motives were religious, and, so far as I was able to observe, they partook much of the spirit which prevailed among the fathers of our church. The men to whom I refer dreaded nothing so much as a national acknowledgment of what they believed to be condemned of God, and to have on it the seal of the deceiver. On the other hand, our brethren out of the church who opposed us on the Bible question, generally espoused the cause of Catholic Emancipation; not because they approved of Popery, but from motives of expediency, or by reasoning from certain political principles which they held to be permanent on this and all similar questions. Here again, however, we had with us several of the Presbyterian dissenting bodies, and a large proportion of laymen in connexion with the United Secession, and some even from among the Independents. Some, also, of our own leading men, such as Dr. Chalmers, opposed us. But when these deductions and modifications have been made, it is still true, that the Church of Scotland, as a body, was distinguished for her opposition to that measure; and that our brethren out of the establishment, who have since taken a lead in opposing all establishments, were generally in favour of that measure. I am quite aware, that as different opinions are entertained on the policy of that measure, the part thus taken by our church can be only a doubtful test of her merit; and all, therefore, that I argue is, that the sense which she had of divine authority, and which awakened her zeal in favour of Bible purity, led her, in spite of the politics of many of her members, to oppose that measure in its principle as well as in its provisions. And I must be permitted to express it as my own opinion, that we thus gained another step in the lesson of not daring to do evil that good may come, and have thus been saved from much of that latitudinarianism which is at present so rapidly spreading, and doing no small injury, we fear, to the cause of Christ in these lands.

On the Sabbath question our church has done comparatively little; yet has she done something, and she has farther shown a willingness to do more. Her parishes have very generally petitioned Parliament. Many of her ministers and people have laboured much to promote, by moral as well as legal means, a better observance of the Sabbath. Particular Presbyteries have taken up the subject, and laboured in the work. Synods have directed the attention of their people to it, and the General Assembly has a committee preparing measures for the adoption of the church. Here also others have joined

us in this work, yet not so generally as in the church; nor, so far as we know, have our brethren in the other churches expressed their opinion on the subject, by any judicial enactment, or by any general and united effort, as has been done among ourselves. Now here also we see the operation of the same high moral principle and tender regard to the divine authority which we had occasion in other instances to observe. We should deprecate the idea that any of the Presbyterian denominations can be indifferent to a subject so intimately connected with the honour of God and vital godliness. And all that we mean to argue is, that the greater readiness of our church to respond to the call, is to be regarded as a favourable indication of her prevailing spirit and general character.

In connexion with this, it is but due to mention, that the cause of abstinence from spirituous liquors has prevailed more among dissenters, in proportion to their number, than among churchmen, at least among dissenting ministers more than those of the church. The church has, however, taken a part even in this, and has been raising the standard of her discipline against drunkards, and will, I trust, ere long, fully embark in the cause, whether by abstinence or otherwise. As dissenting ministers are chiefly resident in public places, it might have been expected that they would go more generally into it than such of the church ministers as reside in the country. And besides, as the means employed are confessedly voluntary, and not any part of moral duty, it would be wrong to judge of those who did not comply, as if they were unconcerned or neglectful of duty. At the same time we regard it as a blemish of our church, that she has not been more awakened to the fearful inroads of drunkenness, and that she has not done more to stem this torrent of immorality and ungodliness.

In referring now to the question of national education in your country, I need not inform you that our church is unfavourable to it, and that the ground of their complaint is the interference of Government with the free use of the Bible in schools, and that a contrary opinion is generally entertained, and has been strongly expressed by our dissenting brethren. We have no wish to sit in judgment on their respective opinions, in so far as they go to affect the details of education or the political design of the Government. All we mean to assert is, that the ground which our church took up was by no means political, but religious, and of a kindred spirit with that discovered in the Bible question. The only question with us was- Does this system interfere with the free use of the

word of God?' And therefore our opposition, whether right or wrong politically, bore testimony to the importance which our church attaches to the free use of that precious book; and was there an indication of the high state of moral feeling among our people, or rather of the subordinated influence of political opinion, when employed to interfere with the religious education of the people?

From all of these it were easy to infer the presence of a similar principle, of which some may disapprove, but which none acquainted with the facts can separate from moral and religious feelings on these subjects and those of a kind which we hail as indicating the spiritual prosperity of our church. There is, however, one point yet remaining, to which we attach much importance;—we mean the present attitude of the church, as concerns the end and character of civil governments. Many confound this question with that of church establishments; and knowing that we are interested in this last, they will cast from them the whole argument, as of little value, coming as it does from us. These opinions, however, do not alter the facts of the case; and these go much too deep into the subject to stop at the question of establishments. That the powers which be are ordained of God, and that by him kings reign and princes decree justice, yea, that he is the Governor among the nations, is a doctrine of Scripture. It is, however, a prevailing notion, that civil government is a mere compact between man and man; that in it God need not be acknowledged; and that the will and the wisdom of man, even to the exclusion of the declared will of Jehovah, ought alone to be followed. Such sentiments lead to general scepticism, and are themselves the language of spiritual rebellion. We cannot indeed conceive a more exact fulfilment of the spirit and drift of the second psalm than is herein contained. Yet these are prevailing sentiments among many of our brethren. They are, we fear, in not a few instances, driven into this position from the controversial grounds they have assumed. We account it a blessing to our church, that her members are not exposed to this temptation; and that, in point of fact, those of them who have been led to study the subject, have the truly scriptural opinion of divine authority being paramount to all, and to be recognised and obeyed by all. We mean not by this that they advocate the interference of the civil magistrate with matters purely ecclesiastical, or that they should, on any account, disturb or control the exercise of conscience. Such interference has always been repelled by our church. It was by

standing in the gap against such intrusions that our fathers suffered so long and so severely. And we are persuaded, that were any thing of the kind again attempted, there is enough of the spirit of more early times among us to stem the unholy current, and at least to remain as a vessel moored amidst the troubled waters, tossed and damaged, yet not carried away. But there is between this jealousy of aught which would interfere with the spiritual kingship of Christ, and the substitution of political theories for scriptural principles, all the difference for which we contend. We dread the progress of the one class of principles; and we pray God, they may not have the effect of bedimming the glory of a risen Saviour among his own professed followers; and we hail the other, and bless God that it is to be found so generally among us.

I find that I have extended my remarks far beyond my original intention, and that I have still left untouched the progress of our church in retracing her steps judicially, and especially in the acts of her supreme judicatory-the General Assembly, This subject I may afterwards take up, when I shall endeavour to give you some account of the decisions of our last Assembly.

I am, Dear Sir,

Your Friend,

A MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.

JOHN KNOX.

IN a former Number we noticed the call of John Knox to the ministry of the Gospel, and the decision of character manifested by him in entering on his work. In the present Number we shall direct the attention of your readers to another incident in the life of this illustrious man, which serves to show the steadfastness of his purpose in the cause of Jesus Christa cause, from supporting which, no personal risk, no fear of danger, could induce him for one moment to shrink.

The Queen Regent of Scotland having, by her command and authority, endeavoured to revive the idolatrous religion of the Church of Rome, contrary to her most solemn promise, and having by this and some other proceedings disgusted a few of the nobles of Scotland, they not only withdrew from her court, but they wrote letters to several of the professors of the true religion to meet them at St. Andrews, for the

purpose of furthering the Reformation there. On the 4th of June, 1559, in accordance with these letters, they met, and brought with them John Knox, who, on the first day of his coming to Fife, preached in Careal-the next day in Anstruther, minding, on the third day, which was the Sabbath, to preach in St. Andrews. The bishop of this see hearing of the reformation intended to be made in his cathedral church, thought it was his time to prevent it. Having assembled his colleagues, confederates, and other friends, he came to St. Andrews on Saturday night, accompanied with an hundred spears, resolved to prevent John Knox from preaching on the following day. What rendered this unexpected coming of the bishop a subject of just alarm, was, that not only were the few noblemen and gentlemen who came with John Knox unprepared to offer any resistance to this force, having with them none save their own households, but the queen, with the French troops who had departed from St. Johnston, were lying in Falkland, within twelve miles of St. Andrews. Besides, the town had not yet given any profession of Christ, and therefore could not be depended upon. After consulting what was best to be done under the present circumstances, many were of opinion that the preaching should be delayed for that day, and especially that John Knox should not preach; for the bishop, who had ordered John Knox to be burned in effigy, had declared, that he would by no means suffer him to preach. He sent, therefore, a gentleman, Robert Colville, of Cliess, to say, that in case John Knox presented himself to the preaching-place in his town and principal church, he should make him be saluted with a dozen of Culverins. After long deliberation, they agreed to ask John Knox's opinion. When many persuasions were addressed to him, that he should desist for that time, and many terrors set before him, if, in contempt of the bishop, he should persevere, the man of God replied, as was worthy of his cause and his name, "God is witness that I never preached Christ Jesus in contempt of any man, neither mind I at any time to present myself to that place, having either respect to my own commodity, either yet to the worldly hurt of any creature: but to delay to preach to-morrow, unless the body be violently withholden, I cannot in conscience; for in this town and church began God first to call me to the dignity of a preacher, from the which I was reft by the tyranny of France, and procurement of the bishops, as ye well enough know. How long I continued prisoner-what torment 1 sustained in the gallies-and what were the sobs of my heart,