impression of its genius and its issues. Even then more charity might have been shown in the way of making distinctions between Voluntary and Voluntary. But it was natural enough to look at Voluntaryism as one negative tendency that might be estimated by its extreme result. It is a very different thing when a positive doctrine has been laid down, as in the Articles of Agreement, as to what states and rulers ought to do towards religion and the Church, and when the negative-the statement of what they ought not to do-has been limited to Establishments. It is no inconsistency for men to state that what they said of Voluntaryism, whether rightly or wrongly, before these explanations, they could not without slander apply to United Presbyterians now, after those explanations.

That this is the true state of the case, shall be proved from Dr. Begg's own materials. He has quoted (pp. 13, 14) an "admirable speech" of Dr. Gibson's, in 1854, which he ought to have blushed to refer to. That speech is designed to bring out the evils of Voluntaryism. But what is the Voluntaryism which Dr. Gibson contemplates, and against which he puts the Church on its guard? Why, it is a Voluntaryism which denied that "rulers were under responsibility to God, and must own a higher power than their own in the execution of their office." It is Voluntaryism which "teaches the magistrate that he has nothing to do with religion, and of course religion has nothing to do with him." It is Voluntaryism to which the magistrate responds by saying, "You tell me I am not entitled in my office to rule by the revealed Word of God; that that whole region is beyond my province;" or, again, "You tell me that I ought to recognize no law and no authority but State consideration." It is Voluntaryism described in another passage, not quoted by Dr. Begg, as the denial of the right and duty of the civil magistrate as such, and in his official capacity, to concern himself about the honour of God, to protect and aid the true religion, and to be guided and ruled by the revealed Word of the living God." It is precisely, in short, that Voluntaryism which the Articles of Agreement renounce and shut out in behalf of all the Churches concerned in them. That was the Voluntaryism then in view, on the evidence of Dr. Begg's own witness. Will Dr. Begg, having been a party to the drawing up and settling of the Articles of Agreement, venture to apply Dr. Gibson's description to the Voluntaryism of the United Presbyterian brethren who joined with him in that work? He certainly will not. That would be a calumny far less excusable than any private rumours of which he complains, because it would be in the face of clear public evidence, in the formulating of which he himself took part. We certainly do not impute to Dr. Begg that he could be guilty of such an outrage. But why then does he quote these speeches as if they were applicable to present questions, when evidence that they are utterly inapplicable stares him in the face? Secondly, however, Dr. Begg has more to say, and perhaps this will turn out more cogent. He proves-and this also nobody disputes-that in 1853 leading men in the Free Church laid stress, not only on the duty of the nations and rulers in general, but also on a scriptural alliance between. Church and State, and on the lawfulness of Establishments. They took part in measures for the confirmation of the people in that view, as material to be held and maintained by Free Churchmen, and they deprecated the idea of forsaking that ground. Yet now, fifteen years after, they are willing to unite with those who are opposed to Establishments. They still think Establishments lawful, but why do they not still propose to lay the same stress upon them? The answer is obvious, so obvious that we are half ashamed to occupy space in stating it. It is briefly this. In 1853 the Free Church was still controlled mainly by the consciousness of her pre-Disruption condition: and she was not yet conscious of her real relation to the other non-Established Churches.

The opinion of the Free Church about Establishments was very clear, being manifested in the emphatic form of being actually established up to 1843. The separation from the State in that year proceeded from no doubt about the lawfulness of Establishments, but from quite other causes. It arose from adherence to principles regarding the spiritual independence of the Church-principles of high rank and high practical moment. In order that the principles really in question might not be misapprehended, it was felt at the moment of the Disruption to be of great importance to disclaim any other ground of change, and to make it clear that if the principle of the Church's independence had not been brought into question, the members of the Free Church could well have remained in the Establishment. That, therefore, was then strongly asserted by Dr. Chalmers and others, ast well as in the public documents. In 1853, ten years after the Disruption, the same motive operated, and with nearly the same force. In order that the true significance of the Disruption might not be misapprehended, it was material that the Free Church, as representing the Disruption and em

This

bodying its results, should be seen and understood to have no other foundation for its separate existence than the Disruption question itself. was motive enough for bringing out emphatically the fact, that both as to principles and applications, we held, and meant to hold, all the old ground on the question of Establishments. To bring that emphatically out was to do justice to a fact; and it was the proper way to isolate and hold up conspicuously, as our especial testimony, the precise testimony of the Disruption. the Disruption. There was nothing in that to hinder us from considering afterwards whether it was legitimate to make the whole old ground, applications as well as principles, a term of official communion.

But, in truth, nothing had yet occurred to justify the attempt to make any separation or distinction between principles and applications in this Establishment question. The impressions of Voluntaryism nursed in the minds of some by the Voluntary controversy, and expressed by Dr. Gibson, as we have seen, presented an obstacle to the idea of speedy approximation. And though the mutual regard of Christian men, and men of sense, was already preparing the way for an understanding between us and the other denominations, that was far as yet from taking any definite shape. Over against Voluntaryism, which seemed capable of stretching to such huge dimensions, we maintained our whole convictions about the magistrate's duty. There was nothing as yet to call upon us to say whether all those convictions for which we testified were entitled to claim with equal prominence and permanence a place among our terms of communion. And, in particular, there was as yet no general disposition to contemplate the duty of union with such a body as the United Presbyterian Church, or to believe in the possibility of it. This proceeded largely from a very natural unwillingness to do anything, however unobjectionable it might be, that could impair or obscure the relation in which our Church stood to the great event of the Disruption. The idea of a large element coming into the Church that traced its descent by quite another line, was quite unwelcome. Dr. Chalmers had early risen above this feeling, so probably had others; but they did not represent the prevailing feeling. Even if the difference about Voluntaryism had been more justly measured, the desire to get over it was not yet strong. The prevailing desire was to abide as we were. But when a Church believes it to be her duty to abide as she is, and to maintain a state of separation from other and kindred bodies, she must carefully state and fully bring out everything in which she differs from them. She must, in that case, do full justice to her difference, both in principle and in inference, that her people may be fully in possession of it. She must make out her difference to be both theoretically and practically sufficient. That was our position between the Establishment and the United Presbyterians in 1853. No reasonable probability of a harmony sufficient for union with the United Presbyterians being yet in sight, we stated our differences, as we understood them, not in a hostile spirit, but with an emphasis sufficient to mark the boundary line. And we stated the whole difference, making no question how much of it ought to be regarded as insuperable, and how much of it might not be so if it stood by itself. There is no inconsistency in saying subsequently, "The whole difference, if it had proved to exist, would have been sufficient to justify separation; but the smaller part of it, which alone proves to be in existence, is not sufficient."

Thirdly, Dr. Begg must excuse us for saying that no man ought to be more cautious in referring to 1853 and the subsequent years. In the speech quoted by Dr. Buchanan, he said that the reassertion of our principles in the form of submitting the Claim of Right afresh to Government would "tend to make a great schism between ourselves and the other Dissenting denominations," and that our practical movement should be in the direction of cultivating a good understanding with the Dissenting denominations." That was taken as significant at the time, for there was an explosion of "Oh, ohs!" which surely would not have taken place if mere Christian friendship towards Dissenting Christians were supposed to be pointed at. And the explosion was natural: for if you are to forbear to press your principles on Government, for the sake of culti vating closer relations with bodies who would be alienated if you approached Government, that does seem to point towards a union with them, rather than a union with Government-a union with them even if they object to any alliances with Government. But what did Dr. Begg mean? Dr. Begg says he meant nothing like union with people who object to Establishments, inasmuch as he said, at the same time, that " we should maintain our principles." This does not convince us; for there is not a man alive whom we should have thought, a few years ago, more likely or more competent than Dr. Begg to convince men that a union in spite of this minor difference is quite consistent with "our principles." We need not, however, dispute Dr. Begg's exposition of his own phrase. We should like to ask whether,

Correspondence.

Correspondents will be good enough to send their names and addresses, not necessarily for publication, but for the purpose of guaranteeing the bona fide character of the correspondence. The Editor reserves the right to give the substance of letters briefly.

THE "WATCHWORD" AND THE "FREE CHURCH MINISTERS' SONS, &c., SOCIETY."

SIR, The February number of the "Watchword " devotes a paragraph to an attack upon the "Society for the Benefit of the Sons and Daughters of Ministers and Missionaries of the Free Church of Scotland."

It has been reserved for the "Watchword" to say the first and only unkind word of a Society which has carried comfort to many Free Church manses, and which has cheered, by its help, many of the children of the manso at important and critical periods of their history.

When the Society was first organized, ten years ago, the leading ministers of the Free Church signed a warm recommendation of its claims, and that document is now lying before me.

I find the name of Dr. Begg attached to it, and as, rightly or wrongly, the "Watchword" is believed to express Dr. Begg's sentiments and to advocate his opinions, it may be well to compare the two:

Recommendation of the Society, signed

in 1859 by the leading Ministers of the Free Church, including Dr. Begg,

"We regard with great interest the formation of a Society for the benefit of sons and daughters of ministers of the Free Church. From personal knowledge, we can testify to the existence of cases of great hardship and difficulty in obtaining suitable opportunities of education and business training for the families of ministers, especially in country districts. We cordially recommend to the members of the Free Church the support of this Society, which, we believe, will render most important service to the ministers of the Church and their families; and that in a manner which must ever be felt to be alike honourable to those who receive such aid and to those who impart it."

The inconsistency of the above extracts is as nothing compared with the folly of condemning, on such grounds, the granting of educational "presentation bursaries," which the best families in our land covet for their sons at all our universities.

The "Watchword" proceeds to attack the Society on the ground of extravagance in its management, saying that "if the present system is to be continued the scheme might be managed for little or nothing by one of the clerks of the Sustentation Fund;" along with the dividend of which the writer of the paragraph proposes that the Society's grants should be distributed.

Those who know the amount of labour connected with the management of the Society and the distribution of its funds, see at once the unreasonableness and impracticability of this suggestion; but the readers of the "Watchword" may perhaps be led away by its zeal for the feelings of our ministers and for the purses of the Society's members.

I venture to assure them, therefore (speaking from a very intimate knowledge of the origin and history of the Society), that its management is carefully economical, and that its Committee are in possession of abundant evidence not only of the large amount of good done by its grants, but of the gratitude of our Church's ministers or their widows for the considerate and delicate manner of doing it.

It may be mentioned as a fact, that since the date of the Society's formation, a considerably increased number of ministers' sons have studied for the ministry of the gospel in our Free Church colleges. It is surely not unreasonable to suppose that, in part at least, the edu

cational grants of the Society have contributed to this most gratifying and desirable state of matters.

It is, to say the least of it, unfortunate that the "Watchword," which is so loud in its professions of attachment to the Free Church, should attack and injure a Society which the Church, as a body, recommends and fosters; and it is not very encouraging for those who are anxious to promote the interests of our ministers, to find themselves opposed and thwarted in their efforts in this way.

I have perfect confidence, however, that the members of our Church will continue to stand by a Society which has commended itself to their generous support by its unobtrusive and yet most effective work; and that our ministers, throughout the whole bounds of our Church, will resent this treatment of a Society to which so many of them have, in the strongest terms, expressed their obligations.-I am, &c., D. MACLAGAN.

MR. MOODY STUART'S PAMPHLET. DEAR SIR,-There are few men in the Church for whom I entertain such esteem and affection as Mr. Moody Stuart; and having heard his recent pamphlet commended as a demonstration," "unanswerable," &c., I felt bound to procure and carefully peruse it for myself.

That it is ably written was only to be expected; but, so far from commending itself as a demonstration," the pamphlet seemed to me to carry its own refutation in its bosom.

Let me explain. The one object of Mr. Moody Stuart is to prove that by express and particular statements the Confession of Faith imposes upon every man honestly and unreservedly signing it the belief that to “establish religion," in the sense of setting up by civil enactment an Established Church in the land, is a prime duty of the civil magistrate. That is what the pamphlet undertakes to demonstrate-not that the principles from which such a doctrine may be warrantably deduced are in the Confession (these principles, he tells us, are not in it), but that the precise and particular doctrine itself is so explicitly announced that thereto any honest man signing the document is bound.

Now this may or may not be so. How does Mr. Moody Stuart set about to prove it? is the question. In this way, by showing first that the Confession takes it all for granted, and then inferring that it must needs also express what it takes for granted! At page 22 of the pamphlet, Mr. Moody Stuart tells us that on turning to the pages of the Confession after reading Dr. Buchanan's speech, which stumbled him so much, he discovered that "the Headship of Christ over the nations is never once either named or alluded to." And the explanation he gives of the Confession's silence upon this great doctrine and others connected with it is this, that while "the framers of the Confession were full of the principles and views which Dr. Buchanan ascribes to the Confession itself, they held them as undisputed, took them for granted, and THEREFORE did not express them in their creed. Very good; only it would seem that, in dealing with Church Establishments, the framers of the Confession adopted a principle the very reverse, and just because they held as undisputed and took for granted the doctrine, therefore they did express it in their creed. For this is just his argument, and often put in such a way as to show clearly its self-contradictory character. He contends that so obviously does the Confession take for granted the thing to be proved, that only upon this idea is it at all intelligible. 'The whole article," he says, " proceeds on the clear supposition of an Established Church." "Church Establishment was never called in question by the Westminster Divines;" the very reason given for the silence of the Confession as to the Headship of Christ over the nations, and yet he says, "The duty of National Establishments it plainly states." Surely there is some great confusion here; and it shows itself more fully when Mr. Moody Stuart goes on to contend that before the civil magistrate can do any of those things specified as his duty by the Confession-" settle the ordinances," for example he must first have established the Church. "What steps can the magistrate take," he asks," except he has first officially recognized and ratified the truth" -that is, as he understands it, established the Church?

Well, but if there be any truth in all this-and I do not say there is not; on the contrary, I believe there

is some truth in it-what becomes of the main argument of the pamphlet, namely, that those express and particular clauses of the Confession, especially the one containing this now famous word "settle," have for their one only object to teach and bind us to the doctrine of the civil magistrate's duty to establish the Church? On Mr. Moody Stuart's own showing, it just comes to this, that the civil magistrate's duty is to establish the Church which he had already established; to do what it was impossible for him to do till he had first done it.

Then, again, the only way, as Mr. Moody Stuart admits, by which, according to the Confession, the magistrate can competently set about the doing of the things allotted to him is, by calling Synods, &c., for that purpose. Well, through whole pages of his pamphlet he contends that these synods must be synods of an already Established Church. To hold otherwise would be, he maintains, "to ascribe to the civil magistrate an Erastian and arbitrary power, to which no limits can well be set." But if so, how can the meaning of "settling the ordinances" be the setting up by civil enactments of an Established Church, when the very synod through which this is to be done is of necessity the synod of a Church already established? Surely, it is evident, on Mr. Moody Stuart's showing, again, that whatever meaning may attach to this wonderful word "settle" in those many other documents referred to, it can only, in the Confession, describe something or other which the magistrate may lawfully do for a Church he has already established; and if so, what becomes of the great argument founded on this one little word?

If not encroaching too far on your space, I would fain say further, that the discovery made by Mr. Moody Stuart as to the silence of the Confession about the headship over the nations, might have led him to pause ere penning those unseemly and severe words about distinguished and venerated fathers who differ from him on that one point of his pamphlet, and to reflect that after all Dr. Candlish may have been right in saying that at all the great periods of our Scottish Church history the main contention and testimony were for the headship over the Church-a doctrine which "the framers of the Confession" were careful not to take for granted, and therefore leave out, but with unambiguous clearness to express in their creed. The fact to which Mr. Moody Stuart calls attention-namely, the absence from the Confession of the first of these two doctrinesis not without its significance and bearing on present controversies.-I am, &c.,

A COUNTRY MINISTER.

HIGHLANDERS NOT OPPOSED TO UNION.

SIR," Have you heard of the new sect that has come to our island?" said a serious-looking countryman to a stranger whom he met on a tour through the Hebrides some years ago. "No," replied the stranger; "who are they? Indeed, sir," continued he, " I do not know much about them; but they aro a dangerous sect; they call them P. Qs." The name was new to him, and probably his version of it was new to everybody else as well. He did not profess to know more about them. He thought the name itself sufficient to indicate the dangerous character of the sect they were. He had such horror of them that he could not conceive it possible for any man of true piety to hold intercourse with them. The sect referred to was the nucleus of a United Presbyterian congregation about to be formed in an island town, and it is possible that our alarmed friend was not very hostile to the principles of the United Presbyterian Church after all. No one is warranted to infer, from what he said, that there was any difference of opinion between him and them. Did he speak disrespectfully of the United Presbyterians? Did he find fault with the doctrines they preached? Did he condemn their creed or repudiate their principles? He did not. He knew nothing about them to speak for or against them. To do him justice, it must be said that he aimed, not at any Christian denomination in existence, but simply at a ghost of his own imagination, conjured into being by the novelty of the name and the garbled account he received of those to whom he referred. Just so is the case with many of our Highlanders who are now-a-days represented as averse to Union with their United Presbyterian brethren. Many who express their disapprobation of

the Union movement know as little of what they say, and of the things whereof they do affirm, as that man did. While this is the case, their disapprobation or approbation can be of no great value. They are not qualified to give an opinion on a matter of which they are ignorant, and we consider it unfair to take notice of any opinion that may be forced from them as long as they are left to labour under a mistake on the subject. It is premature to say how they will act when properly informed and educated to an intelligent understanding of the steps they are called upon to take. We are quite sure that those who take advantage of their uninformed state at present, and labour to get at their prejudices in order to raise a clamour in favour of their own party, will find themselves disappointed when the matter is fully understood by our people. Having been born and brought up in a Highland home, we are as jealous of the honour of the Highlanders as any man can be, but we cannot shut our eyes on the fact that they, like other people in similar circumstances, are not yet prepared to say whether or not they approve of the contemplated Union. They are not in possession of the information needed to enable them to say yea or nay in the matter. A specimen or two of the speeches of some of them may serve to prove this. Shortly after the close of the Assembly of 1867, two Highland friends met and began to talk of Church matters. I suppose you heard what was done at last Assembly," said one of them to the other. "The most of our ministers are now for doing away with the Shorter Catechism. Your minister voted for that along with the majority, and Mr. MacColl voted against it." Not far from the same place, and about the same time, an earnest-like woman communicated the sad tidings to one of her acquaintances in a different form. "Your minister," said she, "has joined another Church since he went to Edinburgh. I could scarcely believe it, but there is no mistake about it. I heard it from the minister of. I do not know what Church it is, but it is awful. I am told it is as bad as the Roman Catholic Church." One could scarcely conceive how people, surrounded with the many sources of information we have in our day, could receive such misrepresentation of facts or believe such absurdity. But there it is, make of it what you will. And sad to say, there are some who seem to regard such exhibitions of ignorance and confusion as a favourable symptom for the cause. They seem to rejoice at the idea of having such convenient material to work upon and work with. Instead of instructing the people, and explaining the nature of the work in which the Church is engaged, they appear to us to act in the spirit of the old adage, “ Ignorance is the mother of devotion." We have endeavoured to keep our ear open to every sound on the subject that could reach us for the last few years, and our experience constrains us to say, that though we have heard a good deal from our anti-Union friends by way of clamant appeals warning people of the danger of being carried away by a backsliding majority, we have heard little or nothing in explanation of the real state of the question that is before the Church. Common people in some districts receive no more information on the subject than what they can gather from the vague and indefinite cry of no surrender of principles and no union with heretics, which is continually kept up in their hearing. This is an easy way of getting at the prejudices and prepossessions of well-disposed simple people, but it cannot be the honest way of going to work. It amounts, in our opinion, to a species of pious fraud. And we may rest assured that it will have its reward some day; perhaps sooner than we expect it. People are beginning to see already that they were misled by those to whom they looked for guidance. They see that those who were represented as semi-heretics, are still as faithful to the principles of the Church as those who claimed to be their sole defenders. They see that those who would leave the Establishment dogma an open question have as much respect for the privileges of the people and the honour of the great Head of the Church, as those who cry for State connection as the sheet-anchor of the Church's safety. It is a rare thing indeed to meet with a Highlander who will not agree to the views of the majority, when clearly set before him. We have carefully examined the matter and found this to be the case. Some of our Highlanders may be easily prejudiced against those who differ from them on Church questions; but they are much misrepresented when they are held up as obstructions in the way of the Church's progress, or as a class who are at heart opposed to liberal and

Memoir and Remains of the Rev. James D. Burns, M.A., of Hampstead. By the late Rev. James Hamilton, D.D. London: James Nisbet and Co. 1869.

It was most fitting that the life of Mr. Burns of Hampstead should not merely be written, but have Dr. James Hamilton for the biographer. Christian readers naturally desired to know more of one whose words of delicate beauty and pathos had tenderly touched and moved their hearts; and to none could they more confidently have intrusted the task than to him whose kindred spirit, and warm friendship, and intense appreciation of everything refined and beautiful, so eminently qualified him to discharge it. And we cannot award higher praise than to say that the Memoir is worthy of the two men. It breathes throughout the pure, gentle, loving spirit which remarkably characterized them both; so that we cannot but feel, as we read, that we are holding converse with men who had drunk deeply into the spirit of their Master. And it has all the charm, too, of those rich poetic gifts which made them in many respects so like. They had the same keen insight into Nature's teachings, or rather, we should say, into the thoughts of the All-wise as expressed in Nature the same happy power of interpreting to others, in breathing, burning words, these mystic les-the same tender perception, too, of the mysteries of life and sorrow; and hence, to be permitted, as we are through this volume, to walk beside them, and to listen, as together, knit in closest sympathy, they tread and commune along the same paths, is a rare and elevating pleasure. To have James Hamilton tracing the experiences, and entering into the thoughts, and unfolding the heart of James Burns, is indeed no ordinary privilege. For they were also different; each had qualities which supplemented those of the other. The chastened life of Burns brightens under the genial glow of Hamilton; his careful sketches are filled in by the other's vivid colouring; and the quiet, meditative power of the pastor of Hampstead is here combined with the spring, and happy buoyancy, and brilliant grace of the great preacher of Regent Square. Accordingly, although the book is thoroughly true to life and life's stern realities, we have found ourselves, while reading | it, as if borne far away from this work-a-day, bustling world of ours, to one of the distant streams "which flow among the hills," and listening to the low music of its gentle murmuring, while the sunbeams danced and the birds sang joyously among the overhanging boughs.

sons

The leading facts of Mr. Burns' life may be soon told. He was born at Edinburgh in 1823, and was trained in the famous institution which, while adorning that fair capital, commemorates the munificence and bears the name of George Heriot. Thence he passed to college. His first mental quickening he received under the exuberant and inspiring John Wilson, in whose class he took a place of high distinction. At the Hall he came under the mighty influence of Chalmers. Not many details are given regarding his academic life, but enough to show that he had gained the high esteem of his teachers, and in no ordinary degree the admiration and love of his fellow-students. One of his intimate companions of those days writes of him in these terms; 'At once very lovable and very loving, he was endowed with the most refined and exquisite taste. Exalted above all baseness, nothing mean could live in his presence. The soul of honour, and singularly pure in heart and life, his very look frowned down all coarseness and vulgarity, so that from such things his companionship was itself a sufficient security; and yet his gentleness, and unpretentiousness, and playfulness made him the favourite of us all."

Straight from his bench in the Divinity Hall Mr. Burns passed to the Free Church pulpit in Dunblane. There he was ordained in August 1845, and no place

in Scotland could have seemed a more likely home for him. Lying sweetly under the shelter of the Ochils, its mild air was suited to his delicate chest, while the manifold beauties of its scenery, and the historic associations clustering round it, would have afforded daily stimulus and enjoyment to his poetic mind. But two short years of labour-of labour, too, unbroken, but largely blessed-had scarcely ended, when the state of his lungs required him to seek the sunnier skies and the softer air of Madeira. Here, after a short time, he was enabled to undertake regular pulpit duty, and became so far restored that in the following summer he returned to his waiting flock at Dunblane. But his hopes of continuing there were vain. In the autumn of that same year he required to be formally set free from his charge; and being appointed to the permanent charge of the Presbyterian congregation at Funchal, he again set sail for Madeira, followed by the tearful prayers of the devoted people, to whom his choice words from the pulpit, and his assiduous, loving labours through the week, had made him very dear.

His work in Madeira extended over four years, and some interesting letters and extracts from his journal give us a vivid idea of his experiences during that time. After returning to England, he at first shrank from any mention of a call to stated work, feeling "as if a sword hung over his head," and fearing a repetition of "the sorrowful leave-takings of Dunblane." At length he was encouraged and prevailed on to accept the unanimous invitation of the Presbyterian congregation at Hampstead to become their pastor; and in 1855 he was inducted into that charge. Here he spent his last ten years, happy in his work, happy in his people, and happy in his congenial and tender helpmeet. It was a quiet, unobtrusive ministry, but a ministry thoroughly appreciated and enjoyed by his intelligent and carnest flock. Thirteen of his sermons are published at the end of the volume, and from these we can understand how his preaching was so acceptable. By those who were engaged through the week in the whirl of London work, and looked forward to the holy day for rest, they must have been greatly relished. For there is something eminently Sabbatic about them. They are entirely free from the sensational element. They abound in clear thoughts, forcibly and poetically expressed; but their special characteristic is a quiet, often quaint, reflectiveness, which arrests without exciting, and carries the truths expressed straight home to the spiritual nature. To weary, world-tossed hearts, as to all wrestlers in the fight of faith, such words must oftentimes have spoken a soul-refreshing peace, and given them some precious foretastes of the "rest remaining."

While 'steadily pursuing his ministerial work, and making himself known and loved in the families of his flock as their counsellor, friend, and father, Mr. Burns was also able to continue his favourite recreation of expressing his tenderer thoughts in verse. In 1854 he had published a volume, under the title "The Vision of Prophecy, and other Poems ;" and about a fourth of the volume before us consists of "Hymns and Miscellaneous Pieces." The greater part of a chapter in the Memoir is also devoted to extracts from his poetry, with a running criticism on them. Of course the "Pieces" here for the first time published are not all of equal merit, but they are all well worthy of being preserved; and some of them, we doubt not, will take rank among those which the Church of Christ will never allow to be forgotten. For they show not merely high culture, and a correct ear, and tender feeling, and a graceful pen, but they prove that his was the true poetic faculty. From seer-like sternness to pensive tenderness, his mind ranged through all poetic moods:" while his descriptive passages show "an imagination characterized alike by power and by delicacy." We would fain enrich our pages with some examples, but must refer our readers to the volume itself, assuring them they will not be disappointed. They will find some things which might worthily have come from the pen of Wordsworth, who was, as himself said, his "latest and not leastloved guide."

During all his work at Hampstead, his constitution had continued feeble, and but for the careful way in which he was nurtured and supported in his labours, he could not have held out so long. At the beginning of 1864 his health so thoroughly gave way, that it became necessary to repair again to a warmer climate. Mentone was the place chosen, but it did not fulfil expectations; and on the night of Sabbath, November 27th, of that

arms.

A burdened life his thus had been, and a brief one. Had he been blessed with greater physical strength, we may believe that, with his rare gifts and accomplishments, he would have put the Church still further in his debt. Yet who may speak confidently on such a subject? The plan of his life was of God's devising; and however it may appear to us, who know not all the issues, it was no doubt wisely planned. The seeming hindrances may have been among his best helps. Had the instrument been less delicate, the music might have been less sweet. He could not have been so eminently the comforter of others, if he had not himself known sorrow; and though a stronger frame would have enabled him to get through, while he lived, a larger amount of labour, it might have robbed the Church of much of that precious heritage which he has left to us and to coming years. 'Being dead, he yet speaketh."

Creeds and Churches in Scotland. By Sir II. W. Moncreiff. Edmonstone and Douglas. 1869. Pp. 98. THE occasion of this survey was supplied by the “Law of Creeds" of Mr. Taylor Innes. That extremely interesting and valuable work appealed strongly to all those who felt concerned in Scottish Church questions, and set many topics in a new and suggestive light. Sir Henry Moncreiff was induced to undertake a notice of it in the pages of the "Daily Review." The notice ultimately extended to several papers. Of these the substance is here collected, and an appendix is added containing much valuable matter.

The motive of Sir Henry's detailed and careful criticism (apart from the value and interest of the work which was the object of it) may be stated in this way. Mr. Innes wrote from the legal point of view, and for the legal mind. He carefully avoided, therefore, everything like ecclesiastical partisanship, and took the law which the courts laid down as settled law, without further discussion of its merits. It became a question, therefore, whether some parts of his work were not fitted to produce an impression unduly adverse to the doctrine of the Scottish Churches, and not consistent with a full consideration of the grounds on which that

doctrine reposes. It became a question, further, whether, in stating the tendency of more recent decisions, Mr. Innes had not somewhat too strongly indicated grounds of apprehension that the bias of the courts might be found incompatible with what is necessary for the full recognition of the conscientious convictions of Scottish Christians. Topics like these are of high interest, and a critic like Sir Henry, familiar with the grounds of our ecclesiastical procedure, and though not a lawyer, yet so competent to apprehend the force of legal reasoning, is eminently qualified to throw light upon them.

We do not intend to attempt to adjust the balance between Sir Henry and Mr. Innes, on those points in which the former has expressed a dissent from the latter. Our limits would hardly admit of this. But we are persuaded that all impartial readers, including Mr. Innes himself, will admit that on important points Sir Henry has supplied both materials and arguments fitted to throw important cross-lights on the views presented in the "Law of Creeds." We believe that the views stated so ably by Sir Henry are indispensable in order to any fair appreciation of the Church questions of Scotland considered as historical and constitutional questions.

Without, then, further considering Sir Henry's brochure as a criticism of Mr. Innes', we may mention the reasons which induce us to prize it highly simply as a contribution to the literature of this class of questions. We do so, first, because it states so well the precise ground, with reference to the constitution and the courts of law, maintained and pleaded by the Church of Scotland in the controversy which ended in 1843. This is a matter very often misapprehended even by those who have a tolerably correct general notion of the ground of conscience proceeded on. At all events, incorrect and vague statements about it are often made, which leave the impression that the Church's claims were either extravagant on the one hand, or confused and ill-laid upon the other. For this reason we are glad that a compendious and accurate statement of the way in which the several parts of the Church's plea hang together, should be furnished. Secondly, we value

Case-both as to the real nature and effect of the Church's pleas in that case, and also as to the real result of the case, and the position in which it left the Church. These points have been assiduously misrepresented-especially by the "Record" in England, and by neighbours nearer home. It is not every one who can readily recall the tenor of the pleas and the judgments so as to meet these misrepresentations when they

occur.

And for this purpose Sir Henry's statement is most useful. But it is fitted to perform also a more substantial and enduring office. Doubtless the Church will have intricate and troublesome cases in the future, in the course of which the results of the Cardross Case will have to be worked out. For the guidance of the general mind, and with a new and intelligent and united action, when such cases arise, it is very important that the Church's own view of her position in that case, and of the results of it, should be exhibited in so convenient a form as we here find them, and by so competent a representative of the Church's mind. In the third place, we value the views suggested as to the prospects of the non-Established Churches in so far as their tenure of property may be affected by the views which the civil courts are likely to take of questions regarding Churches and Creeds. We do not pretend to offer an opinion on legal questions, nor to decide between conflicting impressions as to the results likely to flow from the decisions on such subjects which the courts have already given forth. But we are persuaded that the views here suggested are fitted to have a salutary effect on the procedure of Churches, and to place this whole class of questions in the proper light before the mind of the community. Lastly, we thank Sir Henry for the statement which he has given, chiefly in the appendix, of the real nature of the spiritual independence pleaded for by the Free Church, and of the grounds on which it rests. We have referred already to his statement of the case of the Church of Scotland previous to 1843, as related to statutes and to the courts of law. But we refer now to a different matter-viz., to the statement of spiritual independence as a Bible doctrine, and the assertion of it by the Church apart from all complications with statutes and Establishments. The latest misrepresentee on this subject is Dean Stanley, who has stigmatized the Free Church doctrine on this subject as mere Popery. This has led Sir Henry to devote a considerable portion of his appendix to the explanation of the real state of the case.

We recommend this work first to all, of all Churches, who possess Mr. Taylor Innes's work, as a supplement to it, and on some important points a commentary, of very high value. We recommend it further to all intelligent members of the Free Church who desire to have at hand the means of forming and reviving accurate and satisfactory views of some of the most important points in our recent history-and the very points which are most often and most plausibly perverted.

Ministers and Men in the Far North. By the Rev. Alexander Auld, Olrig. Wick: W. Rae. London: Nisbet. Edinburgh: Menzies. Pp. 400.

A FEW years ago, the Rev. John Kennedy of Dingwall laid the Church under obligation by publishing his interesting account of the " Fathers of Ross-shire." The author of the volume before us has undertaken to render a similar service in regard to the "Fathers" of the still more northern districts of Caithness and the Reay country. The idea which is thus being wrought out is a happy one; and we believe the example might with advantage be followed by others in various parts of Scotland. In several districts, fragrant memories exist of men of God who were the lights of the past generation; and we cannot doubt that, if the lives and experiences of those men were sketched by competent hands, and their notable sayings recorded, our national religious literature would be in a very pleasing way enriched. The results would be not merely of local interest, but valuable contributions both towards the study of Christian character and towards the religious history of the country. And whatever can be done in this direction should be done without delay; for years are fast thinning the ranks of those who could furnish the interesting details, and the characteristics themselves which these details express are fast disappearing-❘ rubbed away by the currents of common opinion and

common sentiment which the energy and invention of these days are steadily pouring into the remotest districts.

The field which personal and ministerial connections have led Mr. Auld to work, is one, as his book shows, of no ordinary fruitfulness. His sketches exhibit men of a marked and elevated type of Christian character, possessed in a remarkable degree of spiritual insight and power, because signally men of prayer. They were persons, too, as much and as deservedly loved as they were respected by all who knew and could appreciate them. It would have been a real loss if no effort had been made to preserve the features of their godly character; and we therefore render the author our sincere thanks, and all the more because of the interesting way in which he has done his work. He has produced what may be truly called an entertaining book. In some parts there are evident marks of haste; but it is fresh and vigorous throughout-full of graphic description, and sparkling with racy anecdotes. In the "far north," especially, where the memory of those worthies is embalmed in the hearts of the people, this record of them cannot fail to be very popular.

Under the head of "Ministers," five short memoirs are given us. These we have read with much satisfaction. They are written with care and with corresponding effectiveness. First in order, and also in fulness and excellence, is a memoir of the late Rev. Alexander Gunn of Watten, the father of the present Free Church minister there, and the spiritual father of some of the most valued Christians in that and other parishes. More than thirty years have elapsed since he entered into his rest; but we rejoice that now at length a worthy tribute has been paid to the noble character of the man, and to the importance of the work he was honoured to effect in Caithness. It was through him more than any other single instrument, that the baneful reign of Moderatism in that county was brought to an end, and the gospel introduced in its life-giving, hallowing power. We are also glad to see two sketches of the Revs. Finlay and Archibald Cook; men whose little peculiarities of manner-grossly exaggerated by thoughtless hearers, who could not look beneath the merest surface -have caused prejudices even in Christian quarters; but of whom we can confidently say that no one of intelligence and right feeling could know them without holding them in reverence and love. The elder of the two brothers was the one more intimately connected with the north, and there he will be long remembered as a man of iron frame, of unwearying activity, of clear and original thought, of powerful speech, and withal of a singularly benignant and loving nature. The second part of the volume is devoted to those known as the 66 Men," a name not very suggestive. They were laymen of high Christian reputation, accustomed to take part in public religious meetings. As a class, they have been subjected in certain quarters to a good deal of ridicule and opprobrium, especially for having in some places held separate meetings on the Lord's-day, and sometimes ventured even to rebuke clerical sins and shortcomings. We have merely, however, to inquire as to the character of the clergy and pulpit ministrations half a century ago, in at least Highland and northern districts, to be convinced that it was of God's great mercy such persons were raised up and qualified to keep alive the light of vital godliness in those days of dark indifference. They were the real shepherds when the pulpits were occupied by hirelings. The position they filled was thrust upon them by the urgent wants of their time. Accordingly, in proportion as evangelical doctrine came to be proclaimed in the churches, the " Men" were gradually to be found gathering round those God-given pastors, esteeming them very highly in love, and aiding them as they could. Since the Disruption, they have taken their places as excellent and efficient elders in the various congregations of the Free Church.

The "Men" resembled in several respects the older Cameronians. They had the same grave deportment, the same strength of conviction, the same weight of character, and the same intimate acquaintance with their Bibles and the throne of grace. To these qualities their Celtic temperament added a fervidness of imagination and feeling which made their addresses abound with striking sayings. Their Celtic temperament explains also a marked leaning towards the supernatural. In respect to this, we regret to observe that our author is disposed to sympathize too unreservedly with them