clergyman, whose pulpit ministrations were ere long so popular, and whose admirable works are still so highly prized by the people of the country he adorned. There are circumstances connected with such events which cannot be written or expressed. "It does not seldom happen that we diminish the number of true believers by determining too arbitrarily, and too shortsightedly, the marks by which the state of grace is to be recognised. We wish, for instance, to prescribe to the Holy Spirit, who is free and bloweth where He listeth, a certain course which He has to pursue in the conversion of all human hearts. In the self-same manner as He has subdued and leads us He is also to act with all the rest. But pray, who are we that would lay down a rule to the Holy Spirit for his work?"-Krumacher's Elijah.

Although the same subject be introduced by you again, at p. 63, it will not be further noticed, as it immediately leads to subjects too hallowed to be hastily discussed in this publication. Suppositions that would confer on "pious congregations" a knowledge of the motives, feelings and and future intentions of a presentee, cannot be entertained.

You next proceed to rear a powerful argument in support of the unambitious views of the Vetoists, in consequence of the chapel ministers "more generally than the parochial ministers" voting for the veto. Your words are, page 32, "It is also to be observed that these chapel ministers, who were more exposed to popular influence than any others in the Assembly, more generally than the parochial ministers, voted for the veto." The Assembly decided in favour of the Veto Act, by a majority, on Tuesday the 27th day of May, 1834. It was not until Thursday the 29th of May, 1834, the proposal to admit chapel ministers was stated in the Assembly, and carried after a long debate. It is unnecessary to add that not one chapel minister was a member of Assembly when the veto was carried, and, consequently, not one chapel minister could vote either against or "for the veto."

The Veto, already supposed to be an exhausted topic, you again introduce thus:-" Some indeed have thought this

Ꭰ

question of the veto was clerical and not popular, and that the origin is to be sought, not in the wishes of the congregation, but in the ambition of their ministers. But no mistake could be more complete." Here we happily agree in our conclusion, although from different causes, which it is unnecessary to detail. While, however, the motives of the clergymen who voted for the veto may have been unimpeachable, the effect of it undoubtedly was to increase their party in the Kirk. Of this, evidence is afforded, Case, page 36, "Under the absolute patronage which prevailed between 1820 and 1830, there were ordained 128 moderate ministers, and 195 evangelical, but between 1830 and 1840, during part of which time the veto came into exercise, there were ordained 91 moderates and 298 evangelical." "This important decision (the approval of the veto by a majority of the General Assembly) took place on Tuesday the 27th day of May, 1834; and with it terminated the reign of Moderatism in the Church of Scotland."-Hetherington.

In pages 34 and 35 you plead the cause of the "poor communicants," but you do not define the poverty with which you sympathize. Do you mean that the pauper, being a communicant and the male head of a family, is especially entitled to exercise the veto? Is he generally competent to judge of the "piety, learning and ability," of the presentee? Are the uneducated the least liable to error? When you desire to ascertain the merits or defects of a sermon, do you repair to the work house for an opinion, or do you enquire of persons of education and intelligence? "Blessed are the poor in spirit" although a coronet sparkle on their brow! But did the Veto Act place the election of their minister in the power of "poor and pious communicants?" No. It created a class monopoly, upon no scriptural, upon no constitutional, and upon no recognised principle, in the history of any Christian Church. It empowered "male heads of families being communicants" to reject a clergyman, irrespective of the wishes of other parishioners, including all the poor and other regular

communicants not male heads of families, who were always a large majority of the members of the Kirk.

Case, p. 37, has already been noticed, and the writer agrees with you, when you state, p. 39, that the licencethe granting of permission to preach-would not, in all instances, be a sufficient guarantee to congregations. But when, to show the insufficiency of other "checks" to his ordination, you are obliged to conjure to your aid an "ungodly Presbytery" rejecting him, or a "conscientious Presbytery" receiving him, and a General Assembly, opposed to evangelical doctrine," refusing him; you assume for the members of a party what cannot be granted, viz.:-That they must be always wrong, and those who differ from them always right, although they may act as conscientiously in their interpretation of Scripture, and of the standards of the Kirk, as those who think differently. It may be pardoned, if it be here stated, that, while moderatism, in the cold legal sense of the word, is neither the doctrine nor the desire of the members of the Established Church of Scotland, orthodox preaching is both; and seldom, in her history, has she been more graciously favoured, than at this moment, with earnest and faithful preachers of the words of eternal life.

VIII. In the preceding pages the practice of the Scottish Kirk, in the election of ministers, has been fully narrated, and a selection of passages from the Acts, which regulated that process, has been adduced to prove that the practice of rejection, without reasons stated, was, previous to the Veto Act, unknown in the Kirk. It may be proper to add that the Veto Act was unscriptural. One who had personal intercourse with the Saviour, while on earth, and who, therefore, had peculiar advantages of knowing his mind, repudiates the attempt by his enemies to fix undefined accusations, for the purpose of obstructing our Lord's Ministry, in these words, "doth our law judge any man before it hear him, and know what he doeth?" And, again, the example of Saint Paul was set at nought by the Veto

Act, since, in rejecting a minister, he stated his reasons:— "And Barnabas determined to take with them, John, whose surname was Mark, but Paul thought it not good to take him with them, who departed from them, from Pamphylia, and went not with them to the work."

PART II.

The Church of Scotland continues to possess, as she has ever done, spiritual independence and spiritual freedom; and those who say she has surrendered her liberty, either ignorantly misunderstand, or wilfully misrepresent her condition.

General Assembly's Letter of Sympathy to the Presbyterian Church in Canada.

WHEN the Veto Act was found to be less defensible than at first was anticipated, another topic was introduced, the spiritual independence of the Kirk. Case, page 42, “The ministers and members of the Free Church have maintained, and maintain still, that every Church must obey fully the commands of Christ, and, therefore, must be allowed to judge for itself what these commands are." These words contain an assertion and an inference. The former is indisputablethe latter, if unlimited, demands of Protestants what the Church of Rome demanded in the Council of Trent. Mosheim, the Protestant historian, referred to by you as an authority, states in reference to that Council, "A severe and intolerable law was enacted, with respect to all interpreters and expositors of the Scriptures, by which they were forbidden to explain the sense of these divine books, in matters relating to faith and practice, in such a manner as to make them speak a different language from that of the Church and ancient Doctors. The same law further declared that the Church alone (i. e. its ruler, the Roman Pontiff,) had the right of determining the true meaning and

signification of Scripture."-Mosheim, vol. iv. If the Free Church avow itself a new Church, it can adopt what rules it chooses for its tenets and government; but, as some of its members cherish the idea that they still adhere to the true principles of the Scottish Kirk, an inquiry as to the truth of this assumption, and as to the jurisdiction of the Kirk, may be here briefly introduced.

X. That "every Church must obey fully the commands of Christ," which commands are contained in the Scriptures, the fathers of the Reformation in Scotland would have maintained unto the death; but these commands included obedience to the civil magistrate. This they felt and acknowledged. He who founded the Church upon a rock, also directed Cæsar's rights to be respected, and the laws to be obeyed in a very ample sense:-"The Scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat; ALL, therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do." The fathers of the Scottish Kirk claimed for her certain rights, with which no earthly power was permitted to interfere: these were defined and secured to them by law, and in all other cases they looked upon the civil power as an important auxiliary, year after year, entreating its aid, and, so far from considering the Kirk an infallible judge, they invited protection, assistance and direction, from the civil power. "If Aaron and his sons," Knox writes, "were subject to Moses, that they did nothing but at his commandment, who dare be so bold as to affirm that the civil magistrate had nothing to do in matters of religion? For, seeing that then God did so straitly require that even those who did bear the figure of Christ should receive from the civil power, as it were, their sanctification and entrance into their office; and seeing, also, that Moses was so far preferred to Aaron that the one commanded and the other did obey; who dare esteem that the civil power is now become so profane in God's eyes that it is sequestred from all intromission with the matters of religion?"-Appellation of John Knox. When the congregation in 1558 sought certain concessions of the Scottish