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adopting the practice, and some rejecting it-till the year 1638, when all the acts of the Assembly held at Perth were rescinded.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 practice 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

good effects resulting from the new mode. Before the adoption of that practice, the day of a sacrament was a day of fear and regret-every inch of ground to the communion table was fought for. And were all these evils to be again revived by the authority of the Assembly? The reverend Professor concluded with a powerful and energetic appeal to the members, not to waste their time with such trifles; -while infidelity was making such rapid progress among us, they were disputing about subjects no better than the tippet controversy of former times. He seconded the motion of Mr M'Farlan.

Dr Meiklejohn said he was an enemy to innovation: if the motion had a prospective object, it should have his support, but not otherwise.

Dr Nicoll did not consider the subject as one of very great importance. There was no point of religious doctrine impugned by the new mode. The use of a communion table was an ancient practice in the Church of Scotland. And he would propose, that they find that it was the immemorial practice of the Church of Scotland to celebrate the ordinance of the Lord's Supper seated round a communion table; and that unless in particular circumstances it was inexpedient to alter it.

Dr Brown, of Langton, observed, this was a question which ought to be approached as a question of fact, which trenched on the forms of the church, and must be decided by the merits of the case. The practice of our ancestors was the best commentary on what they meant; and they in all cases used a communion table.

Dr A. Thomson was prepared to show, that the practice complained of, had both complied with the letter, and the spirit of the law. He was, however, disposed to acquiesce in the motion 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 judgment, 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,

in Amulree, or the Highland dis trict, he said there was one ordained missionary stationed, who preached both Gaelic and English; the population of this district was 629. The 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 Ge 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 population of 1089. Thus, by the last sta tistical census, the number of inhabi tants was in all 2977; of these only 160 might be supposed not to under stand 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 asser tion, 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 ad mitted, 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 language. 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 presentee 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 yellow, 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

Gaelic. Even in Dunkeld, Gaelic was the language of ordinary communication; for there a grocer (and there were rivals in that town) lost all his custom, because he could not speak Gaelic; and he was obliged to get an apprentice who understood it, that he might compete with his rivals. In the bank, a clerk for transacting the business in Gaelic was kept; and where the doctor visited his patients, if he did not speak Gaelic, he had to provide himself with an interpreter. To present a minister to a Gaelic parish, like Little Dunkeld, and then to proceed to inquire into the state of the Gaelic language in it, was the same as if a Gaelic minister was presented to St Giles's in Edinburgh, and a committee appointed to inquire if the parishioners of the High Church understood Gaelic. At the last sacrament, which was celebrated by Dr Irvine, there were 12 tables, eight or nine of these served solely in Gaelic, and only three in English. It really was an insult on the understandings of the Presbytery to require them to investigate facts as notorious as the light of day. They left their case with the Assembly, fully satisfied that substantial justice would be done to

all.

Mr Butter, of Lethendie, contended, at great length, in support of the decisions of the Synod and Presbytery. Mr Jeffrey briefly replied for the presentee.

Parties were removed, when Dr Burns of Paisley, and others, put a number of questions to Dr Niven of Dunkeld, which were answered as follows:-A church has been maintained at Logan Allachie for a hundred years or so, by voluntary contributions; a glebe and a manse are attached to it, the latter of which is generally let. The church is called neither a church nor a chapel, but a kirk. -(A laugh.) Believes there was a

church there in times of Popery. At Little Dunkeld, he understands that, on sacrament occasions, the number of tables served has risen from seven to eleven or twelve; last year five of these were served in English, and seven in Gaelic.

Principal Nicoll observed, that if the fact was as stated, that threefourths, nay, if one-fourth of the population were Gaelic, no wise man would say that a clergyman, not conversant with the dialect, should be inducted to the parish. He thought the Presbytery was wrong in not sustaining the presentation, which they were bound to have done; and also in assuming that Mr Neilson was not conversant with the Gaelic, when he had not expressly admitted the fact. He concluded by moving that the Assembly reverse the sentence of the Presbytery and Synod; sustain the presentation, and under the circumstances, (the Presbytery having already adjudged this question,) remit to a committee to proceed to that part of the country, and inquire into the amount of the Gaelic population, particularly in Strathbran; the committee to report to the commission of the Assembly in August, with power to the commission to take up the matter, and determine the same.

Dr David Ritchie spoke at some length in support of the motion.

Dr Andrew Thomson opposed it; and moved that the Assembly should affirm the proceedings of the Presbytery of Dunkeld, and the sentence of the Synod of Perth and Stirling, refusing to sustain the presentation of Mr Neilson.

Mr James Moncrieff gave the motion of Dr Thomson his cordial support.

The question being called for, the votes stood thus-For Dr Thomson's motion, 108-For Dr Nicoll's, 100— Majority, 8.