*pfesentation, and a real efficient call by the people, can be : reconciled. The plan lies open to the objection of at once witii holding from the people the right of choice, and of leadmg to eo'llaa collision between tbem and patrons. If tlie contendmg forces are oupposed to be equal, the machine must be reduced to a state of rest ; if unitqual, the one must always preponderate over the other. This objection would not have the same force provided the nomina- tioQ had been conunitted to the kirk eestion, and the check given to the congregation ; Jiecause both parties would be under the direct controul of the Presbytery ; but in the other case, the different forces are not under the same directing hand, the patron bein^ independent of the Church courts. It is not denied that the church may have recourse to this method ; she may decide that uo one shall be settled in a parish who has not first received a real call from the people, and she may even prohibit her licen- tiates from ascepting of a presentation until they have obtained fiuch a calL Both of these things have been done formerly. But THKN the church was in an attitude of defence against a law which ehe held to be uqjuat, and an encroachment on her privileges. I humbly apprehend, therefore, that consistency) as well aa reepect both to government and to patrons, would require ti>«t the cbureh ehould not adopt this measure until she bad applied to the Legie-^ lature for the repeal of the patronage law, and been unsuccess- ful in her application. This seems to be the regular order ; and it would, at any rate, relieve tbem from embarrasment in argu- ment, and from the objections which their opponents are in the habit of urging \gainst their plan. " In order to acc:«mplish the good proposed, the abolition of pa' ironage must be complet'^. The simple repeal of theact of Queen Anne would le&ve the settlement of parisiies to be reguhled by so 5! the aet 1600, or rather would render thai mode or Mttleroeot irn* perativr. /a thatea$e, whatever neceaoitj might appear for adopt, ing an alteration upun it, ih« church courts, either at their owh> instance, or on the petition of the people, coutd not make it** "The Asiernbljr will be told, that it is prepoaterous for to(fo to Parliain:int. without firat settling who should be the electorn • and that the reply of the honourable Houses would naturally be, "Go, firitt agree among yourselves as to what you wish, and then we will consider wliother it.is proper to be granted." This objection proceeds entirely on a fallacy. It is not proposed that the Assem- bly shall set aside a mode of election ; it has not this in its power* All that It can do is to petition the Legislature ; and the object o'' Its petition is not that it should substitute another mode, but that it should leave this to the proper and competent authority.'' • ' • • • " If I had the ear of the very reverend the moderator, I would' humbly recommend to him as a text for his opening sermon, the words addressed by Murdecai to his royal cousin-^" If thou alto- gether boldest thy peace at thir time, then shall there enlorge- tncnt and deliverance arise to the Jews from another place ; but then and thy father's house shall be destroyed ;and who knoweth whether thou art come to the kingdom for such a time as this t" *'lt will, no doubt, be a grievous disappointment if the represen- tatives of tlie church shall fail in discharging their duty at this time, but still the cause must not be abandoned by its friends in despair. Neither the clergy nor the judicatories are the church, exclusively, either in a legal or ecclesiastical sense ; and if the General Assembly, deuf to the advice of its preducessore and ] the call of Providence, shall, instead of being, "watchful and at- tentive to this weig'ity uoncorn," refuse to seize the " fit occasion" which offers itself for obtaining relief from " the grievance of pa- tronage," the next queslinn must be,— fTAat ought the Mkmbkrs' «/ the Churck—what ought the Pboplb of Scotlandf to do at the present crisis ?" Dr Liddell continued— The Veto Law, which has been read by Mr Bayne, was the measure adopted by the Assembly in May 1834, not only in oppo- sition to the views of the Moderate parly, who desired not, in effect, to do any thing : but in opposition also to the views of those who had all along contended for the total abolition of patro- nage ; and of course in opposition also to the warning and friendly voice of Or. McCrie, who, as an impartial spectator of this new contest, and fervently concerned for the future character of the m^- 81 National Eitablitfhinent, wis no doubt deeply grieved that tfie AaHeinbiy had entered on a coume, wlioira termination has proved flo diaastroua. Or. McCrie intiniate*, in the extract already retd, Itia opinion that it waa not legally in the power of the Atisembly to enact the Veto Law. Thia opinion is still more explicitly stated in the following extracts :— *' He agreed with the compilers of the Second Book of Discipline, that the "liberty of election of persons called to the ecclesiaMti- cal function, cannot stand with patronages and presentatiops tf» beneticps ;" and held, with the General Aaseinbly of 1713, that the Act of Queen Anne reatoring patronages waa " contrary to f)ur church constitution solemnly ratitied by the Acts of Parliament of both kingdoms." Convinced, therefore, that the law of patron* age, whenever the patrona choose to prosecute their claims, could easily be so interpreted or so enforced as to nullify the church'i« indepeniience, though this also was secured by law, he despaired of the success of any measure which proposed to reconcile the two confl.cting principles, or render them compatible in their opera- tion, and augured no good from the attempt which was made to etfect this object by the Veto Act of 1834. In other words, he was thoroughly persuaded that no expedient which the church could devise, or the state could sanction, short of the abolition of patronaire, would secure the church in the undisturbed enjoyment of her independence. Besides objecting to the Veto on the ground of its merely yielding a ri^ht of rejecting, instead of a right of flection, to the Christian people, and of its being ** a half-measure, lying open to objections on both hands, and which could not bf, supposed to give any thmg like general satisfaction," he enter, mined serious doubts of its legality, und frequently declared his firm conviction thnt it would lead to colliHion, coniention, and liti< gat ion. "It is an indirect way," he said before the Committee on church patronage, " of crippling the power and abridging the rights of patrons, which though followed for some time after the Act of Queen Anne, was ultimately abandoned. It appears to me more than questionable whether the restriction it imposes be legal, and whether patrons may not resist its exercise. A qualified minis- ter waa a thing recognized by the canon law, and a condition from the time that the right of preaentution was :onferred ; but no such element as the consent of the people, whether avowed or tacit was then known ; it waw revived indeed by the Reformed Church, but she could never prevail on the state to recugeize it ; and one- principal reason why the government would not ratify the Second Book of Difccijdine was, becduw the Aesernbly would not agree to 32 I : I !:' \^4 inmrt after the 'bttnMttt of tho eongr«|rttion/ the wdrttx, *if iha'* litoople have a Ia«irful cause against hii life ami dtktrine.' At tb« least, the motion ie ah attempt to apply abstract Presbytery (t» use a plira>: This did not escape himself : " Di*. Cook and I," he writes to one of his family, *< travelled together in a coach lately ; and We both cordially agreed in condemnmg the Veto. Extremes meet." They met, indeed, in their judgment on thilt particular measure, but in the path which they took to reach it, and in the reasons wbiish they had for opposing it, they were still at extremes. Nor can wo suppose that Dr. M<0rie'8 judgment in this case, wss formed in the spirit of those who accuse'the churth of rebellion, because she hae not, in her ecclesiastieal capacity, surrendered int6 the hands of the civil courts her spiritual independence. He condemned the Veto, principally because be was persuaded that it tended, if it was not designed, to perpetuate the reign of patronage— more especially because it amounted to a virtual recognition by the church of that pernicious system, which she had always declared to be a usurps^ tion and a yoke— and because it proceeded on what he viewed as a delusion, namely, that though patronage continued to be the law , of the land, the church had it in her own power, so to modify the grievance as to render it comparatively harmless. Regarding lay- patronage, as in its very nature incompatible with the spiritual in- dependence of the church, he could not agree with the supporters of the Veto, that the Church of Scotland had objected simply to sn absolute or unrestricted patronage ; for, at the very time « hen she was carrying into effect those practical restrictions which she put upon the rights of patrons, she was earnestly petitioning for the abolition of the law itself. In this point of view, he considered tli.it all 'practical modifications of the law. attempted by thg rhiirch. might be found illegal, that is, incompatible with the rights of pntrons ; just as he would have viewed *.he rights of patrons, hud they been prosecuted to such an extent as they now are, to bo iueompatible with the rights of the church. But then, in her for- inef days, the church had plainly lol J,tlie government that she held 33 |o an hen she for lercd tho fbta mill bo Ibr- Iha i&w of patronage to be a direct iafriBgeinent of the botiatitution 08 eatabliahed at the Revolution, and Bolemnly conflrraed at the Onion ; that she did not, and could not, as a church, recognise thn rightaof patrona, as they were atdireci variance with her conatitn- tion ; and that, therefore, if the state was still willing to support the constitution of the church; it must be on the distinct under* standing, that she could not sacrifice her spiritual rights as invaded by that law. At her own peril, the church continued to settle ininisterson the suit and calling of congregations, as if patronage did not exist ; but knowing that, so long as that law stood, her liberties would be constantly endangered, under an adverse adminis- tration, by patrons being empowered to drag her before courts of law for acting according to her cnnstitHtion,-'-8he} petitioned that the law might be *< regularly rescinded by the proper authority." Inaletterto J.C. Colquhonn, Esq., dated 1834, Dr. M'Crie says— "I'd rather that patronage remain as it is. than sanction a princi. pie alien and adverse to the Presbyterian polity ; rather submit to a yuko imposed by tho state, and forged in a barbarous age, with all the appendages of its rough manufacture, than willingly bend the neck and pray for a new cne, though less galling and oppressive. When 1 say this, 1 beg you to recollect, that I express myself as a , friend to the principles of Presbytery ; for, as an individual, I would nut petition Parliament to refer the matter to the General Assem- bly, having no confidence in it as presently constituted, and believ* ing as I do, that the Legislature, provided they were to agree to repeal the patronage law, might be expected to be more favourable to the rights of the people, than the Assembly will be. Such is tiie consequence of the long continuance of an arbitrary law, and of the complete independence of the clergy upon the people,— the only check to which they can be legitimately subject according to the Presbyterian system." It cannot be doubted (eontintied Df Liddell) that the course pointed out by the Veto Law was entered on by the majority in the Assembly of 1834 who secured it adoption, under the full and conscientious belief that the Veto Law was perfectly legal. It has been said, and said with truth, that the opintona of many eminent lawyers were given in favour of the idea of Us legality. But here was committed a grand and fatal error- The opinion of a lawyer is not law. It is not, however, on the circumstance of the Veto Law being legal or illegal, that I am disposed to lay stress. It is on the face of its being-^aye or no— in harmony with, and a part of the constitution of the Church of Scotland. 'II 3i For/if aiiv enactmont of tho aiipretno court ofliio Church of Scot- land shall be leen and felt clearly and deeply to be an easential and neceaaary part of its constitution, and therefore believed by tne to be in accordance with the word of God, I unhesitatingly declare, that, even though such enactment were pronounced illegal by the civil magistrate, it would be my duty and privilego to follow the apostolic example, under similar circumstances'— <* wo ought to obey God rather than man !" But it is because I believe, and because I find it testified by so unexceptionable an authority as Dr McCrio, that the principle of the Veto Law is not i^n accordance with the word of God— is not in accordance with the constitution of the Church of Scotland, but is, inspirit and letter too, opposed to both, — it is because of these discoveries and this belief, that I deem it unspeakably and madly hazardous to court and provoke collision with tho courts of the civil magistrate, on a point on the legality of which there may be found to be en* tertained, even by one intelligent man, one honest and conscien- tious doubt. I can even understand that tho Assembly might fairly and honesiiy enough have tried tho question of the legality of the Veto, and on ascertaining that the ground presented by that enactment was not only legally untenable but In fact ecclesiasti- cally valueless, to have at once and cheerfully abandoned it— only to take up a higher or a more constitutionalt and n more Scriptu- ral position. Most unhappily that courso was not by the Assem- bly adopted. And although a diflbrent ground was ultimately, before the Separation in 1843, assumed by the Assembly, in its negociations with the Government, still that circumstanco weakens not in the smallest degree tho strength of the argument which I am now urging, since all the cases brought before tho Civil Courts, and by them decided against the Assembly, in tho question of tho Assembly's jurisdiction, were so brought and so decided on the ground of the enactment by the Assembly of the Veto Law. It is true that under the Veto Law the church might have proceeded, unembarrassed and unimpeded, in the work of settling Ministers in vacant paiishes, on the ground of that cede- siastical enactment— and every well-wisher of the peace of tho Church might anxiously have desired that it had been even so,— but all this rested on the precarious assumption that every Patron in Scotland would take the same view of the legality of the Veto as had been adopted by a majority of the Assembly of 1834, and that not one of them would embrace the view so significantly ex- pressed by Dr McCrie. But it is very obvious that this was a fitato of insecurity in which it was neither proper nor desirablo that the Church ehould continue- Since the Patron's ground wae 85 civil, and llint of ilio Aasombly puruly occlnKiaarica), it ii maiurent that in consorjuenco of thin utter diaparity, the pcooo of iboCliurcIt waa Hubjoct, on every now vacancy, to be rudely invaded by a power wliicb the eccleaiaalical tribunals could not controul. It is obvious toof that the point oftiie settlement of Minialers in vacant parishes, beinp, not only from tlie Act of 1712, but also from lite Revolution Settlement of 1000, the vulnerable point of the Church's constitution, it was most injudicious and unwise to ex- pose that viiliierable point to a itorming parly of Scottish lawyers and English legislators. In May 1894, a few days after the Assembly had <>i)acted the Veto Law, Dr McCrie, in a Sermon preached from Daniel xii. v. 8, thus severely reprehends the conduct of the party in the Assembly who framed that cnaciinent, and intimates the effucts which his sagacity foresaw would flow from it. He says— "Another omenous cloud in our horizon is the engrossing atten- tion to politics, and the indiiferenco or aversion shown to religious privileges amidst the struggle for those of a civil nature. I n for- mer times, especially in our own land, the cause of civil and religi- ous liberty, of political and ecclesiastical privileges, was identified. They had common friends and common foes. Those who opposed regal depotism and arbitrary ])0wer in the siatf| withstood the eccio* aiastical supremacy ond Erastian encroachments on the church ; and the Same parliament which had successfully vindicated its own freedom and privileges, removed the yoke of patronage frorn the church's neck, and left it free for her ministers to be admitted " upon the suit ond calling of tlio congregation." Need I say hovv dxtTtit* ent it is at this day 1 Those who are loudest in their cry for politi- cal privileges, in Parliament and out of it, ore not only indifferent about occlosiostical privileges, but are the most determined foes to them. And those churchmen, who derive their distinctive name from the people, and who, under God, owe all to the voice of the people, are too generally ho8tile to popular rights. Not fiatibflcd with having the yoke imposed by siate authority, it innst be riveied by a church outhority, and by means of the golden Bcrew of a vbto; and as the name of tlie instrument is Roman, it must, I suppose, have a Roman inscription too, Esto Pbrpctua." " I am sorry I cannot join with those who would give the name of REi'ou5iiNo to the General Assembly, whose meeting is now draw- ing to a clotjc. One party which has long had the management in the judicatories, and has ruled with sudicient rigour, has been de- feated : how their succoiisord will act remains still to be determined. In the mean time, their proceedings hitherto have not laid a foun da- 36 i tion for languin* hopei. Th« deciilon on'callv, mo much applauded hj mtiiyi togfther with iU atrange but not unauitable accoinpani- mentif I can look upon in no othtr light but aa an attompt to gull the people with a ahow of privilege, while it aubjocta them to be fettered, at everj atep, in the exeroiao of it, and involvea them in the inextricable meahea of legal ohicanry. And thia boon ia pre- •entedto them by the handa of thoae who have acornfully thrown out and rejected their petitiona for relief from a grievance of which the Church of Scotland haa alwaya oomplained ; and thia at a time when the legialature, by which the yoke waa impoaed, had ao far liatened to aimilar petitiona from the people, aa to appoint a com. mittee to enquire into the grounda of complaint, and to put the country to no email expenae in conducting the inveatigation. I •ay it ie more than auapicioua that the alleged boon ahould bo pre- aentedby the handa of thoae who have aummarily and haughtily thrown out the petitiona of the Chriatian people againat patronage. They aay they have muzzled the monater : it ia a miatake ; ihey have only muffled him, and they have muzzled the people." The Chairman having here intimated that the allotted time had expired, Dr Liddell concluded aa followa :— 1 have ahown what waa the ground on which the unaeemly con- flicta have taken place between the ecolcaiastical and civil tribunala of Scotland and Britain. It waatho ground formed by the enact- ment of the Veto in 1834. It ia altogether irrelevant to aay, aa Mr Bayne baa done, that the ground occupied at the time of the ■eparation in 1U43 waaquite different from the ground of the Veto. When urged to look at the matter in the light in which he puta it, I aak, what waa it that brought the queation of the church'a juria- diction for trial before the civil courta at all ? The oaaea of Auch- terarder and Lethendy and Marnoch, were all brought into ihe civil couna on the ground, occupied by patrona and preaenteea, of the alleged illegality of the Veto Law. Such caaea as Stewarton, and Cambuanethan and Stranraer are properly arranged under a diflerent head, being caaee affecting the church'a independence ; and to the principle of auch caaea I ahall attend afterwarda. I am not here to aflSrm that in the extraordinary and unholy conteat* whicl. for the laat few yeara Scotland haa witnessed, much haa no' be<2n asi-id, in the church courta, from the Bench, and in the high placf'oj of legialation, that haa brought great discredit on out coun* try, and that ia fitted to weaken the foundationa of our inalitutiona at a time when many preaaing exigencea require them to be strengthened. '.We know that certain partiea have quarrelled. We aball, perhaps, not judge far amino if we conclude that all of St ihem are to blame ; but, ai honeit and itiipartiul uiott, it ia necei* •ory for ur to enquire— who flnt bogin Uie quarrel— who flril provoked tlio atrifel What waa the object, louglit at flrat to bn gained, by the enacting of the Veto Law 1 Tiie conatitutien of the church dectaroH that the admiaaion uf uiiniatera rauat be with the cotuent of the congregation. Even in tlie iixteentk eentary, the Koformers of the church of tiootiand crave the abolition of Pa< troiiago by tho State, and unequivocally declare that Patronage cannot aland with the liberty which God'e word cravea. Doea the Aaaembly of 1894 declare and crave theaethingaf So far from this, by an overwhelming majority, that Assembly, acquieacing in the opinion oxpreiaed by the mover of the Vcro Law, aanction the doctrine that Patrunago ia not to be meddled with— that, in- flicted on the church by act of Parliament, it muat be incorporated tdtk the church by act of Aaaembly. It waa a aevere, but I fear a trueaaying of Dr. McCrie, regarding that aaaembly— they have only mufHed Patronage, and they have muzzled The People. With the aimple testimony of Dr. McCrie before ua, there can be no doubt that the enactment of the Veto Law afforded the pre« text which, had our eccleaiastical office-bearera been faithful to the church'a conatitution and to Christ, they would not have af> forded to Patrons, for dragging the ecclesiaatical courts of Scot- land before tribunala from whom the treatment they have received could not be otherwiae than predicted and anticipated. And let it be diaguiaed aa it may by a long and tedioua proceaa of " legal chicanry," there can be no doubt that the non-mpproval by the government of the principle of the Veto Law, or the refuaal by the church to withdraw from the ground on which the ecclesiaati- cal and civil courla came into collision, must be conaidered aa the grand movi'^ig i^pring of the Seceaaion in May 1843. And, because a Secesaion took place in Scotland in 1U43, a Seceaoion muat take place HI Canada in July 1844. The rea$oning which is indulged in to prove the necessity of our separation from the aociety of one another ia neither more nor leas than this,— We are in connex- ion with the Church of Scotland,— but that Church of Scotland haa ainned, sinned eo foully as virtually to deny the sole Headship of Christ— she has become ao Eraatian as to put her neck under the feet of Csaar-^therefore, just aa we cannot keep company with n thief without becoming art and part with him in hia iniquity, wa muat come out a&d be aeparato from the Church of Scotland, that we be not partakera of her aina, and thai we receive not of her plaguea * 38 Tho Kov. Mr BAYNK begton liis Reply. He ehould like first, lie fiaidi to put himself right respoctin;; tho UdO of a word with which Dr Liddell appeared to be dissatisfied ; ho moant the word " Moderatism/' wliich the rev. Ductor soeiiicd to think he used or applied aa a uicknuine. Tiie senae in which he ueed it was merely as the desig^nut-oii of a great party in the church — a party iianie, like Whi^; and Tory in politics,— 'which, whatever were ilie original motivi'S for their application to certain parties, had now lost all their invidious character. In that sense alonet aud not as a nicknuine, iiad he used the term. Tliero were two ihingt; in '.ho line of argument which the rev. Doctor had taken, which had struck liitn forcibly, and must have attracted the marked attention of the audience. The whole of his (MrBayne'ei) argument for the bc-poj-ation from liic tScottisii Edtablittliment reHied on the charge, that that Establishment had become Erastian, Because of her lapsing into that heresy, the Free Cliurch, he had argued, rightly came out from her and aban- doned her; and on the same groutid the disruption had become necensar:' in Canada. Yet the rev. Doctor, during the whole hour anil a quarter, or ratner hour and a half, which be occupied in making his spee^.i, never till almost at the rery close once alluded to the charge, or denied it, or attempted any extenuatiuu ; but occupied nearly the whole of that time in a dissertation on the Veto Law, with which the question had, in fact, nothing wi)Bt3ver t'^ do. Not the slightest allusion was made through- out the body of the speech to this charge — this serious and im- portant charge, — but it was passed over as a trifling matter, and nniy passingly noticed at the fag end of the discourse — brought in as the lant joint in the tail of his Veto T kw argument ! That was a most significant omission, as the meeting would doubtles'i remark, and was, in fact, a tacit admission of the whole charge h> brought against the Establishment. In the course of his [Mr Bayne's] argument, he rePcrred to the decisions of the Civil Courto, and the conduct of the Goverument, and to the action of the Church of Scotland in assentiiig n'o, Iiomolgating, r i carrying out every claim of the State again, t her, as evidence that she had thereby betrayed the allogiance she owed to the Lord Jesus Christ as her heid, end transferred such ullegianco to ihe Civil Power. The charges thus brought for- ward and substantiated^ were as easily disproved, as easily set at rest, if they were false, as any charges rould possibly be, by tiliovving that the proof of them had failed : but no'<. one word did tliC Doctor say in rooly either to the evidence or the argumentp,— » i like first, word witli t the word ik lie used leed it waa li — a party ever were articB, liad alone) ri>'1 ch the rev. must have irhole of his •Scottish hinent had leresy, the and aban- ad become the whole e occupied close once tenufttiuii ; irtation on 't| nothing i th rough- is and im- oatter, and 8 — brougljt nt! That ) doubtles'i i charge h^ •red to the uverument, sentiii'g to, ite again, i: giance she erred such ought for- laily set at )ly be, by ) word did ;umentp, — 39 not a syllable had escaped liim in relation to them • A more liaipablo evasion of a plain downright argument and charge, ho was bold * J say never before occurred ; and was nothing less than an admixBion, by her advocate, of the whole charges brought against the Church of Scotland. But again, the great biilk of Dr. Liddell's address consisted, beside^ the attack on ihe Veto Law, of an abuse of patronage. Now he (Mr Bayiie) was as strong an enemy of patronage as tho Doctoir or any other man could be, and in the langiingo in which the Doctor denounced that abomination, ho moat cordially agreed. But what bearing had that on the point in dippute '/^what answer was it to the charge that the Church of Scotland had departed from the true faith, and become an Erastian Church? Besides, what had heen the conduct of the residuary church on that ques- tion, since the disruption had taken place ? Or what would have been said to the Rev. Doctor had he uttered that speech against patronage on the floor of the Assembly's Hall, instead of in that «hurch 1 Why he would have been coughed down — thoy would not have listened to him— they would have spurned away from them a defence resting on such grounds. Had the Church uttered one word against patronage since tho Free Church 'ind abandoned her 1 Not a syllable. Had she petitioned the Parliament for its removal 1 No, no; tho topic might bo employed as a popular one to throw dust in tho eyes of the people of Canada, but in the Church of Scotland no idea was either entertained or expressed of getting patronage removed. If all was truo that the rev. Doctor said of this mcnstroup evil, what could the public think of the conduct, of that church, which had taken patronage into \\er warmest embrace, and was hugging it with rapturous fondness 'n her bosom 1 He (Mr Bayne) boldly and fearlessly stated that / was the last wish of the office-bearers or members of that body to lift up their voices, or take measures to destroy the monster of patronage, ay, or to diminish tho evil by the smallest atom of its magnitude. Tho Doctor condemned thg Veto Act because, he &aid, It only qualified the evil of patronage, but did not remoru it. That he (Mr Bayne) admitted at once ; and more than that, he admitted that some of those who were engaged in carrying it, had no inten- tion of attempting any further measure of relief. But such was not the case with all. Many of tae supporters of that Act desired and sought the entire removal of patronage, and brought in that Act not only as an interim measure for correcting and controulmg the evil, but as an instalment of the full rights which the peoplo demanded to have returned to them. So far as it went, this 40 meaBiire abnted one evil connected with patronuge, although it iefi others in existence ; and so far its promoters did righi and were not to be blamed. They ou^ht in his (Mr Bayne'a) opinion to have gone further ; but so far as tl)ey went, he held they had done right. They held it the moat essential point to get rid of the evil of intrusion first, and then to attack the other evils as they ^aw opportunity. He had stated in his opening speech, that somo ofice-bearers in the Church of Scotland were able to remain in that church even whilst it groaned under the load of patrunajfe, because patronage did not necessarily infer the intrusion of a minister on a people in opposition to their will ; but these he Id that if intrusion was rendered legal, as the courts of law had do* cided it was, they could no longer remain in a church subject to such an enormous evil ; oad in order to avoid it, they k ought in and passed the Veto Act, with thai sole view. And Mho opposed the passing of 'hat Act ? Who but those who wished to support, and keep in existence, without abatement or diminution, the entire evil— who would have gloried in seeing all restrictions on patron- age done away and intrusion mado ihe law of the church. The veto they saw was an interim measnre — stepping-stone for the re- moval of the whole evil, and findin,' * -^ whole body of what is now the Residuary Church united in opposition to it, and put the cope-stone on their apoatacy in their opposition to that mea- sure, by Eras i .nizing the Church. Bpt the Doctor said, the Veto Law was illegal ; and he gavd some very proper rubs to the lawyers about their opinions, and so forth, as being fitted only to beguile and mislead, and fleece those who trusted to them. No man held the opinions of lawyers- especial ly those that were paid for — in iighier estimation than he (Mr Bayne) did ; but what did Dt Liddell adduce to make the opinion^ of the lawyers and others whom be brought forward kick the beam? That of one man— a plain clergyman, as Dr. Liddell called him, — Dr McCrie. In opposition "o his (Dr McCrie's) doubts, for they amounted to nothin t-L. he [Mr. Caynel had adduced the positive testimony of iur \> .-i' eminent lawyei. in England and Scotland, backed, ano « .iKtic ed, and enforced by the most eminent clergymen and offiQe-bt .: rs '\n the church ; and yet all these, according to Dr Liddell's ideas, were ' to be overborne, driven oat of sight, and rendered nugatory, by the doubts of Dr McCrie ! Was there ever a cause heard of, so weakly supported— so powerfully opposed,— and which yet pre- tended to have the balance of evidence in its favour ? But he rested his vindication of the Veto Law on higher grounds than the opinions uf lawyers. The Veto was n rractioal enforce^ 4i were y, by of, so pre- )unds brce^ yHHehi of thq r»^ht of call. I/'ttie church hai) a coMtitaiiona' "ight of non-intrusion, then the Veto, or a much stronger law, was tawPul in carryings out that right, and its only error was in Us weakness, or rather in its not being sufficiently comprehensive, as it did not carry out so f&.r its it ought the people's right of . call, and the church's right of preventing intrusion. But, con< ceding all that|Dr. Liddeil had asked rasp ecting the Veto, it only Inado his [Mr Bayne's] case the stronger. Suppose he had fully mads out that thd Veto wai illegal, and that it coidld not be en. forced by the chur6h by reason cf its illegality, was that any answer to the charge that the Church of Scotland was an Erastian Church t Why, if he wanted a proof that it was an Erastian Cliurch« would there be|anything stronger than that such a law was illegal-^that the taw of Scotland held that it was not against the constitution of her church tothrUst a minister upon her people tcitally repugnant to such people-^and that the church sanctioned and submitted to, stich an interpretation of the law 1 Was it possible to imagine a stronger citte of Erastianism than was thus presented, Where the church was admitted to havd given up and abandoned her people to a monstrous innovation of the state : and, when even the attempt to remedy the evil, was declared to liR beyond her power, and she was defied to stir hand or foot in behalf of her oppressed people 1 If that was not abundant proof that the Church of Scotland had become an lilrastian Church, and that even Dr^ Liddeil himself was l)ound to come out from her, then he did not knn^ what evidence was. But he (Mr Bayne) had hold of Dr. Liddetl in another way. The Doctor had said, that if the Civil power declared that anything opposed to the word ■of Ood was upheld by the civil courts m a part of the law of the land, then he would renounce and disobey such decision. Now Dr. Liddeil had emphatically declared that*patrona{ro was abhor- rent to the law of God, and yet the Scottish Courts had decreed that it was legal, and part and parcel of the civil law. Was he not therefore justtfied in asserting that Dr. Liddeil was bound to put the civil power at defiance on this point, as had been done by the Free Church— and come out, forsake and abandon the Esta- blishment, as he (Mr Bayne) had done? But to return to the main subject. The meetin;; must not only 'have been struck with the care the Doctor took to avoid answrr* ing his charge, that the civil courts in Scotland had made Erastian inroads upon the church, and t.lial tlio cTiurc'; hul| 8ii'''iniited to, and sanctioned, the en'Toachnici.ta thiM made ; ar.u the way lit , Avhich he contrived to nivert attoulion from tlmt charge, and fix ft on the Veto Law ; bttt with the e'...acrdluarv allcinpt at the r. J.I '•J 42 conclusion of his speech, to mulcoout nif that hn hnd stid on the Veto Law, as proving that the Church of Scotland was not Eras- tian. How it cleared away the mist, as lie alleged, you will I daresay be as much at a loss to see as I am. With what a flour- ish of trumpets too did ho come forth with the challenge, defying him (Mr Bayno) to show that the Vsto Act was not the cause of all the encroachments of the civil courts,-— the origin- ! only causr^ as he said, of all the troubles t/iat had sin:e arisen in the church. Now, without waiting to deny this assertion at present, (although no aasprtion could be more absurd, furthe case of the Quoad Sacra Ministers had nothing whatever to do with the Veto Act), it was another evasion of the question at issue— another attempt to blink the main point in dispute. What he [M' Bayne] had alleged was, that that the Civil Courts in Scotland had claimed the right to interfere in every act of the Church, as a Church,— to review, oontrcui, and coerce her, in every matter in which the remotest opnearance of a civil interest seemed, in their judgment, to bo iiflTected, and thus to drag the whole civil and spiritual mattero of the Church before them, fur their revision and sanction. He de- fied that charge to be disproved, and in it was comprehended the whole matter in dispute : for if the Church sanctioned such an innovation,— (and she had sanctioned it),— then had she betrayed the cause of her people, insulted her Lord and Master, and laid her privileges prostrate at the feet of the Civil Power. These were the main points in the speech of the rev. Doctor to which he thought it necessary to advert ; and aa his remarks had not exhausted, he believed, the time allotted to him to make his reply, — for the Doctor had given him less to do than he cx- [ pec'ed— — The Chairman.— The time has already expired. Mr Day no.— Well, I am Bure my reverend Brother, and thia meeting, will not grudge me a few minutes more, to explain the second position I laid down in my former address, namely, that tiic Church in Canada in connexion with the Scottish Establish- iriont, had become art ond part in her sins, and therefore, that those who thought so were bound to come out from her commu- nion, and testify against her guilt. The general principle which was involved in this par*, of the question, was a very plain and simple one, and recognised and acted on in every day practice. He [Mr Bayne] held that friendly coaiinunion always implied sanction. It was so m the intercouiii of individuals ; and it could not be leas so in tho intercourse ut private christians, congrcgatii-ns-, and churchoa. If a pereon waa 4J foond associating with a cheat, a thief, or a liar, would it not be said, and truly said, that he was countenancing him in his cheat- ing, or thieving, or lying 1 Or if a professing Christian lapsed into Arminianiam, or Antinonnanism, and another professing Christian did not, on account of such lapse, abandon his society, bul hold Christian intercourse with him as before, would not the world have ample reason not only to entertain serious doubts of the smccrity of his belief, but to charge him with strengthening and encouraging the heretic in his sin 7 Or suppose two congre- . gations, both puro in their conduct, their principles, and their doctrines, and as such in friendly communion ; and suppose one of them falling into heresy, and bringing discredit on the church of Christ, — and yet the intercourse of those two churches still maintained ;— would any man nut say in such a case, that the pure church was not only degrading herself by uuch association, and rendering herself liable to all the contagion of her doctrine and heresies, and to all their consequences in this world and the next ; but moreover, rendering herself art and part, and so far re- sponsible, for those sins, by the countenance she gave to those who committed them. As it was with congregations, so was it v.'ith churches. That church which continued on friendly terms of intercourse and relationship with another which had lapsed into open and avowed sin—which received on terras of special favour her Ministers— and which partook of her endowments, and thereby jointly partook of the wages of her iniquity, — undoubtedly gave her countenance and sanction to the sins of her associate, and was therefore justly to be held responsible for them. Now what was the condition of the Presbyterian Church of Canada in connexion with the Church of Scotland ? She was a Church constitutionally in friendly communion with that Church ; and not only BO, but the Church in Canada held her endowments on the condition that she rpinained in communion with the Kirk of Scot* land. Now, so long as the Church of Scotland remained true to herself and her doctrines, there was no harm in this, but on the contrary much good arose from the intercourse and brotherly communion of the members of the Church in both countries. But when the Church of Scotland wavered in her faith — gave up her privileges— abandoned her constitution— and became an Erastian, time serving, truckling body,— to continue in her Kociety-und partake of her endowments, was to sanction her sins, and reup the guilty wages,- was to aid, encourage and strengthen , her in tho vicious cuurtie which she had adopted. VVas that not sufficient reason for separating from her, when, if we had not done so, we should have been held partners in her guilt, and in her u 44 infamy, and in the wages of both 1 If that was not a suiBoient T^inou for abaudooing her, then he did not know what a reason was. But it was unnecessary to argue at length on that part of the subject, for facts were ready which would place beyond contro- versy tlio truth of the accusation, that the Synod had made her- self responsible for the sins of tlie Church of Scotland. After the disruption of the Synod in Canada, a letter was sent out from the Colonial Committee of the General Assembly of the Resi- duary Chuicli, an extract from which he would read ; but first he would notice another fact. Before the disruption took place, the following statement was read in the General Assembly, which ha would now read to the meeting : ^ Unable, from circumstances, to supply the Colonies with ad- ditional ministers, the committee have not only fulfilled to exist- ing ministers the heavy engagements they had formerly come under to them, but have made various grants of from £,^0 to £io each, to deserving and laborious pastors, chiefly in tlie North American Colonies, who were in necessitous circumstances, and whose flocks, some of them in any period, and others from the re- cent pressure of the limes, are unable fully, or at all, to provide for their comfort. These grants have been confined to those ministers wlio have declared their firm purpose of maintaining their connexion with the parent church, and have been moHi thankfully received by them, and tb« committee are devising moT« liberal things in their behalf ,** This shows the terms un which alone the Church of Scotland would continue her subsidies to the people of Canada. The next extract, from the Le.ter of Sympathy of the General Assembly of the Residuary Church in Scotland to the members of the Presby- terian Church in Canada remaining in her connexion, shows that these terms were fully acceded to, and that she worked well one lustily for her wages :— ** The accusations lately brought against her [the Residuar Church] in your Synod, as formerly in many of her own courti are as destitute of truth as they are devoid of charity, and w feel refreshed with the meekness and the power with which yo have exposed and refuted all such errors. You have our bet thanks for the able manner in which you have pleaded the cause and vindicated the principles, of our national establishment." Now, then, was there any longer a doubt that the connectioi with the Residuary Church has encouraged her in her sin, an that tlie very basis and ground of such connexion is the admissioi 45 and >t!ontng of all her of th« recititude of her oou /coedinga 1 For did the church in Canada ubjeut to the ternia uf thia letter orthaiika, or avow any diadont rioiu ttie iiiipUeu aanc- tion, which it had aaaiimed they had given to tht) actinga of the Church of Scotland? No, far from it. Ou liie contrary, she icauaed vaat numbers of that very letter to be printed, and diatri- buled throughout the Province ; aa if openly to ahew what firm f'rienda they were and how warmly the lierdjary Church in Canada had taken to her boaom the church at home, with all her siuH, In the ceighbouring town of Hamilton, too, the Reaidnariea lately hold a meeting ; and although it had been contidently given out, that all or thei^reater part of those who had abandoned the Synod, were gradually coining buck to her, yet it became strangely apparent that there waa great want of funda among the i. Where the afieciiona were fixed, there the eyea were naturally turned, and the longmg eyea of the tlamilion Rea . duarica wero accordingly caat wiaifully to tha Erastian Ciiurch of Scotland, and lo ! those who wished it to be thought they sanctioned not her idins, nor partook of her Kijiit, were anxiously expecting from her a Miniater and fifty pcunda a year, as the wages they were to receive for participating in her infamy and her heresy. By what logic the rev. Doctor could prove that that was not sanctioning bin. and countenancing ainnera, he would now leave him to ahow. Mr Bayne concluded by expresaing his regret that owing to the short time permitted each party to address the meeting, many pointa in the argument were left untouched, or only slightly alluded to ; but he trusted enough had been said to show that the Presbyterian Church in Canada were not only justified in their abandonment of their connexion witii the Church of Scotland, but solemnly bound and constrained to adopt that course. w Dr. LIDDELL then rose to make some additional statements. lie spoke aa follows :— In listenini^ to Mr Bayne's second address, we might easily have .supposed ourselves in a very inferior court of law, when some lawyer happened, for the amusement of himself and others, to be sporting his quirks and quibbles. In that sort of amusement, I do not wish lo.induige. Happily, the opinion of a lawyer ia nol law. A man may aay of another *' I have him !" « See how I have liim !" and yet lio may not ^have him" after all. I am here to stale my reasons for remaining in connexion with the Synod of Canada in connexion with the Church of Scotlan^ ; 4G f.« i OS Mr Biyne is liore to atate his roasons for diasontinif from that cccleaiusiical budy. So much refercaue has been made, on both HidtiH of this controversy, to events that have recently happened in Jdcollaud, Hliich have JSdued in what id vulgarly called a disruption, tlittt It ib felt to be ijecesaary on both side?, because ot'thecoU' iicxiou which all of us had, and which some of us still have, with the Church of Scotland, to speak of the causes, or tha supposed cauBCs, which huve operated to produce a new Secession, both in Scotland and Canada. There is uo doubt that so fur as a Call from the people of a vacant parish is concerned, as an element iii tlie question of the settlement of a Pastor, the Revolution Settle- ment of 1690, and which I have already referred to, is somewhat itidrfitiiie ; and in the Church's intercourse with the Stale, in the matter of the church's endowments, this iiidetinitenoss presents the weak point of the Church of Scotland's constitution, so far as the Settlement of Ministers is concerned. Neither caji there be any doubt that this weak point is not strengthened by tho Imposi- tion of Patronage on the Church of Scotland by the Parliamen- tary enactment of I71S. Now, my line of argument is this,— Since in all negociations with the State, on any matters aflfecting, or, which is the same thing so far as ground of possible conten- tion is concerned, on any matters believed by the State, or any one party in the State, to affect civil and not spiritual thiiigs^ the Church ought clearly not to present to the State or its Courts of Law her weak side but her strong one ; and since the Patronage Act is the very thing, as allowed by all, which affords patrons and those on whom their gift of patronage may be confei*ed, constant opportunities of tempting the church to expose her weak side to the state, it obviously appears ta be the duty and the interest of the church courts, and not only so, but an act of faith- fulness on their part to the spiritual liberties of the members of the church, to seek the entire abolition of that enactment of the state by which these spiritual liberties are taken away. Mr Bayne pays he agrees with me in this. I believe he does. Well : what was it that brought the church courts into collision with the courts of the state? Did this happen because the church courts asked of the state to abrogate the Patronage Act of 1712, or to undo the Revolution Settlement of 1690, and to set the church free to adopt the principles of the Scottish enactment of 1(349 ? Was it the refusal of the British Government to listen to or to grant the prnyor of such a petition, which led to so many pro* ti acted and harraseing litigations between the church courts and patrons ? Was it such a refusal that was the real cause of the secession which took place from the Church of Scotland in May 47 1843 « No man, knowing any thing of the aubject, can juilly mv that it was so. It was the enacrment of the Veto Law of 1 834, which, being deemed illegal by tho patrons, and by many aliio both in thechurch and out of It, and on appeal, its illegality being announced by the supreme legal court of the empire, broHgh: about those unseemly contests which have gone far to degrade almost h\l the departments of the ecclesiastica! and civil commu - nities of our native land. Still, it is not on the declared illegality of the Veto Law by tho civil courts, that I am disposed to rest . For it is more than possible for the civil courts to declare that illegal, which in the light of the Bible and good reason may be, * after all their declarations, in accordance with the highest and the purest law. I wish not to speak ostentatiously on this, however, for ihe principle which I now state I have been called to act upon, and I may possibly be called to act upon it again. My opposi- tion to the Veto Law arises from my decided conviction that it exposed more and more to the hostility of many adversaries the weak part of the church's constitution— that it provoked and courted the interference of the courts of the state, at the instanco of any party who might choose to raise a civil action,— above all, that it actually tended to perpetuate patronage, and thus to de~ prive the members of the church of those privileges which it would have been only an act of faithfulneaa on the part of the church courts to have endeavoured to secure for them. This is my chief ground ; because I am aware that much misty and beguiling declamation is here used, for the purpose of inducing credulous people to believe that the contests carried on in Scotland have originated in u pure and heavenly desire on the part of thechurch courts to secure and maintain "thecrown rights of the Redeemer, and the liberties of His blood-bought people." Never was there a deception more complete — never was a popular bait more gaily feathered. The simple and straightforward Reformers of 1560, who drew up our Standards, say, " The admission of Ministers must be with the consent of the congregation. The liberty of election cannot stand with patronages and presentations to bene- fices." But the very moderat* Reformers of 1834, as if they tiad a special commission to draw up a list of Errata to direct us to the meaniHg of the Standards, say, " for entuent read diaaenU^^ and for the phrase, " the liberty of election cannot stand with patron- ages," kc. read, « non-intrusion and patrona^ are by no means incompatible with each other." Well might Dr McCrie sarcas- ticolly say, " The successors of the Moderates in the General Assembly have muzzled the people !" ^^ in Now, wliAt ift tllH rlliirilcter oftlm prooocdiiiif \n ari;iiiii razQ her, ch state- 10 indulgR le Church suse cer- ssemblies ay which Jst or dic- itelv and I, is called ows are n upon. I- is simpln » t.he civil to call it n the lo- ry answer les in thin icter, and You have ^estiruonv' 4» loucho« two pi>ints, uamoJy, tho unraitliruliu»s of the Ooncral As- sembly in not udhorioj to the ancient constiiutioti of the Church of ticutland as tu the matter of the sottlcrncnt of ininiatcrs— and also the illouality of the Veto Law. With respect to tho latter point, my friend Mr Bayno says ho will with confidence ploco the certain' «V«of onoof tho most cminont lawyers agrainst the doubt$ of the plain, simple Divine. Now, when tho thing is put in this shapo ail reasoning ceases ; action must take place, and must go on to completion. But for myself, I am froo to declare that I should with a thousand times creator prospect of safety, act on tho con< Bcientiously onlertained and honoatly expressed douhU of tho Divine, especially when ho does not happen to belong to my own ucclcsiaHiicul communion, ond when ho must therefore be believed to bo free from pnrty bias and prejudice, than on the pompously, announced certaintiea of any !awyur, or conclave of lawyers, how* ever cmiucut. The General Assembly of 18:34, with a splendid opportunity before it of vindicating the ancient f;lory and purity of the Church of Scotland' cuOEtitution on u much debated point thereof, occu- pied a position secured by the advancing piety of tho members ami ministers of the church for many years before, with a course ex- tended before the church unencumbered by any dangers save those which might arise from the church's own unfaithfulness to the Head of the church and His members. The Assembly posi- tively, by a deliberate vote, refusing to take up its ancient Protest ogainst Patronage, oaks the question. Shall we enter on the courso now open to us, giving to the people merely the power of ssyiog, ** No, we shan't have him," respecting the presentee of a patron to a vacant parish 1 Suppose we enact this Veto Law — is it legal — aye, or nay ? I have my doubts of it, whispers the Divinei, in eympatheilc but warning voice. " Advance along tho Veto road," vehemently exclaims tho lawyer ; " why put his doubts against my certainties V* The course marked out by the lawyer 18 entered on ; and in a few years only the church is landed in all ** the meshes of legal chicanery." The Assembly " muffled tho monster, and muzzled the people." The end of this course was tho separation of May, 1843. And, with respect to us in Canada, what do we see done t and what does a great body of Presbyterians in Canada experience ? Those who are in connexion with the Church of Scotland were »ud arc still told that a groat battle must bo fought in Canada— iliat those who are on the uiilo of the Frco Protesting Church of Scotland uro ri^lit— Ihat all who urc not bo arc wrong— and no M 50 iniitako ;>.tlial the oim parly are fighliiig for own righU of tiiM Ilndeniirar,— iiiid tliat all utiiora aro lighting agalnat Qod ;-' that tlio Froe Church aeparattid from the Church of Scotland in May 184S— and that ao enormoui ain was committed by the Synod , ill Canada tor not cutting all connexion in July 1844. One after anothor Free Churchmen from Scotland land on the ahoroa of tliia Now World,— and thore could not have been a grealer intoreat shown lately in Britain to feaat the eye with the recently tranapurted apeoimena of the Ojibbewayi from the ahorea of Lake fliiron, than there waaahown in Canada to witneaa the iirat Free Kirk man who perilled hia all to plant the atandard of ecoleaiaati- cal and civil freedom on the soil of Canada. And what ia the freiioral strain of the addreaaea of these Freo Church men— to be imitated of course by thoae who separate themselves from the Synod of Canada in connexion with the Church of ScotNnd "* Freo Cliurch men, one aAcr another, come to this compautively iiifnnt nnd too much already distracted country, and indulge in the liioat inflammatury huranguee, addressed, not to the reason, but to tho prejudices and the passions of more than Presbyterians, — and seem to bo anxious to leave on the public mind only this im- pression, that the Froe Church of Scotland alone ia right,— and that all partioa who will not believe this are Eraatians, and up- holders of Eraslianism and tyranny of tho worst description. In connexion with this conduct, thore is introduced, not a now, but u most alarming and dangcroua doctrine,— tho doctrine of non- loeponsibility for consequences, "'he practical applicoiion of this doctrine, bulh in Scotland ant ^da, is, to throw the burning brand of contention and atrit'e ....^ uie domestic and social circles, — -tu excite husband against wife, and brother against sister,— and iinincdiately to retire from the acene with an appropriation to themselves of the Saviour's awful language, " I came not to send '< peacu on tartli, but a sword !" Mr Bayne has referred to some parties who, in this controversy, have said, that while they would or nu^ht have been Free Church men jn Scotland, they could soe no occosion for division in Canada. Now, in reference to this notion, I solemnly declare that an Ecclesiastical Body which not only permits and sanctions, but ecclesiastically authorises and commands and puys for such work of incendiarism as Canada has fur the last twclvo monilis witnessed, is a Body which I could not feel myself at liberty to join,— bocausn it is arrogating to itself the otiico of the snpremo Lord of the Conscience, and doing the work of our common enemy, and oil the more fatnlly doing it, on uccount uf the assumption of high souudnig i.pirituM freedom as n righU of Mt God ;— lootland in the Synod , One after ■lioroe of * greater Ira recently rei of Lake first Free ecoleaiasti- what ia the men— to be from the Scotl>nd '' mpar«..tuely lulgo in the reoMon, bui yteriana,— >ly this im- right,— and 8, and up- iption. Ill a now, but ne of non- tion of thta ho burning ciai circlei, ister,— and priation to aot to send d to Botne hey would could see Dce to this which not orisea and 'anada has could not to itself doing the •"•g if, on eedom as Til the only freemen of Chriat. Tho Frm Church dolegateti pa«d quickly alon^, and pnsN an (|iiick.'y away, throwing into ev«ry aocesaible boiinm and houae the Hamo of eccleaiaatjcal contonlion, in addition to that which a ainCiii nature and a mont nnoniolouH •tate of Mocifity already Hiipply,nnd, rejoicing in the (!A(>d ao quickly done, they ' exclaim, What have wo to do with conieqiienccH'? Leave consoquencea to God. I ahall only exprcsa my hope thnt I'Vee Churchnten may como, not individually, aa heretofore, to ('anada, but aa a whole body, or in at Inaat large bands, to see what sftecies of friiiiH grow on tMe tree of ecclnaiaatieal and civil Inanbordination, which they aro at ao much pain* and cxpnuco in planting. Should they adopt this plnn, it neoda not inuoli know- ledge of thifl country to warrant tho averinent that half a century of the moat zealoun and christian exertion will scarcely sutficc to undo the mischief which a few niontliH only have seen perpetrated. Uul there are evils in Scotland, we all know. I dc lot >;elieve ihe floparation from the Church of Scotland (on tho i,n u': ah'cIi that separation took place) ia the proper, co;)8titii i :idl, -i >. 'is- tian remedy for those evils. A continued, orderl*', and cr>n»i.'tu- tional struggle m the Church, and not a tear of ertermination ottt of it, is, in my opinion, the cnurso which ought to have been adopted. And, tlmt there are evils in Canada, those who have lived in it a little while also know. But tliat tho cure for our evils which the Free Church offers is directly calculated, though it nay not be intended, to increase manifold those evils, not to remove them, I am daily more and more persuaded. The attempt to force on Canada a remedy which is too fondly assumed to be^iif' ficient for tho removal of the disrases of Scotland, is an attempt, empirical, not wise. And the vendcraof it seem, like all qnackH, to think that their success depends upon the unlimited freedom which they use in their aJverlisementH with the character and ihe principles of all but themselves. In perfect accordance with IhiH. we have to-day as before heard it stated — Both sides cannot be right, — one must be wrong, and tho other right, I blackguard the Church of Scotland as Erastian — as without either a head or a heart ; — therefore 1 am right,— and the Church of Scotlandand all its supporters are wrong. This is just another form of adver- tisements which we sometimes sec, — concluding thus—" Without the original inventor's signature, none are genuine." It was my intentiun to have given explanations on this contro- verted subject, without assuming the form of a discussion or de- bate at all. I shall adhere aa rigidly as possible to this my origi- nal intention. There are two or three things ia Mr Bayne'a accond address, to wliich 1 must for an instant advert. The " See ss >-i' I }k)w I imre iiitn here" sort oraigoing is that which is usually mo. nopolized by a cortniii spocics of lawyers — an statute ao deaeribeil end RO craved tu hn removed. Thia, I maintain, waa not only thn only letral, but the only proper, and the onlyChriatian ceurae. And for thechurch, commanding, seripturally and oonaiitutionaMy, apiritual weapona only, to enter upon a courae which wta ao faith« fully predicted as one that must nocesaarily terminate in themeahea of legal Ciiicanry, waa not only unwiae— but, on diacovering that thia waa its termination, and that she had to atruggle in theae mealiea with an enemy who fought with weapona different from her own,-— for the church to struggle on in thoae meabea, with ao fearful oddn, and with a Iuks ho tremendoua to her purely api- ritual characrcr, wa8 certainly fitted, aa it haa^oaadly proved to be, lo uppet and confound al I ideaa of what ia aacred and what ia civil, and to revolutionize in fact every occleaiaatical and civil com. inunity in tho world. I object not, as Mr Bayno auppoaei, to the uae of the word Moderates. Naithor do I object to ^he uae of the word Eraatiao. All I object to is the uning of a word, without an explanation being given of its true meaning and application. Whih it ia as- Hcrtcd that attempts have been made to firaatianize the Church in Scotland, I wish it to be in fairneaa and hoiieaty aaaerted alao that attempts are made to Eraatianize the Church in America. 1 object not to Mr Bayno's informing the meeting tSat 1 apoke for an hoar and a half — but, to be impartial, he ahould at the aame time have informed you that he himaelf spoke foi- an hour and three quirtere— and that in this over stepping of our very civil en- actment, it was he that set before me the sinful example and that in this matter he is not only the earlier but the greater aiuner of the two. If the Free Church delegates should find it necessary for the ex- oneration of their conscience, to come to thia country and tell tho wickednesa of the civil coura in Scotland and England, and the still more enormous sins of the British GoTernmcnt, and the utter- ly vile and reprobate condition of the Church of Scotland, aa without either a head or a heart, I use the freedom of thinking and saying that they ahould tell the truth,, the whole truth, and nothing but the Inith. Now, it ia because this j not done, in ;he case of the Church of Scotland, that I feel persuaded that the people of this country are groasly imposed upon in thia matter. Charges are advanced, insinuationa are made, the love of freedom in this free country is passionately appealed to by men who tell us that they are the only representatives of the departing freedom mid glory of the Church and State of Scotland ; and they seem 54 M reaily to expect that wo should throw away the littlo Protestantwrn tliat is left among us, and implicitly helievo that what they tell us is true — merely because thoy tell us. This is what I object to ; and in proportion to ihe value which we place on tho liberal amount of freedom which we here enjoy, should this peouliaitmode of arguing and judging be objected to and resisted. Mr Bayne spoke about pitching me out at the window if my sen. timents uttered here to-day had been uttered in Scotland. I am here for the purpose of giving information. Now, I have uttered these very sentiments in the courts of the Church of Scotland ; and for uttering them I was not pitched out either by door or window. Oo the contrary, my moderate friends, although of course conscientiously disapproving of them, just as my excellent friend Mr Bayne conscientiously approves of them, listened to me with at least as respectful attention as Mr Bayne has on this occa- sion manifested. And I believe that although there is not in the Cliurch of Scotland a constant and prodigious bluster about her freedom, yet she enjoys from her constitution a freedom at least as rational and useful as any church in any land of freedom can truly boast of. Moreover, the conviction which I always had, has not for the last four years (during which time my observation has been of tho New World) been weakened — that it is not the very best proof that can be given of people's freedom that they are always talking and boasting of it. > < . I have already slated why it was that the collision between the church courts in Scotland and the courts of the stale, and ulti- mately the atate itself, took place. It was because of the enact- ment of the Veto Law, as deemed by patrons and presentees and others interfering with civil matters, over which the slate lia» cognizance, that the great proportion of the cases about which you have all heard so much were tried and decided against the church courts by the courts uf the state, But there is another ;^ o'' cases, also tried and decided against the church courts — the princi- ple of which I shall state—and all tho more, because it is from tho decisions pronounced under this dass of cases, that Mr Bayne 's favourite illustration of the Miieves is derived. This illustration is a favourite not only with Mr Bayne, but with a class which I hope is a very limited one in Canada. Most of the Free Church flelegates tell to their audience fhe story of a Minister of the Erttablislimont who had adopted a very horrible trick of steaUng, and this desire seems to have gone forth some time or other in the direction ot some silver spoons. Tiiis story has become an im- roenae favourite in several places which I have lately viaitcd— co much so that just as it is with the tiisatre-loving portion of the Plpp 55 population, when 80ine favourite piece i.aa been performed, the actor 18 solicited to enact it again, bo the Free Church actor who once tells it, ii Bometimss requested to " give again the story of the minister who stole the silver spoons !" I need not say what a proof we have here that from the charity which rejoicethnot in iniquity, uur Free Church visitants seem to be unhappily free. The principle of this class of cases, of which Stewarton and Cambusnethan are instances, is this. The courts of the Church of Scotland have not only to decide on properly spiritual matters, but also on such secular masters as the Churches, Manses, and Glebes — and when a sentence of deposition has once been pro* nounced by a church court on any minister on account of his having by such couit been found guilty of any spiritual offence • deemed worthy of such punishment, the stipend or salary which he previously had ceases to be paid to him. Now, in ]834,|tbe very sa ne year that the Veto Law was enacted, the Assembly of the Church of Scotland made a law regarding certain churches which were before that time en lied Chapels of Ease, and in one of which I was for a time a minister, — which law said that the ministers of thosb chapeJe, to be called henceforth Quoad Sacra churciies, should sit, deliberate, and vote in all the courts of the church on all matters that might come before them, whether these matters might aifect the sacred or the secular interests of the church. In the case of Cambusnethan, the case from which the favourite illustration about the thief is drawn— the minister of the parish was about to be deposed on prov i charges of a very heinous character— and the minister, on the ground that there sat in the court which was about to pronounce judgment against him an individual who hod no right to occupy a place in it as one of his judges— that, in fact, the court was vitiated by his admission according tc the ancient principles of the constitution of^the Church of Scotland, as well as in the eye of the law, applied to the civil CO for an interdict to prevent the church court from pr o- nouncing tiiat sentence on tlie ground set for*.h in the application made for tiie irilorfli ' by t!iG accused an ' convicted party. And v'hat is the effect oi bucIj interdict ^ It is merely to stop further frocodure in that case, until this question shall be tried, whether the Quoad Sacra minister, objected to, ought or ought not, ac- cording to the ancient constitution of Uie Church of Scotland* and according to certain statu^' s and regulations of the kingdom 'grounded on that constitution, to have a seat, as a judge in a church court, when that court is about to pronounce a sentence which must have not merely sacred h secular bearings and con- sequences. , . . 56 According to our rree constitutiun, when a pnrty nocuf;);(] ia at the bar, he has the right to chiillt.ng'! uny juryman hu pleases, an' Snd, There is no allegation on record to show that any civil interest or right has been injured by refMsing to administyr to the pursuer the rolijprious ordinances to which tiie second and third is- Bued relate. The refusal to adminibter religious rites communi- catbdto the party himseU*, within the walla of the session-house, ia not attended with an^ civil damage or forfeiture. It has Dot been BO in Scotland, at leaat since the Revolution. ** But, however that may be, the refusal of religious ordinances ill Scotland by any minister of any denomination, does not con- Htitute a civil wrong. The Ministers of the Established ehjrch have an exclusive jurisdiction, by Statute, in all spiritual causes ; und it seems equally clear thnt the niiniutprs of other persuasions are equally protected at common law. They are all entitled to plend that they arc amenable to their own superiors only, for any ministerial error or misfeasance which they commit, and that their coustiiution necessarily excludes any review of their official duty but by their own superiois. ''Should they refuse to redrcsa, the injured party can get no remedy from the civil courts. In one view, the wrong is not es< timabie in money, while, in another, the civil oourts have neither the right nor the means of reviewing the judgments of ecclesias- tical tribunals, which may h&ve proceeded on views and consi'Ier- ationa that the civil courts are nut competent nor qualified to (Miter into. If a party, therefore, can get no redress from the eccieiiiasticnl superiors of a minister, by whom he has been re* I'ui., ordinances (to whatever religious persuip'.'^n he may belong,) the i.iatteris beyond the cognizance of the civil court. His only course is to leave a body which declines to admit him) and seek the communion of another sect. ' iioued and directed by the Kirk Session. No allegation is made that the defender gave any false information, or used any undue iii(!aence with the Kirk Session. This, therefore, rendered it the more incumbent on the pursuer to apply for redress on the matter o/'' the nrdiiinnces refused, to the superior Church Courts, to which this Kirk Session is amenable." This being a true history of the origin of the *< collisions, con- tentions and litigations'' of the Church of Scotland, I must have felt it my duty, had 1 b>>en in Scoilaml, to regard that separation as unwarraiitattlc, considtirnif/ tlit* real ultimate causes which pro* (luced It. Much more tiiHrut'uiu do I regard Separation in Canada as unwarriintablti, and t'rituglit with evils of which parties in Scotliiiid are not competeiii judges. 1 uni hern urged, because tho Cliurch of Scotland has bUiiied, in niutters vital und funda- mental, to come out from hur and be separate. lam told thai the Church of Scotland is n sinner,— and that therefore I must cut cuuuexion ^vith hur. Uut to vkhom is this urgent entreaty Tfr^ ■'I 08 made ? To me, a linful man. And» whither eliall I gfo if I (fit- Molve connexion with the Chnrch of Scotland ? To the Freo Church T la the Free Church free from lin ? I question much whether It a ainner, could honestly go and claim connexion with a Body which was ainleai. Shall I apply for admission to the * Presbyterian Church of Canada V But I feel myself m the same dilemma here as in the other case. Besides, were I, forgeltintr that I am myself a sinner, to make application to a sUfipoaed sin- less Body for admission, should I not be regarded by all sober* minded ehristisns as in wtfut and dangerous ignorance of the warning voice of the King of Zion^'* Pride goeth before destruc- tion, and a haughty spirit before a fall V And, does not this I ruth apply to professing Churches, as well as to individual men ? But really, with regard to « the Presbyterian Church of Canada,'^ I know nothing particularly sinless about the course on which that body has entered— neither hnow I any thing particularly spot- less about the composition of the forces which it has at com- mand. I find onci fur instance, a Student of the Secession, say- ing in June 1843^ to a congregation of the Synod of Canada in connexion with the Church of Scotland, that had invited him to take the requisite steps for becoming their Minister, in the place of one who a little beibie had left them,—'* that his conscientious •cruples to do so were overcome by the consideration of the great probability that the Synod would identify itself with the Free Protesting Church of Scotland." Hiw many had joined the Synod, previously to July 1844, when the Separation took place in Canada, and how many oat and voted for the Separation, with the prospect of having their "conscientious scruples overcome" uAer this very extraordinary and extra Christian fashion, it is im« possible for me to say. But I cannot but feel that what has been: done once may be done again, — that what has been done In one ease, may be done in the case of every one of this singularly constituted Body. I foel that as to doctrine and discipline, and everything else, thsre may be as many vie%ve as there are men in it. Aa to pecuniary aflsirs — for Mr Eayne roust, I see, have a dash at the secular aa well as the racred affairs of a church,— ^nd no wonder, considering the notable example set before him in Scot- land,— Mr Bayne alluded r.o sonie temporary salaries or donations given by the Church of 8ootland to certain individuals,^and Mr Bayne very curiously concludes that these individuals held in fact a bribe for acting in a particular way. This style of aiguing is quite of a piece with the declamatioii and exaggeration of the Free' Church delegates and their imitators, about the Erastianism of the Church of Scotland, and the despotism of the State and ita Courts of Law. But, what is the real state of the matter, with regard to temporary salaries and donations of small sums of iiioney by the Church of Scotland to her Ministers in Canada ? Mr wyne has told a part of the atory— let me tell the rest of it. The Church of Scotland holds by the scriptural doctrine that ** the labourer is worthy of his hire,"— and neither the Free Church, nor the Presbyterian Church of Canada, has as yet publicly, through its Ministers at least, repudiated that scriptural doc- trine. Does not the Free Church pay her Ministers for doing her 69 work in Rcotland 1 Doea not she pay her Deleflr«te» to Canada for doing her work here 1 HaH not the Preibyterian Church of Canada her austentation funil, out of which aome of her Minlaters at least urge that they should and must be paid 1 A role which IS (food fur such perfect bodies as these, cannot be so horribly bad as Mr Bayne represents, when applied to the Minister! of the Church of Scotland in Canada. But I have a little more to tell OH this pecuniary matter. There was a certain number of Minis- ters, and Mr Bayne ranks amon^; the number, who, up to July 1844, received a ccrlnin stim of money for doing the work of the Church of Scotland in Canada, and each of whom required to sign his name on receiving it, with the addition of the words— > . ** Minister of the Church of Scotland." This money continued to be received for a considerable time after the discovery by those gpr.tlemen that the Church of Scotland had become su vile a sinner. The question here seems, Were those gentlemen, while receiving the money of the Church of Scotland, and at the same time reviling her as the sinner, adorning the doctrine of the Headship of the Redeemer ? There is only one other point on which I can venture to ask in- , diligence for a moment to any a word. With regard to what Mr Hayne has justly said nn uttered by many in reference to this con- truversy in Canada — thn: (Ihilethey might have become Free Church men in Scotland, but that they could see no cause for separation here— I have already said that for the reasons I have stated, I never could adopt even tins line- of argument or of ac- tion— but ( wish to show that although a separation has taken place among us, many of those who are now in its ranks had nut at one time any idea of carrying tbc afikir to such an extremity. Even my excellent friend Mr Bayne expressed and urged a desire, previous to the meeting of the Synod in July 1844, to a moderate course, as was maiiifeot from a letter he Nvrote at that time to Mr Fordyce, of Fergus. Hiw natural and laudable view of the matter was this : The Synod of Canada had sympathised with the majorities in the Cenernl Assemblies of the Church of Scotland, on the ground of their advocacy of the principles of non-intrusion and spiritual independence. This the Synod had done for seve- ral years up to 1842, inclusive. And, at their meeting in July !'184S, after learning that the separoton had taken place in Scot- land two months before, the Synod solemnly expressed their thanks that they were not called on for themselves to take a step HO f'Xtreme. But the Fre*; (.Miiircli leaders in Scotland, and their delegates to Canada, had thought and were determiued that as there had taken place a separation in Scotland, so there must one be effected in Canada also. Ultimately, as we all know, tiiis evil counsel, urged with stich analhem.is from Scotland, was, for alleged connistency's sake, taken up, pressed, and acted upon, by upwards of a score of Ministers in the Synod. But Mr Bayne, along with others, for some time at least were of opinion that the Free Church of Scollnnd, having got the sympa- thies and the mouies of the people of Canada, should be there- with content. But at last they yielded. Scottish determina- tion in Canada was too weak to resist newly imported Scottish 60 delcruiiiiAtion from Scollani). The certain conneqiiencoa of tho ttiep tieru taken wcru diitrtjtfardeii. And, tu viiidicaiu ihe proprieiy ot'thatat«p, fo liaaiily aiidiu my opiiiiuii itu uuwtlliii|;ly •dopiudi tfie luoat extraordinary doctriiieit oil litany int*}rttsui)g and vitui points are uow circulated with alarniiiiij; rapidity tlirouj^liont tlim country, in which the elemenla orceiifuHion were proviouriiy inueli more abundant than any friend uf the church uf Chrmr, ur Hiiy lover of the peacu uf t>ie cumniiinity, could deuiro lo exibt. It u to bo feared there are but few auionj; us wlio, bocausu of the dtviaiona of the profesain^r people uf Uud, have great sdarchinga of heart . Dr Liddell having concludod— Mr BAYNK begged a niument to explain two matters which Dr Liddell had brought against him as accuMKtio:>s. The first w&^t that be had received the money of the church since he uccubod her of having committed the sin that forced him to leave her. Now, he had not received a penny uf the church's money, from the earliest moment at which, on Presbyterian principle^, he was called to separate from her, viz since the Synod in Synod assembled had decided to adhere to the Church of Scotland ; and tlierefore had not received a penny which in uoy way could be alleged us a sanctioning of her guilt. The other point was, that he was ac« cused of having no intention of separating from the church up to a late period, but only syinpaUtizuig with the party who proteslud against the Erastiau proceedin<,'8 of that church ; and his letter tu Mr Fordyce was brought forward as a proof that such was . his intention. Now, those who knew anything of the proceedings of the church at that ti ne, knew that he [Mr UaynoJ hud brought in an overture In the Presbytery uf Hamilton, the efiect of wbicii would have been to have disentangled us from both parties in tiie (yliurch of Scotland, and tlmt tho Synod of Canada should liavo joined neither the Free Church aur the Residuary. Unhappily that overture was rejected ; otherwise there would have been int division now in the Church of Canada ; and it was to forward that object that the letter was written to Mr Fordyoe. The rc- jociioii of the Hamilton overcifVti had left him no a'itcrnattvo but to secede. The CiiAiRUAN now rose to dissolve the meeting, when t.li<> Rev. Mr McMillan moved a vote of thanks to liiin for hiu admir- able conduct wiiilst presiding over the meeting. Mr STRANG was highly obliged to his old friend, Mr McMillan, for the cuurteouu way in w.iich he hud nutictid his humble services, lie luuut say, that ho hiid been cxeessivoly do- lij^hted with the manner in which tho congregaiiun hud conducted 'Jiduiselves during the disciisdiun, and iiu earnestly trusted^ thut uhen they came to thik over the proceedings ulsowhero, they would imitate the court*3tiy which the two Ruvurend S^Mjukura liad fxiiibited towards each other. Iletiioti proiiOtiticuJ thd huneit.cUoii, and disdulvsd llio aieet< mj. FINIS. •""-TT : I