MHv4 HI

33

This book was digitized by Microsoft Corporation in
cooperation with Yale University Library, 2008. You
may not reproduce this digitized copy of the book for
any purpose other than for scholarship, research,
educational, or, in limited quantity, personal use. You
may not distribute or provide access to this digitized copy
(or modified or partial versions of it) for commercial purposes.

MEMORIAL
SUBMITTED TO
THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT PEEL, BARONET,
FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY,
AND THE OTHER MEMBERS OF HER MAJESTY'S GOVERNMENT ;
ADOPTED BY
A MEETING OF MINISTERS OF THE CHURCH OF SCOTLAND
ASSEMBLED AT EDINBURGH, ON 17th— 21th NOVEMBER, 184>,
^HE Memorialists, after consultation and mature deliberation, consider
Jl ¦ it to be their duty to represent very respectfully to her Majesty's
Government the position in which the Church of Scotland now stands, in
consequence of the proceedings of the Civil Courts in various cases, and
particularly the judgment recently pronounced by the House of Lords, in
the case of Aucht.erarder ; — and they take this early opportunity of direct
ing attention to this subject, and to the resolutions which they have felt
themselves compelled to adopt, in the earnest hope that her Majesty's
Government may be prepared, on the meeting of Parliament, to move for
the passing of such an enactment as has now become indispensable for the
existence of the Established Church of Scotland.
In discharging this duty, the Memorialists beg leave most solemnly to
declare, thajb their only object is to make her Majesty's Government aware
of the principles which they conscientiously hold, and of the line of con
duct which these principles must necessarily require them to pursue, in
the circumstances in which they may very soon find themselves placed.
They have not combined together for any factious purpose. They have
met to confer with one another, as before God, and under the guidance of
his Word and Spirit, in reference to their own duty : and having come to
a very clear determination on that point, they unite in respectfully com
municating it' to those in authority, who are entitled to know their, mind,
and who will act in the matter as their own enlightened judgment may
direct. The Memorialists humbly conceive that they are imperatively
bound, in this great crisis, to state their views thus unreservedly to the
rulers of the nation *, and if it shall be said, that by indicating their readi
ness, in a certain contingency, to withdraw from their position in the pre
sent Establishment, they are assuming an attitude of intimidation, and
attempting, in an unbecoming spirit, to enforce compliance with their
wishes ; the Memorialists can only disclaim, as they most anxiously do,
any siich design ; while at the same time they desire it to be candidly con
sidered, that the principles which they hold, and with which the law, as
interpreted by the Civil Courts, is at variance, are matter of conscience
with all of them, and they are consequently reduced to the alternative, if
no change be made in the law, of either continuing to conduct the aitairs
of the Church and carry out her discipline, in direct violation of the judg
ments of the Civil Courts, or of relinquishing their connection with the
civil immunities of the Establishment. The considerations which have
induced the Memorialists to adopt the latter of these alternatives, will.
appear from the following statement. But in the mean time, they hope it
will be perceived that, in thus making known theirviews,-— they are at all
events endeavouring, to. the utmost of their power, to make the, mainten
ance of their principles, which they never can abandon, qonsistent with
peace and good order, and with the respect which is due to/the constituted
authorities of the State.
In order to perceive the state of imminent danger in which the Auch
terarder judgment* — more especially when taken in connection with the
other proceedings of the Civil Court, — has placed the Church of Scotland,

 it is necessary to advert for a little to the principles which regulate the
connection between Church and State, as these have always been held by
the Church of Scotland, and as she has always considered them to be re
cognised and secured by the fundamental laws of the kingdom.
According to the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, in this matter, the
Church and the State, each in its own sphere, is, and must be, under all cir
cumstances, supreme. It is true, that being equally ordinances of God, and
having certain common objects, connected with His glory and the social
welfare, the Church and the State may, and ought to unite in a joint ac
knowledgment of Christ, and in the employment of the means and resources
belonging to them respectively, for the advancement of his cause. But
while the Church, in this manner, may lend her services to the State, as
the State may give its support to the Church, each still remains supreme
as before. Thus, on the one hand, in regard to the Church, — She has re
ceived her powers of internal spiritual government directly from her Divine
Head, and she must, herself, at all times, exercise the whole of it, under a
sacred and inviolable responsibility to Him alone ; so that she has no power
to fetter herself, — by a connection with the State or otherwise, — in the
just exercise of any part of her spiritual functions. And, in like manner,
in regard to the State, — the same is true, on the same grounds, and to the
very same extent, as respects its secular sovereignty, — including therein
whatever it is competent for, or binding upon, the State to do, circa sacra,
or in relation to the Church. Its entire secular sovereignty, and whatever
is therein included, the State holds, directly and exclusively, from God, —
being the ordinance of God appointed in that behalf ; and it may not
divest itself of any part of that sovereignty, but is bound, at all times, to
exercise the whole of it, under its direct responsibility to God. Nor is this
view of the supremacy of Church and State, each in its own sphere, at
tended with any practical difficulty ; for the sanctions with which each
enforces its authority being no.t less different than their several spheres
are distinct, both may fully vindicate their authority without the slightest
risk of direct or injurious collision.
The result of these principles is, that — w~hile it may be the duty of the
Church and of the State to prompt and exhort, each of them the other, to
the right discharge of its proper functions, — it must be equally incompetent
for either of them to usurp authority, in any matter that falls under the
peculiar province of the other; — so that neither may the State assert domin
ion over, or cojmpel, the Church, in the discharge of any of her appropriated
spiritual functions, nor yet may the Church compel the State, or resist its
authority, in anything falling under its secular dominion. If the State,
therefore, approves of the Church, it will confer upon her the endowments
and other immunities of an Establishment ; and the happy result of this
concurrence between them will be eminently to promote the objects of
both ;~-each party, however, still in its own province, remaining, of neces
sity, as free in reference to the other as before, and the Church still pro
ceeding unfettered in the exercise of her entire spiritual government. If,
again, the State should disapprove of the Church's proceedings, — it cannot,
indeed, coerce or punish her in respect of her actings within the spiritual
province,— but it may, if it thinks necessary, either wholly or partially,
withdraw the endowments and immunities of the Establishment, (the dis
posal of which fall within its proper control ;) and the Church is bound to
submit to its determination in these matters, leaving, of course, the res
ponsibility with the State, to whom it exclusively belongs.
The substance of these principles, embodied explicitly in the Confession
of Faith of the Church of Scotland, is explained at more length in her
' Second Book of Discipline,' (chap, i,) where it is stated, that " the Go
vernment of the Church is an order or form of spiritual government, which
iii exercised by the members appointed thereto by the word of God ; and

therefore is , given immediately to the office-bearers, by whom it is exer
cised to the weal of the whole body."  " This power and policy eccle
siastical is different and distinct in its own nature from the power and policy
which is called the civil power, and appertains to the civil government of
the commonwealth, albeit they be both of God."  .."For this power
ecclesiastical flows immediately from God, and the Mediator Jesus Christ,
and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth : but only Christ, the
only spiritual King and Governor of his Church."  " The magistrate
commands external things, for external peace and quietness among the
subjects ; the minister handles external things only for conscience' sake.
The magistrate handles external things only, and actions done before men ;
but the spiritual ruler judges both inward affections and external actions,
in respect of conscience, by the word of God. The civil magistrate craves
and gets obedience by the sword, and other external means ; but the min
istry by the spiritual sword, and spiritual means."
Such, then, being the undoubted principles held by the Church of Scot
land in regard to this matter, — she conceives that these principles have
been,- at various periods of her history, expressly recognised and sanctioned
by the State, as the principles upon which she is established, and under
which she holds her endowments, and the other immunities of her establish
ment. Thus, in particular, (without at present going back to earlier times,)
when the Establishment under which the Church at present exists was,
very solemnly, settled at the Revolution, the Legislature — while it recog
nised her as the Established Church, entitled to the State endowments,
and made provision for her enjoyment of them — did, in the very same act,
afford to her the most ample recognition of the sacredness and inviolability
of her spiritual government. By the act 1690, chap. 5, Parliament not
only " established, ratified, and confirmed, the Presbyterian Church go
vernment and discipline to be the only government of Christ's Church within
this kingdom ;" but it recognised and fixed the exclusive character of the
spiritual government, thus vested in the Church, by also " ratifying and
establishing the Confession of Faith," in which it is laid down, that " there
is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ," and that " the
Lord Jesus, as King and Head of his Church, hath therein appointed
a Government in the hands of Church officers, distinct prom the Civil ma
gistrate ;" and, in respect to the most important head of the Church's spi
ritual government, namely, that touching the appointment and removal of
her ministers, (who form the chief officers in conducting her spiritual
government,) the same act "revives, renews, and confirms" a previous
act, (1592,) by which it is explicitly declared, that "the collation and
deprivation of ministers " are among those "essential privileges" which
" God hath given to his Church," — from which, it is thereby further de
clared, that the supremacy of the Sovereign over all his subjects, shall in
nowise derogate.
The exclusive authority of the Church, in the conduct of her entire spi
ritual government, under her great Head, — thus secured by the act of her
Establishment, — was still further secured to the Church, by the Act of
Security and the Treaty of Union between the two kingdoms, by which
Parliament most solemnly " establish and confirm the said true Protestant
religion, and the worship, discipline, and government of this Church, to con
tinue, without any alteration, to the people of this land in all succeeding
generations ;" and further provided, that " the sovereign succeeding in the
royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain shall, in all time com
ing, at his or her accession to the crown, swear and subscribe, that they^
shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the fore
said true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline,
rights, and privileges of this Church, as above established;" the said Esta-

blishment being further declared'to form " a fundamental and essential
condition of the treaty of union " between the two kingdoms.
It has therefore always appeared to the Church of Scotland, that so far
from having received, or from holding, her endowments and the other im
munities of her establishment, under condition of being subjeet, in any
article of her spiritual government, to secular control, she has, by the very
act of her establishment, obtained the most explicit recognition of her ab
solute spiritual freedom, and that her religious principle upon this head,
recognised, in that cliaracter of it, by the State, has been secured to her,
for ever, by the fundamental laws of the United Kingdom.
But still further, the Church has been supported in the view she has thus
taken of her constitutional freedom, by the decisions of the Civil Courtsi and
the invariable practice of the law, from the period of the Revolution down
to the present day ; — the law too having been declared and adhered to, dur
ing that period, by the Civil Courts, under circumstances calculated to
prove the peculiar strength of the securities under which the Church pos
sesses her exclusive spiritual authority.
In order to perceive this, it is necessary to advert to the act 1711, (10th
Anne, ch. 12), passed by the British Parliament, subsequent to the Act of
Security and the union of the kingdoms. By this act the right of patrons
to present to the benefices of the Church; which had been abolished under
the Revolution settlement, teas "restored; and it was provided that the
presbyteries of the Church "shall be obliged ib receive and admit" pre
sentees " in the same manner as they ought to have been admitted before
the passing of this act." This description of the obligation thus imposed
upon Presbyteries by the act 17 11,. has been held to refer back to the
period when patronage had last existed in the Presbyterian Church, that
is to say, under the act 1592, ch. 116, 117. This is the act which esta
blished the Church, and conferred her endowments at that period ; and it
contains a provision, relative to the admission of presentees by Presbyteries,
similar to that contained in the act of Queen Anne, — which provision seems
to be there expressed in the form of a condition,, under which the Legisla
ture establishes the Church and confers her endowments. In both acts,
the provision is expressed in terms which, if directed against any private
party or civil incorporation, would, unquestionably, have imported a complete.
civil obligation to the performance of the specified act. But, when applied
to the Church, in relation to the appointment and ordination of her ministers,
it seemed impossible to construe this provision of the act as importing a
civil obligation, seeing that, not only had the Legislature recognised the
entire and" necessary freedom of the Church, in her entire religious go
vernment, but it was this very act (1592) which contained that most sig
nificant and emphatic declaration, that "the collation of ministers" is one
of the " essential privileges, which God hath given to his Church." The act
(ch. 117) accordingly provides a specific remedy to the patron in the event
of a Presbytery "refusing" to admit his "qualified" presentee, viz., that
he should thereupon be entitled to " retain the whole fruits of the benefice
in his own hands." And the necessary conclusion seemed to" be, that this
statutory remedy was the only one competent to a patron under the statute,
and that no action at law could lie against the Church Courts in reference
to this the most vital and sacred function of their spiritual government.
This, accordingly, has been the view of the Constitution taken by the
Civil Courts, down to the present time. Thus, so early as 1735, the Court
of Session adjudged that "the right to the stipend is a cv6il right ; and
therefore that the Court have power to cognosce and determine upon the
legality of the admission of ministers to this effect, — whether the person ad
mitted shall have right to the stipend or not." And when, in 1749, the
Court was asked to interdict a Presbytery from proceeding to admit, as
minister of a parish, another person than the patron's presentee, they una-

nimously refused, — " because that was interfering with the power of ordi
nation, or internal policy of the Church, with which the Lords thought they
had nothing to do." The same principle was invariably adhered to in
numerous other cases ; and Lord Karnes, in a formal Treatise on the Ju
risdiction of the Courts, lays it down as the unquestionable law, that
Presbyteries and the Church Judicatories are supreme in the matter of
the settlement of ministers, — "their sentence being ultimate, even where
their proceedings are illegal," — or contrary to the obligation expressed
in relation to them in the statute ; the only "check (as he states) provided
by law being, that a minister, so settled illegally, shall not be entitled to the
stipend," an arrangement which, he adds, " happily reconciles two things
commonly opposite," viz., the necessary freedom of the Church, and a
competent regard to the civil interests of patrons.
But, although the law has thus been immemorially understood and
interpreted, in a way which so beautifully harmonizes conflicting interests,
and which is absolutely indispensable to the spiritual and constitutional
freedom of the Church, the House of Lords has at' length seen reason to
adopt a different view ; and, in consequence of the recent Auchterarder
judgment, the Church now finds herself required, as by a civil obligation,
to proceed in the matter of the ordination and admission of her ministers,
at the bidding of the Civil Court, and under civil pains and penalties,
without regard to her own sacred principles, and particularly, without re
gard to the principle, which she has always held, that the consent of the
flock is necessary to the constituting of the pastoral relation. The House
of Lords, — holding that .the statutes which have been referred to, impose
an obligation upon Presbyteries to admit presentees, as a condition of the
Church's Establishment, and of the tenure under which the ministers of
the Church hold their endowments, — and appearing to consider that all
the statutory recognitions of the Church's exclusive spiritual authority do
not afford to her members any immunity from civil control in the exercise
of their highest spiritual functions — has found, that where a Presbytery of
the Church, incompliance with her fundamental principles, "refuses " to
admit a presentee, its members, holding the secular endowments of the
State, are liable in reparation and damages, both to the patron and the
presentee, as for the perpetration of an ordinary civil wrong.
From the solemnity and unanimity with which this judgment has been
pronounced in the court of last resort, it is presumed that it may be held
as fixing the administration of the civil law of the country, in relation to
this important matter; and, from the nature of the principle on which the
judgment proceeds, it seems impossible to assign any limit to the encroach
ments which it warrants on the spiritual government and functions of the
Church. If the freedom sacredly secured to the Church, in the exercise
of her whole spiritual government and functions, does not secure her from
liability to civil obligation in every particular, it seems obvious that it can
afford her security in none; — and wherever, therefore, a civil interest may
arise in regard to the performance of any spiritual function of the Church,
there now, by effect of this judgment, remains nothing to protect her from
civil compulsion in regard to it, and the whole spiritual liberty of the.
Church is thus at once prostrated beneath the supremacy of the Civil Courts
This conclusion is abundantly confirmed by numerous late proceeding,
of the Court of Session, which, contrary to all the previous decisions and
the immemorial practice of that court, have been directed, indiscriminately
against every one spiritual function of the Church which has been brought
under their notice. They have interdicted the preaching of the gospel,
and the administration of the ordinances of religion. They have issued
judgments purporting to annul sentences of suspension and deposition,
pronounced against ministers of the gospel, and! to restore them to the

6
exercise of their sacred functions. They have reversed a sentence of ex
communication pronounced against a private member of the Church, on
account of a purely moral and religious offence. They have interposed to
regulate the constitution of the courts of the Church, and of the General
Assembly itself, interdicting and prohibiting its members from taking
their seats, and from performing their duties there; and, in short, there is
nothing whatever that, according to these judgments, is now reserved
sacred to the government of the Church. It is true that these judgments
have not yet been sanctioned by the House of Lords ; and the Church has
hitherto entertained a sanguine hope that they never would be so sanc
tioned. But the late judgment of the House of Lords proceeds upon a
principle which not only involves a direct confirmation of many of these
infringements, but by breaking down the line of demarcation between
things spiritual and things civil, seems to open a wide door for the admis
sion of them all.
The important practical question, therefore, which now arises, is this—
Is the law as now declared by the House of Lords, to be held, and allowed
to remain, the civil law of this country; — so as to compel the Church, how
ever reluctantly, to adopt those measures which her duty and the interests of
religion appear to her, under such circumstances, to require ? ,
It will be apparent that the imminent hazard to which the existence of
the Established Church is now exposed, by the recent judgment of the
House of Lords, is totally different from the embarrassments connected
with the subject of the negociations that have depended with the Govern
ment for some years past.
The point of difficulty which formerly arose, relates to what is now
familiarly known under the name of the " Non- Intrusion " principle — a
fundamental religious principle of the Church, by which she holds gene
rally, that whether a patron or any other party, either within or without
the Church, possesses the right of nominating her ministers, it is incom
petent for her Presbyteries to intrude any person into the office of the mi
nistry, " contrary to the will of the congregation to whom they are appointed."
By the first Auchterarder judgment (1839), the House of Lords decided
that the operation of this fundamental principle of the Church is excluded
by the act of Queen Anne, and found that Presbyteries are bound by the
act to receive and admit presentees, without regard to the call or concur
rence of the congregation, — even in the modified form into which the Church
had thrown it. In this judgment the Church, of course, acquiesced, ac
cording to her understanding of its bearing, constitutionally, upon the
benefice alone ; and, as the principle of Non-intrusion still remained a
fundamental religious principle of the Church, which could not, therefore,
be abandoned by her, she immediately opened communication with the
Government, with the view of obtaining an adequate legislative recognition
of that principle, such as might avoid the public injury resulting from the
discrepancy which, on that point, had now been created between civil and
ecclesiastical law. The course of the negociation which has followed is
known to her Majesty's Government, who must be fully aware, that what
ever further or additional difficulty may now have arisen, the Church
continues to be necessitated , by a sense of religious duty, to give effect, under
all circumstances, to her Non-intrusion principle, by protecting congrega
tions from the settlement of unacceptable ministers.
The negociations on this first point, however, have been unfortunately
so long protracted, as to have given occasion to the pronouncing of the
recent Auchterarder judgment, which goes much farther than the Church
hoped, was necessarily involved in the former judgment pronounced by the
House of Lords in the same case. The former judgment, no doubt, refused
the recognition of Civil law to the Church's principle of Non-intrusion,

and thus led, in every case where that principle was applied, to the forfei
ture of the benefice, in terms of the act 1592. In so far, therefore, that
judgment was prejudicial to the Church's interest in her temporalities ;
but it did not necessarily trench on her spiritual freedom. This, however,
has been effectually done by the late judgment, by which is asserted the
dominion of the Civil, over the Ecclesiastical, authority, in the ordination
and admission of ministers ; and there thus has arisen the second point of
difficulty, which forms the proper subject of the present representation,
and which is attended with circumstances of much more immediate urgency
than the other.
From the sacred nature of the principle upon which the Church founds
the necessity of her spiritual freedom, it will be obvious that it is a prin
ciple which cannot admit of infringement in any particular, or under any
circumstances. The whole strength of such a principle lies in the preser
vation of its integrity ; and the Memorialists feel, that were they to allow
it to be infringed upon in any one particular, they could never again appeal
to it, as a principle, to any effect whatsoever. Viewing the principle as
one of paramount importance, founded on the Word of God, and consider
ing it as laying them under an obligation absolutely inviolable, — the Me
morialists hope to be excused if, in the very peculiar circumstances in
which they are placed, they urge upon her Majesty's Government the im
portance of coming to an early determination upon the question which is
now submitted to their decision.
The Memorialists are prepared to bow, with the most perfect deference,
to the Civil Courts in all matters of a secular nature ; but, with the prin
ciples they hold, it is impossible for them, in any circumstances, to yield
obedience to the Civil Courts in matters spiritual, contrary to their con
victions of duty, as derived from the Word of God. Considering that the
exclusive spiritual jurisdiction of the Church has, in the understanding
both of the Church and of the Civil Courts in Scotland, been unalterably
secured by the constitution to the Church of Scotland, and that it has, on
that ground, been recognised ifnmemorially in the practice of the Civil
Courts, the Memorialists feel themselves to be exposed to extreme hard
ship when, in consequence of simply asserting and acting upon that consti
tutional principle, which their consciences will not allow them.to compro
mise, they are placed in the position they now occupy, — exposed, as wrong
doers, to the whole power of the Civil Courts, and to the whole force of
the secular arm. They feel, strongly, that this is a position hi. which they
ought not to be allowed to remain for a single day, and that if f^ Gov
ernment and the Legislature do not interpose for their relief, th%- must
necessarily infer, that relief is not intended to be given, and thatihe Es
tablishment, if continued at all, is to be continued upon terms which are
destructive of what they regard as its vital principles.
In regard to the nature of the measure which is. required for the Church's
relief, it will be apparent, from the statement which has been given of the
principles of the Church, and of the obvious bearing of the recent Auch
terarder judgment upon these principles, that a material change has been
made by that judgment on the position of the Church, and that an addi
tional and most important object must now be primarily kept in view, in
judging of any proposal for extricating the Church from her difficulties.
So long as the judgment of the supreme Civil Court had merely deter
mined that the rejection of a presentee, under the operation of the Non
intrusion principle, inferred the statutory forfeiture of the benefice, but
did not necessarily imply the assertion of a right to control the Church in
the exercise of her spiritual function, — the only measure required was one
which would alter the law, to the effect of allowing the Church to carry out
her Non-intrusion principle, without the risk of the parish, being, for a
time, deprived of the public provision made for, the, maintenance of religion

within it. But, now that the Civil Courts assert and exercise a dominion
over the Church in the settlement of ministers.^it is obvious that no
measure, which merely authorises, or suffers, the Church to give effect to
her Nonintrusion principle, according to some particular method, will
restore : her freedom in the. exercise '.of this the most vital function of her
spiritual government. To make this palpable, it may be sufficient to refer,
for illustration, t'o what is commonly called the Schoolmaster's act. That
act vests in tJfe ;presby teries of the Church the whole trial and censure of
parish schoolmasters, with a view to deprivation of their offices ; and the
jurisdiction of the Civil Courts bears to be excluded in the most express
terms, by a clause to the effect, that " the judgment of the Presbytery
shall be final, without appeal to, or review by any court, civil or ecclesias
tical." Butv inasmuch as the matter in which the Presbytery judges
under this statute is confessedly a civil matter, the exclusion of review
flows from, and is dependent upon, the civil power and will of the State,
and it is also inherently conditional on exact observance off the terms of the
statute, as interpreted by the CivilCourts ,; — so that the supreme Civil
Court, still retains a radical and supereminent jurisdiction, against which
the exclusion Of review presents no bar, if, in their opinion, the provisions
of the statutes have not been strictly adhered to. Accordingly, the su
preme Civil Court has often exercised its jurisdiction, to the effect of
judging whether Presbyteries have adhered to the limits prescribed in the
act, and of annulling their whole procedure, where in its judgment they
had deviated in any respect from these limits. Now, hitherto the Civil
Courts have held that the trial and censure of ministers, in order to depo
sition, was not a civil matter, like the official status of a schoolmaster, but
wholly spiritual, and that the authority of the Church in this^matter not
being conferred by statute, but being recognised by statute as conferred by
God, the Civil Courts had no jurisdiction whatever in the matter. They
have held, as has been seen, the same doctrine in reference to the collation
jand admission of ministers, — restricting their own jurisdiction to the mere
declaration of the statutory' forfeiture of 'the benefice. But the principle
now established, in the recent decisions, places these functions of the Church,
hitherto regarded as spiritual,' on the same footing as the trial and depri
vation of schoolmasters, or any other civil matter, entrusted by statute to
the final disposal of a subordinate court; and it is therefore plain, that no
measure can be effectual for protecting the freedom of the' Church, which
merely excludes the Civil Courts, in a manner analogous to that employed
in the Schoolmaster's act; — although a large measure of discretion might
seem to be allowed to the Church within the limits of that exclusion. The
whole matters themselves in which the Church exercises her proper autho-
ity, must, by the statute, be expressly and effectually recognised as spi
ritual, so as to leave the Church to be guided, in disposing of them, by her
own sense of duty alone, according to the word of God, and her fundamen
tal principles founded thereon.
It may be proper here to state explicitly, — what is necessarily to be
inferred from the principles laid down in the outset, — that the Church does
not consider herself, while remaining in the position of an Established
Church, entitled to refuse, as she has not in fact refused, to carry into
effect any obligation imposed upon her by act of parliament, as the condi
tion on which she holds the immunities of her Establishment. Down to
the present time, as has been seen, the Civil Courts have held that no -
civil obligation could, constitutionally, attach to the Church, in regard to
any of her spiritual functions ; and the Chureh has been left to accommo
date her ecclesiastical procedure to the provisions of the civil law, under
the influence of those considerations which must always make the Church
anxious to preserve harmony between herself and the civil, government.
To considerations of that nature the Church still acknowledges it to be hrr

duty to'give every possible effect consistent with her religious principles.
But if the new doctrine, regarding the subjection of the Cnurch, in things
spiritual, to the Civil -Courts, now adopted by the supreme civil Judicatory,
is to be allowed by the Legislature to remain as the civil law of the country,
and such subjection on the partof the Chureh is thus to' be held a condi
tion of her Establishment, then the condition being one to which the
Church cannot conscientiously submit, — she will have no course left but to
relieve herself from it, by resigning the benefits of her Establishment.
The Memorialists have thus endeavoured to explain the grounds of the
.Resolutions, which, after long and anxious deliberation, they have been led
to adopt, at their present meeting. These Resolutions, divided into two
series, — having reference, respectively, to the nature of the remedy now
required, and to the very serious and critical position in which the Memo
rialists will feel themselves placed, in the event of no such remedy being
provided, — -are conceived in the following terms, viz.
First Series -of Resolutions, passed by the Convocation of Ministers on
Saturday the 19th of Novenlber, 1842, and concurred in by Four Hun
dred and Twenty-Seven Ministers.
I. That according to the recent, and, as it appears to this Convocation, unconstitu
tional decisions of the Supreme Civil Courts, and the interpretation which these deci
sions, if allowed or sanctioned by the supreme power in the State, would put upon the
civil law, — the obligation to receive and admit a qualified presentee, imposed by the
daw of patronage on the Presbyteries of the Church, is a civil obligation, such as may be
enforced by the ordinary compulsitors of civil law ; and, in particular, that the rejection
of a presentee in respect of the dissent of the congregation, according to the fundamen
tal-principle and law of the Church, is not merely an act to which the Civil Courts may
¦refuse to give civil effect, but is in itself a. civil wrong or offence, which may be
dealt with accordingly by the Civil Courts.
IT. That other decisions of the Civil Courts, and, in particular, the decision of the
Lord Ordinary in the case of the deposition of the Strathbogie ministers, imply an
assumption of a jurisdiction in the most sacred functions of the worship and government
of the Church, especially in the matter of the deposition of ministers, — to the effect of
reducing the sentences of Spiritual Courts in the exercise of discipline over ministers
aud members of the Church.
III. That these claims to jurisdiction in spiritual matters, on the part of the Civil
Courts, are based chiefly, if not altogether, upon the act of Queen Anne restoring pa
tronage, — an actfrom the first unjustifiable, and recently interpreted in a sense to which
the Church cannot conscientiously submit, and to which she cannot consent to accom
modate her ecclesiastical procedure.
IV. That as the principle involved in these decisions, and particularly in the recent
Auchterarder judgment, is that of the supremacy of the Civil Courts over those of the
Established Church, in the exercise of their spiritual functions; so the members of the
• Convocation declare that no measure can in conscience be submitted to by them, which
does not effectually protect the Church against the exercise of such jurisdiction by the
Civil Courts in time to come, and, in particular, fully prevent all future encroach
ments of the nature specified in the preceding resolutions.
V. That, in all their past contendings; the members of this Convocation have been
actuated, and they trust that, in all their future proceedings, they will continue to be
actuated, by a deep conviction of the value and excellence of the civil and ecclesiastical
constitution under which they live; and that one of the chief causes of their present
anxiety arises out of their impression that the tendency and inevitable result of the re
cent' decisions* of the Civil Courts, especially if these shall be finally sanctioned as- the
law of the land, must beas entirely subversive of the constitution, as it is repugnant to
¦the principles of this Church and the consciences oflier office-bearers.
Second Series of Resolutions, passed by the Convocation of Ministers on
Tuesday the 22d of November, 1842, and concurred in by Three Hun
dred and Thirty- Three Ministers.!
I. That, while<tbe Church most solemnly protests against the invasion other juris
diction by the Civil Courts, as contrary to the Word of God, the Confession of Faith,
and'the Constitution of this kingdom; and while, in particular, she is entitled, in the

10
judgment of the brethren now assembled, to declare, as the General Assembly, in the
Claim of Rights, has declared, that the assumption by the Civil Courts of authority in
matters spiritual, and especially in the ordination, admission, or deposition of ministers,
and the other proceedings there set forth, is in violation of the law establishing the
Church, which was made unalterable by the Act of Security and the Treaty of Union,
and that whatever is done in the exercise of that assumed authority, ought therefore to
be held, as in right or de jure it is, null and void and of no effect ; — still, whatever the
nation in these circumstances might do, it is not the duty of the Church, as a kingdom
not of this world, which has not and cannot have any power of the sword, or any secu
lar dominion whatever, to plead her title, thus acquired and secured, to the temporal
benefits of her Establishment, in opposition or resistance to the supreme power of the
State, except in the way of remonstrance, protest, and serious warning.
II. That as, on the one hand, it is the bounden duty of the Church and of her faith
ful ministers, to represent to the supreme power of the State the nature of the inva
sions of the Civil Courts upon the spiritual province; so, on the other hand, the refusal
on the part of the State of such a remedy as has been declared indispensable to meet
the emergency, cannot be otherwise construed than as being a recognition and sanction
by the State of the principle which the decisions of the Civil Courts involve.
III. That the brethren now assembled fully recognise the intrinsic authority and
final jurisdiction of the Civil Magistrate, or the supreme power of the State, in the ex
ercise of all civil functions, and in the discharge of all the duty which he owes toward
the Church of Christ. And in particular they acknowledge the right of the Civil Ma
gistrate to fix the terms on which he will establish the Church, as a right which he is
to use on his own responsibility, and in the use of which the Church is not entitled to
resist him. And hence, accordingly, as the Church, being essentially independent of
the Civil Magistrate in her spiritual province, is not bound, and is not at liberty, to
conform her procedure in the government of Christ's house to the orders of the State,
or of any Courts of the State, against her convictions of duty founded on the Word of
God ;, so neither is she warranted in prescribing to the Civil Magistrate, or requiring
him to act according to her views, whether in the administration of civil affairs gene
rally, or in what he does towards religion, or about things saered, — as in his giving to
the Church, or withholding from her, the civil countenance and support ;— nor may the
Church resist his determination in these matters, since in both departments of his duty,
the Civil Magistrate is always bound to act according to his, own conscience, under the
rule of the Word of God, and on his responsibility to God.
IV. That it is the duty of the faithful Ministers of this Church not to continue to
receive the endowments or emoluments secured to them by the civil law, nor to involve
themselves in the manifold inconveniences and serious evils of a protracted struggle with
the civil power, after it shall appear that the Supreme Power of the State, by refusing
to relieve them from the interference of the Civil Courts in things spiritual, does there
by substantially and effectually sanction the condition which the Civil Courts would
attach to their holding of these endowments or emoluments, and to which they never
can submit or yield obedience ; viz. the condition of subjection to civil control in mat
ters spiritual, and of being bound, against their consciences, to intrude ministers upon
reclaiming congregations.
V. That it is the duty of the Ministers now assembled, and of all who adhere to
their views, to make a solemn representation to her Majesty's Government, and to both
, Houses of Parliament, setting forth the imminent and extreme peril of the Establish
ment, the inestimable value of the benefits which it confers on the country, and the
pain and reluctance with which they are forced to contemplate the possibility of the
Church's separation, for conscience' sake, from the State, — respectfully calling upon
the rulers of this nation to maintain the Constitution of the kingdom inviolate, and to
uphold a pure establishment of religion in the land, — and, finally, intimating, that as
the endowments of the Church are undoubtedly at the disposal of the Supreme Power
of the State, with whom it rests either to continue to the Church her possession of
them, free from any limitation of her spiritual jurisdiction and freedom, or to withdraw
them altogether, — so it must be the duty l of the Church, and, consequently, in depen
dence on the grace of God, it is the determination of the brethren now assembled, — it
1 Twenty-one, in addition to the above three hundred and thirty three, adhered to the
Resolutions with the following explanation, viz. : —
" While disagreeing with the doctrine which seems implied in the Resolutions, that the
silence of the Legislature constitutes an obligation in our consciences to regard the terms of
compact between Church and State as altered, we adhere, in so far, that the silence of the
Legislature, after a reasonable time, will, on the ground of Christian expediency, oblige
us to leave the Establishment. "

II ^ "
no measure such as they have declared to be indispensable, be granted, — to tender the
resignation of those civil advantages which they can no longer hold in consistency with
the free and full exercise of their spiritual functions, and to cast themselves on such
provision as God in his providence may afford; maintaining still uncompromised the
principle of a right scriptural connection between the Church and the State, and so
lemnly entering their protest against the judgments of which they complain, as in their
decided opinion altogether contrary to what has ever hitherto been understood to be
the law and Constitution of this country.
Before concluding, the Memorialists desire again to express their anxiety
that their present appeal, and the measures they have felt themselves ob
liged to adopt, may not be misunderstood. The deliberate conviction to
which they have come — that, if they cannot have liberty to maintain and
act upon the principles which they have avowed, in the position of a Church
established by the State, they must relinquish that position, — is not the
result of disappointment, or irritation, or any want of a 'due regard to the
important benefits which the present establishment of the Church confers
upon the people of Scotland. On the contrary, such is their sense of the
value of that Establishment, — such their apprehension of the many evils
likely to result from its disruption or overthrow, — and such, also, their
anxiety to remain in the discharge of their spiritual duties, in the preach
ing of the gospel, and the oversight of their parishes, under the shade of
that national protection and favour, which was the happy fruit of the
prayers, the labours, and the sufferings of their fathers, — that they have
been willing to make the utmost possible concessions, with a view to the
restoration of harmony ; — and were not the principles at issue vital and
fundamental, there is no compromise to which they would not consent, no
sacrifice of feeling or even of consistency to which they would not submit,
if by any means they might avert a calamity, the very idea of which they
have all along been most reluctant to entertain.
But they feel that the time is come, when the final determination of this
question can be postponed no longer ; and as they cannot disguise from
themselves, so neither would they deem it right to conceal from the Gov
ernment and the country, the inevitable result of a continued refusal, on
the part of the Legislature, of that indispensable measure of relief, which
they think they have a good, right to ask and good reason to expect. Their
situation, in truth, is most painful and embarrassing. They cannot con
duct the affairs the Church in the manner which the Civil Courts have
prescribed : they could not themselves remain in the communion of
a Church which should agree to regulate her procedure according to the
principles now held to be involved in the civil law ; nor can they allow
others, in the same communion, to do so. But it is well known that a large
minority of the Church's office-bearers are prepared, in obedience to the
Civil Courts, to cast off her authority ; and were the Church, while conti
nuing to claim the advantages secured to her by law, to persevere, as she
must in principle do, in maintaining her discipline over all who, under
whatever civil sanction or compulsion, transgress her orders and violate
her laws, founded, as she believes, on the word of God, — not only would
she be exposed to grievous obloquy and reproach, but a spectacle both
painful and scandalous must, in all probability, be exhibited, of two sections
of the same Church striving with one another, in the use of civil pains on
the one hand, and spiritual censures on the other. Hitherto, notwithstand
ing the allegations of her enemies to the contrary, the Church has never
felt herself compelled to inflict the severities of her discipline on any of her
ministers or members, for any act done under the compulsion of the Civil
Courts, or in obedience to what has been declared to be the civil law.
She has proceeded against none, excepting the few individuals who of their
own accord, and without any plea of necessity, have placed themselves in a

12
position of defiance of her authority. Even this, however, has led to un
seemly censequences ; and, after the final decision of the supreme Civil
Court, affirming the principles upon which not a few of her office-bearers
have intimated their determination to act, it is plain that if no legislative
relief be conceded, and if the Church proceed, according to her own views
of duty, against those who transgress her rules, she has no alternative but
to deal forth the censures of ecclesiastical power, in a manner that must
provoke retaliation, and must necessarily lead to inextricable confusion
and disorder. The Memorialists are not ashamed to confess that they
shrink from such an exhibition as would thus be presented before the peo
ple of Scotland ; and this is one practical consideration, among others,
which has weighed much in determining them to bring this whole question
to a final issue, and to retire from their position, as connected with the
Establishment, rather than prolong an unseemly contest with the Civil
Courts which deny, and with their own brethren, who set at nought, their
jurisdiction ; — a contest which could not fail to be attended with most dis
astrous consequences, affecting both the majesty of law, and the higher
interests of religion.
But the Memorialists have stated other grounds on which chiefly they
rest their determination, as matter of Christian duty and sound principle.
It has been with extreme pain that they have felt themselves compelled to
oppose the civil courts, in any of the decisions which they have pronounced.
They have done so only because their consciences required it, and because
they considered 'that the constitution of the Church, as established by law,
sanctioned and authorised the measures which they adopted. They are
still, most decidedly, of the same opinion. But as they claim for the
Church no right of resistance to the civil magistrate, in the exercise of his
authority, as determining the terms on which he will establish the Church,
so they feel, that if the Government and Legislature of the country do no,t
interfere for their relief, irorn the condition to which they are now reduced
by the supreme civil, court, viz., the condition of subjection in things spi
ritual to civil control, — it is not for them, as servants of that Lord whose
kingdom is not of this world, to vindicate the constitution further ; they
can only protest, with all solemnity, against the wrong which they believe
the Church has sustained, and leave with the rulers of this nation, and
with the nation itself the responsibility of allowing this national institution
of the Established Church of Scotland, to be subverted and overthrown.
In conclusion, the Memorialists beg leave very respectfully to remind her
Majesty's Government, of the obligation under which States and their ru
lers lie to Him by whom kings reign, and princes decree justice ; — whose
cause they are bound to espouse, whose Church it is alike their interest and
their duty to support and secure in all the freedom with which He has en
dowed it. The Memorialists deeply feel the solemnity of the question now
submitted to the decision of Parliament and of the nation ; it being, in the
opinion of the Memorialists, nothing less than the question, whether the
Church unalterably established in Scotland, is to be preserved inviolate,
according to the faith of treaties, or whether this great kingdom is to
commit, as the Memorialists would regard it, the heinous national offence,
(if not only breaking the national Faith, but disowning the authority of
Christ in His own house, and refusing to recognise His Church as a free
spiritual society, instituted by Him, and governed by His laws alone.
The Memorialists now leave the whole subject in the hands of her Majes
ty's Government, — uniting in most earnest prayers to Almighty God, that
lie may direct the counsels of her Majesty to that conclusion which shall
most conduce to the good of the country, and to, His own Glory.
Signed in name and by authority of the assembled Ministers,
[THOS. CHALMERS, D.D.,
Chairman of the Meeting,

APPENDIX.

LIST .of MINISTERS who have adhered to the Resolutions adopted
by the Convocation, (see page 9.)

N.B. — A. considerable number of Ministers who were unable to attend the meeting, or' to remain till
its close, have already intimated their adherence to both Series of Resolutions adopted by the Meeting ;
and it is expected that others will yet send in their adherence. The names of those who have already
intimated their concurrence, are incorporated in the following List, together with the 333 mentioned on
page 9 ; — and also those who concurred with the Explanation given in the foot-note page 30. These last
are marked with an asterisk, and the names of such as may yet concur, will be duly forwarded to her Ma
jesty's Government.

I SYNOD OF LOTHIAN AND TWEEDDALE.

Thomas Chalmers, D.D., Professor of Di
vinity at Edinburgh
David "Welsh, D.D., Professor of Church
History, do.
George Muirhead, D.D., Cramond
John Bruce, St. Andrew's, Ch. Edinburgh
William Simpson, Leith Wynd, do.
William Nisbet, New Street, do.
Alexander W. Brown, St Bernard's, do.
Patrick Clason, D.D., Buccleueh, do.
G. R. Davidson, Lady Glenorchy's, do.
Thomas Addis, Morningside, do.
David Runciman, Newington, do.
James Manson, Dean, do.
Robert S. Candlish, D.D., St. George's, do.
John Sym, Old Greyfriars', do.
James Noble, Gaelic, do.
Robert Gordon, D.D., High, do.
James Buchanan, do. do.
Thomas Guthrie, St. John's, do.
Henry Grey, St. Mary's,, do.
Charles J. Brown, New North, do.
W. K. Tweedie, Tblbooth, do.
W. Cunningham,D.D., Trinity College, do.
Andrew M'Kenzie, Henderson, do.
Robert Elder, St. Paul's, do.
Alexander Gregory, Roxburgh, do.
John Thomson, Mariner's, Church, Leith
James Lewis, St. John's, do.
James Begg, Liberton'
Walter Fairlie, Gilmerton
Lewis Hay Irving, Abercorn

Samuel Martin, Bathgate
William Learmonth, West Calder
Thomas Gordon, Falkirk
J. W. Taylor, Grangemouth
John Laing, Livingstone
W. M. Hetherington, Torphicheu
J. M'Farlan, Muiravonside
Kenneth M'Kenzie, Bo 'ness
James Proudfoot, Cutter
William Hanna, Skirling
Walter Paterson, Kirkurd
George Burns, D.D,, Tweedsmuir
Thomas Pitcairn, Cockpen
James Monteith, Dalkeith
Robert Court, Heriot
David Brown, Roslin
James Bannerman, Ormiston'
John Abernethy, Bolton
John Ainslie, Dirleton
S. O. Dods, Girvald
Robert Lorimer, D.D., Haddington
John W. Wright, St. John's, do.
James Dods, Humbie
.Angus Makellar, D.D., Pencaitland
W. B. Cunningham, Prestonpans
Patrick Fairbairn, Saltoun
Archibald Lorimer, Cockenzie
John Thomson, Yester
Andrew Baird, Cockburrispath
William Sorley, Belhaven
Adam Forman, Innerwick 3
John Thomson, Prestonkirk

II. SYNOD OF MERSE AND TEVIOTDALE.

John Wallace, Abbey St Bathans
Arch. M'Cohnechy, Buncle and Preston
William Cousin, Boston Church, Dunse
John Baillie, Fogo
John Fairbairn, West Church, Greenlaw
*J. H. Sibbald, Cranshaws
John Turnbull, Eyemouth
G- F. Knight, Mordington

Horatius Bonar, North Parish, Kelso
George Craig, Sprouston
John A. Wallace, Hawick
John Purves, Jedburgh
Walter Wood, Westrilther
Thomas Jollie, Bowden
William P. Falconer, Ladhope

14

III. SYNOD OF DUMFRIES.

-"-"J

David B. Douie, Dryfesdale
?Charles Dickson, Wamphray
W. B. Clark, Half Morton
•George Hastie, Kirkpatrick Fleming
Henry Duncan, D.D., Ruth well
John Mackenzie, St. Mary's, Dumfries
Andrew Fyfe, do do

*Robert Kirkwood, Holywood
?Robert Brydon, Dunscore
•George JohnDuncan.Kirkpatrick Durham
•Robert Crawford, Kirkpatrick Irongray
Robert Kinnear, Torthorwald
Patrick Borrowman, Glencairn  _,
Thomas Montgomery, Sanquhar

IV. SYNOD OF GALLOWAY.

James Fergusson, Inch
John Lamb, Kirkmaiden
Thomas B. Bell, Leswalt
Andrew Urquhart, Portpatrick
Robert M'Neill, Stony Kirk

Robert Donald, Sheuchan
Alexander Forrester, Sorby
Samuel Smith, Borgue
Robert Jeffrey, Girthon
John M'Millan, Kircudbright

V. SYNOD OF GLASGOW AND AYR.

E. B. Wallace, Barr
Matthew Kirkland, New Cumnock
Ninian Bannatyne, Old Cumnock
•William Hutchison, Catrine
William Chalmers, Dailly
Andrew Thomson, Maybole
Thomas Burns, Montkon
James Stevenson, Newton. on-Ayr
John Spiers, Patna
Matthew Dickie, Dunlop
Robert Fergusson, Fenwick
David Wilson, Fullarton
Thomas Findlay, West Kilbride
Thomas Main, High Kirk, Kilmarnock
David Landsborough, Stevenston
John Hamilton, Gaelic Church, Saltcoats
David Arthur, Knox Church, Stewarton
George Logan, Eastwood
William Scott Hay, Bridge of Weir
• Donald M'Kellar, Mearns
* Robert Smith, Lochwinnoch
Alexander Salmon, Barrhead
John M'Naughtan, High Church, Paisley
James Falconer, Martyr's, do.
John Campbell, do.
Duncan Macfarlan, Renfrew
James Drummond, Cumbray
P. M'Farlan, D.D., Old Church, Greenock
John James Bonar, St. Andrews, do.
Angus M'Bean, South Kirk, do.
James Smith, Middle Kirk, do.
William Laughton, St. Thomas's, do.
James Stark, Cartsdyke do.
Donald M'Leod, Gourock
John Dow, Largs
John Gemmell, Fairlie
James Morrison, Newark, Port Glasgow
James Anderson, Blantyre
James Clason, Dalzicl

William Buchan, St. John's, Hamilton
William Jackson, West Parish, Airdrie
•James Findlay, Airdrie
Alexander Ranken, Strathaven
Thomas Stark, St. Leonard's, Lanark
A. B. Parker, Leshmahagow
William Logan, New Kirk, do.
John Pollock, Baldernock
James Smith, Dumbarton
Matthew Barclay, Old Kirkpatrick
William Alexander, Duntocher
John Anderson, Helensburgh
R. Buchanan, D.D., Tron Church, Glasgow
John G. Lorimer, St. David's, do.
Natli. Paterson, D.D., St. Andrew's, do.
James Henderson, D.D., St. Enoch's, do.
John Smyth, D D., St. George's, do.
Thomas Brown, D.D., St. John's,
John Forbes, D.D., St. Paul's,
William Arnot, St. Peter's,
Peter Currie, Stoekwell,
Jonathan R. Anderson, Kirkfield,
James Gibson, Kingston,
•James M'Beth, Laurieston,
Alex. N. Somerville, Anderston,
Andrew King, St. Stephen's,
Walter M'Gillivray, Hope Street,
James M'Kinlay, Wellpark,
David Menzies, Martyrs',
Hugh Mackay, Milton,
William Eason, Camlachie,
•John Thomson, Shettleston,
Robert Wilson, Maryhill
John Cochran, East Church, Cumbernauld
William Burns, Kilsyth
John Lyon, Banton
Thos. Duncan, St. David's, Kirkintilloch
James Monro, West Church, Rutherglen

do.do.do. do.do. do.do.do. do.
do.do. do. do.
do. do.do.

VI. SYNOD OF ARGYLL.

M. M'Kay, D.D., Dunoon and Kilmun
Joseph Stark, Kilfinnan
Duncan M'Lean, Kilmodan
Robert Craig, Rothesay
Peter M'Bride, New Parish, do.
John M'Pherson, Gaelic, do.
Alexander M'Bride, North Bute, do.
Angus M'Millan, Kilmore
Duncan M'Nab, Campbelton

Hector M'Neill, Campbelton
James Pearson, Kilmeny
Alexander Cameron, Kilchoman
Hugh Fraser, Ardchattan
Finlay M'Pherson, Kilbrandon
William Fraser, Kilchrennan
Archibald Bannatyne, Oban
Donald M'Vean, Iona

15

SYNOD OF PERTH AND STIRLING.

Michael Stirling, Cargill
John Waddell, Burrelton
John M'Kenzie, Dunkeld and Dowally
Andrew Kessen, Lethendy and Kinloch
Alexander M'Kinnon, Strathfillan
Francis Gillies, Rattray
C. C. Stewart, Aberdalgie
Andrew Bonar, Collace
Alexander Cumming, Dunbarney
James Grierson, Errol
James Drummond, Forgandenny
James M'Laggan, Kinfauns
James Noble, St. Madoes
•J. W. Thomson, Monedie
Wm. Thomson, D.D., Middle Kirk, Perth
Andrew Gray, West Kirk, do.
John Milne, St. Leonards, do.
Charles Stewart, St.- Stephens, do.
John Y. Walker, Kinnoull street, do.
William Mather, Stanley
James Carment, Comrie
Finlay M'Alister, West Church, Crieff

Andrew Noble, Blairingone
John Ferguson, Monivaird
John Reid Omond, Monzie
James Thomson, Muckhart
•James Walker, Muthill
Samuel Grant, Ardoch
John Wright, East Parish, Alloa
•Peter Brotherstone, do.
John Dempster, Denny
John Bonar, Larbert and Dunipace
Christopher Greig, St. Ninians
John Harper, Bannockburn
Ebenezer Johnstone, Plean
George Cupples, Stirling
•Alexander Beith, Stirling
David Black, Gartmore
•William Mackenzie, Dunblane
James Duncan, Kincardine, East
William Watt, Bucklyvie
•Peter M'Laren, Lecropt
•Henry Anderson, Tillicoultry

VIIL SYNOD OF FIFE.

William Gilston, Carnock
W. Wallace Duncan, Cleish
A. Sutherland, St. Andrews, Dunfermline
James Thornton, Milnathort
Thomas Doig, Torryburn
Alexander O. Laird, Abbotsball
David Couper, Burntisland
James Greig, Ballingray
John Thomson, Dysart
•Charles Jamieson, Pathhead
John Alexander, Kirkcaldy
Robert M'Indoe, Cowan Street, do.
James Sievwright, Markinch

John M'Farlane, Collessie
Adam Cairns, Cupar
•John Murray, Dunbog]
Angus M'Gillivray, Dairsie
George Smeaton, Falkland
Andrew Melville, Logie
John Duncan, Ceres
•James Anderson, Cults
Ralph Robb, Strathkinnes
William Ferrie, East Anstruther
William Nicolson, Ferry. Port- on- Craig
Charles Nairn, Forgan
Robert Brown, Largo

IX. SYNOD OF AfTOUS AND MEARNS.

David White, Airlie
Robert M'Donald, Blairgowrie
William Clugston, Forfar
D. Cormick, New South Parish, Kirriem
•Donald Ferguson, Dunichen
James Thomson, St. Clements, Dundee
John Roxburgh, St. John's, do.
George Lewis, St. David's, do.
Alexander M'Pherson, Dudhope, do.
James Ewing, St. Andrew's, do.
R. M. M'Cheyne, St Peter's, do.
John Baxter, Hilltown, do.
Patrick L. Miller, Wallacetown, do.
Robert Aitken, Willison Parish, do.
William Reid, Chapelshade, do.
Charles M'AUiste, Gielic, do.
William Stewart, Lochee
David Davidson, Broughty Ferry
•James Miller, Monikie

D. B. Mellis, Taaling
A. L. R. Foote, Brechin
•James M'Cosh, do.
M. F. Parker, East Kirk, do.
James Brewster, D.D., Craig
Robert Inglis, Edzel
David Harris, Fern
William Nixon, St. John's, Montrose
•John Kirk, Arbirlot
Alexander Leslie, Ladyloan, Arbroath
•David Crichtoq, Inverbrotliock
James Lumsden, Barry
•William Wilson, Carmylie
John Laird, Inverkeillor
Thomas Dymock, Carnoustie
Thomas Wilson, Friockheim
James Glen, Benholme
Alexander Keith, D.D., St Cyrus
Thomas Brown, Kinneff and Caterline

X. SYNOD OF ABERDEEN.

James Foote, East Kirk, Aberdeen
Alexander D. Davidson, West Kirk, do.
John Murray, North Kirk, do.
James Stewart, South Kirk, do.
Abercromby L, Gordon, Greyfriars, do.

Alexander Spence, Stt Clements, Aberdeen
Hugh M'Kenzie, Spring Garden, do.
David Simpson, Trinity, do.
John Allan, Union, do.
John Stephen, John Knox Church, do.

16

Wm. Primrose, Melville-Church, Aberdeen
J. Longmuir, Mariner's Church, do.
Gavin Parker, Bon Accord; do.
James Bryce, Gilcomston, do.
Robert Forbes, Woodside, do.
William Mitchell, Holburn Street, do.
George Moir, New Machar
Robert Thomson, Peterculter
William Anderson, Banchory Ternan
David S. Fergusson, Strachan
•Henry Simson, Chapel of Garioch
"R. Simpson, Kintore
•David Simpson, Oyne
George Garioch, Old Meldrum

Alexander Philip, Cruden
James Yuill, East Church, Peterhead
 Blaikie, Drumblade
Joseph Thorburn, Forglen
John Manson, Fyvie
•J. Cordiner, Forgue
Hugh Gordon, Monquhitter
F. W. Grant, Banff
A. Anderson, Boyndie
George Innes, Deskford
•John Innes, Fordyoe
Alexander Reid, Portsoy
Robert Shanks, Buckie
David Brown, Redside

XI. SYNOD OF MORAY.

David Dewar, Bellie
John Robertson, Gartly
D. Henry, Aberchirder
Jas. Fergusson", Keith, Missionary Minister
•Harry Leith, Rothiemay
George Shepherd, Kingussie
Alexander Tulloch, Kirkmichael
Alexander M'Watt, Rothes
Mark Aitken, Dyke
Peter Ferries, Edinkillie
Duncan Grant, Forres
William Robertson, Kinloss

Alexander Gentle, Alves
George Mackay, Rafford
Alexander Topp, Elgin
Robert Dunbar, Plusearden
David Sutherland, East Kirk, Inve mess
Archibald Cook, North Kirk, do.
Alexander Fraser, Kirkhill
Thomas M'Lauchlan, Moy
John Grant, Petty
John Matheson, Ardersier
William Barclay, Auldearn
Simon F. M'Lauchlan, Cawdor

XII. SYNOD OF ROSS.

Alexander Stewart, Cromarty
Donald Kennedy, Killearnan
Donald Sage, Resolis
John Macrae, Knockbain
Hmion Fraser, Fortrose
Ali-xander Flyter, Alness
John M'Kenzie, Carnoch
Alexander Anderson, Kinlochluichart
John Noble, Fodderty
George M'Leod, Maryburgh
Duncan Campbell, Kiltearn

John M'Donald, Urquhart
James M'Donald, TJrray
Donald Gordon, Edderton
C. R. Matheson, Kilmuir Easter
Hector Allan, Kincardine
Gustavus Aird, Croich
Hugh M'Leod, Logie, Easter
John M'Alister, Nigg
Charles C. M'Intosh, Tain
David Campbell, Tarbat
David Carment, Rosskeen

XIII. SYNOD OF SUTHERLAND AND CAITHNESS.

Charles Gordon, Assynt
Peter Davidson, Stoer
George M'Kay, Clyne
George Kennedy, Dornoch
George Tulloch, Eddrachilles
David Sutherland, Stratby
John Munro, Halkirk

•William M'Kenzie, Olrig
•Samuel Campbell, Berridale
Finlay Cook, Reay
Walter Ross Taylor, Thurso
•Alexander Gunn, Watten
Thomas Gunn, Keiss

XIV. SYNOD OF GLENELG.

C. M'Kenzie, Shildag
Alexander M'Donald, Plockton
Charles Stewart, Fortwilliam
Thomas Davidson, Kilmalie
John M'Millan, Bullachulish

John R. Glass, Bracadale
John Swanson, Small Isles
Roderick M'Leod, Snizort
John Finlayson, Cross
Duncan Matheson, Knock

409 in all at this date, Dec. 20, 1842.

Printed by William Collins and Co Glasgow.