several congregations, to administer ordinances and discipline as they had hitherto done.

The next affidavit is that of the Rev. Thomas M'Crie, D.D., professor of divinity, and a member of the Free Church of Scotland; and his affidavit is identical with those of Drs Barnet and Cooke. Dr Edgar has also made an affidavit, which is to the same effect as the previous one; and then comes the affidavit of the Rev. John Coulter, D.D., he representing that he has means of understanding, and is fully persuaded, that the Synod of United Original Seceders, in uniting with the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland, have in no respect changed their principles as Seceders, but, on the contrary, have maintained and upheld their original principles;-that as for himself, being brought up in the Secession Church in Ireland, and having been ordained a minister in the same, and having studied, and at ordination publicly expressed adherence to, the Act, Declaration, and Testimony passed in 1736, and having been present at the Synod of Original Seceders held in Glasgow in May 1852, and in Edinburgh in the same year, in his official capacity as moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland, he believed the union between the Free Church of Scotland and the Original Seceders was in harmony with, and a recognition of, Original Secession principles.

In answer to these affidavits the petitioners have filed affidavits, each one answering to those filed on the part of the respondents, a convenient mode, and which did not detract from the weight of the testimony thus given. The first was the affidavit of the Rev. Matthew Murray, for twenty-five years pastor over the congregation at Glasgow in subordination to the Synod, and he professes to answer Dr Cooke. He admits the correctness of the statement of the latter as to the history of the origin of the secession and the two testimonies; but he denies that the doctrines of the Free Church are agreeable to those of the Secession as explained in these testimonies, and he enumerates eleven points of difference. 1st, The Free Church differs from the Original Secession, because she stands on the ground, not of the Second Reformation, but of the revolution settlement. 2nd, Because she does not acknowledge the perpetual obligation of the National Covenants. 3rd, Because she does not acknowledge as of equal authority the five Westminster Standards, but only one, the Confession, as a test. 4th, Because she does not recognise even the Confession as part of the covenanted uniformity between the churches of the three kingdoms. 5th, Because she does not explicitly assert the divine right of presbytery. 6th, Because she does not condemn lay-patronage as anti-scriptural, and inconsistent with the supreme headship of Christ, and the spiritual liberties of the church. 7th, Because she does not require from her members an approval of her creed at their admission to full communion, but only from her office-bearers on admission to office. 8th, Because she does not testify against free or open communion, but, on the contrary, holds communion, both ministerial and christian, with other churches. 9th, Because she does not condemn private baptism, but, on the contrary, administers this ordinance privately. 10th, Because she does not condemn, but, on the contrary, practices private church censure

And lastly, Because she does not in cases of public scandal. condemn, but, on the contrary, practices the singing of uninspired hymns and paraphrases in the public worship of God; in all which respects Mr Murray swears that the doctrines of the Free Church are different from the doctrines of the Original Seceders, as set forth both in their testimony of 1736 and that of 1827; and Mr Murray also adverts to the fact that several differences as to matters of doctrine existing between the Free Church and the Secession are admitted in the act of 1852 that unites them, and thereby the members are expressly allowed to hold their individual views in subordination to the government and discipline of the "Free Church." The affidavit asserts that the terms of the union which took place in 1852 are inconsistent with the principles of "Seceders," and that the representation and appeal was approved of only by a majority of one, that the Free Church does not hold all the doctrines of the Westminster Confession as explained in the testimony; as, 1st, Religious covenanting is a doctrine of the Confession, which the Free Church does not hold as explained in the testimony-the testimony declaring that public religious covenanting is a duty seasonable at the present time, and that the National Covenants are of perpetual obligation. Secondly, The headship of Christ over the Church is a doctrine of the Westminster Confession, which the Free Church does not hold as explained in the testimony-the testimony declaring that the law of patronage is inconsistent with Christ's headship, which the Free Church does not do, but only pleads for the right of the majority to reject an unacceptable pastor. Thirdly, It is a doctrine of the Confession that Christ, as head of the Church, hath appointed in her a government distinct from the civil magistrate; but the Free Church does not hold this doctrine as explained in the testimony-the testimony declaring not only that presbytery is founded on, and agreeable to, the word of God, but that it is the only form of church government which has the divine sanction The affidavit goes -a position which the Free Church has never held. on and states, Fourthly, It is a doctrine of the said Confession, that saints, by profession, ought to have communion in the worship of God; but the Free Church does not hold this doctrine as explained in the testimony, which condemns the doctrine of free or open communion, which the Free Church is so far from doing, that she actually holds communion, both ministerial and christian, with other churches. The Free Church also practices the singing of uninspired hymns and paraphrases, and also private instead of public baptism and ecclesiastical censures; all which is contrary to the testimony.

The Rev. George Stevenson has made an affidavit in answer to that of Dr Barnet, in which he states that the latter has ceased connection He states that the doctrines of the with the Seceders for thirty years. Free Church "neither were nor are in all respects agreeable to the doctrine of Original Seceders, and he enumerates eleven points of difference. The Free Church stands on the ground of the Revolution Settlement, and not on that of the Second Reformation. She does not judicially recognise the continued obligation of the National Covenant of Scotland, nor of the Solemn League and Covenant of the three kingdoms, upon

posterity. She does not hold the five Westminster Standards to be of equal authority, but acknowledges the Confession only as a test. She does not acknowledge even the Confession itself as a part of the covenanted uniformity. She does not explicitly assert the divine right of presbytery, or declare it to be the only form of government appointed by Christ for his Church. She does not, as a church, condemn lay-patronage as in itself anti-scriptural, and inconsistent with the supreme headship of Christ, and the spiritual liberties of his Church. She exacts an approval of her creed only from her officebearers, and not from all her members. She allows free communion, both ministerial and christian, with other churches. She does not condemn private baptism, but, on the contrary, admits of the private administration of this ordinance. She does not condemn, but, on the contrary, practices private church censures in cases of public scandal. And lastly, she does not testify against, but, on the contrary, practises the singing of uninspired hymns and paraphrases in the public worship of God. Mr Stevenson says, that the very terms of the union of 1852 show that there are important differences between the uniting parties, because they say they united on the basis of the Standards as explained in the acts of the Free Church, and also in the testimonies of Seceders; and, in his judgment, the Rev. John Miller has violated the trust reposed in him under the lease referred to by joining the Free Church; for the Free Church does not hold all the doctrines of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as explained in the Testimony emitted by the Synod of Original Seceders; and even if Mr Miller, by joining the Free Church, has not relinquished any of the principles of the Seceders, yet he cannot maintain them as he used, but only as his own private opinions, since he has dropped a judicial testimony for them, by leaving the Church that was erected for the specific purpose of witnessing for such principles.

The Rev. J. Graham, pastor over the congregation at Kilmarnock, in subordination to the Synod of Original Seceders, answers the affidavit of Mr Miller, and states eleven points of difference in doctrine. He also states, that though the peculiar doctrines of the Original Secession Church are allowed to be retained as a matter of private and speculative belief (in subordination, however, to the discipline of the Free Church), yet they are no longer terms of Christian and ministerial communion ;-their adoption forms no condition of the ordination of a minister or elder, nor of the admission of members of the Church;-whereas, in the Original Secession Church, their distinguishing and peculiar doctrines are still in force and observation;-and in Mr Graham's opinion, the respondent, Mr Miller, has violated the trust reposed in him, both by attempting to transfer the Toberdony meeting-house to a minority of the congregation, in opposition to the will of the majority; and also by attempting to transfer it to a body that does not hold the principles of the Original Secession Church.

The affidavit of the Rev. George Roger of Auchinleck, in the county of Ayr, clerk of the Synod of Original Seceders, answers that filed by the Rev. Dr John Coulter, and he avers that the constitution

of the Free Church differs very materially from the constitution of the Original Secession Church, proceeding to show where these differences exist, and in a very specific and precise way.

The Rev. Thomas Manson of Perth answers the affidavit of Dr M'Crie, and enumerates ten points of difference between the Original Seceders and the Free Church of Scotland; and the Rev. John Aitken of Aberdeen, referring to the affidavit of Dr Edgar, enumerates eleven points of difference between the Free Church and the Synod of Original Seceders.

These are the affidavits which have been filed upon the part of the relators, and they go into a very minute detail of the varions points of difference between the two Churches-some relating to the general nature of the doctrines, and others being directed more to the standard of doctrine adverted to in the lease. The respondents having those affidavits before them, and having, in general terms, spoken of the mutual agreement of the two Churches, and of the identity of their doctrine, Mr Gibson, Mr M'Millan, and the respondent Miller, have sworn affidavits, in which they allege that the greater portion of the differences pointed out by the witnesses for the relators do not extend to matters of doctrine, and that some of the alleged differences or distinctions do not exist at all. A general allegation is made respecting the doctrines of the Free Church; and Mr Gibson says that the singing of uninspired hymns is not practised; that he is well acquainted with the history of the Free Church, and that in no single instance does he believe that Mr Miller has, by joining the one body, relinquished any of the doctrines of the other. The Rev. Mr Miller refers to the affidavit of Mr Gibson, and concurs in what he represents, and he then goes into a detail of what took place in the meeting-house of Toberdony. He states that he mentioned the terms from the pulpit; but he admits that he did not call a congregational meeting, because he was told that opposition would be made to any change. Mr M'Millan refers to the affidavit of Mr Murray, and concurs in the views of Mr Gibson; and the last affidavit is the joint affidavit of the Rev. M. Murray and George Stevenson, in answer to Gibson and M'Millan.

Thus far as regards the parole testimony of the case, and even without going very minutely into those affidavits, and critically examining them, it did appear to the court, upon the testimony of eminent divines, perfectly plain, that the Free Church of Scotland did not hold the very same doctrines with the Original Reformed Church of Scotland; and whatever might have been the effect of union in other respects, the union between some of the Synod of Original Seceders and the Free Church was not one based upon the doctrines which alone were to be promulgated in the meeting-house in question, nor within the meaning and the import of the lease. The swearing of several of the witnesses as to the different distinctions existing between the two bodies is positive, minute, and particular, and the answer sought to be given consists of general averments of uniformity which were not satisfactory. It appeared to the court that the doctrine of free communion, advocated by the one body, was denounced by the

other body; and upon the whole of the case, looking to the acts and declarations upon which the two Churches were based-looking to the parole testimony which had been given, and having regard to all the proceedings of the United Seceders, and to the standard of religious faith by which they were to be guided, the court was of opinion that the Rev. John Miller, in becoming a member of the Free Church of Scotland, did not embrace all the tenets of the United Seceders; and the court was bound to protect the majority of the congregation of Seceders, and to preserve for them in its integrity the faithful teaching of those principles which were maintained by the original founders of the meeting-house in question.

But it was said that the union with the Free Church of Scotland was the act of the Synod of United Seceders, and that the Synod had authority, in matters of faith, to bind the congregations of which it was the representative; and the union having taken place, the relators, and those who were dissatisfied with the change, had no remedy but that they should form a new congregation, and erect a new place of worship for themselves. He (the Chancellor) did not concur in the view that any such power as that which had been contended for was possessed by the Synod, nor had any witness deponed to the existence of any such power within the range of religious doctrine. It might have authority so to decide upon matters of faith and discipline, as to determine if new doctrines were in conformity with those of the church which it professed to represent, having regard to the standard of that church; but the Synod had no power to change, to add to, to diminish, or to meddle with the standards themselves, binding congregations to its decisions; such an exercise of authority was not within its power. The Synod is but an association of presbyters. Its declarations are those of a number of separate congregations; and it had no more power to change the doctrines of the church, than individual ministers and elders. Unless the change in question were made by the whole congregation, the majority or the minority were equally entitled to the benefit of the trust as it stood originally, and to the doctrine and communion which the trust declared.

But, lastly, it was urged upon the part of the respondents, that the Free Church of Scotland was that church to which the Seceders could conform-that the Seceders, in their original testimony, shewed they were willing to continue in the general association of Christiansthat they were driven from the Church of Scotland by its tyrannical acts; and it was insisted that in the Free Church they found a kindred body to whom the appeal applied, and that the union was a return from secession to a communion purified from all the offences that had antecedently taken place-that, had the Free Church been in existence when the original secession took place from the Church of Scotland, no such secession would have occurred-and that the union which took place within the last few years was in conformity with the aspirations and desires always looked forward to of a junction with another body in the Christian Church. The court, however, was of opinion, that the basis of union between the Free Church of Scotland and the Synod of Original Seceders was not founded upon the existence