not realise the
idea already suggested,--viz. that of having an interchange between our
pulpits and the pulpits of the Established and other Presbyterian or
Independent Churches. Such ministerial interchange need not affect the
question of _orders_, nor need it, in fact, touch many other questions
on which differences are concerned.

Of course this should be arranged under due regulation, and with full
precaution taken that the questions discussed shall be confined to
points where there is agreement, and that points of difference should be
left quite in abeyance. Why should we, under proper arrangements, fail
to realise so graceful an exercise of Christian charity? Why should we
lose the many benefits favourable to the advancement of Christian unity
amongst us? An opportunity for practically putting this idea into a
tangible form has occurred from the circumstance of the new chapel in
the University of Glasgow being opened for service, to be conducted by
clergymen of various churches. I gladly avail myself of the opportunity
of testifying my grateful acknowledgments for the courteous and generous
conduct of Dr. Caird, in his efforts to put forward members of our
Church to conduct the services of the College chapel, and also of
expressing my admiration of the power and beauty of his remarks on
Christian unity and on brotherly love[193].

This is with me no new idea; no crude experiment proposed for the
occasion. I have before me a paper which I wrote some years since, and
which I had put into the shape of "An Address to the Bishops," to
sanction such exchange of pulpits, hoping to get some of my clerical
brethren to join in the object of the address. I feel assured much good
would, under God, be the result of such spiritual union. If
congregations would only unite in exchange of such friendly offices of
religious instruction with each other, how often would persons, now
strangers, become better acquainted! I wish the experiment could be
tried, were it only to show how prejudices would be removed; how
misunderstandings would be cleared away; how many better and kinder
feelings would grow out of the closer union on religious questions! Nay,
I would go farther, and express my full conviction, that my own Church
would _gain_ rather than lose in her interests under such a system. Men
would be more disposed to listen with attention, and examine with
candour the arguments we make use of in favour of our Church views. We
shou