of what the law ought to mean, or so as to work out some desired end. What it has already done is extremely unsatisfactory from every point of view. It is enough to state the actual situation created by the last resolution of the Assembly (1903). It is due to the Assembly to say that they had to make up their minds promptly, and that I believe the resolution was proposed and accepted only as the least of two evils. It orders that when a person is about to subscribe the Confession of Faith there shall be read to him the statement that it "is to be regarded as an infallible rule of faith and worship only in so far as it accords with Holy Scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit." Thus the subscriber openly, in presence of the presbytery, signs a declaration, prescribed by Parliament, that it is the confession of his faith; secretly in his thoughts he signs, or may sign (justified, as he thinks, by the Assembly's resolution), what he regards as the meaning of Scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit-in other words, his own opinions, known only to himself; and, lastly, the Assembly incompetently commits itself (in effect, whatever its intention) to judge him, not by the Confession of Faith, as it is bound to do, but by Scripture interpreted (now presumably to the Assembly) by the Holy Spirit. Though not necessary for this argument, it may be well to state that the preamble to the resolution quotes from

the Confession that the ultimate authority is "the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture"; but in the enacting part of the resolution, as we have seen, the words used are "Scripture interpreted by the Holy Spirit"

con

a very different thing, which is not in the Confession nor deducible from it. The resolution quite plainly puts Scripture in place of the Confession as the document to be signed, and thereby violates an Act of Parliament. Some will have it that the Confession itself contains the liberty. It contains liberty for change to be made on itself in a legitimate way, but not to break Acts of Parliament. Besides, if this style of argument is to be followed, we might as clusively say that if a person or court is bound to the passage which gives liberty, he or it is equally bound to all the other passages, and can be freed from them only in a legitimate way. It has been shown that we cannot touch the legal subscription or the Confession directly, neither, therefore, can we indirectly. Every law court in the kingdom must hold that there is no escape from signing the Confession of Faith as it stands, and that anything which would release from this, directly or indirectly, is illegal.

Besides all this, there is no denying that the manner in which for some years the Confession of Faith has been spoken of by some within the Church of Scotland, whose words go far, as well as by others outside the Church, and

the way in which subscription and the devices connected with it have been regarded by all who read or hear of them, have discredited both the Church and the Confession. The situation is such that some remedy is demanded which will place the Church in a proper relation to its Confession of Faith. When I said in two General Assemblies that we must needs go to Parliament, I said also that the time was inopportune, and I expressed the hope the first in any Church, so far as I know, to express it-that the Churches would go together for this and more also. At least for this I believe the time is now opportune. The earnest attention of the whole kingdom is awakened; more people are more deeply stirred than ever; and all who are thoughtful are in a chastened mood, and intensely desirous that everything possible should be done for the improvement of the ecclesiastical condition of Scotland.

There are various theoretically possible methods that may be mentioned: (1) subscription of a brief statement of the fundamental doctrines in the words of the Confession of Faith; (2) the course taken by the Presbyterian Church in the United States: 'Brief Statement of the Reformed Faith, for the better understanding of our Doctrinal Beliefs' (1902)-in 16 Articles; and by the Presbyterian Church of England: "The Articles of the Faith'—a statement of the fundamental doctrines held and taught by the Church-in 24

Articles. In this Church one question at ordination and admission is, "Do you sincerely own and believe as in accordance with Holy Scripture . . . the body of Christian doctrine set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith . . . and now more briefly expressed in the twenty-four Articles of the Faith"; (3) a brief Declaratory Act respecting the Confession of Faith, or certain parts of it; (4) a relaxed Formula, an example of which is that obtained from Parliament by the Church of England in 1865: "I assent to the [Confession of Faith], and I believe the doctrine of this Church as therein set forth to be agreeable to the Word of God"; (5) repeal of the enactment of 1693 requiring subscription to the Confession of Faith; (6) an enactment that the Church has freedom to make such modifications in its creed as have been approved by, say, two-thirds of the presbyteries, and by a two-thirds majority of members voting in that General Assembly which thereafter passes the Act.

The first of these, intended to be very much briefer than the Articles mentioned in the second, would, therefore, be preferable as well as more easily attained; it would be desirable that as many as possible of the Churches in Scotland should concur in it. The third might be more easily procured than the first, but would probably be as difficult to frame, and on the whole less satisfactory. The fourth presents a form which, having

been already passed by Parliament, might have no difficulty there; but it is vague and evasive. One may believe two documents to be in agreement, and yet believe neither of them -a fact of more importance now than forty years ago. Indeed it does not seem possible to find language for a relaxed Formula which will give any intelligible expression of what its subscriber believes or does not believe. As to the fifth, to ask Parliament to give relief from signing the Confession of Faith as the confession of our faith is openly to acknowledge to Parliament that the Confession of Faith is no longer the confession of our faith, without making any suggestion as to what is now our faith. More difficulties attach to it which need not be specified, for it can hardly be seriously entertained. For the sixth, it is to be said (a) that it is the only one that would enable Parliament to keep entirely clear of any question of doctrine; (b) that it is supported by the view which commends itself to the common-sense and common conscience of men, that a Church should be trusted to modify its creed, if it sees cause, under legally recognised conditions; (c) that it is of such a nature that it might be framed to suit other Churches.

For myself, therefore, I prefer the sixth, and next to it the first. If the Churches would unite in asking the sixth, I cannot doubt that, constituting the nation as they practically do, the result would be satisfactory. The time is opportune.

Of this I am sure, that neither other Churches would be hindered by the Church of Scotland, nor the Church of Scotland by them, in seeking necessary change and all possible liberty. In any case, it is of inexpressible importance that as many Churches as possible should be agreed in this matter.

Only one thing more I will say. I would have others to think fairly and truly about the Church of Scotland's connection with the State,―never insinuating, for example (as is happily now rare), that its power in spiritual things has been got from the the State. That power is from heaven ; but, when we come to the exercise of it, since the State cannot be got rid of, it is better-putting it on the lowest ground-that the State should acknowledge the power and co-operate with it than that it should refuse to acknowledge it at all; and better that it should decline to concede part of the Church's claim than concede nothing. Also, I would that they should consider whether it is not better that a Church should know as far as possible from the State itself beforehand to what extent its powers may be exercised, than that it should be liable in some unforeseen way to interference and injury. On this account it seems to me, further, that when a Church is dissatisfied with, or fears, the effect of a law on any of its principles, the natural and best course for it is quietly to set down in terms which all may understand how the of

co-operation as being already attained, and as being far short of that which is demanded; and I shall address myself to considerations which seem to be forced upon us by recent and present facts.

It ought not to be imagined that troublous circumstances, or troubled feelings, make Christian men less alive to any duty. They rather awaken a sense of duty, and bring neglected duties to the front. Trouble is upon us all; and it is not when men have got through affliction, but while they are still in it, that they resolve to amend their ways.

Our Churches by their highest courts had declared the importance of union and their desire for it. Conferences had made persistent attempts to advance it. For years no person speaking in public had expressed a wish for union without the prompt response of hearty applause. Go where you would, and, if there was any intelligent interest in such things, you found the prevailing mood to be strongly in favour of union. And yet affairs were rather going from bad to worse. We were at any rate moving along as complacently as if all was well. But at last the Almighty has interposed with a catastrophe which may well have shaken us out of our composure, and which has peremptorily called upon us to give ear to Him. One immediate effect has been that from the great mass of the Christian people of the land a cry has arisen for union.

They are ashamed, they are distressed, they are indignant because of our divisions (for which they see no sufficient cause), and the disastrous effects of them on religion, which are plainly seen by any who have eyes to see. I venture to say

that the present crisis brings home the duty of action more impressively than it has come to us for years-brings it with a force that constitutes a call from our Master. The particular course to be taken may not be clearer, but the duty is more imperative, and He can open and show the way.

We have grown up amid our divisions, and are so used to them that their real character, in the light of reason Christianity, is not seen and felt in ordinary circumstances. The present extraordinary conditions should rouse us to the reality. Our divisions have had an increasingly bad effect on multitudes of the people; the present extreme and painful outcome of them is extending and intensifying that evil. Young men who will soon be in charge, and the younger part of the present generation, look upon the ostensible causes of the divisions with a very different eye, and estimate them by very different standards, from those of earlier days; and Churches, harping upon them still, are rapidly losing the confidence and falling in the estimation of many classes. It is impossible to believe that the Great Ruler of this world's affairs would have allowed an