events "Quaeque ipse miserrima vidi, Et quorum pars magna fui;” yet not a single hint is given to indicate that fact, or to suggest the remotest suspicion that aught but uttermost tranquillity reigned in the National Church during the time to which it relates. Let us suppose that a century has rolled away. Th s volume has stood sequestered on some library shelf, like many other posthumous volumes of sermons. But a rumour has reached some one of that distant age, that there were stirring events in Scotland during the first half of the nineteenth century. The volume is consulted, if perhaps it may supply some information. Page after page of the Memoir is turned over, but not an allusion is found, though it treats of the very period. All appears to have been halcyon and serene, and our great grandchildren are thus convinced that the rumour of a great Church controversy, about the year 1840, has been all a fable. There is not one reference to it in the life of an Edinburgh ecclesiastic who flourished at the very period, and in the very heart and heat of the rumoured strife. must necessarily be guided by a rule of discernment | The Memoir, moreover, refers to one who might, different from that by which the Omniscient is guided. Æneas-like, have exclaimed, regarding some of these "Man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart." We cannot penetrate the recesses of the human breast; we must "judge after the sight of our eyes, and reprove after the hearing of our ears:" in other words, we can only judge by profession and practice. Of these we may decisively judge by the rules clearly laid down in the Word; and by these alone is it competent for us to act, in the admission or rejection of candidates for Christian privilege. In doing so we may be deceived, by forming either too unfavourable a judgment of the individual, as Eli did in the case of Hannah; or too favourable a judgment, as the apostles did in the case of Simon Magus. And, in the latter case, we may have positive evidence that the person is unworthy of Christian fellowship-he may prove himself to have "neither lot nor part in this matter." But, in this case, the Church cannot be said to have been deceived in any conclusion drawn merely from the profession or practice of the individual, which warranted her in receiving him into communion. It was not because the apostles believed Simon Magus to be a saint that they baptized him, but because he professed his faith in Christ, and they saw nothing previously or presently to warrant them to question the sincerity of his profession; and, not being bound to believe him a real saint, they could not be said to have been deceived in this sense. Again, by those who hold Edwards' view, the reality of the saintship, or the conversion of the applicant, is the point aimed at, and to be ascertained in the investigation, as the ground of his admission to the privileges of the Church. The error of this theory is twofold: first, That it proposes to establish a point confessedly beyond the reach of man's judgment-the state of the heart before God; and, secondly, That it alters the character of the Christian profession, making it consist, not in a confession of faith in Christ, but in a confession of our interest in Christ-not in a profession of Christianity, but a profession that we are Christians. It is needless to show the great difference between these two things. When reduced to practice, they will be found incompatible with each other, and will give an entirely different phase to the two communions in which they will issue. A GARBLED BIOGRAPHY. Ir may be known to some of our readers that some months ago, a volume of sermons, by the late Dr. Archibald Beunie, with a Memoir prefixed, was laid before the public. On the sermons we do not design to offer any remarks. We have to deal exclusively with the Memoir. Every one knows that it is a favourite position with the infidel to argue, that because the events recorded in the New Testament are not minutely described in the profane histories of the period, those events never happened at all. The argument is a shallow one, and has a thousand times been refuted; yet were the principle on which the objection rests applied to the Memoir before us, not a few important events would be utterly blotted out of history. The production embraces the period between 1835 and 1843, with several years both anterior and subsequent to these dates; and yet, in reading it, we discover not a trace of the most interesting incidents of that epoch. In the Memoir of Dr. Bennie there is not one hint by his anonymous Biographer regarding the Church controversy! We appeal to any impartial judge, what verdict should be pronounced on such treatment of facts? Why such reticence? Why such timid shrinking from events which, large in themselves, already bulk more largely in their results? We know not the author of this production; but sure we are, that unless he had been the missionary at St. Kilda, or in some sphere equally secluded, his silence could not be otherwise honourably explained. We do not, of course, expect in a Memoir a perfect detail of all the events contemporaneous with the life; but when the most signal and characteristic doings of the age are silently slurred out of being, though some of them bear directly on the subject of the narrative, we cannot but marvel at the boldness of the biographer; nay more, we cannot but charge him with a flagrant dereliction of literary honesty, for he has blotted out half the life and half the principles of him whom he undertook to describe. We lately saw a letter from a distinguished foreigner proposing that a high prize should be offered for the best essay on the corruptions of history by Popery. The partisans of that Antichristian system, aware that everything but corrupt humanity disowns it, have set themselves from age to age to falsify the records of the past, and make them speak for the Papacy and not against it. Imposture and deceivableness have thus been employed to obliterate the true and substitute the garbled. Now, is something of the same kind, and the same school, to spring up among ourselves? Has that sad seed-time of violated obligations, which preceded May 1843, already begun to bear such ominous fruits? Is it possible that the men who could pass into Strathbogie in defiance of interdicts, but who afterwards succumbed to the very master whom they then vehmently disowned, have already learned to slur out of being the record, the veriest hint, of the existence of such times? There are reasons, we know, why such things should be done, but our wonder is that in the lapse of four brief years, men should have become such adepts in doing them. But what does the author of this Memoir avow as the motive or principle by which he was guided in framing his production as he has done? He says— Everything of a strictly personal and controversial kind will be carefully avoided in the subsequent pages; and without any other preliminary remark, we shall proceed to give a short biographical sketch of one who was not only a loss to his friends, but a public loss."-(Memoir, p. x.) What does the author of this sentence mean by omitting all that is "strictly personal" in the Memoir of a person? Is there an idea in the language? or is there nothing personal introduced where we are told of that person's labours as convener of the committee for endowing quoad sacra churches, to which he was appointed in the ominous year 1843? Is there nothing personal in describing, as the biographer does, the affair of an appointment by the presbytery to the office of convener of a committee for examining students? Must a matter so paltry be chronicled, and others of signal importance utterly delete? Did Dr. Bennie drop his personality when his biographer describes, as he does, his great power of reply in debate? Was his personal identity foregone when he presided over a section of the governors of Heriot's Hospital, and managed them with such adroitness? All these are carefully recorded by the biographer. Indeed, he must have been silent if he had not recorded such personal incidents; and why, then, did he start with the preposterous design of "avoiding everything of a strictly personal nature," in preparing a Memoir of a person? But passing from that, he is to omit also all that is "controversial," and this, we suppose, is his excuse to his readers for the sweeping omissions that he makes. But, after all, does he omit all that is controversial? On the contrary, the Memoir refers to controversy from page to page; and considering the stirring period to which it relates, it could not in the nature of things be otherwise. 1. For example, it appears that the subject of the Memoir had been accused of indulging "tumid rhetoric," instead of plainly preaching the gospel to his people, and the biographer very properly controverts that serious charge with ardour.* 2. The subject of the Memoir was once accused of not preaching the gospel at all. That also occasioned a keen, though minor, controversy; and the biographer describes it as he should do. was 3. The subject of this Memoir was engaged in a protracted and eager contest regarding certain rights belonging to his position while a minister in Stirling. The debate rose very high, and waxed extremely personal. The part which Dr. Bennie took "misrepresented and misunderstood;" " the peaceableness of his disposition was called in question. Even Dr. Andrew Thomson, the prince of Controversialists, was called in to his aid, and he urged the subject of this Memoir to "put forth the most strenuous and uncompromising efforts in working out his own rights;" nay, his glozing, timid, biographer, catching the spirit of controversy, in spite of his vow to the contrary, says that Dr. Thomson "stood by Dr. Bennie in the controversy with the talent and affection for which he was distinguished." After this, why be so squeamish about controversy ? Who does not see through so miserable a pretence?+ 4. The subject of this Memoir was, while a minister at Stirling, engaged in a strenuous and successful controversy in defence of the Sabbath rest. He threw himself with great ardour into it, and his biographer, in terms of becoming eulogy, alludes to the struggle and success.* 5. Dr. Bennie entered keenly into the Apocrypha controversy, as well as that regarding the emancipation of the slaves. Dr. Thomson was even invited to Stirling to advocate the cause of pure Bible circulation. The subject of this Memoir again ardently seconded the attempt; and his biographer, with satisfaction, describes the zealous endeavours that were made in the cause.+ Why, then, pule with such weak sentimentalism about avoiding controversy? But we need not instance farther. It is a sheer impossibility to write the history of any public man in this country, during the past twenty-five years, and avoid the subject, which appears a very Scylla to the biographer of Dr. Bennie. Our readers, however, will clearly understand that the Memoir is prepared by some conscience-smitten author who shrank from no controversy but one, namely, that which ended in the unfettering of the Church, and the enthralling of the Establishment, of Scotland. All controversy relating to the rights of the Church of Christ are eschewed, because it would suggest invidious comparisons with another body. In short, whoever this biographer may be, his discretion is more conspicuous than his candour; and though he may have succeeded in imposing on himself, the transparent finesse is worse than ridiculous to every other mind. But suppose that this biographer had had nothing to conceal, no object to serve, no truth to shade into obscurity-what then, would have been his open, manly course? First, he would manfully have declared that, on the evening of the 21st of November 1839, Dr. Bennie stood forward as the unflinching advocate of the sole and sovereign "Headship of our Lord Jesus Christ" in his Church. The lecturer then said, with characteristic intrepidity— Infringe upon the sovereignty involved in that Headship by admitting others to share it, either in appointing the officebearers, or in interfering with the laws of his kingdom, and you virtually rob the Redeemer of a portion of the glory which he so dearly earned, and in reality violate the arrangements of the counsel of our peace." (P. 3.) Again, he proclaimed "Sometimes kings, at other times ecclesiastics, have usurped supreme power in the Church, prescribed laws for the regulation of its affairs, and appointed institutions to be observed by its members. The independence of the Church has thus been violated through the invasion of the prerogative of its Head. Whoever the parties may be who thus usurp authority in the Church, under whatever pretexts their practices may be designed, or by whatever soft names they may be designated, they are undoubtedly chargeable with an impious interference with the honour and prerogatives of Christ." (P. 9.) Again, he argued— "The Headship of our Lord is a supreme, unshared powera gift conferred, freely and munificently conferred, by the Father on the Son, the glorious symbol of mediatorial dignity, the token and pledge of mediatorial efficiency. This hallowed title is not to be transferred to any other, even by courtesy. It forms too sacred ground for compliment or compromise. Conthe Lord's Anointed, the spiritual King of Zion." (Pp. 9, 10.) cession with respect to it would be treason-treason against Again, he defined "The Saviour's will as to discipline, order, and government must be gathered from the Bible, which is the Christian's statute-book, as well as his record of doctrine." (P. 10.) Again, the subject of the Memoir declared— Memoir, p. xli. ↑ Memoir, p. xli. "The Church possesses a jurisdiction with which no civil power is entitled to interfere, and beyond that jurisdiction the Church itself must not pass. The civil power must confine itself to the temporal-the Church to the spiritual. They are co-ordinate powers; but rightly administered, instead of injuring, they should strengthen and support one another. If the State were to make the Church its own creature, then it might dread it, because, being loosened from its sheet anchor, the Headship of Christ, it would be at the mercy of all those passions and opinions to which, as deprived of its proper standard, it would infallibly be degraded." (P. 12.) And once again "The office-bearers are to be appointed in the Church, and by the Church. The laws which they are to administer are contained in the Bible, and nowhere else." (P. 13.) "The civil magistrate has received no appointment from Christ to govern the Church, nor is there a single passage in Scripture which says that he rules in the name of Christ." (P. 15.) "A voice from our fathers' tombs summons us to firmness. For Christ's kingdoin and crown we are called, in providence, earnestly to contend. . . . . . Worldly policy is against us. Time-serving legislation is against us. Infidelity is against us. In our Master's name, we must boldly meet the dangers arising from these quarters. (P. 18.) Or, passing from the scene of a lecture to the floor of a General Assembly, a faithful biographer would have told that, on the 25th of May 1840, when the great Strathbogie case was in one of its stages, the subject of this Memoir thus concluded an address to the Assembly, vindicating the Church's procedure "The Church of Scotland is now in its proper position. In the second Reformation the distinction was that she was the Church of the people; and I trust that the decision of this night will go forth to the country to show that the mind of the Assembly is identified with the spiritual welfare of the people. Our object in sitting to deliberate here is to maintain the principles of the Church independent of the State, although connected with it. (Great laughter on the Moderate side.) The word independent has evidently been misunderstood by those on the other side. I hold the principle maintained by our first Reformers, that while the Church was acknowledged by the State, the Church was still independent, as a spiritual body, under the Headship of the Lord Jesus Christ." Or, to be more explicit still, an impartial compiler of Memoirs, who could at least be truthful, though he might shrink from controversy, might have followed the subject of his narrative to Ireland, and there, at a banquet given on the 28th of June 1841, he could have let us hear his hero saying "The struggle (then pending between the Church and the civil courts in Scotland) was indeed one between Christ and Cesar. Should the Church prevail, then, delivered from the unhallowed interference of the secular power, she would be an instrument in the hand of her Divine Master, well fitted to promote his cause on earth; but if Cæsar prevailed, the Church would then be a manacled and worthless thing, shorn of her beauty and her strength, quite unfit to prosecute the great and glorious end for which she was designed, and unworthy alike of sympathy and support." All this an honest upright biographer would have said. He would not have exposed himself to the risk of being subpoenaed for partial evidence, or prosecuted for giving a false character. True, he must have gone on to state, that at a subsequent period Dr. Bennie changed his views, or even reversed them; but that was done in foro conscientiæ, and we seek not now to follow him there-we all stand or fall alike to the Searcher of hearts, the sovereign Lord of conscience. But if this Memoir be a specimen of the moral principles now current, the views of honesty and duty to public men, in connection with public events which now prevail, we are forced to confess that the downward effects of the Disruption, and of the sudden abandonment of principle which then took place, on the moral principles of our day, have been more rapidly developed than even we had anticipated. The biographer speaks of “sacerdotal piety” as if he were not a Presbyterian, but a Puseyite-is his treatment of Dr. Bennie's character a specimen? We apprehend that all who are competent to judge will go to the conclusion, that he has done small justice to his subject. He has treated him as if some parts of his conduct were too delicate to be even named, far less defended. It is not too much to say that the conduct of Dr. Bennie, at the period referred to, required explanation. He himself never gave it.. And, now that he is gone, we should shrink from either accusing or judging him. But if any thing could make us think unfavourably of the course which he pursued, it would be the strange and unexplained fact of this omission in his biography. THE QUOAD SACRA QUESTION-ANSWER OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH TO THE FREE CHURCH MEMORIAL.* AFTER a delay of precisely twelve months, the Estab lished Church has come forth with an attempt to answer the Memorial of the Free Church on the subject of quoad sacra churches. The Memorial itself consists only of twenty-four pages-the attempted Reply of fifty-nine; and if the whole year has been devoted to its preparation, it should be as good a one as can be made. We suspect that it was thought very important to give no reply at all. From a manifest grumble in one part of the document, at the new shape which the controversy has assumed, we are convinced that the plunderers of the property of our Free Church people were most unwilling to have their conduct dragged before the bar of public opi nion-were most anxious to have the matter settled entirely in the civil courts, according to the "strinsively to rest their case-and that they have only gent provisions of law," on which they seem exclu been forced to come before the public by the honourable scruples of some of their own members, in regard to the "legal thieving" by which the whole transaction is so manifestly characterized. It might have been well that some one else had been put forth in connection with the case, than a person so notorious as Dr. Simpson is for being "everything by turns, and nothing long." His name will certainly not add any strength to the reply; but in one thing we so far rejoice, that there is a reply at all, and that the whole intentions of the Establishment, in regard to those churches, are clearly brought out. They are determined to have them all, and are only waiting till it is convenient for them to take them. Take the following remarks, for example, in regard to St. Luke's Church, Edinburgh, one of our strongest cases. It is thus stated in the Free Church Memorial: "St. Luke's Church, Edinburgh, cost £5,100. The whole of this, including a donation of £2,000 from a benevolent individual, was subscribed by persons now belonging to the Free Church, except about £70, and £655 paid for the Unitarian Chapel, on whose site St. Luke's stands, by the Kirk-session of St. George's, of whose members, however, a large propor tion now belong to the Free Church. The church is full of * Remarks on the Memorial presented to her Majesty's Govern, ment by a Committee of the Free Church, relative to the Quoad Sacra Churches or Chapels in connection with the Church of Scotland. Lasued under the sanction of the Home Mission Committee of the Church of Scotland. A. L. Simpson, D.D., Convener.. people, all of whom, without exception, belong to the Free Church." On this Dr. Simpson begins to remark, as follows: "This church is still in the hands of the Free Church, which accounts for the fact, that all the sitters belong to them how?]. The church itself, beyond all doubt, belongs to the Establishment, as could be easily shown, were this a proper place for the explanation of feudal titles; and it has been allowed to remain, for the present, with the seceding minister and his congregation, because all the vacancies occasioned by so great a secession cannot be filled up at once, and because the proper owners did not wish to disturb the occupants, so long as they did not absolutely require the chapel themselves." Nothing can exceed the cool effrontery of this; but the same idea pervades the tract, and, therefore, we trust our friends will all be roused from their dream, and see the propriety of at once making common cause to seek redress, by a determined and united effort; and, failing that, to abandon the spoil to the plunderers at once, and for ever: committing their cause to "Him who judgeth righteously," and rejoicing that it is only their goods that they can seize. In regard to the merits, it is quite plain that two questions are continually confounded in the "Remarks" of Dr. Simpson, viz., the question of law, and that of equity. The latter question alone was dealt with in the Memorial of the Free Church; and is that, we apprehend, with which Christian men have chiefly to do. It seems, however, to hold a very subordinate place in the estimation of the authors of the "Remarks." At every turn of difficulty, they take refuge in the idea, that all the quoad sacra churches are "inalienably connected" with the Establishment, "by the most stringent provisions of law." Now, it may be so; and still, if the bona fide conditions of their erection have been violated by the Established Church, the taking of them is an act of manifest robbery notwithstanding. There is certainly an attempt made to grapple with this question, but it is a very lame one : "But not only is the averment that the money to build the Church Extension churches was given on a pledge, condition, or compact, in the proper sense of these terms, in regard to the ecclesiastical status which they and their ministers were to hold, an unsupported and gratuitous assertion; but there is abundant evidence to show both that the contributors did not at the time attach to this point the importance alleged by the memorialists, and also that, whatever importance they might attach to it, they could not possibly lie under any misunderstanding as to the doubtful nature of the Church's power by her own authority to confer such a status, and must have given their money with their eyes fully open to this contingency. It will not do to say that the fact of the existence of the Act of Assembly passed in 1834, conferring the status, was itself a pledge or compact guaranteeing its certainty and permanence, for it is notorious that the most ample warning was given respecting the questionableness of the power of the Church, of her own authority, to pass this act at all. In the public discussions of the subject in the Church courts, this was all along expressly denied by persons of the highest ecclesiastical standing and authority, and numerous dissents and protests were entered on the records of the General Assembly and other Church courts against the competency of such an enactment. The very first reason of dissent given in by Dr. Mearns, Dr. Cook, and others, from the enactment of the Assembly in relation to chapels-of-ease and the ministers of these chapels, was the following:- Because we are fully convinced that it is altogether beyond the power of the General Assembly, involving, as it does, the assumption that the Assembly can confer civil privileges, which can be conferred only by the Legislature.' And in the community at large the same opinion was currently expressed." deeds of any body must be held to bind that body, notwithstanding the dissent of small minorities. The act of the Assembly 1834 was the deed of the Church, and was most express, and carried along with it the consent of the great mass of the kingdom, although such thorough-going Moderates as Dr. Cook, Dr. Mearns, and others, dissented from it. It was as follows: "DECLARATORY ENACTMENT AS TO CHAPELS-OF-EASE. Edinburgh, 31st May, 1834. Sess. 10. "The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, without a vote, approve of the report of their committee, and did, and hereby do, enact and declare, that all ministers already inducted and settled, or who shall hereafter be inducted or settled, as ministers of chapels-of-ease, presently erected and established, or which shall be hereafter erected and established, in terms of the act anent chapels-of-ease, of 1798 or prior thereto, by authority of the General Assembly, or by the presbyteries of the bounds, are and shall be constituent members of the presbyteries and synods within whose bounds the said chapels are, or shall be, respectively situate, and eligible to sit in the General Assembly; and shall enjoy every privilege as fully and freely, and with equal powers with parish ministers of this Church; hereby enjoining and requiring all presbyteries, synods, Church courts, and judicatories, within whose bounds the said chapels are or shall be situate, to receive and enrol the said ministers as members thereof, and put them in all respects on a footing of Presbyterian equality with the parish ministers of this Church; giving, granting, and committing to the said ministers the like powers, and authority, and privileges now pertaining to ministers of this Church, within their respective bounds: And further, the General Assembly did, and hereby do, remit to the presbyteries within whose bounds the said chapels now established are situate, to allot and assign to each of the said chapels a territorial district, and to erect such districts into separate parishes quoad sacra, and to disjoin the same quoad sacra from the parishes whereof they at present form parts; and also to take the necessary measures for selecting and ordaining, according to the rules of the Church, for each of the said districts so to be erected, a body of elders, who, with the said ministers respectively, may exercise sessional jurisdiction within the same: And the Assembly instruct presbyteries to be cautious not to assign a more populous district than it seems possible to attend to: Provided always, that it shall be understood, that the chapels to be erected into parishes shall first have been constituted according to the laws of this Church; for which purpose it will be open to chapels to apply, if not so constituted already." It was unquestionably this act which formed the basis of the whole Church Extension movement, and it is impossible to imagine a more distinct pledge than it involved, that the old chapel system so byterianism, was to be for ever done away. But, odious to the people, and so inconsistent with Presbesides this, in the subscription list for the Glasgow churches, this was made an express condition, with out which the subscription was not to be payable, "That the consent of the Presbytery of Glasgow shall be obtained for the sub-division and erection of new parishes for such churches as may thus be provided," &c. In point of fact, all these churches had parishes assigned to them; and one of their ministers, Dr. M'Leod, sat as moderator of the General Assembly. If all this did not amount to a pledge to the public, what could have amounted to one? Are not the deeds of a majority of a town-council those of the council! and the same thing may be said of all bodies and courts, and even of Parliament itself. No doubt it may be said, This is all true, but the Church had no power to implement this obligation. The answer to this is twofold. The idea of want of power was started by the Moderates themselves, for their own factious purposes. And, besides, is this dis The answer to this is very simple. The public covery any reason for now robbing the people? Is the Church to take advantage of the mistake into which the people were led by her own public deeds, to swindle them out of their property? Is she to be satisfied merely with the idea that she has it now in her power (if the case should turn out to be so) to perpetrate a manifest wrong? The only answer which has been attempted to this appeal which even their seared and insensible consciences appear to feel in some measure, is, "But we will try to make parishes yet." It is clear, however, that they have no power to make them all parishes in any shape, and that this is an abandonment of the whole previous ground. Either the bargain, as it stood, was a good bargain, or if it has been fallen from, the whole negotiation is at an end. The affair should be wound up, and the proceeds fairly divided. To give the people parishes now in connection with a degraded Church, which the mass of them have been forced to leave in consequence of the proceedings of those who are now attempting to take their property, is only a mockery, and no compensation at all for the previous wrong. It is impossible to imagine a more impotent case than that which is attempted in this Residuary manifesto on the question of equity. We do not enter at present into the mass of details contained in the pamphlet, and which have been collected during the past twelvemonth. We know enough on the subject to be aware that many of them are very inaccurate. No doubt this will be exposed in due time. The Free Church has no wish to higgle about sums. She is, we have no doubt, quite prepared to give every doubtful sum over to the Establishment. But, meantime, there are a number of mistakes which appear on the first blush of the document. For example, in the Memorial of the Free Church, the following principle was stated in regard to the grants from the Assembly's general fund :— "It is to be observed, that in the following calculations, no mention is made of the sums received from the general fund of the Assembly's Committee, because it is quite certain that more than one-half of that fund was contributed by persons now belonging to the Free Church. That fund may, therefore, fairly be held to be neutral in a question of equity." ever, cost about £4,500. The balance was advanced by the Now, at p. 57, in speaking of the North Church, Stirling, it is said: "At the last communion in the North Church, in the beginning of the present month, there were about 360 communicants. In estimating the number of a congregation, the communicants are generally held to amount to one-third of the whole; and according to this rule, the congregation in the North Church will exceed 1,000. The East and West Churches are both occupied by congregations." This is perhaps as striking a specimen of bold affirmation as could easily be produced. The North Church, Stirling, it appears from another part of the same passage, contains "about 1,000 sitters." But the Moderate congregation "will exceed 1000." By the calculation it amounts to 1,080. The church must, of course, be crammed. But what is the use of such calculations, if people wish to tell the truth? And, besides, the calculation is founded on most preposterous data, as applicable to Moderates. Even where there is discipline, the communicants amount to about one-half of the hearers. Where there is none, the Moderates will often be found with twice or thrice as many communicants as regular hearers-persons who never darken the door of the church except on the sacrament Sabbath. The whole passage in regard to this Stirling case is most discreditable, and is a fair sample of the pamphlet. One other case. seven Nothing could be more fair and liberal than this, especially if, as Dr. Chalmers affirms, eighths" of the whole sum was contributed by members of the Free Church. No attempt is made to combat the fairness of this principle, but the whole sum is coolly set down as if it had been a gift to the various Churches by the adherents of the present Establishment! Again, speaking of empty churches, at p. 30, it is said: "The chapels of Greenhead and St. Thomas's (Glasgow) have not been in the bands of the Church of Scotland since the secession." Again, at p. 50, it is stated that the whole of the churches of the Church Building Society of Glasgow, "have been actually seized upon by the adherents of the Free Church,' with the "exception of St. Matthew's and GREENHEAD." There must be a manifest mistake here. "Greenhead" Church cannot be in both predicaments. In fact, is it not the place where the " clerical deserter" was lately holding forth in behalf of the Establishment? Take another sample. The following statement was made in the Free Church Memorial, in regard to the North Church, Stirling : "In 1841, an additional church and school were built in Stirling by voluntary contributions. For this purpose about £1,816, 138. was raised by subscription. The building, how Dr. Simpson crows over the persons who were foolish enough to lend money on Newington Church, and who can neither get principal nor interest now, on the ground that they were only to be paid "AFTER PAYMENT of the salary to be paid to the minister," &c. Now this is the very hardship of which complaint is made. The document is cunningly worded. It was during the height of Dr. Gordon's popularity that this condition was made; and no one ever dreamt that it would not be fulfilled. Now there is no minister at all; and as there seems to be no intention of ever paying one farthing of the money, the affair is anything but creditable. But, instead of being ashamed of this, it is triumphed over as a victory. It is the victory of legal quibbles over manifest justice, and reminds one more of the Old Bailey than of a Christian Church. 66 It is well, however, that the whole matter is now before the public, and that our enemy hath written a book." It will no doubt be duly canvassed, and will do much to illustrate the true spirit of the Establishment. We must never forget that Dr. Chalmers, with whom the whole Church Extension movement originated, and by whose gigantic energy it was carried forward, has recorded his decided opinion on the whole question. In his evidence before the Site |