guished for either of these qualities. This, of course, admits of an easy explanation. The latter, it is well known, are distinguished by literary ability and scholarship, and it might be expected that the result would be as above indicated; while the former, with some few exceptions, not laying claim to much either of literary ability or scholarship, the result is as above noted. Lest, however, this explanation should not satisfy our readers, we shall venture to suggest another, rising out of the fact that, on perusal of the report of 1862, a marked improvement is distinguishable in the addresses of some of the majority, which, perhaps, is referable to the fact of their having received, with the sanction of the "Association," a "proof" of what was intended to be given to the Church and to the world as their veritable utterances. As, however, some of the speakers in the minority may not have read what the " Association" has reported them to have said, we venture to advise caution in publishing any statements which may be flatly contradicted by said "reports." We can assure these friends, that in whatever spirit this advice be taken, it is given in all kindness, and not without sufficient reason, as will appear when we turn our attention to a letter recently published by the Rev. Wm. Anderson,

If our space permitted, we should have made reference to the remarks by which these "Reports" are introduced and followed up, and to the notes with which, in several instances, they are supplemented. The animus of these remarks and notes is only too transparent; it would be a pleasure if we could say that their justice and truthfulness are as evident. We could easily fill this number of the Magazine with instances in which truth has been very grossly perverted, and language employed which is libellous in its character; but we forbear, and turn to a little matter which may be dealt with not so sternly as we should have felt ourselves called upon (had we entered on the subject), to reprobate the recklessness of the men who thus endeavour to scatter "firebrands, arrows, and death." We never gave the "Association" credit for large development of the imaginative faculty; but, since reading the report of discussions in 1863, our opinions on this head have undergone a slight change. Our readers will, we are persuaded, concur with us in this change when they look at the following" Mr Anderson accordingly left the document on the table of Synod, and in the midst of solemn silence this aged, holy man of God, followed by the other protesters, left the court, protesting against the clamant defections of the degenerate covenanting Church,— -a scene which strongly recalled the Disruption of 1843," (The italics are our own.) If Mr Anderson's departure strongly recalled the Disruption of 1843 to the Association," it seems not to have had that effect upon one of the protesters, for Mr Carmichael is careful to inform the meeting held in the Religious Institution Rooms on the 7th May that, "when the Free Church people separated from the Establishment, they came out in numbers, and in wealth and influence, they came out on the swell of public applause. We, however, are few in number and humble in circumstances, and may lay our account to (sic) much obloquy and scorn." This view of the matter Mr Carmichael follows up by several pertinent remarks, in which he begs the brethren to "realise a sense of their weakness and folly, and to look to the Wonderful Counsellor for guidance."

We pass, then, from the "Reports," and advert now to the "Reviews" of discussions. These are two in number; it is with the last particularly that we wish to deal. In order that it may be patent to all men that we wish no evil to the "Reformation Association," through the circulation of their literature not proving remunerative, we may state that "by writing to Mr Thomas M'Math, Secretary, 48 Shamrock Street, Glasgow, parties can have such unsold copies [the italics are not ours, they belong to the "Association"] of the preceding publications sent them as they may request,

by remitting the amount either in postage-stamps or by Post-office order." The italicised word would almost suggest, did we not know otherwise, that Mr Thomas M'Math is a native of that "first gem of the sea," where a ball and wit are synonymous terms, and that he is ignorant of the fact that it is not usual for publishers, whatever may be the practice with secretaries of Reformation Associations, to sell the same copy of a pamphlet twice. Having inserted the preceding advertisement as a favour to the Association, the way is now clear to consider the pamphlet itself, which purports to be a Review of Discussions in the R. P. Synod of Glasgow, May 1862, on incorporation with the British Constitution; and also of the Report of Synod's Committee appointed to inquire in regard to the Oath of Allegiance and the Elective Franchise." As the last mentioned matter will fall to be considered in another connection, we shall confine ourselves meanwhile to the "Review of the Discussion," as a specimen of the literary tastes of the Association. If it be said, why not rather take up the arguments which are advanced as to the immoral, antichristian, &c., &c., nature of the British Constitution? and as to voting for a member of Parliament forming complicity with these evils? our reply is, that it is not at all to our taste to slay the slain. This pamphlet, then, consisting of ninety-three octavo pages, liberally italicised and small capitalised, deserves to have a very large circulation. If any person were to ask us at this moment whether there be any production which would help him to an idea of what the "Association " is, what it professes to do, and what manner of men they are who form its membership, we should at once say, "Beg, borrow, or purchase this precious production;" it will form an excellent and satisfactory guide on all the above points. To the advertisement of the pamphlet is appended, as is the wont of publishing firms, a recommendatory note, which we have much pleasure in quoting. "I have read this last review. It would be well if every member of both Churches had a copy. It gives the principal actors in the transgression a dreadful castigation; they will not like to look at the picture, though truly drawn."-London communication. LONDON COMMUNICATION!! Would our readers kindly pardon us if we shrink from any endeavour to reply to a production vouched for by such an authority. And yet the question has uncomfortably forced itself upon us, Who is “London communication?"-proper name? telegraph wire? London and NorthWestern Railway? man? woman? child? The interest is absolutely of the intensest kind. The mystery is absorbing; if he (but we know not what pronoun is the right one)—if he be a man, he is a sensible man; if she be a woman, she is a sensible, strong-minded woman; if a child, he, she, or it is wise beyond his, her, or its years; for this is true and sensible, "It would be well if every member of both Churches had a copy." We decidedly think so, and therefore to whet the appetite of the Christian public for any unsold copy which Mr M'Math may happen to have, we cull a few of the fragrant flowers which have been strewn upon the Church, and upon her highly-honoured ministers and elders. The Church is "a new indulgence shop, an organised hypocrisy, an unprincipled Church in which moral principle is at a discount." An elder of the Church has "sold his birthright for some consideration." One ministerial member of Synod "pretends astonishment; employs a puerile method of making a merit of evasion; unfairly and meanly refers' to an insult offered to the court of which he was a member; is guilty of most unbrotherly impertinence; acts in a way neither open, manly, honest, nor straightforward; talks incoher ently; has a genius for absurdity; and, to crown the whole, is a wily disputant." Another member of Synod is "a mild, amiable, and charitable Pharisee." A third "has got his claymore whetted on a famous latitudinarian grindstone in or about Edinburgh, and holds that the violation of vows is not sin." A fourth "performs the part of clown or harlequin, is

a book-worm, and, like the chameleon, may be therefore expected to exhibit the colours of what he has last been feeding on." On reading this sentence we asked a friend how we looked immediately after making a lunch off the "Review." The reply was, that the colour of our countenance was much the same as before, but he recommended a mild course of "Tupper's Proverbial Philosophy," in order to bring back the features to an aspect of becoming seriousness. A fifth "exhibits a most perverse ingenuity, has stupendous mysteries of microscopical dimensions to unveil, and parents are warned not to send their sons to a theological seminary where they will be in danger of being contaminated by such teaching as that contained in certain statements of the senior professor." The sentiments of a sixth cannot be otherwise accounted for than by a foul and malicious insinuation," If it were not a minister that babbled in this fashion," says the "Association," "and if it were at some other place than a meeting of a church court,-if, for instance, it were at a convivial gathering after dinner, -we could easily get at a method of accounting for it; as it is, we must set it down among unaccountable things." Will it be believed that, after such a baseness as this, the "Association" has the conscience to say, "Will the gentlemen of the majority have the goodness to overlook the hard words?"

On reading this review we felt, upon the whole, a load taken from off our hearts. We admit that we had for a time our fears that the brethren who at last Synod saw it their duty to leave the Church and form a new organisation were identified, to some extent, with this Reformation Association. Now, we feel certain, after perusal of this pamphlet, and from what we know of the men who have gone out from us, that we were altogether in error on this head; and from certainty as to the past, we turn to a predic tion in reference to the future: if ever these brethren err so grievously as to identify themselves with the men under whose auspices such productions see the light, they are laying for themselves the foundation of a life-long misery. This word more we have to say, that if the members of the association" which countenances the putting forth of such statements, were ever members of the Reformed Presbyterian Church in Scotland, we fear that that Church has not yet felt grateful enough to God for the good riddance which has in providence been granted her. It is not marvellous that such a production as the "Review" should appear without a name, although shielded under the divided responsibility of an "Association." We shall not hazard any conjecture as to the authorship beyond quoting, in conclusion, a remarkable passage which occurs in page 23 of the "Review: The Committee, in inquiring into the nature of the political identity between a representative and his constituents, and into the nature of the oath of allegiance, have not been inquiring into anything that can, with propriety, be called a distinctive principle of this Church" (R. C., 10). The italics are the Committee's own, and there was small need for calling attention to the sentence in this fashion. It is noticeable enough in more respects than one. In the first place, it is remarkable as a specimen of English composition, specially remarkable as coming from gentlemen who have been accustomed to pride themselves on the vast superiority of their education, and to look down with supercilious disdain upon clerical brethren in other countries, on the ground of a 'supposed inequality' in this respect.' If we do not very much mistake, we find here what we may term the mark of the parties who have written the pamphlet,

It remains now that we say a few words upon a letter which, though not published under the auspices of the "Association," appears in connection with one of the subjects treated of by the "Review," which "London communication" so highly lauds. This letter is from the pen of Rev. Wm. Anderson. We are bound to say, in reference to it, that it differs very

much in tone and expression from the "Review." Mr Anderson is too well known in the Church to require any eulogy from us; we hold him to be incapable of dealing those assassin-like strokes at reputation dealt by the author of the pamphlet above referred to. This, however, does not prevent us from averring that the letter (which professes to be a reply to the speeches delivered in Glasgow Presbytery by Rev. John M'Dermid and Rev. W. Symington) might as well have had any other title prefixed to it as that which it bears, inasmuch as it leaves untouched the very points which ought to have been met, and contains, moreover, some remarkable statements in reference to the Report and Overture, to which we beg most respectfully to invite Mr Anderson's attention. The following charges are brought forward :-"That the Report was drawn up by a committee consisting altogether of brethren belonging to the movement party; that it was entirely one-sided; that brethren who were friends of the Testimony had no part in the proceedings; and that the committee managed everything, of course, in the manner which appeared to it best fitted to accomplish the end in view." It will now become apparent that we had a meaning a very kind and courteous meaning-in cautioning Mr Anderson against publishing any statement which might be flatly contradicted by the "Association Reports of the Discussions." Let our readers attend to the following words spoken by Mr Anderson in Synods 1861-2:-"Of course if his (Mr M'Dermid's) motion be agreed to, a committee must be appointed in which I can take no part. . . . At present I could have no share in what I conceive to be a departure from our principles." Without waiting to animadvert upon the peculiar idea which Mr Anderson seems to entertain of our principles, or to do more than indicate our surprise at learning that it was a principle of the Reformed Presbyterian Church that no committee of inquiry should be appointed upon any matter regarding which difficulty might be felt, we simply ask how Mr Anderson can, consistently with candour, assert that the committee, so far as his absence from it is concerned, was one sided?" Whose fault-(if fault it be)-whose fault is this? A year has passed, and Mr Anderson again rises in Synod, and during the discussion as to whether the report should be adopted or not, says, "Of course the Synod in appointing them [the members of Committee] thought they were doing a right and proper thing, but it will be remembered by you all that I said, at the time of its appointment, that that was a committee with which I could have nothing to do, and whatever other members did, I could not take part in the inquiry." Of course we all remember that; in fact, every person remembers it except Mr Anderson himself. But should it be said, "Why were not Mr Martin sen., Mr Carmichael, Mr Henderson, or Mr R. T. Martin appointed to act on that committee? the reason will be found in the fact that all these brethren supported Mr Anderson's motion, which refused the prayer of the Overture from the Presbytery of Dumfries, and signed subsequently, a document in which they dissented from the appointment of any such committee, on the ground that "the matters remitted to a committee have been reported on by committees appointed to consider them within the last few years, while no heed is paid to these reports, although unanimously adopted by Synod." If we were to write in a spirit of finding fault with the membership of the committee, we might have mentioned a peculiar feature connected with it, that not an individual of the Presbytery which requested its appointment was included in the number of those to whom the Overture and the mat ters in it were remitted. We have no idea that the committee suffered any loss by the pretermission, any more than that it was unjust or one-sided that gentlemen who openly declared that they could not take part in it should be passed by.

But a complaint is further urged as to the "unconciliatory spirit" of the

brethren of the movement party. This complaint rests upon as slender a foundation as that of which we have disposed above. "According," writes Mr Anderson, "to an unwritten agreement, that report was to have been in the hands of the members of Synod three weeks before the meeting, to give time for consideration. This was not fulfilled. But the leaders of the movement (although the report, with opinions of lawyers, extended to ➡ upwards of forty printed pages, and of course required time for its examination, if it was to be examined at all), pressed forward the Overture to immediate decision in the face of a motion to allow the Report to lie on the table for consideration, and got the majority of Synod to sanction the Overture at once, while all fair opportunity of examining the Report was refused, and a proper examination of it by the friends of the Testimony and the members of Synod in general was rendered impossible."-(P. 13.) Really we have no sympathy with this unmanly style of Jeremiad, and we feel certain that our readers, when they know the facts of the case, will share with us in reprobating such a mode of writing as that which we have quoted above. It was distinctly stated by the convener of the committee referred to, that it had been the earnest wish of himself and his coadjutors to have implemented the understanding as to the time when the report might be in the hands of the members of court; that he was prevented from carrying out that intention by the fact, that some of the parties applied to for their view of the oath had not sent forward their written opinions in sufficient time to admit of his fulfilling that which was his cherished wish. If our memory serves us, the convener of the committee offered to allow the report to lie on the table for twelve months, if the minority would during that interval free him from the necessity of exercising discipline for the matters referred to in the report. Mr Anderson will be able to say whether he consented to that proposal or not.

Referring once more to the Report of Dicussions in 1862, it may be well for our readers to know that Mr Anderson, while objecting to the adoption of the Report, said, "Well, I would have no objection to receiving the report, believing the meaning of that to be that it is in the hands of the court, as coming from the hands of the committee, and that no member is committed in any way by its reception to anything in it." If Mr Anderson was assured (as we know he was) by the Moderator as the representative of the court, that no member was committed by its reception to anything in it, we fail to perceive on what grounds he urges the charge of want of Courtesy. The source of all Mr Anderson's confusion lies in the idea which he has, that the Overture was founded upon the Report. The misapprehension is very great on this head; the overture was as careful as the court itself to abstain from any judicial sanction of the opinions contained in the report, and founded the only proposal in it-not upon the report of the committee, but upon the Word of God. The radical error, therefore, of Mr Anderson's position upon this point, lies in the confounding of two documents which are altogether distinct the one from the other. That "all fair opportunity of examining the report was refused" is not consistent with the following facts:-That the report was simply received that it was sent down to presbyteries and sessions, not as having received the imprimatur of synod, but simply that as reference had been made in the preamble of the overture to the opinions which the Committee had at much expenditure of time and trouble obtained, the inferior courts of the Church might have the advantage of reading these opinions and forming their own conclusions upon them.

We do not imagine that Mr Anderson has given in his letter that justice which it deserves to the recommendation addressed to the members to abstain from voting. Founding upon an expression used by Mr Sym