FRIDAY, MAY 18.

The Assembly met to-day at eleven o'clock-Dr Buchanan in the chair. The whole sederunt was set apart for devotional exercises, which were conducted by the Moderator, Rev. Mr M'Donald of North Leith, and Rev. Mr Dodds of Dunbar.

The following ministers were appointed to preach before the Assembly: -On Sabbath, May 20th,-Forenoon, Mr David Guthrie of Liberton ; afternoon, Mr Trail of Glasgow; evening, Mr Fraser of Inverness. On Sabbath the 27th inst.-Forenoon, Mr Blaikie of Pilrig, Edinburgh; afternoon, Mr Wilson of Fullarton; evening, Mr Waterston of Forfar.

EVENING SEDERUNT.

The Assembly met again at seven o'clock.

COMMISSIONS.

The Report of the Committee on Commissions was read. It appeared that the Presbytery of Abertarff had elected their representatives on the 10th April, and this being within forty days before the meeting of the General Assembly was not within the time fixed by the Act. The Committee recommended that the commission should be rejected. The Presbytery of Fordyce had elected Dr David Brown of Aberdeen, a constant member of the Presbytery of Aberdeen, as one of their representatives. Dr Brown resigned, and the Presbytery filled up the place by an after election, and the question was, whether this latter election was a legal

one.

This was mani

Principal CUNNINGHAM said that in the first case the election was clearly illegal. The next case was a very peculiar one. The Presbytery of Fordyce elected as one of their lay representatives, Dr David Brown, who was one of the Professors of Theology at Aberdeen. festly incompetent. Dr Brown resigned his place; and the Presbytery proceeded to fill up the vacancy in the usual way, as if it had been caused by resignation. This was also manifestly incompetent; the first election was nothing, and, therefore, by no possibility could be made a valid basis for a valid superstructure. He had therefore no doubt that the election was an incompetent one. Some conversation took place on the subject, and the Assembly unanimously rejected both the commissions.

COMMITTEE ON BILLS.

The Committee had

The Report of this Committee was given in. agreed to transmit all papers presented to them with the exception of two presented by the Rev. William Miller. One of these papers appeared to be a commission in favour of Mr Miller, as deputy to this Assembly from the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria, and the other was a memorial from Mr Miller with relation to the body so designated. The Committee on Bills had by a majority refused to transmit these papers, on the ground that the body designated in them is not recognised by this Church. From this decision, Mr Stark of Greenock and others had dissented and protested, and Mr Miller had protested and appealed.

Mr STARK said that this was a most important case, deeply affecting the status of Free Churchmen in the British colonies. So far as he un

men

derstood, from Dr Bonar's statements in the Committee, there were just two objections to the transmission of these papers of Mr Miller. The one was, that Mr Miller and his friends had no right to assume the name of the Free Presbyterian Synod of Victoria. The other objection was, that the Assembly of 1858 had foreclosed this question, and deprived these parties altogether of the right to come here. He was prepared to shew that neither of these two objections had any foundation in truth. First, then, as to the name. From this objection it would appear that some other body possessed this name, and that they had taken what had belonged to a third party; but when he put the question to Dr Bonar if that was the fact, he prudently kept silence. and the reason was, that there was no other party claiming this name. The persons who called themselves the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria had left this Church, and they had no wish to have any connexion with it; and, therefore, so far as he knew, it was not the fact that these parties had assumed a name which belonged to other parties. These persons had a right to this name. By what right were they called the Free Church? Who gave them the right to call themselves by that name? They called themselves by it, and never asked anybody's opinion; and these parties called themselves by that name for precisely the same reason-the right of holding our principles; the best of all rights-the right of being Free Churchthe right of standing on the Protest and Deed of Demission. (Applause.) So far as that objection was concerned, he was startled to hear so many leading Free Churchmen hold up their friends to opprobrium for taking such a name. What name would they have wished them to take? If they had called themselves the Presbyterian Synod of Victoria, they would have been assuming a name, because there was a body holding that name, and he supposed the only alternative for them would have been to come with no name at all. (Laughter and cheers.) · As to the second objection, that the Assembly had foreclosed the case, he took leave to deny it altogether. The decision of the Assembly of 1858 had been come to with the view that the union of the Churches in Australia would be brought about on certain grounds, but the basis on which the union had actually taken place was an entirely new one; and therefore the decision of the Assembly of 1858 could by no possibility have relation to the circumstances of the present case, unless, indeed, that decision was prophetical. (Laughter.) There had been a union of parties,-those belonging to the Established Church, those belonging to the Voluntary Church, and part of those belonging to the Free Church; and they would observe that he was not giving an opinion as to the propriety of this union. It might be right, or it might be wrong; but Mr Miller and his friends had given what they alleged to be very good and plausible reasons for not going into the union. One of these was this: The union was based on the Westminster Confession of Faith and the standards of the Church,—a very good basis, apparently; but he put it to Dr Bonar if it was not the fact that each of the three parties had taken these standards in different senses? He maintained that this was no union on principles but a mere coalition of persons. If every man was to be allowed to interpret the standards according to his own view, they might all join together to-morrow. He submitted therefore that the decision of the Assembly of 1858 had nothing to do with the question now before the House, and that their friends had been very badly used. They had com

mitted no fault, and were they to be shut out from being allowed to declare their views before this Assembly? He (Mr Stark) felt very much for Mr Miller and his friends, and he must protest against the injustice that had been done to him. They had been guilty of nothing but being Free Churchmen, and for holding that name they had been expelled from the Free Church of Victoria three years ago. Mr Stark then read a letter from Dr Bonar, written in 1852, disapproving of a union of Erastians and Free Churchmen on the very basis which has now been adopted. He then went on to remark that he was surprised at the difference between the terms in which the Moderator, in his address, had referred to the principles of the Free Church, and the way in which the Committee down-stairs had treated these men. They had given all their countenance and sympathy to those who did not belong to the Free Church, and had withdrawn it from those who were true Free Churchmen. These men had not changed their principles since Dr Bonar wrote his letter in 1852, and he thought therefore that they were entitled to be heard by the Assembly, and to be allowed to explain their position. If the Colonial Committee was to hold fellowship with an independent Church, and to decline to hold intercourse with those who claimed to maintain the principles of the Free Church, the sooner it was discharged the better. Here were five ministers, six congregations, and some thousands of people, most anxious to be connected with the Free Church; and he trusted that the Assembly would do them justice, and that they would reverse the most inequitable and unjust decision of the Committee.

He

Mr MILLER said that the course of the Committee on Bills had seemed to him to imply that he must have fallen from some principles which distinguished the Free Church from all other Churches, and that in some way or other he must have changed or altered his views. This to him was most painful, for he believed that these Bible principles, known as the distinctive principles of the Free Church, were essential to the wellbeing, if not to the existence of the Church of Christ. Nine years ago he was sent out by the Colonial Committee to a certain position in Australia in connexion with a Church holding certain principles, and having its constitution drawn up and printed, so that all men could read it. approved most cordially of the principles and position of that Church, and he wished this Assembly to say in what respect he had altered his principles or changed his position. After referring in eloquent terms to the Disruption, and to the great principles involved in that event, he put it to the Assembly whether they were to allow a few men arbitrarily to alter their principles. If this Assembly rejected him on the ground that he had been expelled from the Synod of which he was a member, they would homologate that act of expulsion, and he did not believe that the Assembly would, even in the most distant way, give their approval to such a tyrannical principle as that. They all knew that in Australia they had laid it down as a fundamental principle, not only that a minority must submit to a majority to which, of course, there was no objection-but they had laid it down that if a majority came to no decision on a certain point, and if the minority returned to that point and claimed the right of discussion, then the majority might turn round and compel the minority to cease their opposition; and if they did not do that, they claimed the liberty of expelling them.

Principal CUNNINGHAM rose to order. Mr Miller was entering upon

the whole question, and was thus virtually exercising the right which he was claiming from the Assembly. The simple question before the House was the decision of the Committee, and to that alone Mr Miller had a right to speak.

Mr MILLER said he just wished to say one or two words more. He stated that the original basis of union, upon which the Assembly of 1858 proceeded, had been abandoned, and a new one substituted, upon which the union had been consummated, and in which there was a clause inserted to protect the Voluntaries, but there was nothing to exclude the Erastian interpretation of the Confession of Faith. He believed that if the Assembly declined to receive him as the representative of the Free Church, it would be a serious discouragement to the Free Church in Australia and all the other colonies. (Applause.)

Dr BONAR, for the Committee, said the matter before them was simply a question of designation. If he was permitted just now to enter upon the general points of the question, he could give a perfectly sufficient answer to all the things which had been said, personally and otherwise, by Mr Stark and Mr Miller. Nobody wished, so far as he knew, that Mr Miller should not have a full opportunity of appearing before this House, and he (Dr Bonar) was most anxious that he should have an opportunity of stating his case to the Assembly. But this could not alter their opinion as to what was right or wrong as to the way in which these parties designated themselves as representing the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria, and claiming to be a Church in connexion with the Free Church. A name was not of much consequence in some cases, but it was of very great importance in others. In this case, to have allowed that the dissentient body was the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria, would have been a great mistake. In his apprehension, anything more dangerous or more disastrous to the interests of Presbyterianism in the colony of Australia could scarcely be conceived, than this Church to give its countenance to the dissentients, of whom Mr Miller was one, and the position which they had taken up. He thought it was impossible to exaggerate the evil consequences that would flow from that course to Presbyterianism in the colonies.

Professor GIBSON rose to order. Dr Bonar was entering into the merits of the case, although that was difficult to avoid. If Mr Miller was not allowed to speak to the merits, neither could Dr Bonar. The Doctor was giving them his opinion as to what would be the result if they should come to a certain determination, and he begged to submit that this was out of order.

Dr BONAR then continued to observe that his reason for referring even so far to the consequences which would, in his opinion, ensue, was simply that he might shew how important giving a name, which would concede the whole question, was in this case. But apart from this, there was real ground in the deliverance of the Assembly of 1858 for refusal of the name. The name claimed was by that deliverance expressly refused to the dissentients, of whom Mr Miller was one, and expressly given to another body. If the house chose to reverse that, they might do so; but so long as that deliverance stood, the Committee on Bills, as well as the Colonial Committee, must pay respect to it. That deliverance said, -"Without pronouncing any opinion on the past proceedings of the Free Synod of Victoria on the one hand, or of the dissentient brethren

on the other, the General Assembly feel bound to declare that the said Synod must be held as standing in the same relation to this Church in which it stood before the new separation took place: And further, that whatever grievance the dissentients may allege as the grounds of their separation, and whatever claim they may have on the sympathy of this Church as brethren actuated by conscientious motives, and who regard themselves as suffering wrongfully, they cannot be recognised by this Church as occupying the position which has hitherto been occupied, and is still, in the judgment of the Assembly, occupied by the Free Synod of Victoria-the position, namely, of the Church in that colony which this Church recognises as a sister Church, maintaining principles in close union with her own." Now, it was because they claimed to Occupy the position here refused directly, solemnly, and unanimously by the General Assembly, that the Colonial Committee first, and the Committee on Bills afterwards, found it necessary to object to the designation which Mr Miller claimed for himself and the body with which he was acting. Mr Miller and his friends occupied the same position now as they did then, and they gloried, in fact, in not having changed. He therefore held that by this deliverance of Assembly, both the Colonial Committee and the Committee on Bills were fully warranted in not allowing these papers to be sent to the Assembly. In the Colonial Committee they had done everything which they could to hear Mr Miller, and if he had only claimed to represent a body calling themselves the Free Presbyterian Church of Victoria, his statements would have been received. In regard to the letter which he had written in 1852 as to the basis of union, there was then, with respect to one of the uniting bodies, a connexion with the Established Church, and that was "a sufficient ground for opposing it;" but that connexion had been formally renounced, for the very purpose of entering on this union, and the Church in Australia now stood a free and independent Church. must also remind them that Mr Miller and his friends had agreed to a basis of union at one time which was as distinctly liable to objections as this one. (No, no.) Taking all these things which he had stated into consideration, he trusted that the Assembly would approve of the decision of the committee.

Mr STARK having replied,

He

Sheriff CLEGHORN said the question now before them was one of relevancy, but into this the question of the merits largely entered; and he thought they should do as the lawyers sometimes did in such cases,leave over the point of relevancy until they heard the case on its merits. Principal CUNNINGHAM said he did not think this suggestion could be entertained. There was a strong feeling that they should resist the forcing of this case on the Assembly at all.

I have my

Professor GIBSON-I must object to any member of this Assembly, however great my deference to him may be, asserting what the general feeling is until that feeling is ascertained in the proper way. privileges as a member of this House; and I maintain that no member has a right to say what the general feeling is before any one has been

heard.

After some further discussion,

Sheriff CLEGHORN moved, "That the consideration of the deliverance of the Committee on Bills be delayed until a future diet, when Mr Miller