2. That in addition to Hebrew and Biblical Criticism, Professor Lorimer should be requested to give whatever instructions may be requisite in Classical Literature; and in like manner, that Logic and Mental Philosophy should be annexed to the Chair of Ecclesiastical History.

3. That the following ministers should be invited to give gratuitous lectures and instructions on various subjects, as follows, viz.:

tural Philosophy The Christian Evidences

The Christian Doc-. trine, taking as a text book the Westminster ConfessionPastoral Theology

Mr. JAS. FERGUSON.

MR. ALEX. MUNRO.

MR. WM. NICOLSON.

MR. J. HAMILTON.

4. That members of our Church, of distinguished scientific attainment, should be requested to give the Students, from time to time, the benefit of lectures on their favourite subjects of research.

5. The Committee recommend that a course of lectures should be delivered on Chris

tian Ethics; but they are not yet prepared to suggest any name in connexion with that subject.

6. And lastly, the Committee would express the hope that the services of a competent teacher of Reading and Elocution may be secured accordingly as they may be required.

In order to expedite, as far as possible, the course now suggested, the Committee may state that they have obtained the conditional assent of the parties afore-named to the arrangements in which they are concerned: that is to say, in the event of the foregoing suggestions being adopted by the Church, Professors Lorimer and Campbell have intimated their readiness to undertake the additional duties assigned to them, and Messrs. Ferguson, Munro, Nicolson, and Hamilton, have declared their willingness to render, as a free-will offering, what service they can consistently with their pastoral duties. And besides other friends of scientific eminence, whose co-operation the Committee hope to secure, they have the satisfaction of announcing that Dr. Ure, the celebrated chemist, is willing to give a few Chemical Lectures in connexion with our College.

For the permanence of the College, the Committee express anew their unabated anxiety. They see it invaluable as a rallying point to our ecclesiastical patriotism, and essential as the reservoir from which our congregations are to be supplied with a Gospel ministry, and the English Presbyterian Church extended. And as the likeliest means of imparting to it perpetuity and efficiency, they submit the arrangements foregoing. Should that arrangement find favour with the Church, they will feel that a host of difficulties has disappeared. But whatever arrangement is adopted, the Committee will feel themselves in a position of disheartening weakness and isolation, unless the ministers and congregations of our Church shall identify themselves more generally and more

entirely with this cardinal scheme. Every minister and session might greatly aid the cause by recruiting Students for the classes, and funds for the treasury; and without a succession of Students and an increase of revenue, no vote of the Synod can perpetuate the College. WM. HAMILTON, Convener.

London, April 7, 1848.

This Report being heard, and all the financial statements, the Rev. Dr. PATERSON moved the reception and adoption of the Report. He felt humbled and reproved by the state of the College, but he did not feel much discouraged. He regarded this as a trial of their faith, and referred to the fact that just at the moment when the Church was doubting the idea of the mission to China, because whether they ought not to discontinue they could not find a suitable missionary, their dear friend Mr. Burns offered himself. He trusted they would still continue to educate their ministers in England, and endeavour to brace themselves up by prayer and every legitimate means, to face and vanquish the difficulties with which the College was encompassed.

The Rev. J. ANDERSON seconded the Motion. Although they had only six students in the College, who might cost 2001. each, yet they must remember the multiplying and productive fruit which they would reap from this means.

It was then moved by the Rev. Mr. CHALMERS, seconded by the Rev. Mr. MACAULAY, Receive the Report and resolve:

1. That in the present circumstances of the Church, from the difficulties in the way of Academical Education presented by this country, and from the past experiences of the College, the Synod does not deem it expedient to continue the College in its present shape.

2. That to place the College on a really efficient footing, such as shall secure the thorough preparatory and would involve an expenditure greatly distheological training of the Students, proportioned to the probable results, and to the present resources of the Church.

3. That while there are undoubted advantages connected with the existence of a College, and the education of our Students in England, they do not justify an outlay of such a kind, when the main end for which the College was instituted

the training of an adequate number of well furnished ministers can be better secured, and that at a greatly less expenditure, by the Synod availing itself of

other existing and more perfect institutions; and there are other objects which have urgent claims on the liberal support of the Church.

4. That on a careful review of the whole case, the Synod resolve to discontinue the College; and, in the meantime, to take immediate steps for sending the Students in the meantime to be educated in Scotland, and appoint a Committee for arranging the details; purposing by the Divine blessing to establish an efficient institution, when the borders of the Church shall be enlarged, and her resources increased.

Mr. CHALMERS contended that the present system is an expenditure not reaching the end to the same extent which might otherwise be attained. He urged that more men might be educated for the same money, and thus instrumentally they would do more for the evangelization of the country. He deprecated the system of gratuitous teaching; it was inconsistent that part of the education of students should be gratuitous and the other half paid; and however willing ministers in London might be to afford assistance, they would not be able long to do so. It was tried by the Independents for twenty-five or thirty years, and failed, this failure being the origin of Highbury College. He also contended that a more perfect education could be given in the Universities of Scotland, and that it would be found (as it had already been found) that Free Church students would be preferred over the students of the London College, especially under the proposed arrange

ments.

Mr. MACAULAY, in seconding the amendment, argued that both on financial and ecclesiastical grounds, it would be decidedly preferable to send their students to Edinburgh. It was necessary to exercise Christian prudence and wisdom, as well as Christian faith; and he considered students would be better equipped both for the work of the ministry in the Presbyterian Church, and also as efficient and powerful missionaries in the great mission field of England, by the Resolutions of Mr. Chalmers being adopted.

Rev. Messrs. HENDERSON and STUART, who had been students in the College, addressed the Synod, the purport of their remarks being that if the College could be maintained, it would be of the greatest use to the Church.

The Rev. Mr. MUNRO supported the original Motion in a humorous and powerful speech, especially pointing to the last two speakers as good samples of what their College could produce. He remarked that Mr. Chalmers' argument rested on the assumption that if they sent students to Scotland they would come back to this country and labour; he denied that such would be the case; in five cases out of every six, they would not return to the sphere for which they were designed. On this point he gave instances. He remarked that every denomination worthy the name had one or more educational institutions, such as that for which they claimed the support of their people, and he was at a loss to understand why the Presbyterian Church in England should not have a college of its own.

Mr. GILLESPIE suggested that the debate should not be continued, as the whole subject had been fully discussed in conference.

Rev. Mr. MILLER felt called upon to make some observations in answer to Mr. Munro's remarks. He believed the best school for training students for the work of Christ in England was Edinburgh, and his own conviction was that young men born in England, and consecrated to the work of God in England, if sent to Scotland, would return to prosecute their labours in this country.

Rev. Mr. WEIR supported the continuance of the College at home, believing that if they had not a college they would have no collegiate education sustained by the contributions of their people. He considered, however, that they must, as speedily as possible, have a large increase of permanent and paid professors.

Rev. Mr. MURDOCH rose amidst shouts of "vote," which were so general that the Moderator said it was the wish of the House to proceed to a division. The Rev. gentleman deferred to the chair; but after the Resolutions had been read, Mr. Murdoch again rose and claimed his right to be heard. He objected to the sessions being eight months each, as proposed in the Report of the Committee.

Professor CAMPBELL said this might be left to the consideration of the Committee.

It was agreed that the state of the vote should be first and second Motion, according to the chronological order in which the Motions had been made; when

the Roll having been called, and votes marked, the first Motion was carried by a majority of fifty-seven to eleven (other members declining to vote). Wherefore the Synod hereby do receive and adopt the Report of the College Committee, and remit to the Committee on the College about to be appointed, to carry into execution the various matters of detail recommended in the Report.

The following were then nominated and appointed as the College Committee for the ensuing year:

Messrs. J. Hamilton, A. Munro, J. Ferguson, D. Fergusson, Chalmers, Nicolson, Blackwood, Macaulay, J. Anderson, and Murdoch, Ministers; and Messrs. W. Hamilton, Gillespie, R. Barbour, Dunlop, Lieut.-Col. Anderson, Henderson, Stevenson, Lamb, Greig, Forsythe, Brownley, Napier, Hay, Nisbet, Stephenson, and Dr. Stewart, and the Professors ex officio.-Messrs. W. Hamilton and Gillespie, Treasurers and Conveners; and Messrs. John Thomson, James Anderson, and James Macandrew, Auditors.

Mr. Miller, by appointment of the Moderator, then engaged in prayer.

The Synod then adjourned to meet again at five o'clock, p.m.-Closed with prayer.

EVENING MEETING.

At the evening diet the Synod called for the Overture from the Presbytery of Cumberland, on a Central Sustentation Fund for the payment of Ministers' Stipend, which was given in, read, and fully considered; when the following Motion by Mr. John Henderson was seconded and unanimously agreed to,That a Committee be appointed to consider the matter of increasing the amount of support to the Ministry of the Church, to prepare and arrange plans for better working any scheme now in existence, or for framing some scheme likely to accomplish this object; with instructions to frame immediately a plan for the course of their operations, with a view to ripening the whole matter for a definite decision at next meeting of Synod in

1849.

The Committee appointed to revise Presbytery Records, gave in their Report, to the effect that the Records of the Presbyteries of Cumberland, Northumber land, and Newcastle, and part of those of Lancashire, were, for reasons satisfactory to the Committee, not produced; and that those of the Presbyteries of Berwick, Birmingham, London, and part of those

of Lancashire, were produced, and found to be generally well kept, but with the following observations; that Arabic and Roman figures are occasionally employed to designate numbers instead of words (this applies to all the Records); that in those of London, erasures have been observed, and the public intimation of adjournments is not minuted; and that in those of Birmingham and Lancashire, blanks, unnecessarily and improperly wide, are left both between the successive entries in the same Minutes, and between the Minutes of successive meetings; and with these remarks, the Records were recommended to be attested in the usual form. The Report was adopted, and the Clerk instructed to attest accordingly.

The following were appointed a Deputation, with instructions to visit the various congregations of the Church, with a view to give counsel to the Deacons and Managers, regarding financial matters, and aid in the formation of Congregational Associations: viz., Messrs. R. Barbour, A. Gillespie, J. Henderson, G. F. Barbour, T. Greig, W. Hamilton, J. Nisbet, and John Thompson, R. Barbour, (Convener,) with power to add to their numbers, and to report to next meeting of Synod.

The Presbyteries of Cumberland and Birmingham obtained leave to sit during the Session of Synod.

The Synod called for the Report of the Home Mission Committee, which was given in and read by Mr. R. Barbour, the Treasurer, as follows:

REPORT OF HOME MISSION COMMITTEE.

YOUR Committee have little that is new to record in their Report of the proceedings of the year that is just closed.

With the exception of one locality, which is being made the subject of an experiment for six months by the Presbytery of Birmingham, your Committee have not been called upon by Presbyteries to direct their efforts to any fresh field of labour for the Presbyterian ministry. There is no want of promise or of inviting prospects in many an untried locality, but the Church may have felt her energies and attention required for the preservation of the ground already possessed, and the men are not within reach who could be sent forth to break of corn which would give promise of return so up the fallow ground, and to sow the handful bountiful, that the fruit would be seen to shake like Lebanon.

It is with congregations already formed that your Committee have principally been ocIn many instances increased assistance has cupied during the season that is now closed. been required in order to meet the pressure of

The Committee regret to observe that generally in those congregations which have been receiving aid from the Mission, little is doing to raise the scale of local effort and local revenue, and that congregational agencies are not increasing in activity, so as to indicate any probability of early improvement.

In not a few of these congregations your Committee find, that there exists no missionary organization at all; in others, the machinery that exists has been from the first imperfect, and after being set in motion, has not realized what was expected from it; and your Committee feel that the exercise of a spirit of a more generous and self-sacrificing zeal is by the exigencies of the times loudly

called for.

Your Committee are well aware of the depressing effects which have been produced in your congregations by the distress which has afflicted the community; but while this may, nay, must have tended to lessen the revenue of your missionary schemes, and to occasion fresh and increased demands upon the Mission Treasury, your Committee cannot recognise the prevailing visitation, as furnishing any legitimate excuse for the arrest of the missionary spirit, or the want of missionary effort, or the absence in congregations of a missionary agency, which might be of service in more prosperous times.

Your Committee have found the greatest difficulty because of the reasons above mentioned, in working out the objects of the Home Mission and Supplemental Funds, consistently with the general good of the Church. To your Committee it does not appear that the mere fact of a deficiency in the revenue forms a claim sufficient to entitle a congregation to assistance. There are two considerations that require to be weighed after this deficiency has been made out. It first requires to be proved that there exists a congregational machinery for giving a missionary impulse, and for gathering the fruits of such a spirit in the congregation, and then comes the inquiry whether that agency has been active and adequately successful in prosecuting its duties. The conviction may be forced upon the minds of the members of your Committee, that in some cases the scanty revenue is the result less of the ability than of the willingness to give, the consequence of apathy or a false delicacy on the part of the office-bearers, or of coldness and lukewarmness on the part of the people. When this is the case, your Committee are persuaded that a grant from the Supplemental Fund, equal to the deficiency shown in the congregational revenue would, instead of being a benefit, operate as a hindrance and an evil.

It is clear that while one object should be to supplement the congregational resources when these are inadequate to the support of the ministry, another object should be to bring up each of these congregations, as speedily as possible, to a self-supporting level, and any effect, resulting from the operations of the Committee, that would retard such a result would be most detrimental to the particular

dency upon the general interests of the Church. For your Committee are of opinion that they would be taking undue advantage of the readiness to give, which has been manifested by your wealthier members, and your larger congregations, and adopting the surest way of arresting the progress of their liberality, if their willing energies were overtasked in the effort to help congregations who were disposed to do but little to help themselves.

There are congregations of a class which, let the efforts of office-bearers and people be what they may, want the internal resources necessary to render them self-supporting, while your Committee rejoice to observe that there are other congregations which exhibit a steady growth in numbers and in revenue, and which, emerging from the dust of bygone years, are engaging in vigorous efforts to provide for their own necessities. And, to their honour it should be told, that, in some cases, the ministers have refrained from applying to the Fund for assistance, in circumstances where it was doubtful whether the revenue of their congregations would equal their hopes, from the consciousness either that there were other claims more pressing than their own, or that the means of their congregations ought to be equal to the support of their own ministry. But your Committee would wish to impress upon the Synod the fact, that congregations accustomed to receive aid are apt, in too many cases, to become satisfied with a position of continual dependence.

Your Committee do not believe that an alteration in the form of your machinery would help to cure this evil. The multiplication of funds and agencies is, in the present circumstance of our Church, to be avoided, the more especially as many of our larger congregations are crushed with local burdens and Church debts, which must be lightened, if not removed, before they can enter with increased vigour into more enlarged schemes of missionary enterprise.

Your Committee are of opinion that experience as well as common prudence rather suggest an endeavour to give a more vigorous impulse to the present machinery than to impair its efficiency by engaging in new schemes, without examining their probabilities of success in the light of by-gone experience. With slight alteration, we might apply the caution of the Roman poet to the brethren,

"Sumite materiam vestris æquam viribus." And your Committee are of opinion, that if there were brought to the aid of the schemes already in existence an agency more practical, and better sustained, the objects demanded for the benefit of the Church, and which can be compassed by her resources, would be more adequately secured.

Your Committee would not venture to suggest whether it is more desirable that the agency should consist of a single official, or of an interchange of deputations from contiguous Presbyteries; but if the congregations of the Church were visited more frequently, if their efforts and their resources were more clearly ascertained, and if more exertions were em