Dr Duncan, the late Moderator, moved that the request be complied with.

Such

Dr Forbes, of Old Machar, expressed his surprise at the tenor of the letter they had just heard read. He was sure that Dr Macknight would not have written that letter if he had been aware of the objections which were stated at last Assembly. The granting of the request of that letter would be, that similar application would be made year after year to supply his place till the gentleman would come forward as his successor. a precedent was not to be permitted, as it would just come to be, that because a person has performed the duties gratuitously for a number of years, you must appoint him permanently when the office becomes vacant. With these feelings, he begged to propose Dr Lee, a gentleman who had paid great attention to the early history of the Church, who was peculiarly well qualified for the office, and who would act for Dr Macknight without any fee or reward. He begged to state, that while he proposed Dr Lee, he did so with all respect for the gentleman who was the other candidate, against whom he had no objection.

Dr Andrew Thomson seconded the motion.

After some discussion, the House divided; when three appeared for Dr Lee, 112; for Mr Simpson, 58– majority, 54.

20.-The Assembly was duly constituted, when, after some formal business had been gone through, it adjourned.

Administration of the Sacrament. 23. This day the Assembly met at eleven o'clock.

An overture from the Presbytery of Hamilton, anent certain innovations in the mode of dispensing the

VOL. XVIII. PART III.

Lord's Supper, was read. It stated that, in some instances, it was the practice for communicants to sit in pews, instead of coming to the table. The overture prayed that the Assembly should enjoin every presbytery to put a stop to the innovation, and to see that every new church within its bounds was provided with a communion table, according to the law and the practice of the Church.

Dr Begg, of New Monkland, appeared in support of the overture. The matter had been formerly noticed in the Presbytery, and had also been brought before the Synod of Glasgow and Ayr. That reverend court disapproved of the innovation, and enjoined the presbyteries within its bounds to have the evil remedied. Consequently, in some churches, the abuse had been given up, while in others it had not." It was the object

of the Reformation to reduce the forms of the church to simplicity, and to do away with superstitious practices. At the Reformation, there was no dispute about a table; it had formed part of the furniture of a church from the earliest ages. It was mentioned in the first book of discipline, which provides that every church should have doors, a bell to ring for assembling the people, a pulpit, a basin for baptism, and a communion table. In the year 1562, the order of Geneva was adopted as the directory, or book of common order. The order of Geneva recognises a communion table; and states that the minister was to come down from the pulpit, to take his place at the table; that all the communicants do leave their seats; and that every man come to the table of the Lord, as occasion served. The book of common order continued in force from 1562 to 1645. There were no doubt several alterations attempted to be made upon it. In 1608, at the General As

P

sembly held at Perth, it was enacted that the Lord's Supper was to be taken kneeling. That caused a great ferment in the country, which continued more or less-some churches adopting the practice, and some rejectingit-till the year 1638, when all the acts of the Assembly held at Perth were rescinded. In 1643, a General Assembly was held at Westminster, with a view to bring about an universal form of worship over the whole island, and to assimilate the English to the Scottish form. For that purpose, five ministers and three elders were delegated as commissioners. These gentlemen had many difficulties to contend with-they had to contend with prejudices of the Episcopalian party, about kneeling; and with the Independents, with respect to communicants sitting in their seats. It was with the utmost difficulty that these gentlemen could overcome the prejudices of both parties; but they did so. Their fathers had been careful that no innovations should be made. This could be seen from two acts of Assembly-one in 1639, and another in 1641 he would only read one of them. These were revived by the act of 1695; and in 1777, what was commonly called the Barrier Act was to that effect. But he begged their most particular attention to the 15th act of Assembly of 1707, against innovations. (He here read it.) This act was sworn to by all ministers and probationers. It was an important act, and embodied all the others. These were the forms handed down to us by our fathers-they had been cemented by the blood of patriots and of martyrs. Our hearts ought to warm at the very recollection of the price which had been paid to secure them. If we did innovate, it must only be after a strong case of necessity was made out. Dr B. concluded with moving, in effect, that the Assembly express its disapprobation of

the innovation, and declare that a communion table should be used in every church; also, that all presbyteries should be enjoined to see that, when a new church is to be erected within its bounds, it may be provi ded with a suitable and convenient communion table.

Dr Hodgson, of Blantyre, supported the overture.

Mr P. McFarlan, of Glasgow, opposed the introduction of the overture in the committee, because he thought the matter could be far better disposed of in the inferior courts. He was ashamed that the time of the Assembly should be wasted on such a trifling subject. He submitted, and he would prove, that the law was not only.complied with in spirit, but to the very letter; and with the advantage of a more speedy and easy serving out of the communion elements. Much had been said about the directions ;-the directions only referred to persons coming forward to the table, but not a word was said of the form of the table. They did sit in rows; but was that any indication of a want of brotherly love or kindly feeling towards each other? Really, after all that had been said, this subject had not caused the least excitement in the west of Scotland-a district where the people were peculiarly sensitive and tenacious of their rights, and the usages of the church. Mr M'Farlan concluded by moving, that the Assembly dismiss the overture, as there was no evidence that the practice complained of was contrary to the rules of the church.

Professor Chalmers, of St Andrews, said he was at a great loss how to state his views on this subject. The prac tice was no innovation-it had been acted on for years in Montrose, in St Andrews, and in the New Greyfriars at Edinburgh. He did not rise to combat the question, but to give his testimony, as an eye-witness, of the

od effects resulting from the new de. Before the adoption of that actice, the day of a sacrament was lay of fear and regret-every inch ground to the communion table was ight for. And were all these evils be again revived by the authority of e Assembly? The reverend Prosor concluded with a powerful and ergetic appeal to the members, not waste their time with such trifles; while infidelity was making such ra1 progress among us, they were disting about subjects no better than e tippet controversy of former times. e seconded the motion of Mr M'Far

1.

Dr Meiklejohn said he was an eney to innovation: if the motion had prospective object, it should have s support, but not otherwise. Dr Nicoll did not consider the subct as one of very great importance. here was no point of religious docine impugned by the new mode. he use of a communion table was an cient practice in the Church of Scotnd. And he would propose, that hey find that it was the immemorial ractice of the Church of Scotland to elebrate the ordinance of the Lord's upper seated round a communion able; and that unless in particular Ercumstances it was inexpedient to ter it.

Dr Brown, of Langton, observed, his was a question which ought to e approached as a question of fact, hich trenched on the forms of the hurch, and must be decided by the merits of the case. The practice of ur ancestors was the best commentary n what they meant; and they in all ases used a communion table.

Dr A. Thomson was prepared to how, that the practice complained of, ad both complied with the letter, and he spirit of the law. He was, howver, disposed to acquiesce in the moion of the reverend Principal.

Mr Carment was afraid that Dr Nicol's motion would bring the matter again before the Assembly.

Dr A. Thomson said, there seemed to be a mistake in using the word table instead of tables.

The motion was then amendedthat the Assembly approve of the conduct of the Presbytery of Hamiltonfind that it has been the immemorial and general practice of the Church of Scotland, to distribute the elements of the Lord's Supper to the communicants seated at or around communion tables; and enjoin all presbyteries to see that all new churches within their bounds are provided with suitable communion tables.

The motion was then agreed to, with some verbal amendments.

Mr Shaw, upon the motion of Principal Nicoll, was enjoined to preach at Half Morton, every fourth Sunday, so soon as the repairs of the chapel were completed, and a committee was appointed for the purposes specified in the motion.

Case of Little Dunkeld.

24.---The House proceeded to the consideration of the petition of the Reverend Thomas Neilson, presentee to the parish of Little Dunkeld.

There appeared for Mr Neilson, the presentee, Francis Jeffrey, Patrick Robertson, and Robert Jamieson, Esqrs. advocates.

There appeared, in support of the judgment of the Presbytery of Dunkeld, Mr Butter, Mr Stirling, and Mr M'Bean.

Dissenters, complainers from the decision of the Presbytery, Dr Niven and Mr Innerarity.

In support of the finding of the Synod, Mr Thomson of Perth, Mr Finlay of Perth, Mr Bennie, and Mr Bullock.

Dissenters from the Synod's judg ment, Dr Murray of Kilmadock, Dr

Milne, Mr Liston, Mr Robertson, Mr Gray, Mr Grierson, Mr Maxton.

Mr P. Robertson, advocate, would proceed to the consideration of the merits of the case. Mr R. adverted to and read the petition, which was presented to the Presbytery of Dunkeld, by four hundred and forty of the parishioners, against the induction of Mr Neilson. This petition was read in that court, and acted upon, when their plain and obvious duty was, either to have sustained or rejected the presentation. They did neither, however; they came to a vote that they ought not to proceed in the induction, because, from their own knowledge, the presentee was unacquainted with the Gaelic language, and therefore not qualified to be the minister of Little Dunkeld. The whole proceedings of the Presbytery were irregular, and must be quashed, and the cause judged as if no such proceedings had ever been instituted. The Synod of Perth and Stirling met on the 19th April, when two motions were made; the first to "remit the whole case back to the Presbytery, to proceed in the same according to the rules of the Church, and enjoin the Presbytery to take care that no presentee be inducted into the vacant parish of Little Dunkeld, who is not qualified to preach to, and hold ministerial intercourse with the native Highlanders of the parish, in the Gaelic language, agreeably to immemorial practice." The second was to "reverse the sentence of the Presbytery of Dunkeld complained against, remit the case to the Presbytery, enjoining them, at their next ordinary meeting, to take steps to inquire into the state of the parish of Little Dunkeld, respecting the absolute necessity of the Gaelic language being understood by its minister, and which inquiry shall be concluded and decided upon by the Presbytery, on or before the 16th day of May next." Surely to all parties nothing

could have been more satisfactory than that the inquiry proposed should have been gone into; it would have satisfied all doubts, and the rights of all would have likewise been maintained. Without judicial evidence, however, they at once determined that Mr Neilson was not qualified to be the minister of Little Dunkeld. They decided in the dark; and, to use one of their own phrases, they made light darkness Mr R. proceeded to describe the parish and the manner in which the Gaelic and English population were situated in it. It was divided into four districts

The

in Amulree, or the Highland district, he said there was one ordained missionary stationed, who preached both Gaelic and English; the popu lation of this district was 629. second district was called Strathbran and had a population of 576 souls. There was a place of worship in it also, in which Dr Irvine was accustomed to preach twice a-year in Gae lic. The third district was named the Bishopric, with a population of 685, and of them only about a dozen or so could not, or would not, speak English. The fourth had a popula tion of 1089. Thus, by the last sta tistical census, the number of inhabitants was in all 2977; of these only 160 might be supposed not to understand English. After giving a history of the manner in which the petition to the Presbytery had been got up, as they called it, Mr R. contended, that the practice of having a Gaelic preacher in that parish, was not an immemorial practice. To prove that assertion, he referred to the case of the Reverend Mr M'Laggan, in 1723, who was inducted into the charge, although he could not preach that tongue. He was opposed for want of a knowledge of Gaelic; but after he was admitted, he continued minister from 1723 to 1769; consequently, during that time, there was no Gaelic preached in that parish. Mr M'Laggan was

succeeded by Mr Robertson, who no doubt preached Gaelic. This gentleman filled it till 1805, when he was succeeded by Dr Niven, who did not understand Gaelic. Dr Irvine was presented to that charge in 1806, Dr Niven having been appointed to a different parish. From that period downwards, he admitted that Gaelic was preached.

Mr Robertson, of Forteviot, begged the indulgence of the Assembly for a few minutes. He was placed in a singular situation; for though a dissenter from the Synod's decision, he nevertheless concurred in the object of their refusal to induct, on the "ground of a want of knowledge of the Gaelic language, which he considered as indispensable in the minister of Little Dunkeld. He differed with them on the ground that they ought to have sustained the presentation, and made their objections at a subsequent stage of the procedure. He would say, from his personal and accurate knowledge of the people, their habits and language, that no man was qualified to discharge the sacred duties of a pastor to this parish, unless he was master of the Gaelic lan■guage. Without this qualification, to many to whom he should be a father and friend, he could be no more than a stranger.

Dr Murray, of Kilmadock, said he felt it his duty to state, that had the Presbytery agreed to the inquiry, and it should have been found that the preaching of Gaelic was absolutely necessary in the parish of Little Dunkeld, in his opinion the present pre sentee would be found disqualified for being minister of that parish.

Mr Maxton, of Fowlis, said, as strong averments had been made on both sides, it was absolutely necessary that the case should be referred back to the Presbytery for further investigation.

Mr Cockburn said he would state, in very few sentences, how the matter really stood. The Presbytery had refused to act, and that was all the law required of them, because the presentee was under a legal and natural disqualification. It was not only the right, but the duty of the Presbytery, to resist the induction of all disqualified persons. Dumbness would have been a good objection, and surely a want of the knowledge of the language of the people was equivalent to a want of the powers of speech. He might refer for authority on this point to every work in the Church. In the Theological Institutes of the late Principal Hill, dumbness, blindness, and ignorance of the Gaelic language, in a parish where it was spoken, were held to be natural disqualifications. He did not like the theory of a reverend gentleman, who said, first induct the man, and then compel him to endure the luxury of being deprived of office. What were the circumstances? The Presbytery saw that the presentee was a gentleman who could not speak the Gaelic language, and they also knew that the use of that language was necessary for the minister of Little Dunkeld; they therefore decided accordingly. It was true to a certain extent, that there were conflicting statements. To get the better of these, the presentee had published a fine variegated plan of the parish of Little Dunkeld. He said that some of them had no knowledge of the Gaelic in the blue, very little in the yel low, and none at all in the upper part of the red. Like Captain Bobadil, he knocked them down, man by man, till he did not leave a single Gaelic tongue in the whole parish. That English was not the usual language of communication in the parish, none could doubt; and there were in it upwards of 1000 women and children who did not understand one word, except of