1

with an organ, because, if there is, I think he should now say so. It would be very interesting to some young people present to be able to say, if they live sixty years longer, “Oh, do you know, I once saw a man who actually stood up and said it was a sin to worship with an organ." (Laughter.) Dr. Macleod went on to say that, being a national Church, and not a mere sect, they were bound to regard the wishes, feelings, and habits of the people, and to give them their own way in those different matters in which a fair and honest liberty might be allowed. He wished the Church of Scotland to act up to the old adage, "In things essential, unity; in things indifferent, liberty; in all things charity." (Loud applause.) "That is the spirit which should guide the Church of Scotland; and I think that much of our sectarianism might have been prevented if we had had a little more consideration for the feelings and : opinions of others, and if, instead of digging ditches round ourselves and bragging how much we differed from every other Church on earth, we had made a few more bridges-(hear, hear)—and had shown a little more Catholic feeling towards other Churches; if, instead of looking at our individual selves, we had looked more to the feelings and opinions of the country, as I think the very genius of our National Church should be inclusiveness as far as possible, and not exclusiveness; and if you hear of any portion of your people having strong opinions or feelings on any one matter, be it Church music or be it the Liturgy, you should respectfully, at least, entertain the question, and not put a peremptory stop to every change, because of something that was done in 1693 or 1707. I make bold to say, as a minister of the National Church of Scotland, that I think it is my duty, as well as in accordance with my feelings, to stretch out a kind hand to every Scotchman; and, if I could, a kind and protecting hand to every Church in this kingdom. Yet I would say, with perfect respect for the Episcopal Church, which I often attend when in England, and the services of which I have used when abroad for months together, that never was there a period since the Covenanting times in which the whole Clergy and Office-bearers of the Church of Scotland were more solemnly determined to resist Epis copacy than at this moment." (Loud applause.)

Dr. Lee, Old Greyfriars, Edinburgh, made a lengthened vindication of himself and congregation on the second day of the debate, maintaining that the changes, whieh had been attended with no rupture of the harmony of the congregation, were within the scope of their just liberties, and were not greater innovations than other changes that had gradually been made on the forms by custom and usage since the Act for the security of the Church was passed in 1707. It is said (he remarked) that these innovations are Episcopal or even Popish, that they have a tendency to foster a sensuous form of worship. Do

the people who talk in this way consider what they are saying? If to read Prayers or to kneel at prayer and stand to sing be Popish, or Episcopal innovations, then John Calvin and John Knox, not to speak of Martin Luther and the whole glorious company of the Reformers, must be Popish. They sanctioned all these things, and in the days of John Knox, the Church of Scotland, so far as we can gather, stood upright universally to sing, and knelt at prayer. Of reading the Prayers the same may be said. John Calvin ridicules the presumption of conceited men who fancy they stand up and extemporize prayer for the congregation of God. The custom we now follow of extemporizing prayer is not of very venerable authority. It was the custom of the Engish Puritans, but it was a departure from the precepts and example of nearly the whole Christian Church, and especially of the great Pres byterian Reformers. Nobody can doubt that in regard to many ecclesiastical practices and usages you differ in many important respects from those prescribed by the Directory or the Book of Common Order. You baptize children in private, in express violation both of the words of the Directory and of the Confession of Faith; for, though not in relation to the Lord's Supper, private administration is in the case of baptism condemned. You pray at funerals. John Knox's Liturgy forbids your doing so, and the Directory also forbids you in express words. You read your Sermons. There is no law on that subject, but in the early period of the Church the reading of Sermons was unknown; and the first man that attempted it, in the High Church of Edinburgh, is censured by Baillie as a preposterous puppy-(laughter)—and the reading Sermons he calls an offensive innovation. Now, you can adduce no such expression in Church history with regard to the reading of prayers. The people had been accustomed to read prayers down to 1638; and the Directory was drawn up for the people of England, as well as Ireland, and they had always been accustomed to read prayers. But the reading of Sermons was abominated then as it is abominated in many districts to this day, and yet gentlemen read their Sermons. It is said we have promised and convenanted to be guilty of no innovation "on the presently established worship, doctrine, and discipline of this Church." Now, if this reasoning be well founded, there is not a Minister in the Church at the present day, and there has not been a Minister in the Church of Scotland since 1711, who is not involved in the guilt and condemnation of having innovated. Nobody can now observe the practices of the Church, in all respects as these are referred to in the Act of Security of 1711. Whether they be part of the Directory of Public Worship, or whether they refer to actual customs then prevailing, it is beyond all dispute that these have been changed in many respects. We are told these innovations are of a

Popish kind, and bring us nearer to that flagitious body, the Church of England. I was deeply grieved to hear the Church of England spoken of in that way. (Hear, hear.) According to my reading of the Treaty of Union, the Church of England is morally and ecclesiastically bound to support the Church of Scotland, and, in like manner, and for the same reason, the Church of Scotland is bound to maintain the Church of England, according to its power, which may not be so great. The Church of England does not interfere with us; and it is not only undignified, but irregular and unchristian in us to talk of the Church of England as if it were very little better than the Papal Church, or as if its Ministers wanted conscience or understanding of their duty. Dr. Lee concluded by maintaining that the Church had as much freedom now as at the times of the Reformation or Revolution, with more experience.

CORRESPONDENCE.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE SCOTTISH GUARDIAN."

MY DEAR SIR,-Knowing the great interest you take in the Church Society, I feel sure you will pardon me, if I trouble you with a few thoughts of my own, on the future management of it.

Would it not be well, if all who are asked to give largely to the Endowment Fund, were assured that their donations would be given to meet endowments already possessed by poor Churches, now seeking stipend-aid grant.

It seems to me a great mistake, to increase the Stock of the Society at the expense of partly endowed Churches. The present stock is a sufficiently large reserve fund, to meet any unforseen falling off of subscriptions. We may well hope, that subscriptions, instead of falling off, will steadily increase, if churchmen see the money wisely bestowed. Every Church possessing an endowment of 2500, is not only disqualified to ask for stipend-aid grants, but actually increases the funds available to help other less fortunate Churches. Every Church, not so endowed, may, at any time, claim more than it sends up in yearly subscriptions. I am not now pleading in any way for my own Church, but merely bring it forward as an instance, to show how the Church Society would be benefited by its having an Endowment Fund of £2500. We have for many years received stipend-aid grants. If the minimum had remained £90, we should have been self-supporting, but the minimum is to be raised to £150. You cannot expect that we can at once, without

VOL. II.-NO XVIII.

20

We shall probably

the Society's help, raise the extra £60 per annum. have to ask for a grant for some years to come. We may raise £40 for the Society, but it is clear that that-(the interest of £1000)-will be more than swallowed up in the grant, or, if the grant be refused, it will be natural for the congregation to give their subscriptions to the vestry, and then secede from the great work so well begun-but once let the Society make up our endowment, and our donations, and subscriptions increased by this manifest proof of the usefulness of the Society will be so much clear profit to the Society—or will let any rate represent a good interest on the endowment grants-say we want £1000 from the Society; then, in 1eturn, the Society get some £500 already given, and the yearly subscriptions. I believe there are many Churches where the same would hold good, and, I believe, that many congrega tions would redouble their efforts to raise an endowment, if they felt assured the Society would divide all the donations in endowment grants.

Then, again, I think it is highly desirable that a report of the Committee on Claims, should be sent to each vestry before the General Committee. Much confusion and unnecessary debate would thus be saved-and I would, in addition, suggest this, that the General Committee should be modified, and should be rather a Court of Final Appeal, with power first, to ratify unquestioned grants, and secondly, to hear and decide all appeals against the report of the Committee on claims. This court should consist of the Bishops, Deans, and Chancellors of the Church, and should be permitted to call upon the Incumbent, Lay representatives, or other members of the vestry, or congregation, appealing for explanations. The Bishop, Dean, and Chancellor of the diocese in which the appealing congregation was situate, to have no vote in the final decision, but to give any evidence required. Also any Bishop, Dean, or Chancellor directly interested in such congregation, to have no vote. Hereby this would prevent what often nearly approaches to squabbling, and no congregation could refuse to abide by the decision of a court so disinterested, and so filled by station and learning to give a fair judgment.

Next. Could not the General Meeting of the Society be made more attractive. Let there be choral service in some Edinburgh Church-such as St. John, St. Paul, or St. James', Leith-which the Bishop, Clergy, in robes, and Laity should attend, the preacher being some distinguished member of this, or a sister Church; and then let the Edinburgh and suburban clergy urge the people to attend this meeting, which might be held on some state holiday, or at some convenient hour in the evening.

Also, could not the Church Society make its Annual Report more useful and more attractive. Why should it not combine a Church

Calendar-list of Bishops of the reformed Catholic Church-the Episcopal succession in the Scotch Church-(one diocese every year)—an account of Church work-churches built-clergymen ordained--useful statistics-adorned, perhaps, with an engraving of the most beautiful Church erected in the past year. This, if the size of Parker's Church Almanac, would be read and not thrown aside, as the reports too often are. Moreover, I do not at all see why the value of the livings should not be given as in the English clergy list. In England it is known who get £1000, and who get £100, or less. Why should it not be so here, I think some of the figures would produce a startling and a beneficial effect.

Again, would there be any objection to allowing Incumbents or Lay representives to attend at the meeting of Committee on Claims, to answer questions. The schedule to be filled up, is so very intricate or rather incomprehensible, that mistakes arise from the inability of the vestry to understand it, and until it is possible to invent a simple form, mistakes will arise. I, for my part, would rather fill a dozen government forms than a Church Society one. In fact, we lost £16 last year, simply by doing what we were told to do, but which turned out to be wrong. Why, no one could ever satisfactorily explain. I feel very sure that old congregations will gradually be made independent, and that missions will be fostered, and that there the Church will grow. But the Society must work in faith, and for the present, cast the few crumbs she has liberally on the waters. And above all, the Society must remember that she is but the handmaiden of the Church working under God, to strengthen the hands of his Bishops, seeking their advice and bowing to their decisions. I fear there is a danger of her neglecting this-as manifested in the Blairgowrie case last year,

Believe me, my Dear Sir, yours very truly,

A SCOTTISH PRIEST.

June 1, 1865.