brethren, who formed the Associate Presbytery, who came to be the Associate Synod, divided into several Presbyteries. In Mr Gibb's Display, you will find the historical account, and the progress of affairs which led to the formation of the Associate Synod, at pages 25 to 53. The very first document, as your Lordship sees, is the Protestation of these four brethren, at page 34, in which, protesting against the sentence pronounced against them as of no validity, they say. (Reads.) And in the close of their Protestation, they say. (Reads page 35.) And I wish to dwell for a moment on these words, for I take it to be a primary feature of distinction betwixt these bodies, that the Associate Synod is a Covenanting Church and the Free Church is not. These four clergymen having formed themselves into an Associate Presbytery, they first issued an extrajudicial Testimony, the account of which is given by Gibb, at page 36. In this book the Testimony is not given, but it is to be found in a separate volume. As was explained to your Lordship, there were five separate reasons on which these seceding brethren relied as warrant for the step they had taken; but you find in the close of this first and extrajudicial Testimony, that there is the plainest and most manifest recognition of the Covenants as an essential feature of the Church. Let us run over the reasons they give for the step. (Reads the Reasons, 1, 2, 3, and 4.) But then, in the close of this first Testimony, they say this at p. 68 of the book entitled The Re-Exhibition of the Testimony. (Reads.) Then, if you turn to the fifth of these articles, you find it set forth in this way. (Reads.) Now, that is the statement of the principle set forth in the first instance by the four seceding brethren, within a year of their deposition. Your Lordship will see that the recognition of the Covenants is expressly set forth. Well, then, another document, which was also issued by these Seceders, was what was called Reasons of Non-Accession. (Here the argument was broken off, and resumed after an interval.)

Mr Penney resuming, read from Gibb, at page 47, and then from the Re-Exhibition, at page 229. You will find that, among other reasons, they state that the Church had not recognised the Covenants, and had not set any weight on the breach of the Covenants. Refer to p. 253, &c. (Reads.) It is one of the reasons which the four brethren set forth, that there was no recognition of the breach of the Covenant, and that the Covenants were not mentioned but in very general or dubious terms. In the Free Church, the Covenants are not mentioned, except in general and dubious terms. We now come to the Judicial Testimony, which is what may be called the Creed or Confession of the Associate Synod, and which was issued in 1736. It was issued by a formal Act of the Associate Presbytery, passed upon 3d December 1736; and your Lordship will find this Act set forth that this Testimony became necessary, among other reasons, on account of the manifest defections. (Reads.) I think, in that preliminary Act there is mention made of the Covenants in no general or dubious terms. On the contrary, they are bound up with the precepts of the Scripture as grounds of obligation on the part of the Church. This is a long, formal, and minute document. It is divided into formal chapters, and among these things are the Covenants, at p. 58; and in particular, you will see that allusion is made to the Solemn League and Covenant, and the Confession of Faith, &c. Then the next part is the condemning part of the Testimony; and at page 69, among the things condemned, are the breaches of the Covenants. Now, there follows a part of this Testimony, on which it is quite plain that the authors of the Testimony set no little weight, and it is a part which deals with the subject of the Revolution Settlement. You will find the passages to which I allude at pages 86, 87, 89, and 91; and there is no doubt that the Associate Synod regarded the Revolution Settlement as anything but beneficial, and quite contrary to the way in which it is regarded by the Constitution and Standards of the Free Church. Your Lordship will observe the strong language in which the brethren speak of the Revolution Settlement. One of the things which they complain of at p. 87, is. (Reads) And at p. 89 they complain of the General Assembly not expressly approving the Covenants, and the Reformation of the Church. And they complain, in subsequent pages, of the Treaty of Union as being adverse to what they think was a proper union with England, and the Covenant Union in 1643. They say. (Reads.) Now, they may be quite wrong in this view. It may be a narrow view for any man to adopt; but nothing can be more distinct than the ground they take up in this question with reference to the Union, which they say was adverse to the Union of 1643, and the Covenant Union with England, formed by the Solemn League and Covenant; and accordingly, that

section of the Testimony ends with a solemn protestation in this way. (Reads.) Lord Ardmillan-I suppose the Repeal of the Union is not an article of the Associate Synod? Mr Penney-No; but they protest that the Union is inconsistent with the principles of the Church;-that is their position. Lord Ardmillan-Are we to hold that they consider it binding on them to get rid of it? Mr Penney-I understand that they undertake to take all legitimate steps to repeal the Union quoad, the establishment of Prelacy. Their idea is, that the Church of England is founded on a basis directly contrary to Scripture. It is one of the forms of religion which they utterly abjure and abhor. We are dealing with the doctrines held by them, and nothing can be clearer than their language on the subject. They go on at p. 144, and in the close of p. 148 they protest against them. I am merely alluding to the different parts of this Testimony, as showing how, in this Church, the recognition of the Covenants is an over-ruling obligation, and how they protest against its breach. Then the Testimony concludes with asserting. Lord Ardmillan-That is its deploring part. Mr Penney-They come at last to the asserting part, which has been fully opened to your Lordship by my learned friend, Mr Gifford. I wish you to read from page 160 to page 164 in Gibb's Display. They particularly assert, at the end of the Testimony-they sum up the statement under so many heads-and under the fourth of them, they set forth their adherence, &c. (Reads it.) And fifth, they say. (Reads it.) And they close with one of the most beautiful and solemn pieces of writing that it is possible to conceive. This Judicial Testimony is really the Confession of the Church. It is set forth as such, and may be called the barrier of the Church. And you will find that this Confession was, downward to the present time, entirely maintained and followed out. I rather think your Lordship has been told of what is a material fact in the history of the Church, namely, that in 1743 they repeated the Acknowledgment of Sins. You will find that in Gibb's book, pp. 220 to 248, and you will find it originated in a solemn Act of this body, entitled, “An Act for renewing the Covenants." Accordingly, in that Act "they resolve and agree." (Reads it.) And then there follows the Acknowledgment of Sins, which in the same way sets forth the chief transgression of the nation as the breach of the Covenants. (See pp. 230-231.) Among other things of which they complain, was the kind reception which many persons had given to George Whitefield, a professed member of the superstitions Church of England. Lord Ardmillan-That appears to be a ground of complaint; and that you maintain to be a perpetual ground of complaint. Mr Penney-However one may think upon this question, and of the constitution of my learned friend's Church in point of liberality, the more illiberal the proceedings of the Associate Synod, the more opposed are they to his Church. Lord Ardmillan -Provided they are lawful, we have nothing to do with the opinions themselves. Mr Penney-My learned friend seemed to think he had got a little hair in my neck in the language of the Associate Synod about the repeal of the Act against witches. I would say, if it was as he represented, it would further my case, because I presume the Free Church does not adopt the views ascribed to the Associate Synod. But look at p. 164, and you will see the explanation of what their meaning really was. They did not want the repeal of the enactment, but they complain of the way in which the Act was passed, as showing a spirit of latitudinarianism. Lord Ardmillan -It appears to me, that if this were protested against perpetually, it would not require to be renewed. Why renew that which is a perpetual obligation? Mr Penney-Principles, if sound, are eternal; but notwithstanding, it may be not only right, but an essential thing, to renew the expression. Lord Ardmillan-As I understood the opening of the argument, there is not so much difference in principle. The difference consists in this, that the one recognises a perpetual obligation in the Covenants, and the other recognises the principles, but not the obligation. Then, if the obligation be perpetual, why renew the Testimony? Mr Penney Just as you renew your creed. Lord Ardmillan-No person, as I understand it, renews the Creed. Mr Penney-I only mean to show your Lordship that there may be not only a recognition of the principles, but that it is quite consistent with such a recognition, to have a renewal of expressions: and if you have one Church where this is required, and another where it is repudiated, that that creates a distinction. Lord Ardmillan-I am far from saying it does not. Mr Penney-At the sametime, it is right, also, for me to repeat, that whilst I hold this to be a fundamental distinction between the Churches, I by no means acknowledge that their principles are the

same. Lord Ardmillan-We assume the principles to be the same now; but of course it is open to you to show they are different. Mr Penney-I wish your Lordship to see how, in all this Testimony, there are things stated as matter of principle, in regard to which there are great differences with the Free Church. And this is remarkable as to the Treaty of Union and the Revolution Settlement. As to the renewed engagement, they say, at p. 249. (Reads.) Now, my learned friend noticed in his argument what he thought a remarkable expression in the Act for renewing the Covenants. He said it was only to be enforced in regard to those who willingly offered themselves; that there was no compulsion on any one to enter into the renewed bond. And he also said, that it did not appear that a formal renewal of the Covenant was made a preliminary to the reception of sealing ordinances. I believe my learned friend is so far right. They did not require a party, in order to qualify him for sealing ordinances, to engage in covenanting work. It is still not the less true, that the recognition of the Covenants was a fundamental feature of the Church, and that doctrine was an essential doctrine of the Church. That they did not require a formal subscription to the Covenants from every one admitted to sealing ordinances, is true, for they held them as recognising them. Suppose any one applying for sealing ordinances had stated that he was opposed to these principles, would they have admitted him? Certainly not. They took his application as an implied acquiescence in these doctrines. And accordingly, this seems put beyond all doubt by the style of the ordination vows in the Secession, given us in Gibb, at p. 9. I think these totidem verbis required to be taken down to 1852. (Reads Questions 1, 2, and 3.) I ask your Lordship to note, that they declare that Presbytery is the only divinely-appointed form of Church government. (Reads 4, 5, and 6) Now, the very fact that this is put to all whom they ordain and license, seems to be a strong fact in establishing the insertion of the Covenants among the Standards of the Church. I said that the Testimony thus set forth was maintained downwards to the present time, and was repeated in 1827, when that union was formed with a small body. I have the Testimony issued in 1827, and I would ask your Lordship, without my reading it, to refer to page 68, which is called the resolution concerning the Covenants; and then again to page 156, which is under the head of "Oaths, Vows, and Religious Covenants"; and then again to page 201, which is the Act for renewing the Covenant of 15th May 1828. I rather think my learned friend's statement on the record entitles me to say that this Testimony is in all points identical with the Judicial Testimony of 1736. If he thinks there are any points on which they differ, he will point them out. And, in particular, with reference to the Covenants, there is a most express renewal of the Testimony; and accordingly, this renewed Testimony of 1827 is followed up with a solemn Act of the Church for the renewal of the National Covenants. Therefore, I take it that the Judicial Testimony of 1736 remained the Testimony of this Church down to 1852, and all which it contained. And then it only remains to compare this, which is the Standard of the Associate Synod, to that which is the Standard of the body to which, in 1852, certain members joined themselves. Lord Ardmillan-I think Mr Campbell adverted to a portion of this at page 219, called the "Engagement to Duty." (Reads it.) Mr Campbell referred me to this, as showing that in that, which is a practical engagement, there is no mention of Covenant obligation. Mr Penney-I rather think it is a renewal of the Covenant obligation. Lord Ardmillan-Mr Campbell particularly dwelt upon that passage. He said the obligation of the Covenant itself was not recognised in that passage, but that the things are. Mr Penney-If your Lordship looks back to the end of the Act, you will find the obligation of the Covenants pointed out agreeably to the order which I have stated. (Reads it.) And I rather think, when you read the Acknowledgment of Sins, and the Engagement to Duty, you will find them the same as the old Acknowledgment and Engagement. And in particular, in that which must appear to be a most unsafe part of the Testimony of 1736, there is a renewal of the obligation. (Reads.) They shall endeavour,' "&c. I think, when you compare this with the old form, it is nearly the same, and this engagement is subscribed expressly as renewed. Then there follows in this book, in conclusion, the formula of questions to be put to ministers and probationers, which are identical with those given by Mr Gibb. Lord Ardmillan-They seem to be nearly the same. In the last, they speak of the Covenants generally; whereas, in the first, they mention both. Mr Penney-I think they are identically the same. The terms of ministerial communion are the same in 1828 as in 1736; and, therefore, what you have in Gibb, as the terms on which ministers and licen

44

tiates were ordained, continued down to 1852. I was about to contrast these Standards with the Standards of the Free Church, because it is in the distinction between the two that lies that distinction which shows them to be entirely different, and which proves that, in joining the Free Church, the majority departed from the principles of the Associate Synod. According to the truth of the case, we find the Standards of the Free Church in the documents I am now to allude to. We begin fairly with the Claim and Declaration of Right in 1842, because, as your Lordship is aware, that is alluded to as the foundation of the subsequent disruption; and I refer to this Claim of Right with a view to that marked distinction with reference to the views on the Union. I have read from the Judicial Testimony the terms in which the Revolution Settlement and the Treaty of Union are spoken of. And your Lordship said they were bound to seek the repeal of the Union, so far as regards the recognition of the Church of England. Now, we find the very Declaration of Right in 1842, proceeding upon the Declaration that the Church of Scotland had been unalterably settled by the Treaty of Union. Then it proceeds to mention how-then they go on to refer to the Union, and the Treaty of Union, as being the basis of the Church and of the Settlement of the Church. They say in so many words. (Reads it at the end.) "The settlement of the Act 1690, with reference to Patronage, and which vested the patronage on the Heritors and Elders," &c. How different is the view thus taken by the Free Church, from that which is contained in the Standards of the Associate Synod, who disclaim Patronage by heritors and elders, as much as by any body else. They then go on to complain of the different grievances to which they had been subjected, and, in conclusion, they say. (Reads at the end.) And unless I am very much mistaken, there is not one word of the Covenants from the beginning to the end of the document. There are grievances mentioned which were complained of, and which they thought it necessary to set forth in their Claim of Right; and unless I am very far wrong, it does not come under one of these heads of grievances that there was any breach of the Covenants. It is not mentioned from the beginning to the end of the document. Had the Associate Synod been going to the country with their Claim of Rights, would this have been so. This is very material; for if the recognition of the Covenants is an essential part of the policy of the Church, the absence of all mention of the Covenants constitutes a distinction in the other. This Claim of Right is followed up by a Protest which was taken in the year 1843, but in which Protestation I can see no mention of the Covenants. (Reads it.) Well, then, the Free Church is formed upon this Claim of Right and Protestation. And then they set forth their terms of ministerial communion; and you have them in this same volume, p. 641; and without again reading the form of ordination in the Secession Church, I wish your Lordship to contrast them both in what they embrace and in what they omit; for if the recognition of the Covenant is an essential feature in the one Church, its omission is a material consideration as regards the other. It is not immaterial with reference to the

Standards of the Church and the questions put, that there is no mention made of anything but the Confession of Faith. The question put before ordination is. (Reads it.) Then, under the third head. (Reads.) The fourth question is this. (Reads it.) Please remember the corresponding questions in the Formula of the Secession Church, which puts it to them to say, that the Presbyterian form of Church government was the only divinely-instituted form of Church government. I don't think that the Free Church hold that doctrine; they may hold it to be agreeable to the Word of God; but it is a different thing to hold that it is the only form of Church government authorised and sanctioned by Scripture. But that is what the Secession Church hold. The Formula of the Free Church says. (Reads.) And in the same way the concluding Formula, p. 464, set forth that the "Presbyterian form of government," &c. (Reads it.) There is nothing here of any question put to every minister and student of the Associate Synod about the National Covenants. (Reads from Associate Synod Formula.) They are bound to prosecute the ends of the Covenants. But they are further bound to recognise the perpetual obligation of the Covenants; and even if this was to be regarded as a mere form, I say it is an essential form, through which every minister and licentiate of the Secession Church must pass. It comes to be the term of ministerial communion. I think, in regard to the ordinary members of the Church, it is the implied terms of union which I proposed to test by one of the body saying, I do not hold the perpetual obligation of the Covenants. And does it make no difference betwixt one Church and another, that there is in the one such an express and binding term of union, and none in the other? Why, the negative of the one becomes the affirmative of the other. Its omission makes an essential feature of distinction. Indeed, we can't tell what would be a great point of distinction, unless one is to use one's own judgment in the matter, and to determine what is important in the standards of a church, and what is not. But it is your Lordship that must determine what has been made fundamental by the Fathers of the Secession Church. Lord Ardmillan-If you are right in holding that it is an obligation on the Secession Church, and on every member of that Church, not only to repeat the expression of the obligation of the Covenants, but to seek a repeal of the Union and the subversion of Prelacy; I think you are entitled to say that this is not a Standard of the Free Church. But if the Associate Synod has departed from that, and has acknowledged individuals as members who avowedly did not hold these doctrines, but who would think it an imputation on their common sense that they were bound to seek a repeal of the Union, what then is it? Mr PenneyIt won't do to say against me, that by the negligence of the officebearers of the Church, individuals have got into it who do not hold the principles of the Church. I do not say there might not be an abrogation of these Standards on the part of the Church, and I don't think this will be alleged. Whether particular individuals may have been admitted into it, who did not go to the full extent of the principles of their Church, is another matter. Lord Ardmillan-Was Dr M'Crie