Wo' T United Presbyterian formidable as the one ce, perhaps, as difficult to which the Original Seceders Assembly. The idle notion of Scotland, in a way no other body many a flourish of trumpets, with them in their laws anent slavery. It is the wi arbitrar saved, its q' brou pro ma tc dings and it was most dutifully echoed back by The Original Seceders appeared at the bar General Assembly more than a century ago; and the Free by with the protest which they had taken against the Ay, roognised the validity of the protest, assoilzied the parties from stultify the Free Church, and are only fitted to excite derision. For if even ay, acting as the descendants and representatives of that old erring and received them back into communion. Now, these proceedhe parties who retired from the Establishment in 1843 came out as the true Church of Scotland, notwithstanding they were a minority, simply because they had truth on their side; then, for the very same reason, the Original more than a century ago, on substangrounds, and who are now acknowledged by the Free Sveders who left the Establishment tially the same Church to have been right in their views, must have been all along, though the Establishment cannot have been the Church of Scotland at all. Yet we a minority, the true Church of Scotland. Since the secession of the Erskines, nothing but sectaries, and that the Establishment alone was the Church of leaders in the Free Church, that the Erskines and their descendants were were told before the Free Church came into existence, by those who are now remained the Church of Scotland, after a secession on sound and true prinwhich time she was much worse than she is at the present moment, yet still long years between the secession of the Erskines and 1843, for great part of ciples had taken place, what is it that hinders her from being the Church of Scotland. Scotland If this really was the case, if the Establishment, during the many now, though another secession-effected also, let it be allowed, on the Free Church to be now pre-eminently the Church of Scotland, that will true and sound principles-has occurred? By no argument will you prove not equally demonstrate the first secession to have been the Church of Scotland from the time it took place. The Original Seceders go to the Free Church Assembly with their protest to be disposed of. What an absurd anachronism! The Free Church should have gone with their protest of 1843 to be disposed of by the body that had held, as they acknowledge, the true principles of the Church of Scotland for more than a century before that time. But the whole affair is unworthy of serious consideration. The question as to who is best entitled to be called the Church of Scotland, is a mere dispute about words. If numbers are to settle this foolish question, then a census would require to be made of the different competing bodies. If actual connection with the State is to be taken as the test, then the Establishment is the Church of Scotland. If close and continuous adherence to the original principles of our Presbyterian forefathers is to be made the rule, then, according to the acknowledgment of the Free Church, the Original Seceders were the true Church of Scotland. If the voice of Scripture is to be heard in the case, then the Church of Scotland consists of all the genuine followers of Christ in the land. But by no imaginable test whatever, excepting the arbitrary will of the Free Church leaders, will you prove the Free Church to be pre-eminently the Church of Scotland. The claims put forth by the Free Church to be something more than her dissenters or seceders from the Establishment, something more than other body in the land, will be a complete barrier to union, so far as United Presbyterian Church is concerned. The maxim we act upon may pressed in our Lord's words: "One is your master, even Christ, and ye are brethren." We claim no precedence over the Free Church, though, we were disposed to do so, longer standing would afford a ground of no little plausibility; still we claim no precedence; but equally we concede no precedence to her. And if the union that recently took place be the only kind of union she is prepared to enter into, there never will be a union between her and the United Presbyterian Church. If we meet at all, it must be on equal terms and on a common platform. When the Relief and Secession Churches were united, though the disproportion between their sizes was greater than between us and the Free Church, yet the idea of making either of them appear to enter the other was most studiously avoided; and exactly the same things were done by the one that were done by the other. They met as separate and independent bodies, and each made over all its rights to the other, and they became one. We confess that the proceedings of the last Assembly of the Free Church have extinguished, for a time, any idea we may ever have entertained of a union between them and us. Besides the general course of the proceedings, there were particular remarks made which quite confirm us in the opinion we have given. One speaker expressed the hope, and the sentiment was applauded, "That some of the more moderate of that large and influential body, known by the name of the United Presbyterian Church, might yet see it to be their duty to unite with the Free Church." We dwell not upon the contemptuous phraseology here employed, "known by the name," as if the United Presbyterian Church were not as well known in Scotland as the Free Church, and as if she had not as good a right to the name she bears. How would our friends like that we should speak of them as that large and influential body known by the name of the Free Church? But that is a trifle, a mere straw showing how the wind blows. The thing to be reprobated in the words above quoted is the wish they imply, that the United Presbyterian Church may be dismembered. Yes, let her be broken into fragments, if, perchance, some of the fragments may be brought to us for our aggrandisement! But what gain would it be to the cause of union, that the United Presbyterian Church should be split into pieces, even though some of them should go to the Free Church? Or how can our friends suppose we will be pleased or flattered with the idea, that it is for the advantage of religion that the bonds of our union should be broken, in order to augment their numbers? What arrogance and self-conceit does not the expression of such an idea on their part imply? Reverse the case, and what would the adherents of the Free Church think if the hope were publicly expressed in our Synod, and the sentiment loudly applauded, that numbers of them might yet feel it to be their duty to leave the Free Church and to join us? Would they not feel that we were acting an unbrotherly part towards them? Would they not feel that all friendly relations must henceforth be at an end between us? The only proper reason we can imagine for desiring a union between different bodies is, that the number of separate sects may be diminished, and that the unity of the church may thus be more openly exhibited; but we conceive it better that bodies remain as they are, than that a union should be attempted whose effect must be to produce other divisions. When the union between the Relief and Secession Churches was under consideration, the universal feeling was that we must carry all the members of There are other obstacles to a union between the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church, which, though not so formidable as the one already mentioned, would yet be found in practice, perhaps, as difficult to deal with. One is suggested by the manner in which the Original Seceders were united to the Free Church at the last Assembly. The idle notion of the Free Church being the true Church of Scotland, in a way no other body can claim to be, was prominently put forth, with many a flourish of trumpets, at every stage of the proceedings, and it was most dutifully echoed back by the party applying for union. The Original Seceders appeared at the bar of the Free Assembly with the protest which they had taken against the proceedings of the General Assembly more than a century ago; and the Free Assembly, acting as the descendants and representatives of that old erring Assembly, recognised the validity of the protest, assoilzied the parties from all blame, and received them back into communion. Now, these proceedings stultify the Free Church, and are only fitted to excite derision. For if the parties who retired from the Establishment in 1843 came out as the true Church of Scotland, notwithstanding they were a minority, simply because they had truth on their side; then, for the very same reason, the Original Seceders, who left the Establishment more than a century ago, on substantially the same grounds, and who are now acknowledged by the Free Church to have been right in their views, must have been all along, though a minority, the true Church of Scotland. Since the secession of the Erskines, the Establishment cannot have been the Church of Scotland at all. Yet we were told before the Free Church came into existence, by those who are now leaders in the Free Church, that the Erskines and their descendants were nothing but sectaries, and that the Establishment alone was the Church of Scotland. If this really was the case, if the Establishment, during the many long years between the secession of the Erskines and 1843, for great part of which time she was much worse than she is at the present moment, yet still remained the Church of Scotland, after a secession on sound and true principles had taken place, what is it that hinders her from being the Church of Scotland now, though another secession-effected also, let it be allowed, on true and sound principles-has occurred? By no argument will you prove the Free Church to be now pre-eminently the Church of Scotland, that will not equally demonstrate the first secession to have been the Church of Scotland from the time it took place. The Original Seceders go to the Free Church Assembly with their protest to be disposed of. What an absurd anachronism! The Free Church should have gone with their protest of 1843 to be disposed of by the body that had held, as they acknowledge, the true principles of the Church of Scotland for more than a century before that time. But the whole affair is unworthy of serious consideration. The question as to who is best entitled to be called the Church of Scotland, is a mere dispute about words. If numbers are to settle this foolish question, then a census would require to be made of the different competing bodies. If actual connection with the State is to be taken as the test, then the Establishment is the Church of Scotland. If close and continuous adherence to the original principles of our Presbyterian forefathers is to be made the rule, then, according to the acknowledgment of the Free Church, the Original Seceders were the true Church of Scotland. If the voice of Scripture is to be heard in the case, then the Church of Scotland consists of all the genuine followers of Christ in the land. But by no imaginable test whatever, excepting the arbitrary will of the Free Church leaders, will you prove the Free Church to be pre-eminently the Church of Scotland. The claims put forth by the Free Church to be something more than other dissenters or seceders from the Establishment, something more than any other body in the land, will be a complete barrier to union, so far as the United Presbyterian Church is concerned. The maxim we act upon may be expressed in our Lord's words: "One is your master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren." We claim no precedence over the Free Church, though, if we were disposed to do so, longer standing would afford a ground of no little plausibility; still we claim no precedence; but equally we concede no precedence to her. And if the union that recently took place be the only kind of union she is prepared to enter into, there never will be a union between her and the United Presbyterian Church. If we meet at all, it must be on equal terms and on a common platform. When the Relief and Secession Churches were united, though the disproportion between their sizes was greater than between us and the Free Church, yet the idea of making either of them appear to enter the other was most studiously avoided; and exactly the same things were done by the one that were done by the other. They met as separate and independent bodies, and each made over all its rights to the other, and they became one. We confess that the proceedings of the last Assembly of the Free Church have extinguished, for a time, any idea we may ever have entertained of a union between them and us. Besides the general course of the proceedings, there were particular remarks made which quite confirm us in the opinion we have given. One speaker expressed the hope, and the sentiment was applauded, "That some of the more moderate of that large and influential body, known by the name of the United Presbyterian Church, might yet see it to be their duty to unite with the Free Church." We dwell not upon the contemptuous phraseology here employed, "known by the name," as if the United Presbyterian Church were not as well known in Scotland as the Free Church, and as if she had not as good a right to the name she bears. How would our friends like that we should speak of them as that large and influential body known by the name of the Free Church? But that is a trifle, a mere straw showing how the wind blows. The thing to be reprobated in the words above quoted is the wish they imply, that the United Presbyterian Church may be dismembered. Yes, let her be broken into fragments, if, perchance, some of the fragments may be brought to us for our aggrandisement! But what gain would it be to the cause of union, that the United Presbyterian Church should be split into pieces, even though some of them should go to the Free Church? Or how can our friends suppose we will be pleased or flattered with the idea, that it is for the advantage of religion that the bonds of our union should be broken, in order to augment their numbers? What arrogance and self-conceit does not the expression of such an idea on their part imply? Reverse the case, and what would the adherents of the Free Church think if the hope were publicly expressed in our Synod, and the sentiment loudly applauded, that numbers of them might yet feel it to be their duty to leave the Free Church and to join us? Would they not feel that we were acting an unbrotherly part towards them? Would they not feel that all friendly relations must henceforth be at an end between us? The only proper reason we can imagine for desiring a union between different bodies is, that the number of separate sects may be diminished, and that the unity of the church may thus be more openly exhibited ; but we conceive it better that bodies remain as they are, than that a union should be attempted whose effect must be to produce other divisions. When the union between the Relief and Secession Churches was under consideration, the universal feeling was that we must carry all the members of : both bodies along with us; that it would serve no good purpose to amalgamate as one body, if such numbers refused concurrence as would lead to the formation of one, or perhaps two, other bodies. And, in fact, the union was delayed for a considerable time after decided majorities were favourable to it, that it might be accomplished without leaving a single fragment to exist separately from the united body and this end has been gained. Where is there now a Relief Church-where is there now a Secession Church? If, therefore, there should ever be a union between the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, we could reckon such an event desirable, only if accomplished in the same manner. Of what benefit would it be to the general interests of religion, that there should be a change consisting simply in the transference of a number of churches from the United Presbyterian Church to the Free Church, or from the Free Church to the United Presbyterian Church? Such changes might gratify individual pride and ambition, but it is difficult to see how they would advance the cause of christian union. We know not whether our correspondent may agree with us or not; but we assure him, that the late proceedings of the Free Church have made us feel that great changes must take place before a union between them and us can become practicable. In the private intercourse of life, we meet with Free Churchmen whose views quite accord with our own; but the proceedings of public bodies are as yet quite uninfluenced by this under-current. L. THE BIBLE IN SCHOOLS. ONCE upon a time, as the good old stories used to begin, an English nobleman paid a visit to Paris. Fired with the noble ambition of improving his personal graces, he took lessons in the art of dancing from an eminent professor. His proficiency in this elegant accomplishment, it would appear, was more satisfactory to himself than to his teacher. About to return home, he expressed his thanks to the professor, and requested to know in what manner he could forward his interests. The Frenchman was at first somewhat embarrassed; but speedily recovering himself, he shrugged his shoulders, elevated his eye-brows, and made such a bow as none but those of the grand nation can make; and gave the following response :- "My Lord, you will do me one very distinguished favour, if you will not tell in England, who was the gentleman that had the honour of giving your Lordship lessons in dancing.' This incident has more than once occurred to us, in connection with Mr George Combe. Whatever be the cause of it, the fact is indisputable, that few persons are fond of having it supposed that he extends to them his patronage. He is one of a class whose advocacy is sure to damage any good cause. If there were any scheme for which we were anxious to secure the public approbation, and if Mr Combe were to proffer us his aid in promoting its success, we should feel somewhat embarrassed, like the Frenchman in our story; and, making our best bow, we should say to him,— "Sir, you will do me one very distinguished favour, if you will not tell any body that you are on my side." The friends of temperance, who met lately in Edinburgh in order to devise measures for repressing Sabbath-drinking, must have had the same uncomfortable feeling, when he appeared in the midst of them and suggested his remedy. What was his panacea for intemperance on the Lord's-day? Convert the Scottish Sabbath into a Continental one. Give the people dancing and tumbling, Punch and Judy, and |