Presbytery left it in March last, and proceeded at considerable length to examine the speech of Mr. Ferguson on 6th December. To him there appeared to be very unsound doctrine in that address, and doctrine very pernicious to the souls of those who believed it. Mr. Law ended with a motion which was not seconded.

Dr. M'EwEN, Glasgow, was convinced that there was not a little objectionable in the language Mr. Ferguson used. On the other hand, he was convinced that the method of the committee of presbytery, when it drew up the report, was rather a dangerous method. There was too much of the inferential in the whole structure of that report. He believed that the chief point around which all the other matters revolved in this case, was that which referred to what was called a day of probation, but what was called by most of the brethren the day of grace; and if they could satisfy themselves-and he had little fear they could get satisfaction on the point-that Mr. Ferguson held the old doctrinal view on the matter, they would not be disposed to push him very hard in regard to any peculiarities of language he employed; for while their doctrine was dear to them, the character of an able and promising young minister was dear to them also. He moved

That, without deciding on the question of the appeal of the protesters against the decision of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, in the case of the report of a committee of said presbytery on the speech of the Rev. Fergus Ferguson, the Synod, after fully hearing parties, cherish the hope that, by a friendly conference of a committee of their own number with Mr. Ferguson and the various parties concerned in the question, a result may be obtained that shall at once remove misunderstandings and vindicate important scriptural doctrine involved in this case; and appoint a committee for that purpose, with instructions to report to this meeting of Synod.'

If,

Dr. MARSHALL seconded the motion he remarked, it was possible to avoid lacerating the feelings of the appellants and the majority of the Edinburgh Presbytery, it was very desirable to do so. He thought it was now manifest that the mere disposal of the two protests which brought the matter up did not promise to end the case, and he was very desirous the case should be ended. If the members of Synod could obviate the risk of such a serious thing as the matter issuing in a libel, it was worth their while to do their utmost with that view.

Mr. BELL, Newcastle, moved, as an amendment, that the protest and appeal be dismissed.

Mr. HISLOP, Leven, seconded the amend

ment.

On a show of hands being taken, the motion of Dr. M'Ewen was carried by a large majority.

WEDNESDAY, May 17.

The Synod met at ten o'clock-Dr. Edmond, moderator.

STIPEND AUGMENTATION.

The first two hours were spent in private conference on the Augmentation Fund and Supplement of Stipends. When public business was resumed,

Dr. SCOTT laid on the table the report of the Augmentation branch of the Home Mission Fund. The report stated that the income of the fund for the year 1870 had been £9371, or £313 less than the income for 1869, and £2537 less than the expenditure for the year. The committee were most reluctant to force on the attention of the Synod the question whether the minimum allowance of £157, 10s., inclusive of allowance for expenses, should be reduced, since, even without any additional income, the present rate of distribution might be maintained for another year, though only for that one; and since the trustees of a recent large bequest to the mission funds of the Church were likely, during the present year, to pay to the Synod's Treasurer such portion of the proceeds of the trust estate as might add about £600 to the income of the Augmentation branch of the Home Mission Fund, the Home Committee recommended to the Synod that the October supplements of the present year should be paid in such proportion as should maintain the present minimum rate of £157, 10s. for stipend and expenses, besides a manse, or an allowance not exceeding £10 per annum in place of house rent where there was no manse provided, in all cases in which that minimum could be attained by a grant not exceeding the maximum of £60 per annum to one congregation. Also that, as during the last two years, an allowance for house rent not exceeding £10 per annum should be made to congregations which had no manses, and in which that allowance, in addition to the ordinary maximum supplement of £60, would not make up a total stipend of more than £150 per annum. Further, that the maximum supplement to the congregations at Burray, Stornoway, and in Shetland, should be, as last year, at the discretion of the Home Committee, £90 per annum. Further, the Home Committee earnestly recommended that the Synod should again direct the attention of presbyteries to the forty cases in which self-sustaining congregations are paying for stipend and expenses a less sum than £157, 108., with the view of encouraging them to increase the payment at least to the minimum standard with the least possible delay.

The report was adopted, and, on the motion of Mr. STITT, Liverpool, the whole matter was remitted to a committee to report to next meeting of Synod, and meanwhile to take such measures for the benefit of the fund as might seem to them expedient.

THE UNION QUESTION.

The Synod proceeded to consider the report of the Committee on Union.

Dr. HARPER laid the report of the Union Committee on the table, and, in submitting it, said that the committee solicited such a declaration as would make it more manifest that they had fairly represented the mind of the Church. No doubt it would be asked, What

was the object of this declaration, what was the motive of it, and what purpose it was intended to serve? To this he answered negatively, that it was not intended that the Synod should adopt the findings of the committee in such a sense as that they should be used as a term of communion in the United Church, or that they should be raised to a level with the subordinate standards. What was desired was that the Synod should, by a formal deed, declare that the committee had not misrepresented the principles of the Church. He himself was of opinion that the question had virtually been answered by the decision of the Synod in 1867, ratified and confirmed by the decision of 1868. But beyond the Synod there was an impression that the articles of agreement had never yet been recognised by the Court as fairly representing the mind of the Church. Now this was very injurious, particularly in relation to the Union movement. They knew well there were opponents of Union in the Free Church whom he supposed it would be very difficult to satisfy by any explanation or any statement of opinion that could be given. They were eagerly on the alert for any handle that might serve them in the way of obstruction to the Union. Passing from that class, there was another and a pretty numerous portion of the Free Church body, the members of which were sincere and conscientious friends of Union, but had difficulties upon the question whether the articles represented the mind of the Church. He thought it was due to themselves, to the great cause of Union, and to their Free Church friends, who had stood, were standing, and he believed would stand, with all fidelity to their Union colours-it was due to them to put their opinion forward in such a shape as that they might be able to say, 'Here is a declaration in the form of an express approbation by the United Presbyterian Synod in favour of the articles of agreement.'

Dr. JOHNSTON, Limekilns, then moved, That the Synod adopt the report; and in compliance with the request of the Committee, and in accordance with former acts of Synod, especially that of 1867, declare that the committee has fairly represented the principles of this Church, both common and distinctive, under the several heads of the report as transmitted to presbyteries last year; declare also their great satisfaction with the returns from the presbyteries, as showing their unanimous conviction that there is no bar to Union with the negotiating Churches on the basis of their common standards, with the explanations whereby the Churches respectively qualify their adherence to these standards; and reappoint the committee, with its former powers, and with instructions to consider what practical steps ought to be taken towards the formation of federal relations between the negotiating Churches, and otherwise to prosecute the negotiations of incorporating Union, and commend them to the prayers of the Church.

Dr. CAIRNS, in seconding the motion, said he did so for three reasons:-First, because

the Synod was travelling in the line of the action of the presbyteries; secondly, because it would do immense good to the Free Church; and thirdly, because it would do no harm, but great good, to their own Church. He was deeply grieved to find that Union had been converted into a battlefield of strife; that the gracious project originated some years ago had become a source of bitterness, and even separation. There was no man in the Synod who deprecated more strongly the idea of disruption in a sister Church, but in his calm and sober judgment he could not be a party to bringing the negotiations at this stage to a close. They could not do in 1871 what they could have done in 1863. There had arisen an internal controversy in the Free Church; and even if the negotiations were abandoned, the controversy would remain, and that conflict would need to be settled by that Church itself. It was a question as to what were its own terms of membershipwhat were its own fundamental principles and constitution-and they could not, by abandoning the negotiations, settle that question, which the Free Church must decide for itself. The United Presbyterians would not hurry, and they would not aggravate or complicate so unfortunate a dispute. They would earnestly pray that it might end without the miserable result and saddening catastrophe of disruption, and would wait on in an expectant and yet negotiating attitude until that question so vital to the Free Church was settled one way or another. But might he not say that the very fact that they felt it to be impossible thus to terminate the negotiations was an additional argument that the work was from God? When Churches approached and came apparently into conjunction, there might be a threatening of eclipse and darkness, and even of collision and destruction; but the remedy lay not in rolling back the moving body. Fear might counsel retrogression; but the path of safety would still lie in progress. And if they only waited upon Him who made the seven stars and Orion, then, by an advance in a higher than earthly orbit, and by mightier than mortal power, He who had made the day dark with night might turn the shadow of death into the morning.

Mr. HUTTON, Paisley, proposed the following amendment:-That the Synod receive the report of the committee, and thank them for their diligence; and inasmuch as the presbyteries of the Church generally, while reserving judgment in all other matters in answer to the remit of last Synod, declare that there is no bar to Union with the negotiating Churches on the basis of their common standards, with the explanations whereby the Churches respectively qualify their adherence to these standards, the Synod reappoint the committee, with instructions to continue the negotiations; but in reference to the committee's request, the Synod declines to give any declaration of the mind of the Church, further than that which is authoritatively contained in its standards, as modified by the formulas for the ordination of office-bearers.' After some remarks,

Presb Maga

1, 1871

the hour of adjournment having arrived, Mr. HUTTON moved the adjournment of the debate, which was agreed to.

THE SYNODICAL MISSIONARY MEETING.

The Annual Synodical Missionary Meeting was held on the evening of May 17, in the Music Hall. The Rev. Dr. Edmond, moderator of the Synod, presided. After special prayer for missions by the Rev. G. Martin, missionary from India, the Rev. Dr. Scott read extracts from the report on Home Missions, and Dr. MacGill from that on Foreign Missions.

In the absence of Mr. James Peddie, W.S., Treasurer, Dr. MacGill reported that the income for missions during 1870 amounted to £43,876, of which £30,587 was for Foreign work, and £13,288 for the Home Fund-the latter sum being composed of £9371 for the Augmentation branch, and £9317 for the Evangelistic. The expenditure for Foreign Missions was £32,138, being £1550 in excess of the income. In the Augmentation branch the expenditure exceeded the income by £2537, and in the Evangelistic branch the income was less than the sum expended by £576. The excess of expenditure over the income on all the three funds was met by transferring from the reserve funds £1800 to the Foreign Missions, £2133 to the Augmentation branch, and £711 to the Evangelistic.

The Rev. Professor Rainy delivered an address on Missions; the Rev. Dr. Adams of New York, and Dr. Beadle of Philadelphia, deputies from the American Presbyterian General Assembly, gave an account of American missions; the Rev. James Ballantine, missionary from Jamaica, spoke on Jamaica missions; and the Rev. Dr. James Knox, of Glasgow, on 'Reasons why the Work of Missions should not Cease.'

Mr. HUTTON, Paisley, resumed his speech in support of the amendment to the motion for the adoption of the committee's report. He did not believe that union would be either retarded or forwarded to any appreciable extent by anything the Synod could do in this matter, if union was in the hearts of their friends of the Free Church. There were strong reasons against giving the declaration, and none why it should be given. The articles would not be useless. They would be a monument of Herculean labour at a task impossible at the present time.

Dr. R. T. JEFFREY wanted to know whether they were keeping within or going beyond the standards of the church, and the committee should be instructed to give a distinct utterance on this point at next Synod.

Provost BROWN, Irvine, seconded Mr. Hutton's amendment.

Dr. M'LEOD, Birkenhead, in supporting the motion, alluded to the leaders of the opposition in the Free Church. In reference to the reserve which they threatened to bring forward at the crisis of the movement, when every other force should have given way,

he ventured to say that, when the Union negotiations were crowned with success, those children of the north would be found in the ranks of the United Church.

Dr. FINLAYSON said that the adoption of the amendment by the Synod would be virtually saying that the committee had not given a fair representation of the views of the Synod.

Mr. ÎNGLIS, Johnstone, supported the amendment. The Union Committee, he said, had faithfully represented one class of opinions in the Church, but there was another class which had not been represented at all. They had kept in the background a principle which was common to all in the Synod, and which ought to have been made conspicuous as the brightness of a star-the principle of toleration. The divided state of the Free Church might warn them against legislation such as that now proposed. The Claim of Right, and other documents passed by overwhelming majorities, with no dissenting minorities, in the Free Church at the time of the Disruption, were now distracting that Church. Were the United Presbyterians to commit the same blunder with other articles which had received rough handling from the presbyteries which had not been accepted unanimously, which it was hard to understand, and which had received a totally different interpretation by the negotiating Churches? What could come out of such faltering and ambiguous legislation but mischief, and a renewal in the United Church of the same scenes which in the Free Church made enemies mock and friends mourn?

Professor CALDERWOOD criticised the arguments urged by the mover of the amendment. Mr. Hutton had said there was a moral struggle involved in the desire for this declaration. Yes, there was a moral struggle involved in it. They had been involved in a moral struggle by reason of certain brethren in the Free Church persistently misrepresenting the views of this Church, and invariably meeting the answer of the committee by saying-You are only a committee, and we shall not take from you any statement as though it indicated the mind of the Church.' Was that, then, a moral struggle of which they needed to be ashamed? There were some who held that the passing of the declaration would involve the obliteration of true Presbyterian parity by the creation of class distinctions. He had been a member of the Synod when resolutions were passed on education which he felt involved principles of which he could not approve, but he did not think that his liberty was thereby impugned; and he did not see why a different result should occur in the present case.

Mr. OLIVER, Glasgow, had long entertained the conviction that these articles were to be bound upon the Church in some way or another. They might not be put into a basis of Union, or elevated into a Confession of Faith, but there might be some word or clause in the preamble of the formula of ordination yet to be written which should commit them in some way or other to some extent, so that people might say, 'These are the articles of the United Church.' The articles of agree

ment, he maintained, would be a breach upon their liberty. He would not impose a Voluntary shibboleth upon any one, but he must be allowed to keep the liberty he had enjoyed so long. He asked no more, and he would take nothing less. Besides, the questions raised by the articles of agreement were very subtle, and lay outside of all gospel truth, and ought therefore to be made no part in any way of a Church's creed. Milton, in his sonnet to Sir Harry Vane, said—

'To know

Both spiritual power and civil, what each means, What severs each, thou hast learned, which few have done.'

He was afraid that now, as in Milton's time, there was not a little confusion in regard to the line which separated the spiritual from the civil; and he could not rid himself of the conviction that such confusion was found in those articles. The question was, not whether the Union was to be imperilled, but whether the creed was to be lengthened. Let them take the standards alone, with the present qualification, and he was perfectly satisfied that the issue would not only be stability in the Union, but the promotion of pure and undefiled religion in the land.

Dr. ANDREW THOMSON quite admitted that the Synod might have stood upon its honour, and referred back to the Synod's treatment of its committee's reports from year to year as implying a general approval of the articles, especially in reference to the first head of the programme. Still, he would be willing to say something more formally and judicially, if not to conciliate any that were resolutely

irreconcilable, yet to remove an occasion of stumbling from the path of the hesitating and timid.

Mr. BROWN, Paisley, had hitherto voted with the majority, but in view of the crisis to which the Church had come, he felt constrained to support Mr. Hutton's amendment.

Mr. BELL, Newcastle, supported the motion. Mr. DAVIDSON, Selkirk, had been taught from the Professor's chair in their Divinity Hall that the duty of the magistrate was not to further religion, but to leave it alone; that the request they should make was, that the magistrate should give them a fair field and no favour; that the Church's cry should be, 'Down with all monopolies of religion, as with all monopolies of trade.' Was it fair, or reasonable, or honest, that the Union Committee should come to him and ask him to say that something quite opposite was the mind of the Church?

Dr. M'EWEN considered the request of the committee rational and reasonable, and thought the Synod would act most unfairly if they refused it.

Mr. LIMONT, Alnwick, hoped the Synod would refuse to give the declaration, and would instruct the committee to take their stand on the authorized standards of the Church, as modified by the qualification.

Dr. MARSHALL and Dr. EADIE defended Dr. Johnston's motion, and, on a vote being taken, the motion of Dr. William Johnstonto declare that in the articles of agreement the committee had fairly represented the

mind of the Church-was carried by a very large majority.

From the resolution of the Synod, Mr. Hutton, Mr. Renton, and others of the minority, entered their protest.

ADDITIONS TO THE MISSION BOARD.

In pursuance of a previous appointment, the Union debate was suspended for a short time at two o'clock in order to allow of the formal designation of the following gentlemen as new members of the Mission Board, viz. The Rev. John Edwards, D.D., Glasgow; the Rev. Wm. Sprott, Glasgow; the Rev. J. Mitchell Harvey, Edinburgh; Rev. Wm. Galletly, Edinburgh; Rev. Wm. Orr, Fenwick; Rev. John Polson, Jedburgh; Rev. John Mitchell, Kirkintilloch; Rev. Robert Rutherford, Newlands; Rev. George Deans, Portobello; Rev. James Dunlop, Kilmarnoek. Elders-Mr. Robert Middleton, Glasgow ; Mr. John M'Ewen, Glasgow; Dr. James D. M'Laren, Glasgow; Mr. James Alexander, Glasgow; Mr. George Pearson, Glasgow; Mr. Peter Hamilton, Glasgow; Mr. James Thin, Edinburgh; Mr. Robert Lawson, Edinburgh; and Mr. W. Whyte Millar, Edinburgh, who were present;-also the Rev. Stephen Wallace, Newcastle; Mr. James E. Russell (London), elder; Mr. James Morton, Greenock, elder; and Mr. Wm. Balleny, elder.

After an appropriate address from the Moderator, and prayer offered by the Rev. P. M'Dowall, ex-moderator, the new members of the Board received the right hand of fellowship.

DISPOSAL OF APPEALS.

Dr. G. JEFFREY reported that the committee appointed for the purpose had met and considered the appeal by the Rev. Alex. Clark against a deed of the Presbytery of Arbroath, dated 4th April 1871, referring the case of Letham congregation, now under his pastoral charge, to the Synod. The committee recommend to the Synod that after one year from October next, as may seem desirable to the Home Mission Board, the supplement to the Letham congregation be discontinued, and that it be remitted to them to make such liberal arrangements with Mr. Clark as his faithful services merit. This was agreed to

nem. con.

Dr. M'GAVIN said another committee had considered the protest and appeal by Dr. J. C. Brown against deed of Presbytery of Berwick of 10th January, refusing to transmit overture by him to Synod. They recommended the Synod to dismiss the protest and appeal, and confirm the decision of the presbytery, which was agreed to.

Dr. RITCHIE reported, on behalf of the committee appointed to consider the protest and appeal by Mr. Michael Jacob, member of Shamrock Street session, against deed of Presbytery of Glasgow of 8th November 1870, sustaining decision of said session in admission of certain parties to fellowship of the Church. They unanimously recommended that the appeal be dismissed, and the decision of the presbytery confirmed, which was approved of.

EVENING SEDERUNT.

The Synod met at six o'clock-Dr. Edmond, moderator.

UNION AMONG ENGLISH PRESBYTERIANS.

The Synod took up the following overture from the Rev. William Graham and others, of the Presbytery of Lancashire :-'Whereas the English Synod of the United Presbyterian Church, at their last meeting, expressed their renewed adherence to the ninth head of programme in the General Union Committee's report; and whereas the said English Synod at said meeting affirmed the desirableness of their immediate union with the English Presbyterian Church on the basis of the said ninth head of programme; it is humbly overtured that your venerable Court take into consideration these premises, and adopt such course of action as may facilitate said union in a constitutional manner, and without undue delay.'

Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. TOWERS were heard in support of the overture, and stated reasons why the union between the English Presbyterian Church and the United Presbyterian Church in England should be immediate.

Mr. MUIR, Egremont, seconded by Mr. HOWAT, Liverpool, moved that the Synod, in the event of any postponement in the general movement for union, gives power to the English Synod of this Church to initiate steps that shall lead to the immediate union of the English Presbyterian Church and the United Presbyterian Church in England in a constitutional manner, and without undue delay. Also appoints members of this Synod to assist the English Synod in its deliberations.'

Mr. BELL, Newcastle, could not agree with Mr. Muir's motion, but was ready to propose -That in the event of the present negotiations for Union being unduly delayed, this Synod gives power to the General Union Committee to consider the question of seeking an immediate union with the Reformed Presbyterian Church and the English Presbyterian Church.' Was it wise, he asked, to break up the United Presbyterian Church in present circumstances, and to become more than one hundred fewer in numbers? If he were a general, he should like to see the battle gained before he dismissed any of his forces.

He believed that in the north of England they would not find one congregation in favour of separation.

Mr. CORBETT, Manchester, seconded Mr. Bell's motion.

The MODERATOR (having left the chair) said he thought that in the present state of the general Union negotiations they would be apt to complicate and hinder the progress of the grand question, by taking any present sectional action whatever; and he was sanguine that the general Union would take such a distinct step in advance, notwithstanding all difficulties, that they should see they had done wisely in just a little longer waiting, and letting things take their course.

Mr. KINNEAR, Dalbeattie, seconded by Mr. JOHNSTON, Dumfries, moved that, 'Having heard the overturists, the Synod deems it inexpedient in present circumstances to travel further in the question raised by the overture.'

Mr. BELL having withdrawn his motion, A vote was taken on the motions of Mr. Muir and Mr. Kinnear, when the latter was carried by a very considerable majority.

FOREIGN CORRESPONDENCE.

Dr. M'EwEN, Glasgow, read the report of the Committee on Foreign Correspondence. In reference to the work assigned to the committee, of selecting stations on the Continent of Europe at which to preach the gospel to the English-speaking population, it was stated that, as the victory of the Prussian arms had left France not only impoverished but unsettled, it seemed to the committee that it would be wiser to defer taking any steps in that direction. The missions of their French brethren would need all the pecuniary support that could be given them; and it was earnestly hoped that the congregations of the Church might be stirred up to active and liberal sympathy on their behalf. The report also referred to the state of Spain, and to the re-union of the Presbyterian Churches in America.

Dr. M'LEOD introduced the American deputies-Dr. Beadle, Philadelphia, and Dr. Adams, New York.

It

Dr. BEADLE said that his salutation, as that of his brother deputy, must be in words of love. They were there to protest against the first word or the first thought or the first act that shall tend to separate the two countries. On the very threshold of the Synod they wished to make this patent to every one, that if ever there should be war between these realms, it should not spring out of the bosom of the Presbyterian Church. No word of theirs would ever be heard crossing the Atlantic ringing in the ears of men to stir up their blood. With regard to the re-union of the Churches in America, he might say that, from the inception of the movement to its consummation, it was apparent to all-enemies as well as friends-that it was the work of God. was not the work of logical argument, it was not debate; but it was the presence of the Divine Spirit, before which every obstacle went down as frost would before the sun. In the Assemblies, previous to this consummation, the presence of God was so apparent that men would not dare to debate; they could only sob out their emotions on the bosom of one another. The union had far more than answered their expectations. He confessed that he was one of those who had strange misgivings as to the results that might come out of the proposed union; but when he came into the presence of the august scenes which the Divine Spirit made patent to all, his fears vanished as the mist does in the morning sun. He then went on to say that the mission work in their large cities had been greatly enlarged, and was classified and directed to a definite point. Their labour among the freedmen was of the most satisfactory nature, and their schools for the coloured population were progressing well. As an instance of what progress had been made, he exhibited a photograph card containing the figures of a section of the South Carolina Legislature. One half