the synodical body, and further explained in a new declaration emitted at Edinburgh in 1827, subscribed to build a house of worship in Toberdony, and the building having been accordingly erected, Mr Miller was appointed the minister. So matters continued down to 1835, all parties adhering to the faith and doctrines of the Original Seceders, and then a new lease was made on the 17th of August 1835, between Samuel Allen of the one part, and the Rev. John Miller, John Thompson, and Samuel Nicholl, of the other part, as trustees for the congregation of Toberdony, "known by the name of Original Seceders, adhering to all the doctrines in the Westminster Confession of Faith, as explained in the testimony emitted by the Synod of Original Seceders met in Edinburgh in 1827;" but supposing that a union was to take place with any other body of professors upon the forementioned doctrines as explained in the said testimony, the alteration of the name held by the trustees was not to invalidate their title.

There happily was little controversy in a matter involved in some doubt in other cases, and which led to expensive inquiries; for there was no need to resort to the testimony or the writings of divines in order to explain the principles upon which the meeting-house in question had been founded, or the test by which a departure from those principles was to be determined and tried. The lease defining the doctrines which were to be preached and advanced in the building in question was most precise in fixing the standard to which religious conformity was to be applied, and the purposes to which the property was to be dedicated. There is here a plain reference to a precise standard of religious doctrine; and whatever does not come within the terms and language of the lease is beyond and opposed to it. It is contended that the members of the congregation adhering to the standard of antiquity are entitled to all the benefits of the trust, and that those who departed from this standard, and who have joined another religious body, are not entitled to adhere to the congregation.

This court has nothing to do with the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the restrictions which may have been imposed by the original founders. It has only to look to the terms of the trust, and see whether they have been violated. There can be no doubt of the fact, that Mr Miller and Mr Nicholl have, in common with many of their body, associated themselves with the Free Church of Scotland; and the first and main question is, have they, in so doing, joined themselves with a church which does not concur in that bond of union by which this congregation has been associated. If they have, it follows that they must have joined a church which, in the words of the lease, does not adhere to all the doctrines in the Westminster Confession of Faith as explained in the testimony emitted by the Synod of Original Seceders met in Edinburgh in 1827. The members of the congregation who hold those opinions are entitled to object, and to ask this court to secure their property for those who come within the terms of the definition in the lease.

Three grounds of resistance to the suit have been put forward; and the first is, that the doctrines of the Free Church of Scotland are in effect the same as those of the United Original Seceders.

Secondly, That even if there existed any difference, the union having been the act of the Synod of United Original Seceders, the petitioners are bound by it.

Thirdly, That the instrument contains a provision which indirectly looked forward to the congregation uniting with another religious body; and that the union with the Church of Scotland was always looked forward to; and that the Free Church of Scotland was such a church as it was contemplated the Seceders could join without any sacrifice of religious principle.

(The Chancellor here read passages from the following:-The Declaration by the Synod of United Original Seceders, explaining the proceedings of the body from 1736-the Act of the Free Church in 1851-and the identity between the Free Church and the principles which led to the First and Second Reformation-also, the Overture for a union between the Seceders and the Free Church, signed by nineteen ministers, and the final resolution in the Act and Declaration of 1852. His Lordship here read the resolution then agreed to.)

The foregoing was the resolution of the Synod presented to the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, and received by them in 1852, and then came the Act or Declaration agreeing to this reunion. (His Lordship here read the Declaration.)

In the reunion thus agreed to, the Seceders were declared entitled to hold their own views, in subordination, however, to the government of the Free Church. Now, as a matter of fact, it was to be observed, that the resolution which was stated to have been moved and carried at a meeting of the Synod, was carried but by a majority of one; and it was followed by a solemn protest signed by several ministers and elders. That protest is in these words, "We, the undersigned ministers and elders, members of the Synod of United Original Seceders, in our own name and in the name of all adhering to us, do hereby protest against the resolution now come to by the majority of this court, to unite with the Free Church on the grounds stated in their overture and representation and appeal; and seeing that they have resolved to drop a judicial testimony for the Covenanted Reformation, and in particular, for the continued obligation of our National Covenants, and against the violation of them as a standing ground of the Lord's controversy with the church and nation; we do hereby protest, and claim for ourselves and for those adhering to us, to be constitutionally the Synod of United Original Seceders, resolved, in the strength of divine grace, to fulfil our vows in abiding by and maintaining that testimony in behalf of the principles and attainments of the Reformed and Covenanted Church of Scotland which the Original Secession has from the beginning accounted it both its duty and honour to uphold; and we do hereby also protest and claim all the powers, rights, and privileges of said Synod, and resolve to meet as a Synod;" so that, notwithstanding what has taken place, there is still a Synod of United Original Seceders, composed of protesting parties.

He (the Chancellor) would not stop to inquire into the terms of the resolution by which a union with the Free Church of Scotland was effected, or as to the exact conformity of the terms proposed by the

seceding ministers with those which were eventually agreed upon; but at least a casuistical argument might be raised upon this point, that the seceding body proposed to form a union upon the terms of a religious equality that would enable them to maintain the same principles and discharge the same functions as before the union; but the Free Church did not accept the union in the words proposed, for it added, that the maintenance of those principles and the discharge of those functions were to be "in subordination to the discipline and government of the Free Church." It does not appear to the court material to speculate upon the effect of the distinction thus taken; but the court must presume that the parties to this instrument, in adopting a distinction between the precise terms proposed and those which were eventually accepted, did mean something. In this act or instrument of union, he (the Chancellor) did not find any direct or express recognition of the standard of religious fellowship, namely, adhering to all the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith as explained in the Testimony emitted by the Original Seceders in 1827, or that the union was made upon the basis of those previously mentioned doctrines. Again, in the acts of the Free Church itself, whether relating to this union or others, he (the Chancellor) did not find any allusion to the "Standard" as one to which they pledged themselves, or by which they were to be bound; and, on the contrary, the language used in reference to the union, shews that the powers and Standard of the Free Church of Scotland, although designed to include those who concurred in their general principles of belief, were, for the future, to regulate the proceedings of those who united themselves to that church; and when the court considered the views and history of the Free Church, it saw that, in the opinion of the ministers of that church, it was desirable to put it upon such a comprehensive basis as to include other denominations of Christianity, and (not meaning to use the word in any offensive sense) the principles of the Free Church were more "latitudinarian" than those maintained by some other Presbyterian bodies; and he (the Chancellor) was bound to see that the special trusts upon which the meeting-house in question had been founded were preserved, and that there was an adherence solely to the original standard of faith. Looking to the terms of the Act and Declaration for the proposed union between the two bodies, the court could not find in that document alone that the union had taken place solely upon the basis of the standard of belief which the Original Seceders set up as their guide. Other evidence, however, had been adduced, and the respondents relied upon the affidavits of several witnesses, who say that there is a complete identity of principle and doctrine between the Free Church of Scotland and the Church of the United Seceders.

Before entering into a review of the parole testimony, he (the Chancellor) would refer to the act of union annexed to the preface of the Original Secession testimony; and it stated, that, on the 18th of May 1842, the Associate Synod, commonly called the Synod of Original Burghers, was now united to the Synod of Original Seceders, henceforth to form one association for the support of the Covenanted Reformation in those kingdoms, under the name of the Synod of United Original

Seceders. It had been previously agreed that the testimony adopted by the Synod of Original Seceders in 1827, with the insertion in it of the alterations rendered necessary by the union, shall be held as the testimony of the united Synod, and be made a term of religious fellowship in the body. It was likewise understood that the Synod of Original Burghers approve of the acknowledgment of sins and bond appended to the testimony; and it was agreed to by the Synod of Original Seceders, that, in the event of union, the question in the formula regarding the Burgess oath shall be dropped.

To proceed to the parole testimony, the court had first to consider the statement in the petition itself; and it asserted that the Rev. John Miller, without the consent of the congregation, joined the Free Church of Scotland, and that the doctrine of that Church is inconsistent with the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as explained in the Testimony emitted by the Synod of Original Seceders met at Edinburgh in the year 1827, and that no union between the Original Seceders and the Free Church of Scotland upon the forementioned doctrine, as explained in the said testimony, has taken, or can take place, as appears from the "Protest" of the Synod of United Original Seceders, dated the 29th day of April 1852.

To encounter this statement, an affidavit has been put in by the Rev. John Miller himself, filed the 13th of April 1854. In it he refers to the original secession of 1733 from the Established Church of Scotland, and the appeal of the Seceders to the first free, faithful, and reforming General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. He then refers to the Seceders having passed a judicial deed, entitled an Act, Declaration, and Testimony, for the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government of the Church of Scotland, agreeable to the word of God, the Confession of Faith, the National Covenant of Scotland, and the Solemn League and Covenant of the three nations, and against several steps of defection from the same. He then states that the present testimony of the Secession Church was enacted in May 1827, and is substantially the same as the original testimony; and he asserts that the doctrines of the Free Church of Scotland, founded in 1843, are the same as those of the "Original Seceders," as in the above two testimonies explained. The affidavit goes on to state, that similar causes for a secession arose in 1843 as in 1733, and that in June 1852 an appeal was presented by the Synod of "United Seceders" to the "Free Church" to effect a union, and that the General Assembly of the Free Church thereupon passed an act agreeing to a union, and that such reunion was carried out by the "Synod of Original Seceders," because they recognised the Free Church to be the Church of Scotland to which their fathers appealed at the time of their original secession, and because the union was carried upon the basis of the Westminster Standards, and also on the understanding that the body of Original Seceders should continue in their several congregations to administer ordinances and discipline as they had hitherto done. Mr Miller also denies that he became a member of the Free Church without consulting his congregation; but he admits that there was no formal approval by a meeting of the majority of the congregation, as such was not held,

owing to opposition having been expected. The next affidavit filed on the part of the respondents was by the Rev. John Barnet, D.D., and he says that he is well acquainted with the whole history of the Secession Church from the commencement to the present day, and with the peculiar principles which that church has held, and has at different times published to the world. He goes on to state that the doctrines of the Free Church of Scotland are in all respects agreeable to the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as explained in the testimony emitted by the Synod of Original Seceders met at Edinburgh in the year 1827, and also to the doctrines of the Secession Church, embodied in the testimony of 1827; and he adds that the respondent, the Rev. John Miller, has in no respect violated the trust reposed in him under the lease, by becoming a member of the Free Church of Scotland, but, on the contrary, is carrying out the pledge of future union given at the time of the Original Secession. Dr Barnet then goes on to state that he is not aware of a single principle contained in the testimony of Original Seceders of 1827 which the respondent has relinquished by joining the Free Church, which he is not bound, in virtue of the terms of that union, still to maintain and prosecute; the only difference being, that he now maintains these principles in union with the Free Church, which he formerly maintained in a state of separation from it." This latter statement is one not contained in the affidavits of the Rev. Mr Miller, Dr Cooke, or Dr Edgar, and the idea suggested itself that the union was something like a federal union not entirely founded upon the basis of a common doctrine of both parties.

The next affidavit was that of Dr Henry Cooke, a divine who was indeed of great eminence among the Presbyterian body. After giving a history of the Original Seceders, he says that, in the year 1843, the Free Assembly of the Church of Scotland, commonly called the Free Church of Scotland, was formed, and that the doctrines of this church were, and are, as he believes, in all respects agreeable to the doctrines of the Original Seceders as embodied in their testimony, and also to the doctrines of the Secession Church, embodied in the testimony of 1827, and that the causes which led to the secession of the Free Church of Scotland from the Established Church were similar to the causes which led to the secession of the body of Original Seceders in 1733. That the reunion of 1852 was proposed and carried out by the Synod of United Original Seceders in consequence of their recognising the "Free Church of Scotland as being constitutionally, both by divine and human right, such free, faithful, and reforming Assembly of the Church of Scotland as their fathers appealed to at the time of their original secession, and that such reunion was proposed and carried out on the basis of the Westminster Standards, and on the distinct understanding and agreement that the said Synod of Original Seceders held by and adhered to the standards and constitution of the Church of Scotland, not only as these might have been explained in any act or acts of the Free Church, but also as they were stated and defended in their own testimony to all the principles of which they adhered. Dr Cooke adds that, in his opinion, in acceding to the communion of the Free Church, the United Original Seceders continued, in their