YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

By the same Author.

Prose.

1. THE GOSPEL IN ADVANCE OF THE AGE : A Homily
for the Times. With an Introduction on the Spirit of the Bible and the
Spirit of the Age. Preparing for the Press, a Third Edition, revised and
rearranged, with additional matter, &c., &c.
2. THE GREAT SALVATION; AND OUR SIN IN NEG
LECTING IT.
3. CHRIST OUR ALL IN ALL. Srd Edition.
4. REFLECTIVE DISCOURSES. 2nd Edition.
5. THE IDEAL OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH. A Pam
phlet. Poetical.
1. LUTHER; OR, THE SPIRIT OF THE REFORMATION.
5th Edition.
2. SATAN; OR, INTELLECT WITHOUT GOD. 10th
Edition. 3. THE OMNIPRESENCE OF THE DEITY. 22nd Edition.
4. WOMAN. 6tli Edition.
5. THE MESSIAH. Sth Edition.
6. OXFORD ; with Biographical Notes. 6th Edition.
7. SACRED MEDITATIONS AND MORAL THEMES.
3rd Edition.

THE

»totti0|) €i)mt\}

THE ENGLISH SCHISMATICS!
being '
Setters on tfte Eecent ^cbism m ^cotlantr :
with a
DEDICATORY EPISTLE
TO THE
RIGHT REVEREND THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW ;
AND A
DOCUMENTARY APPENDIX.

REV. ROBERT MONTGOMERY, M.A. Oxon.
AUTHOR OF "THE GOSPEL IN ADVANCE OP THB AGE," "LUTHER," ETC., ETC.
S1)iT& 3B&ition, 2JteijifleO anb Snlargett.

' I BELIEVE IN THE HoLT CATHOLIC Church." — Apostles' Creed.
'Let its pray with the Church, in the Church, and for the Church." — Luther.

LONDON:
JOSEPH MASTERS, ALDERSGATE STREET.
EBINBURGH: GRANT AND SON; AND LENDRUM. GLASGOW: OGLE.
ABERDEEN : BROWN AND CO.

MDCCCXLVII.

I'EINTED BY ROBSON, LEVEY, AND FRANK.LYN,
Great New Street, Fetter Lane.

CONTENTS.

PASE

Dedicatory Epistle to the Right Reverend Dr. Russell, Bishop
OF Glasgow, &c. &c. ........ 5
Letter to the Right Reverend Lord Bishop of Llandaff, &c. &c. 36
Postscript to the above ........ 46
Letter to one of the Managers of St. Jude's, on the Glasgow
Schism  53
The Schism, and the Schismatics . . . . . .65

APPENDIX.
Note I. Scottish Bishop for the English Metropolis .... 101
II. and IV. Remarks ou the " Peculiarities of the Scottish
Episcopal Church"  102, 110
III. Letter from E. Wagstaff, Esq., Gordon Castle, Fochahers,
to the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Eng
land; with their Lordships' Replies .... 105
V. Letter from Rev. R. Montgomery to the Rev. Francis Close,
of Cheltenham  110
VI. Introduction to the Code of Canons of the Episcopal Church
in Scotland  115
VII. Protests from some English Bishops against the Schism in
Scotland ......... 120
VIII. Remarks on Bishop Daly's Letter  122
IX. Letter from Bishop Russell to Rev. R. Montgomery, author
ising him to collect Funds for Building St. Jude's Church 123
X. Bishop Russell on the original Constitution of St. Jude's . 123
XI. On the Catholic Ideal of the Anglican Church . . . 129
XII. Rev. Francis Garden on the Scottish Communion Office . 133

DEDICATORY EPISTLE
to the
RIGHT REVEREND DR. RUSSELL,
BISHOP OF GLASGOW, &c. &c.

DEAR AND EIGHT REV. SIR,
A* THIRD edition of the following " Letters" being
required, the author has yielded to the requests of those who
have the highest claims on his respectful attention, by consenting
to their republication, accompanied with an earnest prayer to
the Divine Head of the Church that they may be instrumental
in promoting tbe peace and harmony of His mystical Body. And
to whom, with such propriety, could this work be inscribed as
unto yourself? For six years I had the privilege of being one
of your clergy ; and, from the first moment of my introduction
up to the existing period, I have had the honour and happiness
of calling you my friend. As Bishop, let me enjoy the noble
pleasure of publicly stating, that nothing could be more paternal,
wise, and benevolent than your conduct as witnessed by me, dur
ing my ministerial connexion with the Scottish Church. I found
you anxious, at all times, to maintain catholic truth, as well as
to preserve apostolical discipline ; and ever responding, with
generous promptitude, out of your own limited means, to the
increasing wants of your venerable, but still poor and persecuted,
communion. And when, to this view of your character, I add
the retrospect of all the afiectionate sympathies and kind solici
tudes you have realised towards myself as a private friend, — I
should indeed deserve to be branded with heartless ingratitude
were I to shrink in the hour of conflict from this public avowal.
Others, calling themselves by that elastic term of polemical con
venience, " evangelical," — ^may think themselves justified in prov
ing their allegiance to the Redeemer, by printing lampoons in
religious prints, and circulating oft-refuted calumnies in pam
phlets, and "Reports" against the ancient Episcopate of Scotland.
B

6 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
Not thus, however, has the present writer endeavoured to study
the will and translate the " mind of Christ" and his blessed Spirit,
Far otherwise ! The heroic sufferings of the Church in Scotland
have only served to endear her history, and render her thrilling
archives more sacred to my best feelings and conscience. Never
have T been able to peruse her annals at the time of the Revo
lution, and trace her calm but invincible prowess during all the
successions of blended contempt, outrage, and wrong with which
she has since been visited, — without sentiments of the deepest
reverence and admiration. And now,, although separated in my
oflScial character from the Scottish Episcopal Church, most ear
nestly do I invoke the Lord of life and glory, who has promised
to animate His mystical Body with His guiding Spirit for ever,
to pour out an increasing abundance of His grace on the minis
trations and members of your Communion. Believe me, the
poverty of your Church, while it cramps her own energies, and
exposes her to the taunts and treasons of men, whose Church-
manship seems little more than venal subservience to the mam
mon of expediency, — only serves to recommend her cause unto
those who venerate truth for its own sake. And here, let me
be permitted to add, it is morally certain that some of our An
glican schismatics would not dare to commit the gross outrage
on an English prelate which they have presumed to inflict on
a Scottish one. And this homage to the vulgar outwardness
of mere secular rank, state, and all the trappings of lordly
patronage and power, is not the least of those bad features
which render this schismatical rebellion in Scotland so truly re
volting to the principles of a sound Churchman. It might, at
least, have been anticipated, that men who profess to walk, not
by the sensual law of " sight," but by the spiritual one of" faith,"
would have adopted some higher standard than the basest Eras-
tianism, and some nobler test than the political contingency of an
act of Parliament. Be this as it may. Right Reverend Sir, let
me once more assure you, that some of the bravest hearts and
noblest minds in England, reciprocate with the present writer in
this expression of sincere attachment to your venerated Church.
Amid the dimness and perplexity which now encompass her,
let us hope and believe that the gleams of brighter days, and
fairer prospects are still before her. In England, indeed, the
amount of positive ignorance touching the Scottish Church and
Her apostolic mission in Scotland, is almost miraculous. I refer,
for instance, to the invincible obstinacy with which certain Evan-

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 7
gelic revilers in religious papers, again and again seek to place
the position of a Scottish prelate on a parallel with one lately
held by our esteemed friend. Bishop Luscombe. Where men
wilfully close their eyes to sun-bright facts, conviction is, of
course, a moral impossibility. Once more, however, in defiance
of this hopeless effort, let us reiterate the fact stated in the fol
lowing pages ; — The Episcopal Church in Scotland is the ancient
Church of Scotland, an Apostolical, primitive, and Catholic Body;
not created hy kings, nor essentially conditionated by parliaments ;
and much less originated by the sectarian action of self-will, and
modern dissent. Her Prelates are transmissive links in the chain
of that Episcopate which stretches its line of succession far back
into the ages of primeval Christianity. Moreover, the dioceses
over which the Scottish Bishops now preside, rival in antiquity
those of the Anglican Church. The mere political fact, that
their diocesan government is not protected by Legislature, has
nothing to do with the vitality of their Episcopal office, as law
ful Bishops in Scotland. Indeed, no man, who is not a Churchr
man "according to the tenth of Queen Anne," or "according"
to any other trick of State-interference with the Church, — will
ever think of confounding the mere force of parliamentary re
cognitions with the sacred rights of Episcopal jurisdiction.
But we must now revert from that which is personal, and
ofier some transient remarks on the existing state of controversy
arising out of this disgraceful schism. Before we do so, how
ever, allow me to hope that neither yourself nor your right re
verend brethren, nor the clergy and laity of the Scottish Church,
attribute too much influence as to what religious prints and dis
senting journals, in England, enunciate on the subject of your
difficulties. Doubtless, the malignant perversions and miserable
partialities of these prints wield an unrighteous degree of influence
over many, who submit their judgment with passive indolence to
schismatical teachers, and erroneous guides. That most stupen
dous of social impostors called "We," — is working disastrous
wonders in the ecclesiastical, as well as in the literary, world ; and
thus you ought not to be surprised that thousands, who under
stand no more of the positive constitution of a visible Church
than they do of the geology of the moon, — are so stupid and
slavish as to allow either a Presbyterian layman to dictate their
practical creed, or a sectarian " we " to organise their virtual
Church ! Still be assured. Right Rev. Sir, that, notwithstanding,
an immense number of spiritually-minded and truly orthodox

8 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
ministers and members of the English Church, view with abhor
rence and disgust tbe conduct of English schismatics towards
your venerable Communion.
The next point unto which you must allow me to refer, is
connected with these " Letters." Let me, then, candidly ex
press my thankfulness that, not only have the Scottish Prelates
and Clergy, but also most of the English Bishops and those of the
American Church, been pleased to approve of this attempt 'to
uphold evangelic truth in combination with apostolical order ; but
that, in more than one instance, some have been kept from joining
this schism, by reading the real facts of the case, as set forth
in these " Letters." But let me distinctly state, that if there
be any force in these Letters, it is none other than, that which
always emanates from rectitude of purpose, when fairly con
nected with candid explanations and authentic evidences. And
thus, I feel it an act of public justice to state, that the present
writer is only one among those who have contributed their la
bours for the promotion of catholic truth, and the expulsion o^
schismatical delusion. In other words, public attention deserves
to be invited towards the admirable pamphlets which have been
published by yourself, the Bishop' of Edinburgh, the Bishop of
Brechin, the Rev. Francis Garden, and last, not least, by the
Rev. James Christie, of Turriff, in the diocese of Aberdeen. To
each of these, in a more or less degree, I beg to express my
obligation ; and to direct the attention of the reader to the
ample extracts they will find from these varied publications in
the " Appendix" to this present work. Having thus performed
an act of common justice to others, with your permission we
will now revert to other matters of pressing importance.
What, then, the writer of this predicted more than a year
ago, would now appear to be on the eve of fulfilment ; that is to
say, he foretold that the movements of the schismatical agitators
would never cease, — till they could bring political coercion,
in some form or other, to bear on the Church in Scotland. Ac
cordingly, we are not surprised, although pained, to read the
following specimen of outrageous sectarianism, in the North
British Advertiser of this present week :
" TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH IN SCOTLAND.
NOTICE.
" That as there is great apprehension abroad touching the
anomalous state of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Scotland,

to the bishop of GLASGOW. i)
in respect of her services, canons, rules, and regulations, it is
proposed to hold a public meeting in Edinburgh, as soon as the
necessary preliminaries now in progress can be completed, /or the
purpose qf entering into resolutions and devising measures on the
subject, for Parliamentary relief. The objects in view generally
are : 1st, To place the whole Protestant Episcopal Church in Scot
land upon the same footing as the English Episcopal Church in all
the British colonies, and other places beyond the limits of England
and Wales, by ordering all future appointments and consecrations
of Bishops for the Scotch Episcopal Church to be made according
to the practice and law of the English Church, as in all cases of
her foreign dioceses ; but without any endowrrent from the State,
and without trenching in any way upon the ' Established Church
of Scotland.' 2d, To have it enacted that the services and canons of the
English Church, as contained in the ' English Book of Common
Prayer,' shall supersede all others in, and be adopted by, the Pro
testant Episcopal Church of Scotland, that uniformity in public
worship may be secured to her congregations in this part of Great
Britain, as the only means to avert the further and otherwise in
evitable schism.
3d, To have a diocesan registiy office in every diocese (as in
England and Wales), or one general office for the collection of the
past and the future annual transmission thereto, by each minister
and his vestry, of an authenticated copy of the registers of all
baptisms, marriages, and burials performed in their congregation :
the state of risk attending these important documents having, for
more than 150 years, been a drawback to this portion of the
Church, and a reflection upon any civilised community.
The clergy of each diocese, and all vestries and Episcopal con
gregations, are earnestly entreated to hold their respective meetings
forthwith, to take into consideration, and pass resolutions to sup
port, the measure now propounded. And all persons desirous to
aid in furthering the proposed meeting and its object, are respect
fully in^tited to communicate, in the interim, personally, or hy letter
prepaid, to William Edwards, Esq., Palace Yard, Edinburgh, pre
paratory to the necessary requisition for calling the said meeting.
16* October, 1847."
What a dismal comment is this " notice" on the combined
infatuation and inconsistency of men who, having once entered
on the downward path of schism, never pause in their miserable
career, till they dash their wild plans into the utmost extreme of

10 dedicatory epistle
sectarian violence and democratical rebellion ! Here are persons
talking in one breath of an " Episcopal Church," and yet, with a
suicidal self-exposure, at the same time recommending a species
of political persecution which scriptural " episcopacy" repudiates,
and every Catholic principle in the true " Church" abhors. Only
imagine, what a subject this will be for a House of Commons,
partially constituted, as the present one will be, — of Jews, Turks,
infidels, and heretics, for whose conversion our Church teaches
us to pray ! Can any thing be more preposterous and wickedly
absurd, than to propose that a creedless miscellany of political
.Radicals, Socinian Rationalists, atheistical Chartists, and railway
gamblers, blended with a comparatively few earnest Churchmen
and sincere minds, — should bring the pressure of what is godless
in Parliament to bear on the principles of the Scottish Church,
and the inalienable privileges of her canonical Prelates ? What
has the House of Commons, moreover, at any period, and under
any circumstances, to do with the internal discipline and doctrine
of the Episcopal Communion in Scotland? Above all, what
word is severe enough to brand the conduct of those men as it
deserves, who, in order to procure the patronising violence of
Presbyterian prints, once lauded and flattered the " Free Kirk"
of Scotland ? By what severe epithet shall we describe, with
moral justice, the inconsistency of men who lately shouted
" Christ and Christ only is the Head of His Church,"— but would
now enslave the Church to the iron despotism of political ma
jorities and parliamentary exactions ? How this " relief" is to
be applied and worked out, does not yet appear. Perhaps the
mad proposal of an English Bishop for presiding over the An
glican schismatics in Scotland,i will be again mooted ; or else,
some attempt will be made to force the Scottish Bishops to
modify their ancient discipline, so as to be more in accordance,
than it now is, with the crude i_deas and morbid exactions of
certain- restless innovators. Come, however, what will, we pray
God that, under the sole Headship of her Divine Lord, the
Church of Scotland will not alter a single point in the punctua
tion of her services, at the tyrannical bidding of some deistical
majority, who may choose to thrust their despotism into her
canons and constitution. The House of Commons has no more
to do with the Episcopal Church of Scotland, than it has with
the local government of Timbuctoo. Nothing but the most
disastrous perfection of ecclesiastical ignorance could tempt any
' Appendix, Note I.

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 11
man to conceive that an independent. Christian, and Aposto
lical Communion, like the Church in Scotland, whose organisa
tion is purely spiritual, — would, in the least degree, or lowest
form, allow ber Catholic prerogatives to be maimed, marred, or
modified by the votes and decisions of a secular conclave. And,
as regards the idea of an English Bishop, we hope and believe
that, should any Anglican prelate be found base enough to
become the ecclesiastical creature of political influence, and so
intrude his schismatical presumption into the Scottish dioceses,
that each Bishop in Scotland, where he intruded, would do his
duty, and at once excommunicate such a man. Certain parties
may ridicule, as they please, the excommunication of a Scottish
Bishop ; but we can assure them there are thousands of An- '
glican clergy and laity, who would consider such excommunica
tion not only righteously merited, but canonically efficacious,
and thus would act accordingly. Still, notwithstanding the
violence of party, for the honour of Christendom, for the peace
of the Church, and for the sake of common decency, let us hope
that this big outrage against the Church in Scotland will not be
attempted. In order to put this in a clear light before the eyes
of any ordinary judge, let us imagine that Scotland were to try the
same disgraceful form of tyrannical proceeding towards England.
Let us, for instance, suppose, that when some English clergy
rebelled against their lawful Bishops, broke their ordination
vows, and erected schismatical conventicles in their dioceses, and
in every way grossly and grievously revolted against their aposto
lical office, — that the Scottish Prelates sent one of their number
to patronise the schism. Or (and this is what England has per
mitted some of her clergy to do towards Scotland), let it be
supposed that, the Scottish Church allowed her native clergy to
intrude themselves into the dioceses of English Bishops, and set
these prelates at open defiance, by building independent chapels
and forming sectarian congregations ; and what a clamour would
these religious prints raise ! Of course, we are aware the civil
LAW here comes in, and throws its shield over English prelacy.
But how can any disciple of the Cross, who professes to realise
his allegiance to the Divine Head of the Church, for one in
stant allow that civil restraint or political license has aught to
do with the spiritual functions and episcopal faculties of an
Organisation like the mystical Body of Christ ? And it is here
that the heartless character of this schism betrays at once its
treason towards evangelical Truth, as well as its rebellion to

12 dedicatory epistle
Apostolic order. We repeat it — no believer, whose heart beats
with reverential loyalty towards his Crucified Master, and who
realises the attributes of the one triie Catholic and spiritual
Constitution which He has founded, — will tolerate the idea of
political despotism or parliamentary votes interfering with the
autonomy of the Church. If the Bishops of the Scottish Church
should be tempted to yield one hair-breadth from what is due
to their apostolic order and canonical privileges, they will be
come the contempt of Christendom, and the pity of the world.
But we are " persuaded" of " better things." Honourabll
members may speak, railway orators sneer, and Socinian dema
gogues may bluster and boast against " Puseyism," " black pre
lacy," " priestly despotism," to any tune, or to any extent the
miraculous patience of the House of Commons may allow them ;
but as of old, in the days of that noble champion Bishop Rose,
so now, by the grace of God, the Scottish prelates will " do
their duty," and only lay down their spiritual privileges when
they surrender their natural lives. Even if they desired to do
so, these Prelates have no inherent right to betray their Church
into the soiled hands and sullied votes ofa parliamentary faction.
Christ and not the Parliament is their spiritual Master ; and it is
unto Him and Him only, in matters touching the sacred pri
vileges of the Church, they will submit their cause, and be re
sponsible for their creed and internal discipline.
We must now. Right Reverend Sir, allude to a subject
which has saddened the hearts and astonished the minds of
all true members of the Catholic Church, on both sides of
the Tweed ; — namely, to the fact that numerous of the An
glican clergy have visibly fraternised with their schismatical
brethren in Scotland. Had this sympathetic concord been
limited unto mere support and encouragement by the press,
such unclerical sympathy with what is contrary to ecclesiastical
justice and canonical jurisdiction, would have pained the con
sciences of many who love the unity of the Church. But some
of the English clergy have done far more than this : they have
crossed the Tweed with the vow of their own Church upon
their souls, and in defiance both of the letter and of the spirit
of our ecclesiastical system, — have publicly sided with the schis
matics, preached in their pulpits, and thus insulted tbe Scottish
Prelates in their own dioceses. Personally, what renders this
fearful anomaly more painful is the fact, that from some of
these brethren we had expected better and wiser things. Se-

to the bishop of GLASGOW. l3
parated as we may be, in the degrees of our mutual estimate
of what constitutes the properties of the Church visible, we
still believed that they did value, to some small extent, order,
discipline, canonical practice, and primeval usage. But, alas,
what are we to say of those, who can thus make their English
ordination a weapon of attack for insulting the authority,
wounding the character, and assaulting the diocesan privileges
of the Scottish Prelates ? What deepens our condemnation of
this gross outrage is, the recollection that it appears like a mean
and merciless advantage taken of the defenceless position of the
Scottish communion. Cceteris paribus, would they presume
thus to OA'er contumely to diocesan regulations in England?
We are confident they would not dare so to rebel against episcopal
jurisdiction. Why, then, because the Bishops in Scotland cannot
summon the aid of civil power to rescue their dioceses from the
schismatical intrusion of Anglican clergy, wantonly and wilfully
offer a public insult to the venerable Episcopate of Scotland ?
Is not this ungenerous and unjust, ignoble and ungracious ?
Can Christ really be honoured by such conduct ? Is it according
to " the mind" of that blessed Spirit of harmony and peace,
whose inward guidance they profess to follow? Or, is there
one line, sentiment, proposition, or principle, in the entire
volume of revelation, that directly or indirectly authorises such
revolutionary arrogance? On t^e contrary, may we not fear
lessly affirm, that it is at once contrary to the law of Christ, the
love of the Spirit, the doctrine of the New Testament, the
nature of the Church, the commission of the clergy, and even
to the express letter of that Apostle's example, who speaks of
not " boasting in another man's line of things" (2 Cor. x. 16),
and thus alludes to a certain approximation unto diocesan order ?
These are solemn, searching questions, which we put with re
spectful faithfulness to certain of our brethren, and venture to
commend them to the religion of their conscience, before the
sight of God.
Meanwhile, Right Reverend Sir, we may venture to believe
and hope, that in more than one case, English clergymen have
been shamefully misled and deceived as to the real grounds for
this schism in Scotland. There are religious prints and so-called
evangelical parties in England, who believe that the Scottish
Church is the ecclesiastical sister of the Roman apostacy, that
her Bishops are Tractarian Prelates, and that nearly all her
clergy are cankered and corrupted with the virus of a secret

14 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
Romanism. Add to this, the further delusion, that horrible
stories of prelatical tyranny and priestly assumption, concerning
hair-shirts and worshipped crucifixes, bows before the Altar, and
curtsies behind it, together with burning candles and popish
intonations, — ^have all had their effect in calling into mistaken
action a morbid sympathy with what (under other circum
stances) many of them would perhaps have condemned. Still,
Right Reverend Sir, I, in common with thousands of ordained
brethren, deeply deplore the schismatical intrusion of English
clergy into your own diocese, and that of other Bishops in
Scotland. We are convinced that it puts the Anglican Church
in the disgraceful attitude of being the persecutrix of the Scot
tish, while, at the same time, she professes to be in full com
munion with her. Let me also be permitted to express my
public regret, that a once intimate and still esteemed friend, a
man whom I have ever considered to possess a warm heart and
an honourable mind, — should have allowed himself to become
a victim to Presbyterian advisers, and erect a conventicle by the
sea-side for the summer reception of English preachers, who
have no objection to schism, and a great partiality for sea-air.
Our good friend must really not be exceedingly enraged with
our candour, nor imagine that we are the martyrs of tractarian
delusion, when we entreat him to remove his conventicle from
the face of the earth, with all possible speed and decorum. By
the memories of olden friendship, and by the more solemn asso
ciations of past communion in the bosom of the Scottish Church,
we entreat him to deliver himself from the bondage of this
strange delusion, under which he is now suffering. Surely, four
walls, a pulpit, and a preacher are not the only, or chief elements
which constitute a Church. Nor can we perceive any valid
connexion between the salvation of souls, purity of doctrine,
or the downfall of Popery, and that of an unlicensed and uncon-
secrated conventicle called into existence by a Layman, who is
himself in a state of schism, and which is rendered for three
months during the bathing - season a mere preaching -station.
Our friend may, of course, if he pleases, call it " The English
Chapel;" but we hope he will pardon our good-humoured
badinage, if we tell him he might as well denominate it. The
Scotch Pagoda. True, many visitors will be misled by the
words " EngUsh Chapel," and be led to imagine that because an
Anglican clergyman mounts the pulpit, and the Prayer-book
of our Church is used, that they attend the Episcopal Church ;

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 15
but their ignorance cannot justify other people's wilful mis
guidance. Churches receive their denomination not from ser
mons and services, but from their ecclesiasticaf government.
Hence, in all cases where there are local dioceses and lawful
Bishops, no chapels or churches can be Episcopal, which are not
subject to Episcopal authority. If the mere reading of the
English Prayer-book and even wearing the surplice, constituted
an " English Church," then would various forms of denomina
tional dissent in England be Episcopal also ; because in many
of our own conventicles, the surplice is worn and the Prayer-book
read : but still, no person who has a grain of common sense, for
one instant would think of calling these meeting-places " Eng
lish Churches" or " Episcopal Chapels !" There is another hint
which, with perfect good humour, we may be permitted to sug
gest to our laical friend, who is consecrating somewhat of his
income under the sad delusion of supporting what he honestly
conceives to be, the maintenance of " Evangelical Truth." We
allude to the convenient season in which his conventicle is
opened for the reception of the English preacher. We do
NOT accuse our brethren of unworthy motives ; but others
do ; and will suggest the sad probability that, there is a closer
connexion between a taste for a snug mansion on the sea-coast,
a circle of zealous partisans, a beautiful prospect of the ocean,
and a change of air, together with some touching little appendix
in the style of pecuniary reward, — and a real love for the prin
ciples of Protestantism, than prudence ought to have discovered.
Our generous friend must be less liberal, less hospitable, and
above all, not open his conventicle precisely at that period when
Low Churchmen as well as High Churchmen, are inclined for
the coast, and long for the refreshing change of sea-air, — if he
wishes to deliver his English supporters from those base sus
picions that people in this naughty world will encourage.
I must now. Right Reverend Sir, allude in my closing pages
unto two other branches of this melancholy subject. And first,
to a publication entitled " Peculiarities of the Scottish Episcopal
Church," which have appeared under a signature as ludicrously
inconsistent as could Well be assumed, " Justitia ;" — a real
" lucus h non lucendo." In the Appendix^ to this edition will
be found the forcible strictures of Mr. Christie on that
malevolent diatribe ; and therefore, in this place I may spare
you the pain of quotation. Meanwhile, let me state, that the
' See Appendix, Note II.

16 dedicatory epistle
friends of the Scottish Church need not be alarmed ; we really
do not anticipate the utter ruin of the Episcopal Communion in
consequence of such an attack ! The author of them is a Scotch
layman of high social respectability, of Radical propensities, and
moreover, by education and breeding, a dissenter : he too, like
our other amiable friend, has been cruelly deceived' and mis
guided in the matter of this schism, and has thus become an
instrument for printing and publishing the libels, misrepresenta
tions, and sophistries which his clerical guides have scraped to
gether for this purpose. Mr. Christie is indeed severe upon these
unfortunate " Peculiarities ;" but who can blame his honest dis
gust, or condemn his admirable exposure, seeing that these " Pe
culiarities" derive their chief peculiarity from being some of the
most baseless figments and fictions that have ever degraded ec
clesiastical controversy ? For a proof of this, the reader is once
more referred to quotations from Mr. Christie's " Analysis,"
which he will find in the Appendix. Let us encourage the hope
that " Justitia" will grow wiser in future, and not allow himself
to become a mere instrumental convenience, in the hands of
English schismatics, for printing bitter things and unhallowed
fabrications against the Scottish Church. And if he be not for
getful of past alliances and associations, let him adopt the advice
of an old friend ; and that is, after a public recantation of his
ecclesiastical oflfence, let him sink the unsold copies of his " Pe
culiarities" in the bottom of the Clyde, — with whose peculiar
depths, near Glasgow, they have much that is congenial.
The remaining subject, unto which a conclusive reference
must now be made, is, — " The Report of a Deputation into Eng
land in 1846, from the Conference of English Episcopalians in
Scotland." Let me, then, at once assert, that of all the docu
ments which relate to this schism, this appears to be at once the
most offensive, insulting, and disingenuous. From beginning to
end, we venture to state, nothing more unworthy the candour and
rectitude of religious controversy has ever, perhaps, been pub
lished. The object of this " Report" is, to overcome the honest
suspicions of those timid Churchmen in Scotland, who are yet
unable to reconcile a schism in Scotland; with a Church in Eng
land. For this purpose " your Deputation," in their " Report,"
try their utmost to generate this idea in the minds of their deluded
followers ; namely, that the English Prelates, upon the whole,
do not condemn, but, partially at least, even approve their schis
matical contumacy ! Hence we do not hesitate at once to brand

to the bishop OF GLASGOW. 17
this attempt with rank dishonesty, and Jesuitical sophistry. The
English Church, as such, abominates their schism; the English
Bishops will condemn it the more its real character is unveiled ;
and already the Primate, and some of the holiest and best of the
Anglican Episcopate, have decidedly and openly pronounced
their condemnation.^ " Your Deputation" is fully aware of this;
they know full well that the English Bishops could not, and
cannot, without the most suicidal infatuation, countenance and
protect principles which, if lawful and Christian on one side of
the Tweed, are equally so on the other ; for if they are encou
raged in England, where would the Anglican Church be in the
course of a few years ? Why, she would be dwarfed into a mere
sect, and finally be dissolved into an ecclesiastical nonentity
among those countless " denominations" which characterise these
feverish and restless times. As one proof that this " Report" is
most disingenuous in repeating what occurred, let us state that we
have the best authority for stating that, — the Bishop of Oxford, in
company with another distinguished Prelate, not only " refrained
from giving any opinion," but strongly, decidedly, and most se
verely reprimanded " your Deputatioi" for their schismatical con
duct. But the " Report" does not venture to state this : a truth
ful, bold, and honest statement of what really occurred when
" your Deputation" thrust their company into the presence of
our Prelates, would be highly imprudent.
Behold, here how extremes meet. We have been told again
and again, that this schism is to defend the Church in Scotland
against the corruptions of an insidious Romanism ; and yet, here
we discover one of the var' oiKovofiiav propensities of the Je
suitical school, in the very heart of a " Report, &c." assuming
to be enthusiastically devoted to the cause of open-hearted Pro
testantism ! Alas for human consistency ! What a humbling lesson
may we aU derive from such conduct as this ! — But we do not
require to pursue this distressing theme. In addition to some
strictures in " The Theologian," the reader is again referred for
a forcible exposure of this " Report," to certain extracts from
Mr. Christie's " Critical Analysis," which he can peruse in the
Appendix. Any thing more triumphant, manly, and uncom
promising than this "Analysis," we never read. The deepest
thanks of the Church are indeed due unto her heroic champion
for this unanswerable exposure of tortuous error, and disgrace
ful injustice.'^ ' See Appendix, Note III. ^ See Appendix, Note IV.

18 dedicatory epistle
And now. Right Reverend Sir, we ought to bring these remarks
towards a conclusion ; and with a sorrowing, but not despairing,
heart, affectionately and respectfully bid you farewell. More
than once has the present writer had the privilege of being your
humble associate, and preaching a consecration sermon when
some new and humble Temple has been added to your diocese,
and become a spiritual home to the lowly and attached members
of your ancient Communion. And now, when the pensive bells
of the Sabbath peal their sacred chime in my ears, often and
often does memory revert to hours of peaceful fellowship, and
past communion with the Church in Scotland ; and you, at least,
will not accuse me of hypocritical enthusiasm when I add, that
my heart's prayer ever accompanies my recollection of her sanc
tuaries and services. May the protecting hand of that Almighty
Guardian who hath said, " I will never leave thee, nor forsake
thee," still be with you ; and may your venerable Church yet
see " peace within her borders," and all her bitter enemies and
persecutors live to confess their sin, and repent of their schism.
As to the result of this proposed application for " Parliamen
tary Relief," no one can venture to anticipate, with precision,
what style of debate it will originate. For at least a century,
so heterogeneous a miscellany of creedless politicians, Christless
demagogues, and Churchless partisans, were, perhaps, never
mingled with the true friends of the Constitution, This, how
ever, is clear as the noon to any man who believes that the
Church is a spiritual Organisation, whose rights, privileges, and
responsibilities flow out of vital communion with a Divine
Head, — the English Parliament neither by precedent, nor hy
principle, has any lawful claim to interfere with the doctrine
and ritual of the Church in Scotland. And most assuredly
the House of Commons will have quite enough on its hands,
without embroiling her members with the deep and difficult.
elements of ecclesiastical controversy. A vast population fear
fully and almost hopelessly depraved ; masses of discarded railway
operatives, and mechanics out of labour, clamoring for food ; the
manufacturing districts on the brink of revolutionary outbreak ;
the Continent disturbed by all the premonitory symptoms of a
European war; Chartism again rallying its myriads of anti
social members for another appeal to the legislature ; the Ro
mish question, with all its iniquitous falsehoods, and awful
bearings on the Constitution ; together with the godless and
unwearied efforts of dissenting Radicalism to dissolve the con-

TO the bishop of GLASGOW. 19
nexion between "Church and State," — surely here is quite
sufficient to concentrate the energies and absorb the wisdom
of any House of Commons that ever assembled !
But when. Right Reverend Sir, we view the subject of the
schism in Scotland in relation to the Anglican Church, can it
be for one moment conceived, that our Prelates in the House
of Lords, will tolerate or advise, any tyrannous assault and schis
matical intrusion on the sister Church in Scotland ? The Epis
copal Communion in Scotland is as ancient and independent
as the Church of England ; and would it not be a monstrous
act of ecclesiastical usurpation, if any Church were so infa
mously base, as to pervert her accidental connexion with the
Civil Power, — in order to disorganise and disturb another Chureh,
that happens not to be established ? Absolute identity in every
line, lineament, and letter of doctrine, ritual, and service, is
not required in order to constitute the reality of full communion
between two Churches. What right, then, either by the laws
of reason, the principles of revelation, or the Canonical Rules of
the Church Catholic in all ages, has the Anglican Church to dic
tate alterations, or modifications, to the Scottish Church ? With
equal propriety might the Church in Scotland insist upon the Eng
lish Church altering her ritual and sacramental office, in order
to satisfy the views of Scottish Episcopalians now in England !
And here I cannot refrain, Righ t Reverend Sir, from observ
ing, that those members of the English Church, who lament with
so much newspaper eloquence and sectarian pathos over the
" sad state of things" in your Communion, — would act with a
wiser Christianity, were they to enter into more prayerful com
munion with God in behalf of their own ! For indeed, if you
are outwardly assailed by schismatical violence and inwardly
cankered by tractarian corruption, — is not the English Church
also, begirt with difficulties of the most perplexing order, and by
dangers of the most threatening aspect ? To say nothing of the
heartless injustice and enormous abuse associated with ecclesias
tical patronage, — has not the English Church also to contend
against two extremes of hostile partisanship ? We allude to the
undeniable fact that, besides the secret and open effijrts of the
Roman sect in this country, there are Romanising traitors on
the one hand, who are doing all they can to vitiate Catholic
doctrines of our Church with Trentine Theology ; while, on th^
other hand, there are Clerical Dissenters, who exert themselves
both in the pulpit and in the press, to corrupt our Episcopal

20 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
Polity into a close resemblance with Genevan Discipline. But,
surely, I have your approval when asserting that, the true Catho
lic, and loyal son of the Church stands nobly aloof and intelligi
bly distinct from either of these schismatical extremes. Yet, no
Churchman can now assume this Scriptural position, without
being exposed to every species of calumny, misrepresentation,
and abuse. By the Romanising faction, the Orthodox Catholic
who abhors Papistry, latent or undisguised, must be prepared to
be sneered at in certain controversial prints, as a semi-dissenter
and a " sneaking Evangelical ;" while, on the contrary, by the
worshippers of that Protestant Pope, Calvin, — the same person
may expect to be branded as a Tractarian Jesuit, a veiled Papist,
a Romanistic traitor, &c. &c. But, pace tantorum virorum, may
a Presbyter of the Anglican Church be permitted to suggest
with respectful delicacy to these infallible controversialists, —
that nick-names are no arguments; abuse is not edifying; sneers
and ironies exhibit more bile than principle ; and that none but
worthless minds and weak hearts, are really influenced into a
change of conduct by the vulgar atrocity of anonymous at
tacks ? When will common decency, if not the noble inspira
tion of Christian principle, put an end to this species of polemi
cal heathenism ? When will those ecclesiastical cowards, who
skul^ behind the shelter of the anonymous press, and there
scrawl those bitter invectives to which they would not append
their contemptible names, — be convinced that savage epithets are
only the noisome exhalations of vitiated minds ; or, that abusive
language applied to those whose convictions honestly differ from
our own, are rather mere safety-valves for letting off our own
atrabilious temper, than arguments which maintain the cause of
Christianity and the Church ?
For my own part. Right Reverend Sir, I may be perhaps
pardoned the egotism of stating, that in my humble effort to
defend the Church in Scotland from her bitter foes, and to
maintain the claims of evangelic truth in combination with
apostolical order, — I have "counted the cost." Abuse, sneers,
alienated hearts, broken alliances, forgotten friendships, toge
ther with public attacks and private hostilities, — such have
been but a small part of the return a sound Churchman in
England will receive for his faithful allegiance to the rights of
the Church in Scotland. Meanwhile, one who professes to be
guided by holier laws and heavenlier light than those by which
a sensual world is guided, will not be frightened away from the

TO THE BISHOP OP GLASGOW. 21
sacred path of conscience, both towards God and man, by
sectarian abuse, or Romanistic sneers. For his own part, the
writer of this may at least say, he has been no venal champion,
no bribed advocate, who makes the "loaves" his object, or keeps
the "fishes" jn view. It is not with morbid discontent, nor with
any swollen ideas of self-importance, that he adds, — with the ex
ception of some eighty pounds, as a curate when first ordained,
he has up to the present hour received no pecuniary emolu
ment directly from the patronage of the Church. In the An
glican Church the contingencies of political connexion, or the
expediences of ecclesiastical partisanship, are the chief means for
the personal advancement of the Clergy : the man who is not
within the range of the first, and will not enslave himself to
the service of the second, — piust often be content to occupy the
position of neglect, obscurity, and sometimes even that of relative
destitution. But let not these words be perverted into the sour
expressions of egotistical discontent. If the writer owes little
or nothing of this world's goods to the patronage of his Church,
he is gratefully indebted for something above this world to be
stow, or take away. To be baptised into Her mystical Body ; to
partake of her sacramental efficacies ; to listen to her teaching,
praises, chants, and prayers ; to minister at her Altars ; and to
feed the flock of God committed by the Holy Ghost unto his
pastoral care ; together with the inspiring thought, that he forms
a link in that ministerial succession which binds the dead ages of
the ecclesiastical past into Catholic union with the energies of that
which is now alive, — surely, this is a privilege that transcends all
our poor services, and for which, both in time and in eternity, the
believing spirit will continue to be grateful. Let it also be stated,
that he who is responsible for these pages belongs to no sectional
party. He has no inclination, or claim whatever, to be numbered
amid those solemn functionaries who rejoice in the euphonious
names of " High and Dry," nor is he ambitious of being classed
with those clerical brethren, who may be appropriately distin
guished, as the moist and low. By the grace of God, and by the
teaching of his Bible, Church, and Prayer-Book, he desires to be,
and hopes he is, a sincere Churchman, — even one who believes
that Christ not only came into the world to reveal saving doctrine,
but also to organise a visible Church ;i a pure and primitive branch
' For more than one reason, the following note must be here appended. It is,
then, we presume, not unknown to the reader that the author of these " Letters &c."
is, at present, the minister of Percy Chapel. Now the said chapel happens to be one of
C

^2 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
of which he firmly and feariessly maintains the Church of Eng-
land to be.
And now, Right Reverend Sir, I apprehend you may justly
charge me with committing the fault of " more last words ;" but,
in defiance of this, you must still indulge me with your extended
patience. What, then, is the cry of surprise, that reverberates
throughout the entire regions of social and cultivated life ? Why,
it is this — " In what extraordinary times we are living .'" " But,
as it never smokes but it burns," and as no effect can exist in the
moral sphere any more than in the material, without being con
nected with its proportionable cause, — so we apprehend the crisis
of social development, under which we are now living, is capable
of a clear explanation. And are we arrogant in venturing to
assert, that all the strange perplexities, schisms, revolts, treasons,
and dissents which are now congregating, as it were, their com
bined energies for some dread and final explosion, may arise from
one dominant source ? And what is that ? A proud revolt of
the spirit of the age from the magisterial voice of authority.
those anomalies which the neglect of the Church, and the avarice of the State, called
into action. So far as we are personally concerned, let us freely state, that it is not
by choice, but by the compulsion of circumstances, the writer is connected with a
" Proprietary Chapel" (of which he is not, indeed, the proprietor). Meanwhile,
as Mr. Miles, in one of his assaults on Bishop Russell, thought proper to quote
with seeming triumph, the fact that the author was then not under Episcopal juris
diction, he has now the pleasure of informing him and his admirers, that eccle
siastical " Peculiaes" no longer exist ; consequently, Percy Chapel and its minister
are subject to the diocesan government of the Bishop of London. Moreover, it is
due to one of the most noble-hearted and alma-giving congregations in the metro
polis to state, — that it is only by name, and according to the strict letter of eccle
siastical law, that Percy Chapel can be considered as proprietary.' There is room
for some 400 of the poor, who occupy free seats ; a district is attached, and
societies for administering temporal relief to the sick and destitute are in constant
and consistent operation, under the direction of the minister. Nor are we guilty
of an empty boast, when it is added, that were the Bishop of the diocese, the vicar
of the parish, or the incumbent of the local district appealed to, — they all have
documents for proving, that, relatively speaking, no church in London is doing
more for the poor, the sick, and the ignorant. Not a family is unvisited ; and few,
indeed, are the homes and haunts where the blessed word of God, and a Prayer-
Book, is not to be found. In common decency, then, let us have no more ironical
allusions to our advocacy of Church discipline, because the present writer is cmn-
pelled to retain the only position his Church has allowed liim, as yet, to occupy.
We hope, too, our Romanistic assailants will cease from that spirit of sneering dul
ness, wherewith they sometimes allude to what they choose to call a " Proprietary
Chapel." They would be much better occupied in examining their consciences
before God, and praying to be delivered from treason to their own Church, than
in publishing lampoons, and diatribes against men, whose Catholic principles they
are either too shallow to comprehend, or whose real characters they are too malevo
lent to appreciate.

to THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 23
In other words, the leading tendency of these diseased times, in
all departments of our blended consciousness, seems to desire
the reduction of all objective laws that restrain man without, into
subjective inclinations which regulate him from within. It would
be easy to illustrate this, by direct application to what is now at
work on the Continent of Europe, and throughout the varied
circles of social manifestation in our own country. Now, that
the Church should be exempt from the influences of this evil
tendency, was not to be expected. Hence, with the exceptions
of those countries where the iron force of Romish despotism is
crushing both the bodies and souls of superstitious victims under
the rule of the priesthood, — this desire to reduce the objective
revelations of God into the subjective feelings of man, is fatally
conspicuous. Perhaps what we include under this tendency
may be summed up in one term, and that is, — individualism.
In all ages, heresy and schism, whether in political or social, in
moral or spiritual government, have been rooted in this self-
worship of the individual will — in this deep and dreadful yearn
ing of the natural heart to be a God, Christ and Church, Chris
tianity and Creed, unto itself. Of course, the forms of deve
lopment under which a sectarian homage unto our own views
exhibit themselves, will always be modified by various counter
actions, and moulded by the pressure of circumstances. Still, the
fountain schism of fallen nature lies in the depths of our de
praved will; and except that be subjected unto the spiritual
law of the Holy Ghost, no authority from without, whether it
accost the conscience from the revelation of God, or the voice of
man, — will ever prevail over the despotism of our own secret
inclinations. We do not accuse our erring brethren of intentional wicked
ness ; much less do we (like some we could name) profanely
arrogate unto ourselves the attribute of moral omniscience, and
thus presume to ascribe conduct we regret, unto bad motives.
But, of this we do not and cannot doubt,— that persons who
create a schism, and rebel against episcopal authority, in order
to preserve what they call " evangelical" truth, would^ do well
to bring their hearts into closer contact vrith the searching eyes
of God, than possibly they may yet have done ! We dispute
not their conscientiousness ; nay, in more than one case, certain
are we, this wretched schism has been supported under the
pure, though mistaken idea, that the honour of Christ and the
cause of divine truth, justified such an extremity. But, may we.

24 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
with affectionate earnestness, remind our brethren, that in most
cases where the natural sectarianism of individual inclination
is excited, conscience is more likely to be the authentic, reve
lation of Deity in its prohibitions, than in its sanctions ? More
over, can it be denied, with any regard to truth, that conscience
itself requires the educating power of divine grace, and the
directive law of the Spirit, inasmuch as that faculty, like all
others, has been stunned by the fall, and is sensualised by
sin ? Our unhappy and deluded friends will declare to us, with
zealous eagerness, and most impassioned declamation, " Our
rule of faith is the Bible ; we walk by the Scripture ; and will
not enslave ourselves to the teaching of men." But, gently, if
you please, a little more softly, 0 ye- children of schism! Do
you not perceive that Truth, as the outward revelation of the
divine Spirit in a form of human language, is one thing, — and
that the same truth, as it is interpreted through the process of your
individual perceptions, is another ? In the former case, all is
of God, inspired, infallible, ultimate, and absolute ; but in the
latter, who can tell how much there is blended with it, that is
uninspired, fallible, imperfect, and relative ? Even as the pure
beam of light, in passing through some coloured medium, ap
pears to be tinged in its passage, so are the spiritual revealings
of the Bible in their transit through our human faculties, more
or less tirited with those prevailing hues of moral inclination
through which they have to pass.
It is here that the fallacy of all sectarianism lies ; and the
schismatics with whom we have to do, are eminently its victims.
They perpetually cast the Scriptures in our face, and taunt us
with the Bible, — as if they were the infallible mouthpieces of
the Spirit, and that what they believe the Bible to assert, that,
and no other thing, is to be considered divine ! It would be
difficult to say which is the more to be lamented here, the lack
of modesty, or the want of divinity. Hopeless as the task,
however, is, we entreat them to remember, that those very
Reformers whom they love to quote, never gave such a mad
license to the range of private judgment, as their canons of indi
vidual orthodoxy would seem to allow. In short, these admirers
of schism engraft all the properties of individualism on the
principles of revelation ; and, having thus blended the external
letter of divine truth with the internal self-will of human inter
pretation, — they pronounce this mixed result to be the very mind
of the living God, and the genuine doctrine of the Reformers ! ¦

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 25
Let us see, for one moment, unto what a hideous latitude
this absolutism of private judgment can be carried. Here, at
least, we are sure our Scottish and English brethren will for
once concur with us, — that at some point in the process of per
sonal religion a positive law of objective guidance is required,
in order to limit the speculation of the subjective mind, when it
proposes to receive its Christianity from Scripture alone, as inter
preted by that which is called " private judgment." We refer to
what is now being enacted in Germany, where the absolutism of
the human will, in its conduct towards the revealed word of God,
has reached the last climax of conceivable heresy ! We derive our
information not from an enemy, but from a great leader among
those who denominate themselves in Germany " the Friends of
Light.'' A certain M. Klein Paul, who is considered a leader
in the Hamburgh-Altona " Free Society," has just favoured
mankind with the following view of the sect and principles
which he advocates:
" A third and chief characteristic of the Konigsberg Congregation
is a warm cleaving to Jesus of Nazareth. Not that they regard Mm as
a divine person, or affix any binding authority to His sayings — the great
majority of them, at least, have got beyond such superstition ; but they
recognise in Jesus the first who placed liberty before the world in its
true meaning and extent — the first who understood and proclaimed the
true nature and obhgations of love — and consequently as one who may,
and ought to be, regarded as the model after which every member of
the Free Church should form himself. In so far, therefore, the Konigs
berg retains with propriety the name of a Christian Congregation, since
it acknowledges and cleaves to Christ as the originator and exemplifier
of its principle."
Let us have another view of freedom from all authority !
" The Free Church is a society of mentally emancipated men, who,
renouncing all authority-imposed faith, declare themselves the sole judges
of what is truth, and what is error ; of what is allowable, and what not
allowable. They form themselves into a Free Church, pai-tly with a view
of placing themselves as a body in opposition to the Old Church, and
partly in order, by mutual interchange of ideas and co-operative effiarts,
to advance the highest interests of mankind. In conformity with these
views, the Free Church needs neither confession of faith, hturgy, nor
sacraments; least of all pastors, hut only spokesmen (Vortriiger), who
do not require to be always the same at every meeting. The formalities
to be observed at our assemblages to be regulated by the necessity of

26 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
the occasion. Lastly, as the Free Church makes no claim on the State
for ecclesiastical support, so likewise it, on the other hand, demands
exemption from aU contribution to the religious institutions of the
State." In harmony with this appalling form of outrageous infidelity
under the name of religion, reason, and mental freedom, the fol
lowing " Protocol of this first regularly established Alliance between German.
Catholics and Friends of Light, has been pubUshed, and contains the fol
lowing resolutions :
1 . Pastor Giese to be continued pastor of the United Congregation.
2. The Church property of each community to be henceforth pos
sessed in common.
3. The magisterial aid hitherto afforded to the German Catholics,
more especially the conceded place of worship, to be enjoyed in common.
4. That five members from each communion shall be chosen to
draw up the statutes of the new Congregation, to be laid before the
members for their approval on the following Sunday.
The programme of union, which received the signatures of all pre
sent, wiU sufficiently indicate the views of these now united unbelievers.
It runs thus : ' The German Catholic Church in this city, and the Pro
testant friends here present, who have separated from the Established
Church, hereby form themselves into a Christian, Free, United Church,
assuming, for brevity's sake, the name of the United Congregation.
' The Congregation terms itself Christian, 1st, because it recognises
the eternal principles of morality, truthfulness, and love (in which the
essence of the Godhead is most sublimely and gloriously displayed), as
the sum and substance of Christian doctrine ; 2d, because it deskes to
maintain a thankful remembrance of Him who first preached and exem
plified these doctrines ; 3d, because it acknowledges the influence of
Christianity in producing the present civilised state of society; and
4th, because it is resolved to retain the practice of the following Chris
tian usages, viz. Sunday meetings for spiritual improvement, baptism,
confirmation, the Supper, and the reUgious consecration of marriage, as
being expressive and instructive observances.
' The Congregation terms itself Free, Ist, because it acknowledges
no compulsion in matters of faith or confession ; consequently no bind
ing authority, no formal creed, no ordinances of the letter ; but protests,
and ever will protest, against all such. 2d. It calls itself /ree, because
it everywhere searches after and recognises the free spirit of Chris
tianity, the spirit of truthfulness and love ; receives these, after free
examination, from the Bible, but also from other written monuments

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 27
of antiquity, as well as from the universal province of history and
nature. 3d. It terms itself free, because its union is based on the
principle that all its affairs shall be regulated and conducted in the
fuU spirit of independence."
From this exhibition let us all take warning, and be wise in
time ! Abused authority in matters of faith, and inventive tra
ditions which corrupt the pure word of God, are indeed very
bad, and to be utterly condemned by all true believers ; but is
not the enormity of such fearful absolutism in the exercise of
the individual mind in the Scriptures, something infinitely worse ?
Indeed, Right Reverend Sir, we do live in " extraordinary
times," when such satanical exhibitions as these " Friends of
Light" put forth, are called by the sounding names of " mental
freedom," and " private judgment." INIay God, in His infinite
mercy, keep us in Egyptian darkness and servitude, rather than
allow our ecclesiastical individualism to degenerate into such
abominations as these !
No MAN CAN BE JUSTIFIED IN BECOMING AN APOSTATE
FROM A TRUE ChURCH, UNTIL THAT ChURCH HERSELF HAS
APOSTATISED FROM Christ. This, we presume, is an incon
trovertible axiom, denied only by those who construct a Church
out of their own will, and derive a creed from their own
perceptions. Now, in the case of the Scottish Church, will
the schismatics have the effrontery to assert that, the Episco
pal Communion in Scotland is actually and truly in the dread
ful condition of undeniable apostacy ? Will they tell us that,
because her ancient office in the Eucharist prays that the bread
and wine " may become [i. e. sacramentally, to the believing
participator) the Body and Blood of Christ ;" and also, because
other expressions in the consecration prayer do not harmonise
vrith their doctrinal taste, — therefore the Scottish Church has
QUENCHED THE HoLY GhOST, AND BECOJIE AN ECCLESIASTICAL
Corpse, i. e. an utter Apostate from Christ ? If they
dare to aver this, — we boldly tell them, the immodesty of the
charge is only to be equalled by its malignity ; in fact, a more
monstrous assertion has rarely emerged from the depths of
sectarian injustice.
Of course, if men choose to detach statements concerning the
sacramental Presence of Christ in the Eucharist from their con
text, and, instead of uniting the heavenly spirit of the whole ser
vice, cleave with cold tenacity of heart to the eartliliness of the

28 dedicatory epistle
matter, — " transubstantiation" and other abominable perversities,'
can easily be charged not only upon the Scottish Church, but
upon the Anglican also. For instance, could not the malignant
dulness of a determined sectarian, if he choose to bind his intel
lect to the absoluteness of the mere words, — insist that in the
following passage the Catechism of the English Church teaches
Romish doctrine ? " The Body and Blood of Christ, which
are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful
in the Lord's Supper." This statement appears to us, in its
literality of language, to approach far nearer to a corporeal
presence of Christ in the Eucharist, than any passage in the
Scottish office. Why, then, do not the schismatics also revolt
against the English Church, and petition for " Parliamentary
Relief" against such " popish figments" and " anti-protestant
errors?" And this reference to our own Church suggests ano
ther view of the schism in Scotland; and it is this — that accord
ing to the natural tendencies and just consequences of their
own principles, the schismatics ought to separate themselves
from the Anglican Church. The ground of vindication they
assume, in defending their rebellion against the Scottish Prelates,
is — that some of the Prelates and Clergy in Scotland are in
fected with the papistical virus and superstitious doctrines of
Tractarianism, and latent Romanism. But, are these persons
prepared to apply the spirit of this miserable sophism to the
English Church also ? If so, then let them realise the plain
decencies of at least schismatical consistency. In other words,
let them no longer affect to cleave with such expedient loyalty
towards the Anglican Church, in order to disturb and disorganise
her Scottish sister. And why do we say this ? Because for one
specimen of what they call " Tractarianism," " Puseyism,"
and " Romanism," as connected with the Scottish Church,
we engage to adduce a hundredfold more specimens of the
same things, and under far more aggravated forms, in connexion
with the English Church. Hence, if in the former case their
ground for schism is tenable, scriptural, and just, — why not in
the latter also ? But this loud and lofty admiration for the
Church of England is a " vox et prester ea nihil;" and, under
present circumstances, serves principally as an argument to be
wielded against the persecuted Church in Scotland. Moreover,
the Anglican is in full communion with the Scottish, Church;
hence no Presbyter can revolt from the one in fact, who does
not virtually rebel against the other. The genuine explanation

to the bishop of GLASGOW. 29
of all this wretched inconsistency lies here, — Egomet has ever
been the ruling inspiration under which Schism, in all ages, has
marclied and moved against Church order, and discipline. And
thus, so blinded ai-e our brethren by their hatred against Scottish
Episcopacy, that rather than fail in their attacks on its Prelates, —
they condescend to call in the aid of the Socinian democrat, the
creedless Deist, and the Christless Jew, to assist them in getting
what is termed " Parliamentary Relief !" And this, we
are told, is the right way to promote the glory of Christ,
maintain Scriptural truth, and protect the principles of the
Reformation ! " Misiim teneatis ?" We advise a stanch de
fender of this dismal Erastianism no longer to use the Apostle's
creed, but to improve it into a higher degree of what is called
the " Sanctity of Private Judgment ;" and then instead of saying
" I believe in the Holy Catholic Church," the lion-hearted
defender of absolute individuality may nobly exclaim, " I be
lieve in a Holy Catholic" — Myself !
Tliis is not the place, or time, to investigate the manifold
sources whence this repulsive dread, or proud dislike, to realise
the Church of Christ as an objective reality, and positive
organisation endowed by Christ, — proceeds. Among them,
probably, are the tendencies of the Age to excessive individuality ;
the love of self-government, and self -legislation, which is inherent
in an unrenewed nature ; a lawless doctrine concerning the just
limits of private judgment ; a recoil to the opposite extreme,
occasioned by Romanistic exaggerations on the part of unsound
Churchmen ; and last, not least, the functional pride and dog
matic fierceness, wherewith ecclesiastical principles are sometimes
propounded. But, there is a more prevailing and immediate
reason for this hatred to episcopal authority and Church prin
ciples, which ought here to be stated ; and that is, the popular
habit of confounding the ministerial offices of the Church as they
are revealed in their power, perfection, and purity, by God in
Scripture, — with the official embodiments of the same, as they are
personified in tlie imperfect agencies of fallible and erring men.
Thus it is that, when speaking of the Church, we are immedi
ately assailed with what some Bishop has enunciated in his
charge, an Archdeaco7i propounded in his address, a Priest stated
in his pamphlet, or a Deacon preached in his sermon. But
surely, the Church Catholic, in her own idea, theory, and
constitution, as the Body of Christ, — is not to be confounded
with any pai-ticular Bishop, Archdeacon, Priest, or Deacon.

30 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
Would that some of our erring brethren might learn to study,
with a reverential mind and prayerful heart, the essential attri
butes of the Church Catholic, not as she is bodied forth in the
imperfections of human development, but as she is unveiled to
us in that Scriptural archetype, — which is itself an outward copy
in language of the Divine idea which inhabited the mind of
God from everlasting ! Were men, whose boast it is that the
Bible is their rule of faith, also to allow that same inspired
Volume to be their rule of Churchmanship also, — what a deal of
mischief, schism, and controversy would the Church visible be
spared ! Under the guiding wisdom of The Spirit, people would ,
then not be deluded into schism by pert, shallow, and vulgar
assaults on polity and discipline ; then, religious newspapers
would not be their virtual Popes; neither idolised clergy, nor
oracular laity, would then be their types of Churchmanship;
and still less, would they allow the editorial crudities of some
anonymous journalist to dictate to them what constitutes a
Church, albeit unscriptural readers may consider such dictation
as being soundly Protestant and sweetly evangelical.
This period of ecclesiastical imbecility was well described,
a few years since, by an eloquent Scotchman, whom we have
heard Chalmers praise, and whose magnanimity and genius
Coleridge admired. Thus does he speak of that despicable
submission myriads are inclined to pay to the word of man,
while they profess to be guided by the word of God : " I have
no doubt in my own mind, the Pope's infallibility is not nearly
in so much consideration in popish countries, as the infallibility
of PUBLIC OPINION is in this Protestant and reformed land ; nor
that all the idolatry which is offered to him in one year by the
most abject and submissive ofhis kingdom, doth equal the idola
try which in one week is offered in this kingdom, by the daily
press, and other organs of our present system, at the shrine of
public opinion." Let us hear also what this Presbyterian thinker
of original thoughts, and profound theologian, says, in respect to
what HE conceives to be a visible Church : " This leadeth me
to observe a second cause of that direful apostacy to the end
of which we are near arrived, which is ignorance of the nature
of a Church, or, I should say, the Church, which, on the one
hand, the papists make visible, and, on the other hand, the
evangelicals make nothing at all. Now, the Church, in the
light in which it has been viewed by all orthodox divines, is
nothing less than a Symbol, or visible Representation of the

to the BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 31
invisible Body of Christ ; and according to the law of God's
ordinances, he who will not study the symbol, and give it due
reverence, shall never come to the understanding or to the
enjoyment of the thing, the invisible reality, which it repre
senteth." Those of our brethren who contend that doctrine is all things.
and discipline of no consequence ; in other terms, that he who
believeth Divine propositions may safely disobey ecclesiastical
authority, — will also do well to ponder over what one, whom we
equally admire, says on this subject. On the death of Zuing-
lius, writing from the field of Kappal, thus speaks the " solitary
Monk." " Moreover, this doctrine is not an article or thesis
beyond the Scriptures, the invention of man, but established in
the Gospel by the clear and undoubted words of Christ, and
unanimously believed and held in all the world from the found
ation of the Christian Church to this hour, as is shewn by the
writings of the fathers, in both the Greek and Latin writers."
And, above all, we entreat those, who (like ourselves) deeply
revere the work of God which this wonderful man achieved in
an age of mental darkness and spiritual death, — to observe the
style in which Martin Luther delivers himself touching Catholic
testimony, as serving to chasten private judgment, and a help to
confirm our deductions, primarily derived from the Divine ora
cles:  "It is TERRIBLE AND DANGEROUS TO BELIEVE, OR LIS
TEN TO, WHAT IS CONTRARY TO THE UNITED TESTIMONY OR
DOCTRINE OF THE ENTIRE HoLY CaTHOLIC ChURCH, MAIN
tained and published throughout the world for fifteen
hundred years. i had rather have against me the tes
timony of all fanatics, and all the wisdom of emperors,
kings, and princes, than one iota or tittle of the entire
Holy Catholic Church ; for articles of faith thus unani
mously AND universally MAINTAINED, MAY NOT BE TRIFLED
WITH, LIKE PAPAL BULLS, OR IMPERIAL DECREES, OR EVEN
Roman traditions, or councils of the fathers." When,
therefore, the admirers of German tendencies, or the Roman
ising libellers who cast their pitiful ironies against the great
Reformer, speak of Luther, — as an act of moral justice, we call
upon them to remember this decided attestation to the correc
tive force of Catholic testimony, in connexion with the lawful
exercise of private judgment. But, we must not pursue the
principles of this subject any further. After all, rebellion to
Apostolic Order is but one of the signs of a deistical, distem-

32 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
pered, and democratic age. A profound German, who, amid
fatal errors and awful speculations, at times uttered magnificent
truths, which the world might do well to consider, — thus de
scribes the moral position of our own times, in the realm of
social development.^ " The present age unites the ends of
two different worlds, the world of darkness and the world of
light, the world of constraint and that of freedom, without
itself belonging to either of them. In other words, the pre
sent age, according to my view of it, stands in that epoch
which, in my former lecture, I named the Third, and which I
characterised as the epoch of Liberation, directly from the
EXTERNAL RULING AUTHORITY, indirectly from the power Rea
son as an instinct, and generally from Reason in any form;
the age of absolute indifference towards all truth, and of
entire and unrestrained licentiousness ; the state of completed
sinfulness  It becomes the age's highest wisdom to dovht
of every thing, and in no matter to take a part, either on the
one side, or the other. In this neutrality, this immovable im
partiality, this incorruptible indifference to all truth, it places
its most excellent and perfect wisdom ; and the charge of hav
ing A SYSTEM appears a disgrace, by which the reputation of
man is irretrievably destroyed. Such an age looks every where
only to the materially useful, to that, namely, which is service
able for dwelling, clothing, food; to cheapness, convenience,
and, where it attains its highest point, to fashion. But that
higher dominion over nature, whereby the majestic image of
man as a race is stamped upon its opposing forces (I mean,
the DOMINION OF Ideas, in which the essential nature of the
Fine Arts consists), this is wholly unknown to such an age,
.... It actually pretends to prove, that there is absolutely
no other motive of action in man than self-interest. With
respect to religion, it is also changed into a mere doctrine of
happiness ; and a God is deemed necessary in order that He
may care for our welfare ; and it is our wants alone that have
called Him into existence, and determined Him to be."
Such are some of the disastrous features, which, according
to a profound thinker, characterise this present age — the age
of schisms and heresies, of conflicts and convulsion, when objec
tive law is nothing, and subjective will made paramount, even
• " So vereignet die gegenwiirtige Zeit die enden zweier in ihrem Princip durch-
aus verschiedner Welten, die Welt der Dunkelheit, und die der Klarheit," u. s. w.-
Die Grunds'dxe, ^c. von Gottlieb Fichte.

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 33
by myriads over Revelation itself. Meanwhile, Right Reverend
Sir, all who believe that the Church is a Divine Organisation, will
unite with me in praying, that your branch of the One Apostolic
Church may be more and more strengthened by the Spirit of
God within, and be protected by the Great Head from discord
and disturbance, without. As regards our own beloved Commu
nion, her difficulties, dangers, and controversies, both external
and internal, far surpass yours, both in depth, perplexity, and
influence. The future, of course, belongs to that Omniscient
Being, with Whom the conditions of space and time are not ;
and it would be profane arrogance for a short-sighted creature
like man, to forecast in positive words, what the " ages to come,"
in our ecclesiastical destinies, may unfold. But, humanly speak
ing, and with no immodest assumption, — may we not think, that
if our Apostolical Church is to be saved from outward ruin, it
will be by men, who hold Evangelic Truth in practical and experi
mental CONNEXION with Apostolical Order? In other words, it is
unto Catholic Churchmen, who are close in their walk with God,
full of real unction, faith, and prayer ; whose inward holiness of
heart is embodied in outward sanctity of charact^" ; deeply im
bued with the divine catholicity of revealed truth ; prepared to
carry out the doctrine, teaching, and ritual of our Church ;
breathing true charity, and exhibiting the spirit of religious
love ; and who are the constant patrons, defenders, and minis
terial advisers of the sick, the destitute, and the poor, — it is
unto men of such a mould we must look for the earthly safety
of our endangered Church. From the State, in its present
trance of godless apathy unto all positive truth, we cannot ex
pect aid, or sympathy ; nor can we believe that either evangelical
dissenterism at one extreme, or Romanistic treason at the other,
will ever promote the cause of that Church, which Christ esta
blished to be a Visible Witness for His glory in this evil
world. It is, then, unto Catholic Churchmen, who derive their
Church principles from the same infallible Source whence they
obtain their directive creed ; who in all things look unto " the
truth as it is in Jesus," and not "as it is in" Bishop, Priest,
Deacon, Print, Party, or Opinion — the loyal friends of our
Church will direct their eyes with grateful love, and hopeful
prospects. True indeed, men of this stamp cannot expect to be
" promoted" by Parties, who consider ecclesiastical patronage as
a convenient medium for rewarding political votes, and parlia-

34 DEDICATORY EPISTLE
mentary aid. Still less can they expect to be " patronised" by
those who think none are " prudent and sober-minded," except
they know how to creep gently through a Bishop's palace, or crawl
gracefully up an Archbishop's sleeve ! Creatures like these, are
ecclesiastical sycophants, and not genuine Churchmen ; their
Churchmanship is the mere obedience of a mechanical will, that
dilates or contracts into forms of sneaking flattery, or servile sub
mission, according as personal ambition and prospects of future
promotion may dictate. Let us, however, thank God, Right
Reverend Sir, that our Church does abound with noble cham
pions of the Church, and that the ordained functionaries we have
named, are the exceptions, and not the characteristics, of our
Church. Catholic Churchmen can bear to be suspected, abused,
reviled, misrepresented, and forgotten by those by whom they
ought to be remembered. Nay more, their reverential attach
ment to the Church is not even weakened by observing how, the
stupid and the undeserving, through the mere accident of poli
tical expediency or professional connexion, are obtruded into the
high places of prominence and power ; while those who have
" borne the jurden and heat of the day," whose names are
household words in English literature, and who have grown grey
in the service of the sanctuary, are passed by, and shamefully
neglected. All this mad and miserable injustice does not detach
true Churchmen from the principles of the Catholic Church.
They know that the Church, perfectly organised and constituted
by Christ, is one thing; and the Church, as imperfectly em
bodied, and realised by man, is another ; and therefore, they can
never allow the sinful inflrmities which accompany the last, to
cloud their perceptions when they gaze upon the revealed glory
of the first. That which is chartered by Heaven cannot be un
chartered by Earth; that which did not originate in the self-
motion of any finite will, can never be dissolved by any lawless
treason proceeding from the same. In one word, an Evangelic
Churchman believes that, amid all the convulsions of the world,
the shock of Schisms, the corruptions of Heresy, the persecu
tions of Statecraft, and the mutabilities of time, the Church of
Christ will still endure as a miracle of moral permanence — not
to be destroyed, except by Him who was the divine and only Cre
ator of Her spiritual attributes, and sacramental privileges. And
thus it is, that as the mixed elements of awful confiict begin to
rage with louder swell and fiercer sway, tbe Churchman accord-

TO THE BISHOP OF GLASGOW. 35
ing to Christ, will cling with firmer grasp and more faithful ad
herence than ever, to the undying glory of His promise, who hath
said, " I am WITH you alway, even unto the end of the
WORLD." — Matt, xxviii. 20.
And now, dear and Right Reverend Sir, permit me to sub
scribe myself, with high respect and grateful esteem.
Your very humble servant,
ROBERT MONTGOMERY.
London, ^C^ovember 18, 1847.
51 Torrington Square.

RIGHT REVEREND
LORD BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.

&c. &c. &c.

MY LORD BISHOP,
The kind manner in which your Lordship was pleased to
welcome me, as the minister of a congregation in London, to
be licensed by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, together
with the warm approval you have, more than once, expressed for
certain theological attempts of the writer in behalf of God's
revealed truth, and the Redeemer's constituted Church, — en
courages the hope you will not be offended by my introducing
,the following pages through the public medium of your justly
respected name.
The " Letter" which forms their first feature, was reprinted
by a friend of the Church in Glasgow, and, I believe, circulated
to some considerable extent both in Scotland, and elsewhere.
It is, however, out of print; and in compliance with earnest
requests from various parts of the empire, is now republished.
The extracts and letters which form the " Documentary Ap
pendix" are added, because they help to throw light on certain
points and principles, which seemed to require a somewhat minute
illustration, in order to render them serviceable to the cause of
catholic truth. With regard to the original publication of ihe
" Letter" itself, — I have allowed it to remain unaltered, with
one slight exception, by means of which the author has been
enabled to revise the only passage in it, which controversial
sensitiveness might accuse of being an intrusion on the guarded
sacredness of private life.
And here, let me assure your Lordship, that however feeble
and insignificant the public part I have conscientiously ventured
to take in this unhappy discussion, — it has not been unaccompanied
by much which is painful to my feelings. In a word, many of

letter to the bishop of LLANDAFF. 37
those with whom I associated in the bonds and brotherhood of
Christian unity for some five or six years, have thought proper
to resent this advocacy of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, by
turning their back on my friendship, and, in some cases, by pro
claiming me as half a Romanist in disguise. Now I will not be
so hypocritical as to assert tbat, I have been able by one cold
effort of heartless speed to bury in oblivion the affectionate inter
course of years ; nor have I been unsaddened by the strange
inconsistency of those, who, while they cry aloud for what they de
nominate "private judgment," — are severely offended by its most
chastened exercise, when it happens not to be more parallel with
their own ! On the other hand, let me candidly assure your
Lordship, that if my feelings as a private friend have been
wounded by attacks unmerited, and my affections hurt by alien
ations undeserved, — the principles I have advocated as a Presbyter
of an Apostolic Church, remain as firm and unfaltering as ever.
A considerable period has elapsed since, in reply to earnest
solicitations on the part of my old flock IN Glasgow,
I allowed the publication of the " Letter :" on reperusing it,
and after exercising the most solemn judgment I can upon its
contents — the conviction remains on my mind, that it con
tains nothing an evangelic Churchman should fear to hold, or
hesitate to express. Those who may resist its premises, and
protest against its conclusions, will at least admit that, in style
it is not acrimonious, and also free from those degrading person
alities which defile too many of our controversial papers in these
excited times.
With regard to this ungenerous movement against the Scot
tish Bishops and their Church, you, my Lord, I am confident,
will sympathise in the views of the individual who now addresses
you. Both of us hold Evangelical Truth, in combination with
ApostoKc Order. These we believe Christ hath joined together,
and therefore, we shrink from that rash sectarianism of the rest
less will (however spiritual may seem to be its disguise), which
presumes to rend them asunder. And here let me venture to
express my deep regret, that some good men, and respected
members of the Anglican Church, have allowed a vague dread
against Romanistic treason in England to betray them into a
support of schismatical dissent in Scotland. Extremes are not
remedies for extremes. Were we to suppose all the bitter
things which certain parties publish against the Episcopal Com
munion in Scotland were true — even in that case we are yet to

38 letter to the bishop of llandaff.
learn upon what sound principle of spiritual philosophy a Aere«y
in doctrine is to be extinguished by a schism in discipline. In
truth, my Lord, the more earnestly sober and serious minds
reflect on the matter, the more clearly we trust they will per
ceive, that there can be no visible church on earth, without
A POSITIVE, definite, AND ULTIMATE HUMAN AUTHORITY, SOME
WHERE. If the mere fact that abused authority may become
absolute tyranny, is a sound reason for reducing all ecclesiasticali
orders, degrees, and functions into a flat equality, — tben, by a
similar process, there can be no security for the principles of a
Monarchy, the jurisdiction of a Magistracy, the constitution of
Society, or even the domestic government of a Family. The
dictatorial fiat of a single conscience in the subordinate rank,
on this theory, is sufficient at any time to justify defection from
the superior; and thus there results a chaos of clashing wills,
where each claims submission from another, as its due. Of
course, it requires no prophet to inform us that indiridual
Bishops can be despotical, and exact unscriptural obedience from
their clergy; but, does it follow from this, that Presbyters are
therefore at liberty to rebel against their episcopal office ? In
like manner, it is possible that tyrannical clergymen may attempt
to lord it over their flocks, and depart from the simplicity of
" the truth as it is in Jesus ;"¦ — but, is this a valid argument why
the Laity should be arranged in a crusade against the Commis
sion of the Clergy, and their official claim on the allegiance of
the people ? And this brings me to observe upon the historical
ignorance which certain applauders of the Scottish schisms have
betrayed, in their endeavour to defend the disaffection of two
or three young men to their lawful Bishops, upon the theory of
what is usually called — " the grand principle of the Reformatioii !"
This very paradoxical and most eccentric " grand principle"
is asserted to be " the right of private judgment." Now we are
quite free to grant there is a guarded, holy, and catholic sense,
in which private judgment is to be exercised. But if these
patrons of excessive individuality mean to assert, that the Enghsh
Reformation in fact, or principle, authorises every man to ori
ginate his own creed, and mould his own church, on the plea of
personal conscientiousness — we defy them to the proof. We
challenge them to select a single authentic exposition by the
Church, of any doctrine thus monstrous and absurd. So far from
the Reformation of the Church of England assenting to such a
mad conception — all its documents, avowals, synods, canons, and

letter to the bishop of llandaff. 39
authoritative decrees, either directly assert, or indirectly involve,
a witnessing authority of the Catholic Church in all ages. If
this be disputed, we refer tbe questioner to the various records
appended to Bishop Burnet's fourth volume of the Reformation.
He will there find, again and again, principles canonised by the
prelatic Leaders of the Anglican Reformation, utterly repugnant
from those which the assailants of Scottish Episcopacy have
unhappily espoused. Let us therefore frankly tell the glorifiers
of human self-will, that it constitutes a positive slander on such
evangelical heroes as Cranmer, Ridley, and Jewell, and an insult
on their sacred memory, — to ally their assumed sanction with
proceedings such as we have lately witnessed. Indeed, so far as
the blessed martyr Ridley is concerned, we are morally certain
that had he been alive now, he would have been put in the pil-
lorx .of fanatical ^newspapers, and well pelted by " no-Tracta-
riaS," and " anti-Puseyites," as the Coryphaeus of ultra high
Churchmen. Of course, in transient remarks like these, my
Lord, it is not possible to draw out at length tbe proof of these
assertions ; but I trust you will allow me to quote even here,
two extracts, which confirm what is said above, touching the
distorted view which some people take of the Anglican Reform
ation. In 1503, the " necessary doctrine" was confirmed
and authorised by the entire English Church ; and thus speaks
that work : — " All those things which were taught by the Apos
tles, and have been by an whole universal consent of the Church,
ever sith that time taught continually, and taken always for true,
ought to be received, accepted, and kept as perfect doctrine
apostolic." Again ; let us hear what Archbishop Cranmer
saith. From his speech on General Councils, we extract the
following memorable words, as spoken in 1535 : " When all
the Fathers agreed on the exposition of any place of scrip
ture, he acknowledged he looked on that as flowing from the
Spirit of God ; and it was a most dangerous thing to be wise in
our own conceits." So far, then, as the principles of our noble
Reformation are fairly represented, not as they may be exagger
ated by the expressions of unauthorised individuals ; and so far,
also, as they stand enshrined in public records, canons, and syno
dical decrees, — we utterly deny that a schismatical use of private
judgment can derive any encouragement from such a source.
But I must not continue this argument ; and therefore hasten to
conclude these observations by a few more direct references to

40 LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.
the rebellious movements of certain English Presbyters against
the Bishops in Scotland.
1 . The style, tone, and temper in which the attack has been
maintained, cannot be approved by those who believe that even
in controversy, superior age, exalted office, and long experience,
are at least to be respected. There is also a touching fact,
which ought to have wielded a restraining influence over minds
which profess to be noble, and hearts which consider themselves
spiritual. I mean, the social' position of the Scottish Prelates,
Untitled and unendowed, without worldly pomp and aristo-
cratical influence, and altogether unaccompanied by imposing
attributes of visible splendour and earthly consequence, — the
Bishops of the Scottish Church stand before their clergy and
people on the simple ground of Apostolical office. Now, I am
by no means saying that on this account those prelates are really
placed in an unbecoming position ; far otherwise. The very
fact that it is their essential office, and not their conventional
rank, which appeals to the Church, — in my own view places them
on a high platform of Christian distinction. Still, for as much as
they do derive no artificial support from their relative eminence
in society, it might have been hoped that for this reason, a deli
cate and generous mind would have been especially careful not
to have insulted them, for the want of it. But so far from this
being the case, it is with regret we are compelled to notice, that
the Bishops in Scotland have been assaulted by people caUing
themselves evangelical, in a rude manner, most revolting to good
taste and Christian sentiment.
2. Besides the frequent tone ot personal insult, implied or
expressed towards some of the Prelates — who does not blush to
think that all tbe unholy virulence of an anonymous press has
been called into action for the support of schism ? Savage
missiles in the newspapers ; bitter attacks from " correspond
ents ;" vile and vulgar diatribes ; paragraphic innuendoes ; direct
falsehoods, fabricated in Scotland for the press in England, and
which, when exposed, were with the utmost repugnance with
drawn ; partial extracts from sermons and charges, unfairly
taken, and printed with all the impressive malignity which mean
italics and miserable interjections could exhibit, — surely such
weapons as these are unhallowed when wielded in any cause,
and especially so when called into action under the profession of
serving Him, whose nature and whose name is Love !

LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF. 41
3. The admirers and supporters, of this assault on the Epis
copal Communion in Scotland, have been forced into the very
extremes of Erastianism, by their fruitless endeavours to fortify
a false position with ecclesiastical arguments. For instance, in
order to justify the gross and glaring contradiction, that there
can be an episcopal church without an episcopal head, or an
apostolic government without a corresponding governor, — they
are compelled to untomb a defunct Act of Parliament in the
reign of Queen Anne ! Surely, men who have professed to sym
pathise profoundly with the admired heroism of the secession
ministers in the Established Kirk of Scotland, are in a sad
plight when they resort to a dead Parliament rather than to a
living Church, in order to shelter their position. If however,
consistent with their own tenets, they must henceforth entitle
their sectarian communion, " The Free Episcopal Schism in
Scotland, according to the Tenth of Queen Anne."
4. While the foes of the Scottish Bishops seek to vindicate
their revolt from the only lawful rulers of the Episcopal Church
in Scotland, we complain of the ungenerous advantage they take
of the disturbing panic which recent events in the English Church
have, naturally and reasonably, awakened in the bosom of many
of her faithful children. Indeed, most of the inauspicious sym
pathy and unwise support which they have attracted from certain
quarters in England and Ireland, is to be traced to this mournful
contingency. Accordingly, in nearly all the attacks and assaults
which I have read, there is a most gratuitous presumption and
unfair suspicion expressed and surmised in the whole argument.
If reduced into a direct assertion, it would amount to this — ¦
" None who support Episcopacy in Scotland partake of real spi
rituality in England/" All, forsooth, who reverence Polity as
well as believe Doctrine, are " unregenerated in heart," " Jesuits,"
" Pharisees," " dead ritualists," " cold formalists," " Tractarian
Romanisers," &c. &c. This style of controversy, no doubt, bas
a telling effect with nervous people, who are alarmed at such
resounding abuse, when it appears to explode on the near side
of Christian truth ; but how far such a method of attack can
expect the Divine blessing is a far different question. Be it
known, then, unto those who thus assail their opponents, that
thousands who abhor a treasonable Romanism on the one hand,
and a Radical Dissenterism on the other,— ^venture to think they
can love the Lord Jesus with simplicity and sincerity, and yet
withal maintain the apostolical claims of an Episcopate with un-

42 letter to the bishop of llandaff.
flinching boldness and fearless determination. They do not
confound names witb things, forms with spirit, rites with truths,
ceremonies with principles, nor sacraments with the grace which
they instrumentally convey. Moreover, they solemnly beheve
God, and Him only, to be their Justifier ; Christ, and Him only,
to be their Redeemer ; the Holy Ghost, and Him only, to he
their Sanctifier : but, in harmony with these sublime principles,
they also believe that the mere conscience of an individual is not
the standard of saving orthodoxy ; and that the Definite
Church which Christ once founded, is something better than
the baseless Communions which inventive man continues to
originate. 5. One leading error which prevades the entire contexture
of these schismatical proceedings, arises from confounding the
DIVINE SANCTION of ecclesiastical office, with the imperfections
which may cling to the human exercise of the same. Had
a reverent distinction between these two separate things been
duly made, much which is contrary both to the mind of Christ
and the tenor of His Word, would have been avoided. On the
practical importance of visible Unity and primitive Order, you,
my Lord, who know the shattered condition of ecclesiastical
matters in France, are perfectly competent to speak. There, for
want of episcopal organisation, Protestant communions are daily
splitting into fractions of wild dissent, and fragments of woful
sectarianism. In Geneva also, I can testify from a late personal
visit and inspection, the aspect of public religion is indeed most
melancholy. On the one side, what is termed the " National
Church" is poisoned to the core with the deadly virus of a latent
Socinianism, while all around it, warring sects and schisms abound
in most disastrous confusion. One of the " Pasteurs" informed
me, in September last, that Geneva was then beguiled by a
miserable fanatic, who considered himself as a species of second
Christ ! and that, awfully wicked as his heresy was, he was
actually forming a congregation under him. On my return to
England (let it be said with extreme regret), I learned that a
clerical malcontent, who had revolted from our beloved Church
because of her " corruptions," — was just convinced that he him
self was the embodied Paraclete ! ! These are terrible delu
sions and profanities, which make the Christian shudder to record.
God grant that, more and more we may embrace the creed,
venerate the polity, and obey the teaching of our Bible, Church,
and Prayer-book, where indeed Christ is magnified as the be-

letter to the bishop OF llandaff. 43
liever's " all in all." Every succeeding event in these unrestful
times, impresses upon the devout heart and thoughtful mind the
profound vrisdom of our martyred Reformers, who while they
cried, " No peace with Rome !" on tbe one hand, did not hesi
tate virtually to exclaim, " No sympathy with Dissent !" on the
other also.
And now, my Lord, I will relieve you from these protracted
remarks, by venturing to sura up in a few parting words some
of the main reasons, why the schism in Scotland appears to the
writer of this, so utterly at variance with all those Scriptural
principles, which evangelic Churchmen have ever been taught to
venerate and believe.
On tbe following grounds, then, the schismatic rebellion of
English Presbyters against the Episcopal Church in Scotland,
appears to be unjustifiable and unscriptural.
1. Because it is contrary to the royal word, revealed will, and
express command of the Church's Divine Master and only
Spiritual Head, Jesus Christ, " the same yesterday, to-day,
and for ever."
2. Because it is opposed to that Apostolical discipline, and
Catholic verity, which have been maintained in the true Church
of Christ since its most primitive ages.
3. Because it contradicts the entire analogy of God's ways,
whose government everywhere teaches us, in the forms of nature,
the facts of Providence, and the mysteries of grace, — that no
constitution is secure and stable, without gradational order,
conservative unity, and submissive derivation of component parts.
4. Because it is repudiated and rejected by those Prelates in
our own Church, whose spiritual office, exalted position, and
authoritative experience, amply qualify them for determining
how far or not, her own entrusted orders have been abused into
a treasonable assault on the inalienable rights of her Scottish
sister. 5. Because, through the sin of our common nature, " con
science" is frequently degraded into an elastic convenience, wbich
contracts, or dilates itself, according to the ruling temptation
which may try to seduce our principles, or the random impulse
which may attempt to overpower our reason. Thus, for instance,
we have seen a tender " conscience" contract itself into a state of
fearful smallness at one time, before a figurative expression in a
Communion Office ; and then at another,— dilate itself into such
an enormous capacity, as to take in whole columns of calumny

44 letter to the bishop of llandaff.
in a newspaper, and pages of depreciation in a pamphlet ! The
fact is, our " conscience" requires to be divinely regulated by a
positive law from without, even as our hearts need to be spirit
ually renewed by a sanctifying principle within.
6. Because the promoters of this schism, in their zeal for
what they consider truth, have in some cases virtually become
their own Bibles, Churches, and Popes, — by engrafting their
own interpretations on God's truth, and then demanding an in
stant adherence to their doctrines, as though there was no dis
tinction between the Rule of Faith as it is in itself, revealed in
Scripture, and as it is made to speak, when interpreted by fallible
man. Well, indeed, would it be for us all, in this eventful pe
riod, if we were more willing to " run the race that is set before
us" by God, than to run the peculiar race we sometimes prefer
to set before ourselves ! In tbe pride and triumph of such a
preference, how often we imagine we are in a sublime haste to
promote the glory of the Redeemer, while, in plain truth, we
are only in a zealous hurry to promote the gratification of our
personal views.
7. Because the Church of England is now in a state of such
communion with the Episcopal Church in Scotland, that every
act of clerical insubordination against the essential prerogatives
of the latter Church, by virtue of episcopal identity existing
between both, is also an act of insubordination against the
former. 8. Because the schism in Scotland attempts to ground itself
upon principles fatal to every form of constituted authority
which can subsist in this imperfect world.
9. Because it is unjust to charge the diocesan acts of single
Bishops, or the doctrinal expression of individual Presbyters,
upon the Episcopal Church of Scotland at large. A Church
in this latter respect, as such, is to be estimated according to her
own Ideal, as exhibited in the theory of her constitutions, creeds,
articles, and canons; it is by the essence of her ecclesiastical
nature, and not by the incidence of some official acts, that she
must be judged. Were the Anglican Church to be proscribed
and persecuted for all the incidental expressions of certain
Bishops, Priests, Charges, and Sermons, which appear from
time to time, — she might be swept from the face of the earth
in a few years. The distinction between the regular tendency
of universal principles, and the irregular influence of indi
vidual persons, must never be forgotten.

LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF. 45
10. Because the unchristian tempei«in which this attack on
the Scottish Bishops is maintained, cannot be justified by the
blessed example of Christ, the precepts of the Apostles, or the
conduct of martyrs, and saints, in all ages. Christianity is a law
pf love ; and the zeal which violates this divine principle by
acrimonious personalities and truculent exaggerations, ought
never to be approved by those who profess to walk according
to the Spirit of Christ.
11. Lastly. Because, if all the accusations which certain
English Presbyters have hurled against the Scottish Prelates
were perfectly true, — it would by no means follow that, they
ought to break loose from their official authority, create dissent
in their dioceses, and set up conventicles in open defiance of all
ecclesiastical order, unity, and peace. In this case, their right
way would be to seek for canonical justice in the Church, by
appeals and petitions to Courts of ecclesiastical judicature, and
not by a sectarian removal of themselves and their congregations
out of it. Would that our separated brethren, instead of causing
these sad divisions, had retained their allegiance to the Rulers
of the Church ; for thus, by their united prayers, their increasing
holiness of life and character, they would have strengthened
" the things which remain," and have promoted the glory of
Christ in combination with " peace on earth, and good-will
towards men."
And now, my Lord, permit me to terminate this address.
Having been for six years connected with the Scottish Epis
copate, and under God permitted to collect a large congregation,
to be instrumental in building a new church, and to receive
during that period every sympathy and encouragement which
my friend and respected diocesan could bestow, — I can hardly
be deemed arrogant, or intrusive, in thus lifting a feeble, but
sincere testimony, in behalf of what I solemnly believe to be
Scriptural Truth and Apostolic Order. If in this discharge of
an unpleasant duty, I have, in the remotest degree, opposed the
truths which appertain unto God, or the charity which belongs
unto man, — I earnestly pray that I may have sufficient grace
bestowed on me to repent tbe one sin and to regret the other.
With yourself, my Lord, and all true Churchmen, amid the
unhappy differences and unholy contentious which now convulse
society and the Church, I hope I can unite in saying, from the
depths of genuine feeling, " Grace be with all those who love

46 letter TO the bishop of LLANDAFF.
our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity." — I have the honour to be,
with high respect and esteem.
Your Lordship's humble servant,
ROBERT MONTGOMERY.
London, November 1845.
51 Torrington Square.

POSTSCRIPT TO THE ABOVE.
[Since the above was written, I have received another of those printed
Addresses, which are undersigned in the following mysterious man
ner :]
" Extracted by J. D. Miller, Presbyter of the CHURCH {^)
of England."
Before offering some transient observations on direct parts
of this very unvrise document, let us express our sincere re-;
gret that, the promoters of schismatical rebellion against the
Prelates of Scotland, will not be content with admiring iri
silence, what they conscientiously consider the perfect heroism
of their proceeding. Instead of this, myself, and many others,
have to complain of being annoyed at the rate of about once
a month, with printed papers, extracts, advertisements of Eng
lish ministers who have thrown the shield of a charity sermon
over the schism, and truculent attacks on Scottish Bishops'
charges, and also historical fabrications concerning the tyran
nical deeds and prelatical misdemeanours of the Scottish Church.
On various accounts, a fretful system of feverish agitation Kke
this, cannot promote the benefit of either party. So far as the
stern reality of the question goes, the undeniable schism
remains precisely where it is, and ever will, till the Church of
England commit ecclesiastical suicide, and common Sense ex
pire. Moreover, does not this ungenerous species of Guerilla
warfare against the Episcopal Church, by partial extracts and
printed assaults in newspapers, — seem to intimate that, after all
the position of the seceders is not one which in their secret heart
they thoroughly admire ? Surely the right characteristics of
men who are sanctioned by the sealing testimony of an approving

letter to the bishop of LLANDAFF. 47
conscience, in difficult paths of duty, ought to be coolness,
patience, and spiritual magnanimity. However, it pleases the
Christian gentlemen who promote this schism not to Jeave us
alone. They compel us to the sad annoyance of replies, and
explanations. They morally force us into the midst of warring
elements of strife and confusion, from which all who desire to
lead a quiet life of pastoral employment would gladly be de
livered. But now, let us offer a passing comment on one of the many
documents which English clergymen continually receive from what,
we presume, is a kind of — "Anti-Episcopal Glasgow Society,
for proving the Archbishop of Canterbury and certain English
Bishops in the ivrong, and some objecting English Presbyters in
the right." The paper which is quoted is dated " Aberdeen,
October 24, 1845," and is headed, " Extracts from the Minutes
of a Meeting of Clergymen of the United Church of England
and Ireland, officiating in Scotland apart from the Scottish Epis
copal Church, under the provisions of an Act of Parliament of
the Tenth of Queen Anne, together with some Lay Members
of their respective Congregations, held in Glasgow, on Wednes
day and Thm-sday, the 22d and 23d days of October, 1845."
To this follows a resolution to adopt a letter, written by one
of the clergymen " officiating" in Edinburgh, under the par
liamentary canon of " Queen Anne." This letter was an at
tempted reply to a mild and dignified rebuke from the Primate
of England. All that can be said of it is, to express the cha
ritable desire, that a day of ecclesiastical sobriety may yet come,
when the persevering disturber of the Scottish Church will feel
some modest compunction for presuming to set up his single fiat
against one so hoary in years, so venerable in office, and so
admirably fitted, in every respect, to understand the true theory
of the Church of England.
2. What succeeds to this resolution demands a fuller reply ;
— not by virtue of any intrinsic merit, but because it may be
considered as a generic specimen of the style of logic, whereby
dissent and disunion in every period of the Church have been
vindicated as just and lawful.
" And, further, it was resolved — That the Meeting desire to
express their determination, under the Divine blessing, firmly
to adhere to the principles which they have already professed to
le the basis of their present position. They regard their prin
ciples as principles set forth in the Scriptures of truth; and.

#

48 LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.
therefore, while they feel them to be the precious heritage of the
people of God, they acknowledge themselves as under the deep
est responsibility to defend them. They likewise rejoice to
know that, in the conscientious carrying out of these principles,
they have the fullest protection from the laws of their country
— not that their communion is based upon these laws ; but that
these laws effectually guard against any- attempt to interfere ¦
with their religious liberty.
" The Meeting further desire to state plainly what these
principles are : That, as Ministers and Members of the Church
of England, /«% recognising their obligations in reference to that
Church, they cannot, and they will not, associate themselves,
with a Communion which, in their conscience, they believe to
have departed from the purity and simplicity of the Gospel-^
which, without a shadow of right or title to their allegiance^
has had recourse to threats in the endeavour to force submission
' to its laws — and which has drawn down upon itself the weighty
responsibility of adopting and approving a system of Excommu
nication as unscriptural as it is unavailing.
" Further — While this Meeting are firmly resolved — and
they earnestly pray tbat God may strengthen them in their re
solution — to retain their position upon grounds utterly irrespec
tive of the opinion of any man, they cannot but express their
gratitude to God for the encouragement they have been per
mitted from time to time to receive from members of their own
Church." The above resolution, it is presumed, embodies tbe grand
justification which the secessionists offer as a defence for their
position ; but they must allow a brother Presbyter to tell them,
with the utmost good humour and courtesy, that a more feeble
attempt to canonise a schism was never made. Let us analyse
this resolution, and we shall detect at once its inherent confusion
of ideas, and weakness of argument. " Principles which they
have already professed to be the basis of their position." What
these " principles" are we shall learn presently : meanwhile, we
beg to inform the resolutionists, that the basis of their position,'
according to their own express description, reposes not on
" principles" of any kind whatsoever, but on what " they re
gard" as principles set forth in Scripture. Now the most sturdy
defender of " private judgment" must admit that, between what
individuals " regard" as " principles," and what essentially are
" principles," — there is an intervening space where all the eie-

letter to the bishop of llandaff. 49
ments of human error, self-love, partiality, bigotry, and mental
peculiarity, may operate. Accordingly, when these gentlemen
assert, they adhere ito " principles," it is but another form of
expression for stating that, they adhere to themselves, — i. e. to
their own conception of what Scripture approves. Thus, then,
the resolution comes to this, in actual amount: " We are so
firmly convinced that we are correct in our view of Scriptural
truth, that what we do is precisely what the Bible says, — ergo,
there is such an identity between the Scriptures and us, that
what we regard as their ' principles' is so certain, that when we
rely on our convictions, it is the same thing as our acting upon
the ' principles' of the Bible !" And now, we may be allowed to
ask whether, in such a resolution as this, these gentlemen have
succeeded in their " desire to state plainly what these principles
are?" But let us do them intellectual justice. They pro
ceed in harmony with this very proper duty to define their
" principles." " That, as ministers and members of the
Church (?) of England, fully recognising their obligations in
reference to that Church, they cannot, and they will not, asso
ciate themselves with a communion which, in their conscience,
they believe to have departed from the purity and simplicity of
the Gospel." So the " principles'' emerge at last ; and verily
they had better forthwith retire into the cloisters of silence
and secrecy again 1 A more extraordinary way of shewing the
" basis of a position" was never uttered. Till this document
reached us, we had always considered religious " principles" to
be fixed, definite, catholic, and immutable sources of action,
springs of doctrine ; but if these assailants of the Scottish Pre
lates are correct, individual persuasions, private opinions, and
personal determinations, are henceforth to be the " principles"
of orthodoxy and the standard of Christian duty : for, say they,
" They cannot, and they will not, associate themselves with a
Communion which in their conscience," &c. &c. Now, even if
they were perfectly justified in the dreadful charge which they
have presumed to bring against a " communion," &c. &c., —
still, as yet, they have exhibited no " principles" for so doing :
all which they have accomplished is nothing more than proving
that they are honestly wedded to their own opinions. How far
or not, those " opinions" themselves are indeed based upon the
Divine principles of the Redeemer's Church, is altogether
another question. Meanwhile, we hope they will pardon the
imperfect comprehension of a brother Presbyter, for translating

50 LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF.
their " principles" of action (as they now state them) into deter
minations of will. Thus, then, the " principles" resolve them
selves into this bold result: — " We believe we are right, there
fore we are right; all who differ with us are in the wrong;
consequently we ' will not, and cannot/ be otherwise than what
we are." One word more on this very eccentric document. The
following passage deserves a little analysis. " As ministers and
members of the Church of England, fully recognising their
OBLIGATIONS IN REFERENCE TO THAT ChURCH," &C. NoW,
presuming that these Presbyters are perfectly sincere in this
avowal of loyalty to their own ecclesiastical Mother, we can at
once enclose them in a dilemma, and a difficulty, which honest
minds will at once perceive. E. g. The Church of England
holds it as a fundamental principle in the Catholic Church, that
no Bishop can lawfully extend his jurisdiction beyond the limits
ofhis own diocese. This ecclesiastical rule is coeval with the first
General Councils. But if the Bishop cannot, then, h fortiori,
neither can the Presbyter or Deacon rear up conventicles, and
form congregations, in dioceses where lawful and local Bishop
already preside. Yet, if tbe schismatical party are correct, that
which English Prelates dare not do, without an utter viola
tion of right, reason, and common sense, — that Presbyters and
Deacons, whose orders are derived from these very Bishops, can
and ought to do ! Assuredly, it demands no great sagacity to
perceive the gross absurdity and glaring fallacy of such a de
lusion. Again, as these gentlemen profess their " obligations"
to the Church of England, we respectfully commend the follow
ing two canons of that very Church to their consideration :
Canon LXXI. of the Church of England ordains as follows:
" No minister shall preach, or administer the holy communion,
in any private house, except it be in times of necessity, when
any being either so impotent as he cannot go to the church, or
very dangerously sick, are desirous to be partakers of the holy
sacrament, upon pain of suspension for the first offence, and
excommunication for the second.^'
Canon LXXII. enacts, inter alia — " Neither shall any
minister, not licensed as aforesaid (with the special license and
direction of the Bishop of the Diocese) presume to appoint or
hold any meetings for sermons, commonly termed by some pro
phecies or exercises, in market-towns or other places, under the
said pains."

LETTER TO THE BISHOP OF LLANDAFF. 51
Let our mistaken brethren give these ' remarks their serious
reflection. We entreat them, in the spirit of brotherhood and
love, to ask their consciences in the sight of a heart-searching
God, how far or not the " obligations" to their own Church
are unviolated, while they act in open defiance to every canonical
principle which that same Church has recognised from apostolic
times ?
That in the unhappy course which they now pursue, sympa
thy, support, and even applause, may occasionally reach them from
England, we freely grant. From the dread of a subtle Romanism
in England, they derive their main encouragement for an open
schism in Scotland. But we entreat them to direct their eccle
siastical conduct by something nobler than the scattered ele
ments of unreasoning alarm, and the erratic notions of over
excited partisans. Of this they may be solemnly assured, —
the apostolic Church of this country, as a Church, cannot,
dare not, and will not, support a schism in that of her Scottish
sister, without herself becoming the greatest schismatic in the
world. In vain may dead Acts of Parliament be galvanised into
controversial life ; in vain may certain good men of our Church
compassionate their position, and be induced to preach an occa
sional sermon in their pulpits ; in vain may Sectarian prints re
vile the aged Primus of the Scottish Church as a " Northern
Frog,"i and cdl the English clergy who think the Holy Ghost
has not yet deserted the Episcopal Church of Scotland, as " Pu-
seyites" and "Formalists;" all this is nothing to the question:
A RANK schism IS A REAL THING, AND CANNOT THUS BE DONE
AWAY. Moreover, were all the clergy in England to preach in
the pulpits of schismatical Presbyters ; were each Bishop of the
Anglican Church also to take his preaching turn ; and, last of
all, were the Archbishop of Canterbury to occupy a schismatic
pulpit in the morning, and the Archbishop of York to succeed
him in the same place at night, — even all this does not decide

' This atrocious specimen of vulgarity actually appeared in a paper professedly
consecrated to the pure cause of Christ. How men can dip their pens in this gall
of virulence, and really think that the truth of God is thereby glorified, passes the
understanding of ordinary people. Whether the Primus be right or wrong, this is
certain, the Saviour of the world has forbidden us to support what we consider the
interests of the Gospel, by weapons so heathenish and inhuman. Let us, at least, on
the grounds of Christian decency, maintain our differences with propriety, candour,
and courteous forbearance. A style of abuse which may find a suitable place in the
printed offal of infidel journals, ought never to contaminate the columns of those
papers which profess adherence to the mild charities Christianity enforces.

52 letter to the bishop of llandaff.
the question in favour of ecclesiastical rebellion ; for a schism m
a schism still. The essential nature of things cannot be anni
hilated by incidental acts ; and all which we have hypothetically
imagined, would only amount to the irregular actions of indivi
dual JUDGES ; but an ordered Church is too sublime, hea
venly, and permanent an Organisation, to be merged and melted
down in the mere deeds of her individual members, however
exalted in office, and sustained in character. Her spiritual Con
stitution, ministerial Functions, and sacramental Privileges, are
not the political creation of Kings, the contingent product of Par
liaments, the wise results of social improvement, or the religious
inventions of man, — but they constitute the delegated trust of
her adorable Master, Jesus Christ. If then, (and our oppo
nents DO admit this), the Anglican Church be a living portion of
Christ's one Catholic and Apostolic Church, she cannot prostrate
her Creed, Commission, or Character, at the feet of Thrones or
Parliaments, Primates or Prelates, Priests or Deacons, Sects or
Individuals, without being a hideous apostate to that blessed
Redeemer, who bought Her with His own precious Blood, and
inhabits Her witb His abiding Spirit for ever.
R. M.

LETTER
TO
ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE'S.

THE GLASGOW SCHISM.
MY DEAR SIR,
You must, indeed, have imagined my principles to
have undergone a melancholy transformation, could you have
supposed me to have remained an uninterested observer of what
the minister and managers of St. Jude's church have been doing,
and contriving, the last few months. Nevertheless, it is probable
you would not have heard from me on the matter, had not you,
by your present letter, almost compelled me to break my silence,
and candidly give you my free mind on the very sad, and, as I
believe, — unscriptural confusion which your schismatic proceed
ings at Glasgow have occasioned. You refer to some " opin
ions" of mine as " unequivocally expressed" towards certain late
members of St. Jude's congregation, and you are quite right in
your allusion. And, can you be surprised that, in a painful emer
gency, when the consciences of many were touched to the core
with a thrilling anxiety as to what migbt be right or wrong in
a certain matter, — they should seek the advice of one who, for six
years, presched unto them, amid the peace, unity, and order of
the Church, "the unsearchable riches of Christ?" Compared
with that individual, tbe present incumbent of St. Jude's is al
most a stranger ; and, although my official connexion with the
friends to whom I allude is terminated, my interest in their
spiritual good remains as strong as ever. Under these circum
stances, I felt it a duty, bound upon my soul by Christ and His
Church, to tell those who sought my advice, that — " if St. Jude's
were separated from the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Glasgow,
and presided over in this rent and riven state by an unauthorised
English Presbyter, the Church would be schismatical, and all con
nected with it schismatics," And now, permit me to ask what
e

54 letter TO one of the managers of ST. JUDE s.
other doctrine could I, as a Churchman who conscientiously be
lieves our blessed Lord to have founded an Ecclesiastical So
ciety for men, as well as to have delivered a Gospel to men,—
have given ? You think it, perhaps, harsh and uncharitable to
term the proceedings of Mr. Miles " schismatical," and those
who applaud th^m " schismatics ;" but, in truth, it is by logical
necessity, and not by moral choice, — those who believe Episco-.:
pacy to be of God, are compelled to this conclusion. Among
the maxims almost coeval with the apostolic age are these, "Est
ecclesia in episcopo," " Nullus episcopus, nulla ecclesia." If,
therefore, a Presbyter, having episcopal orders, presume to
preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, and preside over
a congregation wilfully separating itself from all episcopal au
thority and control, — such a Presbyter and such congregation
are in a schismatical position. I am quite aware that sophisti
cal arguments have been used, in order to melt the sin of schism
away, as though it had no substantive reality ; but as long as
we read in Scripture, "Mark them that cause divisions," "that
there be no divisions among you," " Obey them that have the rule
over you," &c. &c., none but those whose Bible is their own will,
can despise an Apostle's warning. Schism, according to the in
terpretation of the Church Universal in every age, is a rent in
the visible unity of order and discipline, even as heresy is a rent
in the invisible unity of doctrine and principle. It, therefore,
seems to me the reverse of charity towards men, if those who
solemnly believe schism to be treason towards Christ, should
hesitate to call things, not by the soft nomenclature which
indifference approves, but by names which express the nature
of the object to which they are applied. Here, as in other
questions which involve rectitude and conscience, " Amicus
Plato, sed magis arnica Veritas."
I will now direct my attention towards particular portions of
your letter; and should I, in the course of the following remarks, .
betray myself into strains of seeming harshness, or controversial
acrimony, I entreat you to ascribe it to my eagerness for what
I think important truth, and not to any spirit of domineering
pride, or despotic temper. Our friendship is now of more than
six years' standing ; and I trust we have too often met together"
round the Altar of our common Lord, ever to forget those lessons
of divine love and forbearance which His word and will inculcate.
There is, moreover, a further reason why I feel it right to notice
your letter to me, and that is founded on the fact that you are

letter to one of the managers of ST. jude's. 55
officially connected with St. Jude's ; you are one of those chiefly
responsible for its secular interests; and you, in conjunction with
others, support the minister of St. Jude's in his rebellion towards
the Bishop, and his determination to build up a permanent
schism, miscalled " An Episcopal Congregation," within the
diocese of Glasgow. For these reasons, and others which might
be named, it may be well for me to make some transient remarks
on different parts of your letter. Brief and superficial, I am
aware, they will be found ; and my numerous avocations will not
allow me to enter at large into all the detail which your pro
ceedings at St. Jude's suggest ; still, such as they are, they at
least emanate from one who is sincere, and whose earnest prayer
it is, that Evangelic Truth may ever be associated with Apostolic
Order. 1. " I cannot pretend," you say, " to be ignorant of your
opinions as to the step taken by our minister and ourselves,
because they have been unequivocally expressed to several of
the members of our congregation, who, in consequence, have
left the church." This, of course, is intended as a gentle re
proach for me; but I really think, so far from being blamed,
those who have left what is now a conventicle, and not a church,
are, on the contrary, to be approved. They have only in this
respect marked and avoided those who cause divisions, accord
ing to the advice of an inspired Apostle. I hope, too, that it
is not absolutely " in consequence" oi my remarks, but because,
under the guidance of God's Spirit, and tbe healthful teaching
of their Prayer-book,' they have learned somewhat to reverence
" the mind of Christ," not only as regards abstract doctrine, but
also in reference unto the Order, which has the Redeemer Him
self for its authority. Many of them, perchance, have escaped
the contagion of popular latitudinarianism, and venture to con
clude that a Church is not a miscellaneous jumble of individual
units, who meet round no uniting Centre, but rather an ecclesi
astical body, organised into unity and uniformity under those
who succeed the Apostles in the government and discipline of
the Chm-ch. Again, it is probable that among those who have
left St. Jude's, are parents whose children have been baptised,
and who would hereafter feel it their solemn duty to bring them
unto the blessed rite of Confirmation. But if there be no Bishop,
unto whose lawful authority the congregation of St. Jude's is
subject, how can tbe cliildren of such congregations be con-
' See Note V., Documentary Appendix.

56 LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE's.
firmed ? Are the disobedient ministers, who have set up their
individual wills against the consenting voice of Antiquity, pre
pared also to magnify themselves into Bishops, and proceed to
confirm their own congregations; or, as indeed is most probable,
will they catch the Geneva style, and coolly tell us that " Con-
firmation is of no consequence whatever ?" Be this as it may,
I really thank God that in these times of Protestant laxity on
the one side, and Popish ultraism on the other, — some have been
forced, even amid the printed mocks of Presbyterian revilers, to
forsake a church which has now been degraded into a conven
ticle, and where a rightful Bishop has been, most ungenerously,
despoiled of his just authority.
2. You say, " perilous times are approaching, and all who
love our dear Lord in sincerity will be compelled to rally round
the precious truths of the Gospel, and, forgetting their petty
differences, to stand up as good soldiers of Christ, and contend
for the truth." Now, there is nothing in this abstract sentiment
with which I do not heartily coincide ; but, my*dear sir, I really
must plainly tfell you, hs, presumed application towards the schism
in St. Jude's is a gratuitous offer on your part, which you must
pardon me for rejecting. We read of " perilous times," it is
true, in the prophetic Epistles of the New Testament ; but
" times" relate to persons, and persons belong to principles, and
then the question comes to this tangible point, — Who and what
are the persons and principles by whose conduct and actions the
" times" will be rendered " perilous ?" Is there a single verse
in tbe Scriptures where it is intimated, either that adherence to
a lawful Bishop will render the times " perilous ;" or that a
schismatical rebellion against him, will remedy their disorder,
and take the peril out of them ? And if no scriptural authority
for such conclusion can be obtained, pray what has your senti
ment to do with the principles of St. Jude's lawless and uncano-
nical proceedings ? Will you excuse me, however, for suggesting
another aspect of the " perilous times ?" Is it not possible that,
the " times" will become more " perilous," because self-will
under an Evangelical form, will manifest itself in churches, and
that thus a democratic Chartism will array its banded powers of
bigotry and fanaticism against whatever in the Church, is orderly,
and in society, gradational ? Does not St. Jude, in his epistle,
intimate even in his day " perilous times" were begun, and that
among those characters who assisted the danger, were men who
"despise dominion," and speak " evil of dignities ?"

LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDe's. 57
As to the "¦ precious truths of the Gospel," I hope I value
and revere them quite as much as those who count a Bishop's
authority a tiling of nought. Indeed, if by the " precious truths
of the Gospel," you mean not simply a few texts elastically
applied to sectarian views, but the whole " truth as it is in
Jesus," then are you bound to reverence Him. who hath " ap
pointed divers orders in the Church," and who, by His Apostle,
noio gives you and all this advice, — to " know them which labour
among you, and are over you in the Lord." By " the precious
truths," I fear, however, you mean a few unconnected texts
which are opposed to Popery, and which form the watchwords
of those who love a partial Gospel, because they prefer a self-
invented Church. If so, let me freely state, that around such
sectarianism I have no desire to " rally." To " contend for the
faith once delivered to the Saints," is an heroic duty ; but let us
beware that we do not confound a contention for our own pre
sumed infallibility with a "faith once delivered to the Saints."
From that " faith" you may, indeed, exclude tbe " Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship" (see Acts, 2d chap., 42 verse) ; but those
who believe the creed they repeat every Sunday, to be something
more than mere sound, — include that " fellowship" to which I
refer in the words " Holy Catholic Church."
3. " However highly you value ChJrch order and discipline,
you would never put them in the balance with purity of doc
trine." I do not precisely understand the meaning, or intention,
of these words. Discipline and doctrine, though in themselves
distinct, with Evangelical Churchmen always go together ; they
neither compare them, nor contrast them ; therefore, they can see
no necessity for dividing them. That divine Lord from whom
all saving doctrine flows, is He from whose apostolical represen
tatives all Catholic discipline descends, — and what God by His
Spirit, Word, and Apostles, " hath joined together," why should
the erring genius of modern innovation attempt to "put asun
der ?" The fact is, my dear sir, in your mind, and also in the
minds of that peculiar class in theology whose tenets have a
strong Geneva bias, there is a secret fallacy at work ; namely,
you imagine, that between sound Churchmanship and genuine
Spirituality, there is a necessary opposition. But, will you be
good enough to state where, but in the morbid creations of a
mistaken fancy, such an opposition exists ? Because I love the
Church, must I necessarily be faithless unto Christ? Because
I value " the body," does it follow that I cease to reverence " the

58 LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE S.
Head ?" Because I appreciate the privilege of Apostolic govern
ment, order, discipline, and ceremonies, — am I compelled to con-
found the means with the end, or to mistake the .channels hy
which certain blessings are conveyed, for the nature of these
blessings themselves ? Your " balance," then, is •altogether un
required; when we are compelled by persecution, or exile, or
by the iron hand of political necessity, to separate doctrine from
discipline, it vvill be quite time for us to determine which is
preferable. At present, when we may and ought to have both,
why institute a contrast where no comparison is needed ?
4. The next paragraph of youi: letter is really so inflamed
with uncharitableness, and so utterly removed from all that
humility of heart which ought to chasten pur expressions when
we pronounce a sentence of judicial exclusion on our brethren,^
that I decline to quote it. Here, too, you confound the Church
as she is in her own ideal of articles, doctrine, and creed, with
her actual developments through this or that organ of her
ministry. Now, supposing your terrible assertion on the utter
deadness and dormancy of the Scottish Bishops and Clergy to
be true, are you prepared to apply the consequence you deduce
from this to the English Church likewise ? In other words,
when, some seventy years ago, the Anglican clergy were in a
state of secular coldness and indifference, ought the Church of
England on that account to have been destroyed? Is there no
distinction between the ministry and the ministers, between
sacraments and their dispensers ? Because a good instrument
is badly worked, ought it to be broken in pieces ? But I have
another question to put in this anathema, of yours, touching
the religious condition of the Scottish Church. — In what com
munion were many, when they, according to their own frequent
and grateful confession, were first brought to know Him, "whom
to know is eternal life ?" When you have replied to that
question, I will also tell you, why I cannot be so sinful as to
PERSUADE those who remain in the Episcopal Church in Scot
land, to come out of her and be separate.
Whatever you may think of the doctrinal tone or temper of
her Bishops and Clergy, I cannot read without admiring sympathy
her annals of heroic suffering, and apostolic endurance for that
discipline which She believed to be divine,'^
As yet, you have read little, and reflected less, upon the
ecclesiastical history of Scotiand. When you have done so, I
' See Note VI., Documentary Appendix.

LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDe's. 59
cannot but hope you will learn to speak of the Scottish Church
in a strain at once more becoming your mind, and more suited
to her character. Had the ancient Bishops of Scotiand been
men of mere expediency and secularity, far different might have
been the existing state of the Episcopal Communion in Scot
land! Perhaps you are not aware that, during the reigns of the
Second Charles and James VIL, Episcopacy was the National
Establishment. On the accession of William III. of Orange,
the Scottish Bishops stood firm and fast to their oath of allegi
ance to the Stuarts, and thereby, Presbyterianism came to be
received into the Establishment, then created by the State.
Different minds will take, of course, different views of this con
duct on the part of the Scottish Bishops. But who is so heart
less a sectarian, as not to admire the chivalrous reply which
Bishop Rose of Edinburgh made to William IIL, on his Ma
jesty asking whether the Scottish Bishops would stand by him
as the English ones had done ? — " Please your Majesty, the
Scottish Bishops will do their duty."
To 3'our condemnation of the Scotch Episcopal Church in
toto, you add the following sad intelligence : "I can solemnly
assure you we have the heartfelt sympathy of many of the first
men in the Church of England." Who these " first men" are
you do not state, though perhaps it requires no ecclesiastical
QLdipus, to guess their names. But let me tell you what one
of the first men, and one of the holiest whom the Church of
England ever produced, bas said with regard to this sympathy
with malcontents : " He that goeth about to persuade a multi
tude that they are not so well governed as they ought to be shall
never want attentive and favourable hearers." — (Hooker's Polity,
book i.). I have called this remark of yours " sad intelligence;"
and far sadder will this ungenerous sympathy of the English
Clergy with the rebellious Presbyters in the Episcopal Church
of Scotland prove, than many perhaps seem to be aware. I say
it advisedly, there are those both in England and Scotland who
will never allow the Scottish Bishops to be trampled down, under
the tyrannous pressure of men in EngUsh orders. All cannot
reach the dreadful conclusion at which you and some of your
compeers seem to have arrived, namely, that the Holy Ghost
hath actually departed out of the Episcopal Church in Scotland.
You assert, that those who hold " Catholic" principles (in other
words, those which Christ, His Apostles, and the Church uni
versal liave authorised), assign all other sects to the " uncove-

60 LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE S.
nanted mercies" of God. This is quite an historic novelty to me.
That certain Papistical youths, who admire the anathemas of
Trentine Romanism, may have written some absurdities about
" uncovenanted mercies," is quite true; but I deny that really
Catholic Churchmen presume to limit the Spirit of God, and
hand over to perdition those whom they consider to be in eccle
siastical error. You confound two things altogether distinct.
Episcopacy they do believe to be essential to the valid constitu
tion of the Church visible ; but where have they said, without
a Bishop there is no salvation ?
6. The last point of public interest in your epistle must now
be discussed ; and had you not alluded to the subject, you would
have spared me the pain of speaking one or two things, which,
I fear, will be equally unpalatable, both to yourself and to the'
writer whose work you appear to admire. You name a " pam
phlet" written in answer to one by Bishop Russell ; and you
evidently imply that this "pamphlet" is a perfect bulwark of
orthodoxy, before the strength of which Scottish Episcopacy
must succumb. Let me, then, with honest candour, tell you
in return, tbat I have read this production to which you refer;
and the result has been (with me at least), that Bishop Russell
appears to have experienced the most unchristian and unge
nerous treatment from certain parties, who have promoted the
schism of St. Jude's. As to the Bishop's " Affectionate Ad
dress," by the confession of his opponents, it is mild in tone and
chaste in style, while it breathes throughout a spirit of recon
ciliation, and a desire for peace, which cannot be too much com
mended. Indeed, in the opinion of some English Churchmen,
Bishop Russell has been by far too lenient iu his language, and
too reserved in his censure. But will you excuse me for saying,
that the pamphlet which you approve, seems nothing more nor
less, than a masterpiece of controversial failure. I say nothing
of the mode in wbich the pamphlet is arranged ; but what is
most to be lamented is, the very unbecoming and ungracious
feeling which the entire composition manifests towards one,
whose relative situation at least demanded the courtesies of
the gentieman, and the Ciiristian. In short, if you wish me
to state my sincere opinion, I must venture to say that it is
as bold in assertion, as it is inconclusive in argument. The first
is apparent, by the scornful bitterness and almost taunting se
verity of tone which the writer adopts towards Bishop Russell.
Surely it would be well if this assailant of Scottish Episcopacy

LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE's. 61
had remembered, that when a comparatively youthful minister
presumes to arraign his superior in office, age, experience, and
attainment, — truth would not suffer from his remembrance of
what is due to the person he addresses. Your friend does not
think himself, I hope, infallible, and will, perhaps, permit such
men as Bishop Horsley, the Archbishop of Canterbury,' and
Others, to have some knowledge of the Episcopal Church in
Scotiand. His remarks about the duty of the Scottish Bishops
and Clergy to join the Roman apostacy, because of their supposed
adherence to papal superstitions, are such as, in his better mo
ments, he will, I am sure, regret. Indeed, your friend will find
that, notwithstanding the eulogies of some ultra- Presbyterian
prints, which delight in whatever maims the Episcopal Church
they abhor, — sober minds will not approve such attacks as these.
As to the inconclusive nature of the arguments, adduced in the
pamphlet you recommend, this is evident from the fact, that
the great question in hand is literally untouched throughout
the whole ! For what was the controverted point? Not whe
ther Sir William Dunbar had been rightly or wrongly treated
by the Bishop of Aberdeen ; but whether the uncanonical intru
sion of a Presbyter into another Bishop's diocese was justifiable,
m order to awaken such a question. This, I repeat, was the
point to be discussed ; and, so far as the pamphlet is concerned.
Bishop Russell's decision remains in all its unweakened force
and accuracy.
This is not the place for me to answer some nearly eighty
pages of miscellaneous assertions ; yet before I conclude, there
are two points on which I must briefly remark.
First — An English Church in Scotland is an ecclesiastical
impossibility. English Churchmen may cross the Tweed, but
the Church of England cannot ; at least whilst the Act of Settle
ment remains unviolated. Hence, the only Episcopal Church
which can now exist in Scotland, is the Scottish one. Accord
ingly, as the present Bishops in Scotland derive their line of suc
cession through English -ordination, so are the churches of the
respective Bishops, both Anglican and Scotch, now in full and
entire communion. This was brought to pass by an express
Act of Parliament during the present reign. He, therefore,
who separates himself, by a schismatical rebellion, from the
Scottish Episcopal Church, virtually, at the same time, sepa
rates himself from the Church of England. It is quite in vain
' See Note VII., Documentary Appendix.

62 LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE S.
for certain Presbyters to retort upon us, — that because they have
English orders, therefore, 'in defiance of the local Bishops, they
can be considered as constituting, with their congregations,
English Episcopal Churches in Scotland. An Episcopal
Church without Episcopal control, is an absurdity which contra
dicts itself. If, for instance, the minister of a congregation se
parated from the Bishop ofa Scottish diocese, wherein his minis
try is exercised, chooses to call himself an officiating minister of
the English Episcopal Church in Scotland, — let him tell us unto
what Bishop in England he is responsible, and what visitation he
attends. The mere possession of Episcopal orders is not suffi
cient to justify a Presbyter's intrusive exercise of office, where
there are already diocesan Bishops, lawfully and canonically ex
ercising their authority ; and this at once replies to those who
assert, that on the Continent, and elsewhere, English clergy are
found with their chapels and congregations. The cases are not
parallel.' In Scotland, the ancient dioceses and their Cathohc
Bishops, are territorially and legally acknowledged ; but abroad,
this is not the case with the Anglican Church. As yet, indeedj
the question has not been tried ; but I venture to state, that if
those English Presbyters who have formed schismatical conven
ticles, in defiance of the Scottish Bishops, on the plea of inde
pendency by English orders, should seek an official re-admission
into the Church of England, — they will find their course not
quite so smooth as they anticipate. ^ How can we dare to libel
' See Note VIII., Documentary Appendix.
^ Some painful surprise having been excited in the minds of those who venerate
the consistencies of ecclesiastical discipline, by the fact that, the reverend gentlemaii
who assisted Mi. Miles in the Glasgow Schism, has been forthwith admitted into the
diocese of London, — it is only just to the Prelate of this diocese to state the following
account of the matter. There is, then, a distinction between licensing a curate,
and induction to a living. The former appears to be an act more purely and essen
tially ex officio, and determined by the local range of diocesan laws, than the
latter, which is considered, partly, to be a civil privilege. We have, therefore, the
satisfaction to state, on proper authority, that had the clergyman to whom we
allude, applied for a license as curate, the Bishpp of London would have compelled
him to produce a testimonial with the usual signatures, countersigned by the Bishop
of Glasgow. But, inasmuch as induction to a living is considered to a great extent
a civil privilege, Lushington and others decide, that no English Bishop can law
fully insist on any other testimonial than one which is signed by English Clergy,
and countersigned by some Anglican Prelate. This, we believe, is the real explana
tion of the affair : and it is a mere act of moral justice unto the Bishop of London,
that it should here be stated. His Lordship's sentiments on the Schism in Scoii-
land are well known, and have been expressed with noble firmness, and unshrinking
candour, on more than one occasion. The protections of an EstabUshment ap
pear to be, in some respects, almost counterbalanced by the disturbing inroad they
often make in the rules and discipline of canonical order.

LETTER TO ONE OF THE MANAGERS OF ST. JUDE's. 63
the Cliurch of England so maliciously, as to think she will stab,
through her own priests, " the sister Church in Scotland ?"
" A house divided against a house cannot stand ;" neither can
Episcopacy in England be secure, if Bishops in Scotland by Eng
lish Bishops be undermined.
The only point to which I will now revert is one, perhaps,
to which civil law, more than ecclesiastical, appertains ; and that
is, the pecuniary question. You are quite aware that a very
considerable portion of the funds by whicli St. Jude's church
was built, was contributed on the express understanding that
they were to be devoted to a church in full connexion with the
Scottish Episcopal Church.^ With what justice, then, can these
funds be diverted from that communion in whose exclusive
behalf they were originally subscribed? At least, a delicate
conscience will give this question its respectful consideration ;
and unto such I commit the matter. Of this, however, I am
morally certain — that one person, who was mainly instrumental
in procuring English subscriptions for St. Jude's, would rather
have cut off his right hand, than have pleaded for funds which
should ever, in a future day, be destined to support a schism
against a respected Scottish Bishop.
I now leave this very painful subject, and hope you will
believe me not to assume an earnestness I do not feel, — when I
tell you there is nothing within the bounds of reason, and my
owii competency, which I would not, even now at the eleventh
hour, do, in order to heal this most lamentable schism. I can
not forget the past, nor suddenly bid into oblivion all the many
hours of scriptural communion, and social happiness which we
have enjoyed together in Glasgow. By the bedside of many of
you I have knelt and prayed ; in sickness and sorrow, with not a
few have I sympathised ; and on each returning Sabbath morn
ing, it was my high and holy privilege to see around me (as I
thought) a congregation of Souls, who desired to keep the " old
paths" of primitive order and discipline,^ as well as the " unity
of the Spirit in the bond of peace." But, memory is now all
that remains of this : and when the image of St. Jude's comes
before me, it is associated with sadder feelings than I have cou
rage to describe. Meanwhile, be assured, for you, my dear sir,
and those whom you love, and also for all who still, perchance,
recollect the former minister of St. Jude's, — I earnestly implore
every blessing, both for time" and eternity ; and, " moreover, as
^ See Note IX., Documentary Appendix. " See Note X., ibid.

64 letter to one of the managers OF ST. jude's.
for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing
to pray for you ; but I will teach you the good and right way,"
which our Litany so beautifully shews, when it supplicates God
in the following strain : — " From all false doctrine, heresy, and
SCHISM, good Lord, deliver us."^
I remain, dear sir.
Your sincere friend,
ROBERT MONTGOMERY.
London, Novemher '2Sth, 1844. '
SI Torrington Square.
' See Note XI., Documentary Appendix.

THE

SCHISM, AND THE SCHISMATICS.

[The following article is taken, with some observations and slight
corrections, from " The Theologian." The eulogistic references to
Mr. Montgomery's " Letters," &c. have been entirely removed, for
obvious reasons : they (as the Editor of " The Theolo6ian" knows)
were not written by the same person who penned the rest of the
article. The article is, we may add, here reprinted, at the urgent re
quests of the best friends of the Church in Scotland. The extracts
from " The Gospel in Advance of the Age" are retained, because
that work is now out of print ; and, when republished, will be too
expensive for the purchase of many, perhaps, who may peruse this
pamphlet. — R. M.]
A Vindication of the Church in Scotland ; being an Exposure of the Rev. D. T.
K. Drummond's " Historical Sketch of Episcopacy in Scotland;" also. Observa
tions on Mr. Drummond's Remarks on the Archbishop of Canterbury's Letter,
the Bishop of Cashel's Letter, and the Legal Authority of the Church in Scot-
laud to Excommunicate. By the Rev. James Christie, M.A., Incumbent of
Trinity Church, Turriff, Diocese of Aberdeen. London: Ollivier. 1847.
Report ofa Deputation appointed at a Meeting held in Abei-deen, May 1846, of
Ministers and Lay Members of the Church of England, representing the Con
gregations adhering to her Forms and Doctrines in Scotland, in order to visit
England, and to communicate with the Bishops and other parties in the Estab
lished Church, on the subject of their Ecclesiastical Position in Scotland.
Edinburgh. 1847.
A Letter on the Recent Schisms in Scotland, &c. By the Rev. R. Montgomery,
M.A., Oxon. 2d Edition. London : Lendrum. 1846.
The majestic doctrine implied by the word " Body," as used
by St. Paul in reference to the Church of Christ, cannot be
quite unperceived even by the most superficial eye, and can
hardly be mistaken by the most unenlightened heart. " We,
being many, are one bread and one Body."^ " And He is the
Head of the Body, the Church."^ So far as we can translate
the meanings of this sacramental word, " Body," they at least
appear to shadow forth the deep mystery of a corporate life, in
the unity of a complex whole. But, then, we dare not under
stand by this life a mere organic development, but a develop
ment of life, which is instinct throughout with the element of
' 1 Cor. X. 17. ' Col. i. 18.

66 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
sympathy. Again, let us resort to the Pauline exposition of
what is involved in the Catholic vitality of the Church. _ " That
there should be no schism in the Body {i. e. not an invisible
number of spiritual abstractions, called "believers," but. a visible
corporation) ; " biit that the members should have the same care
one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the
members suffer with it; or one member be honoured, all the
members rejoice with it."'
And now for the application of this divine philosophy. It
will be seen by the titie of this article, and the names of the
pamphlets which we intend to make the subject of our remarks,
that our desire is to speak somewhat on the Anglican Schisma
tics, who have, for several years, endeavoured to wield their
English orders against the rightful authority of the Scottish.
Prelates, aiid the native discipline of their venerable Church.
Such being tbe case, we have alluded to the Church of Christ as
" one Body," because we wish to prove, that the presence and
power of real corporate life in our own Church, ought to de
velope itself under the endearing manifestation of sympathy
with every portion of the universal Church, in communion with
her. But if this be undeniable, let us be pardoned if, with
profound deference for our own spiritual Head under Christ,
we express our deep sorrow and surprise, that, as yet, the
Church of England has exhibited so contracted a spirit, so
reluctant a disposition, and so cold a heart, towards the sister
Church of Scotland. Thankful indeed shall we be, if the fol
lowing pages may, in the least degree, tend to stimulate any
members of our Church into a state of feeling which resembles
the catholicity of him who said, " Who is offended, and I burn
not?"2 None of our readers can be ignorant of the melancholy dis
grace which is now reflected upon the character of the English
Church, through the gross and grievous schism perpetrated by
certain Clergymen, who have English orders, in the Episcopal
Church of Scotland. Still, it may be useful to refer back to
the origin of this disastrous affair, in order to prove, that (as
in many other cases of schismatical rebellion) the rent in the
Church may be traced to the dissenting tendencies of ultra indi
vidualism. Of course, within the limits of one article, it would
be impossible to go into all the minute detail of the matter.
The origin, then, of this perverse outrage against all ecclesi-
" 1 Cor. xii. 25, 26. " 2 Cor. xi. 29.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.

67

astical order and canonical discipline, let it be remembered, — was
not the " Popish tendencies" of the Scottish Communion-office ;
nor, in short, did the unhappy mover of this rebellion against
the Scottish Prelates, originally assign any one of those conve
nient motives which his creative ingenuity has since developed,
for his conduct towards the Church in Scotland. But the real
ground of Mr. Drummond's first revolt was this, — the Bishop
of Edinburgh would not allow him to violate a Canon of the
Scottish Church, which Canon, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons
were alike solemnly bound, under the awful sanction of an
oath, to obey. On this subject, the following extract from an
admirable pamphlet, published at Edinburgh in 1842, will be
full of significance :
" A Presbyter in the Scottish Episcopal Church has resigned his
pastoral charge in the diocese of Edinburgh in consequence of an ad
monition addressed to him by his Bishop, founded upon an alleged
breach of an important Canon. The same Presbyter since that resig
nation has accepted an invitation from certain persons to continue his
ministrations in Edinburgh, as a Clergyman of the Church of England.
There are, consequently, in the same place, two bodies, or societies, of
men professing to hold the same Articles of Religion, the same Creed,
and using the same Liturgy, and these bodies are avowedly not in com
munion with each other  Let us look deUberately to the
facts. The Rev. D. T. K. Drummond, Junior Minister of Trinity
Chapel, was in the habit of holding a weekly prayer-meeting in a hall
apart from his Church; which meeting he asserts to have been con
ducted in the foUowing manner : —
1. A Hymn. 3. An extempore Prayer.
2. An Exposition. 4. A concluding Hymn.
" These meetings were announced by printed notices int he pews
to the congregation of Trinity, who were aU invited to attend, and
strano-ers were not excluded. On these occasions the Liturgy was never
used. Canon 28 of the Scotch Episcopal Church enacts : ' that if any
Clergyman shall officiate or preach in any place pubUcly without using
the Liturgy at all, be shall for the first offence be admonished by his
Bishop, and if be persevere in this uncanonical practice, shall be sus
pended, until, after due contrition, be be restored to the exercise of his
clerical functions.'
" The Bishop of Edinburgh, conceiving that the ministrations of
Mr. Drummond, as above described, fell under the prohibitions of the
carion, addressed a letter to Mr. Drummond which contained an admo
nition. A good deal of correspondence ensued," —
published, we may observe, in defiance of Bishop Terrot's ex-

68 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
pressed desire, and with the omission of his final letter to Mr.
Drummond, —
" in which Mr. Drummond attempted to prove that these meetings
did not amount to public but only unto private ministrations. Witb
this view of the question the Bishop could not coincide.
" ' I must here repeat what I have stated in a former letter, that
I have no wish to restrict your ministration either as to time or place;
you may give expositions every day; but surely they would not be
less useful, less conducive to all these good results which you say have
flowed from your ministrations in Clyde-street Hall, if they were, in
accordance with the canon, preceded by the Common Prayer of the
Church, and the portions of Scripture appointed for the day.' "
This passage shews clearly, beyond the reach of cavil or
doubt, that the object of the Bishop was not, as has been indus
triously reported, — to prevent Mr. Drummond from holding his
prayer-meetings, or even to restrict them, but solely to enforce
the use of the Liturgies, according to the provisions of the canon.'
The excellent writer might also have stated, that some of the
Episcopal Clergy, in their Christian solicitude to preserve the
peace and harmony of their Church, — at a future period actually
offered, in turn, to attend Trinity Chapel on the days of these
ministrations, and read the Church Prayers for Mr. Drummond.
But no, the English Presbyter beheld all the touching glories
of amateur martyrdom rising into view, and refused tbe canonical
aid of his clerical brethren ; and thus, the result was, in the lan
guage of the pamphlet already quoted, " Mr. D. resigned his
charge, because he would not use the Liturgy at his prayer-meet
ings !"
We also solicit the reader's particular attention to the follow
ing passage from " The Drummond Schism :"
" Throughout, Mr. Drummond refused to submit to any reference or
appeal ; throughout, has he declined to take the opinion of the Church
upon the point at issue. This at all events places his conduct in a very
unfavourable position, as contrasted with that of the Bishop, who from
the commencement avowed his readiness to submit his judgment to that
of the Church. What complaint, therefore, has he against the Bishop
for his interpretation of the canon, except that he cannot make the
Bishop see with his eyes, or construe the law as the Presbyter persists
in doing ? He was offered an appeal, which he refused. No threat of
suspension was held out against him."^
1 See " Drummond Schism," pp. 2-4. Grant and Son, Edinburgh, 1842.
» Pp. 10, 11.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 69
We have been somewhat minute in these extracts, because
we believe they will do much to open the eyes of the public to
the real state of the question, as it originally stood when Schism
was begun by Mr. Drummond. The sad career of charges and
criminations, paper-attacks, letters, pamphlets, &c. &c. which
that gentleman has since pursued, together with his denunciation
of " Popery," " Puseyism," " Transubstantiation," " Doctrines
of the Mass," &c., are too offensively notorious to be discussed
here. But will not many of our English brethren be somewhat
surprised, that all the dreadful tales about the persecuting bigo
try of Scottish Prelates, and their horrid aspirations after the
power of Hildebrand, when soberly examined, — resolve themselves
into the mild admonition of a Bishop ! And to what did this
rightful admonition extend ? Why, simply to the Canonical regu
larity of public worship ! Again, we put the question to any
persons, on the fair side of mental sanity, Is it not almost incre
dible, that in this age of boasted discernment, numbers of people
should have been affrighted out of their " propriety" by hideous
phantoms of "persecution," " Pepery," and " superstition," — sim
ply because that venerable masterpiece of Catholic devotion, the
Liturgy of our Church, was required to be read ? Yet such was
the case. " Hine illce lachrymce." Over this terrible attempt
to revive the flames of Smithfield, and to re-inspire the energies
of a dormant Inquisition, " The London  ¦" groaned its
most sectarian laments ; " The Glasgow  " grew hysterical ;
that fierce and fiery champion of " The Free Kirk," termed " The
Edinburgh  ," awoke all the expiring chivalry of the " evan
gelically orthodox" to the rescue. The walls of Edinburgh were
placarded with stupendous bills, announcing, " Correspondence
between Bishop Terrot and the Rev. D. T. K. Drummond;"
ladies looked aghast at each other in the street, and devoured
pamphlets at home ; collecting cards in behalf of persecuted
Protestants were dispersed in England ; nervous gentlemen, who
suffer from the Pope, grew terribly alarmed ; in short, very timid
people were really thrown into a high state of religious horror
by the fact, — tliat Bishop Terrot had admionished an English Pres
byter to obey a Canon of the Church, and submit to the bondage of
reading the Liturgy of the Anglican Church at the time of public
worship ! " To be grave exceeds all powers of face."'
We really must be pardoned for a transient light thought
2 Pope. F

70 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
over all such preposterous folly. By this time, we almost imagine
Mr. Drummond is inclined to join us in it. But to return to a
more serious strain. We think, then, or at least hope, the day
will yet arrive when Mr. Drummond vrill revert to this affair
under far different impressions than he may now perchance ex
perience. From what we have understood, he is both pious and amiable
in all the relations of private life; and we hope he will credit
our sincerity, while we, in a brotherly spirit, entreat him to
re-examine his proceedings in this wretched affair. He may
believe us, that not only must the sectarian anomaly of his pre
sent position in Scotland, have a disastrous effect on his own
spiritual health, but tend to any thing rather than the sound
edification of Christian people. To say nothing of the fact that,
he cannot procure the holy rite of confirmation for the younger
members of his flock, we are morally certain, all the morbid
evils incorporated "into the Conventicle system must, in more
or less degrees, cling to the general spirit ofhis congregation.-
Their adherence to himself, in his antagonistic attitude towards
the primitive Church and lawful Bishops of Scotland, necessarily
involves certain elements of contention, pride, and puritanism,
which cannot but wield a feverish and fretful influence over their
hearts and minds. Dissenting isolation invariably generates a
certain amount of offensive egotism, both on the part of the mi
nister and his people; and thus, those precious attributes of moral
and spiritual life, which might have been consecrated unto the
harmonious expansion of the Church as a " Body," are dwarfed
and dwindled in the petty conflicts of sectarian excitement, and
controversial discussions.
Of course we are not so egregiously vain as to imagine for
one instant, that a Presbyter who has the august pririlege of
being canopied by the royal protection of " The tenth of Queen
Anne," wiH condescend to be admonished by our poor and im
perfect counsels ; and yet in the face of this discouragement, we
do venture to entreat this gentieman not to shew quite so much
angry contempt against that ancient Church, at whose altars he
for many years administered. We can assure him, from exten
sive personal knowledge, that in spite of an occasional applause
doled out to him, as a small mercy, from reHgious prints and
ultra-low Churchmen, his rebellion against the Episcopal disci
pline is deeply and decidedly censured by a large body of spiri
tual men, both in this country and elsewhere. Let him remem-

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 71
ber the hours of his lost Communion, and spiritual intercourse,
with that Church, and those Clergy, he now so ungenerously mis
represents and assails ; and accompany this remembrance with a
more prayerful modesty of mind, and guarded delicacy of speech,
when he deals his rebukes abroad on the history and character of
Scottish Episcopacy. On this subject we beg to offer him ano
ther extract from the pamphlet above quoted : 
" It is always a suspicious circumstance when we find a man, who,
either from wilfulness or obstmacy, or any other cause, has chosen to
abandon his connexion with a public body, turn round upon the in
stant, and commence a furious attack upon that body on grounds to
tally different from those which dictated his resignation.^ It reminds us
of a servant, dismissed for some fault by his master, who is no sooner
out of the house than he commences to break the windows. Doubt
less there must be some such impulse in Human Nature ; but it might
be well not to give way to it. Perhaps the windows ought to be
broken ; but the stones would surely come with better grace from
another hand."^
To this quotation, let us also add the words of his Grace the
venerable Archbishop of Canterbury, addressed in a Letter to
the Eev. Alexander Ewing, of Forres. If Mr. Drummond re
tain any reverence for age, character, office, and experience, he
ought at least to weigh these expressions in the " balances" of
reason and common sense :
" The Episcopal Church of Scotland is in communion with the
United Church of England and Ireland, through the medium of her
"^ It is important to remember this; because Mr. Drummond has altogether
shifted his ground of defence since his first secession from the Church. Then the
cry was — " My Christian liberty is infringed ;" but now the rallying point is —
" the Transubstantiation" of the Scottish Communion- office. We solicit the
reader's attention to the following passage from one of Mr. Drummond's own pam
phlets. *' / wish likewise expressly to state, that the Scotch Communion-office was
not the cause of my leaving the Scotch Episcopal Church. ' That I have distinctly
made known in my ' Reasons,' " &c. The inconsistency of this suicidal admission,
with the perpetual diatribes against this office, is self-evident. Meanwhile, we ven
ture to say, Mr. Drummond must have known the nature of the Scotch office years
before his revolt. Nay, should these remarks meet his eye, we would solemnly
put the following question to his conscience before God. Did not the late Rev.
Mr. Bissland {formerly editor, we believe, of the " Church of England Magazine^')
expressly direct the attention of Mr. Drummond to those very portions of the office,
against which his Protestantism now recoils with such u holy shudder ? If he does
not deny this, perhaps he will further gratify the lovers of truth, by informing,
them, where his protesting conscience resided during the period that elapsed be
tween Mr. Bissland's conversation with him, and his retention of preferment under
a Scottish Bishop ?
^ " Drummond Schism," p. 29.

72 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
Bishops, as, without referring back, wUl appear from a recent Act of
the Legislature — the 3d and 4th of Victoria, c. 33. Of Congregations
in Scotland, not acknowledging the spiritual jurisdiction of the Bishops,
in whose diocese Chapels are situate, yet calling themselves Episco
palian, we know nothing."
We must now revert to another stage in this development of
the Scottish Schism : we mean that connected with what was
once the Episcopal Church of St. Jude ; but is now degraded
into a dissenting conventicle, presided over by an English minis
ter who exults in the parliamentary canon of " Queen Anne !"
And here we would say, let the moral worth and social amiabili
ties of the Rev. Mr. Miles be quite in accordance vvith all the
esteem he has acquired from his friends and supporters ; yet such
recognition of all which is meritorious in his private character,
only deepens our regret that Mr. Miles, in seceding from the
Episcopal Church in Scotland,-=-did not at once return to Eng
land, and resume his original connexion with the Anghcan
Church. In this respect, much as we might be inclined to dis
pute the Tightness of his judgment, we can respect the conscien
tiousness of the E.ev. Mr. Crowder. This reverend gentleman,
too (if we are correctly informed), resigned his connexion with
the Episcopal Chapel of St. James, Edinburgh. But, unlike
Messrs. Drummond and Miles, he did not remain in Edinburgh,
nor concentrate round himself, as a schismatical centre of mor
bid attraction, all the dissenting propensities and tendencies of
the Genevan School, and thus transform himself into a per
petual blister on the sides of Scottish Episcopacy. Instead of
this, he pursued the honest dictates of his conscience, and came
back to England. But to return to St. Jude's.
Let us, then, with the frankest boldness, venture to assert,
that we consider Mr. Miles's schismatic revolt from the Bishop
of Glasgow, as one even more flagrant than that of his erring
brother from the Bishop of Edinburgh. Mr. Miles did not
enter into communion with the Episcopal Church of Scotland,
as one who was utterly ignorant of her past history, and present
position. This is apparent from more than one allusion in those
very unceremonious publications which relate to his schism.
One of his controversial attempts is a little piece of polemical
debility, entitied " An Address," &c. But the following pas-,
sage, quoted by Bishop Russell, will at once justify us, and con
demn him :— " Your Reverence (that is, the Bishop of Glasgow)
will, I am sure, excuse the freedom with which I am making

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 73
you acquainted with my own mind. The Canons I have now
examined. I took the precaution of reading them before I con
sulted any controversial toritings bearing on the subject." Thus,
then, it appears, from Mr. Miles's own unsolicited confession, he
could not be canonically in the dark, as to the present constitu
tion of the Scottish Episcopal Church. But, perhaps he was
still most innocently unacquainted with the popish abomination
which inheres in the Communion-office of his Church ? ' Not
so ; because, in a subsequent paragraph, after reprobating " a
clause" to be forced into his " own Church," he adds: " In my
own judgment, I think the objectionable clause in the Commu
nion-office is explained by other portions of the service, even as
certain strong phrases in the English offices." Bishop Russell
moreover asserts, " Mr. Miles did not conceal his opinion as to
the merits at least of the Edinburgh controversy. He pronounced
Mr. Drummond in the wrong ; and repeated his conviction that,
had he acted with greater moderation, the schism in the metro
polis might have been prevented." Well, indeed, — when con
trasting the schism which Mr. Miles so speedily consummated,
with the respectful tone of the above remarks, — may the in
sulted prelate add : " Had Mr. Miles resigned the charge of the
congregation when he discovered that he could no longer hold it
on the terms to which he acceded when he received it from my
hands, he would have had on his side a good show of reason ; but
to retain the charge, and at the same time to repudiate the autho
rity which invested him with it, is, to say the least, not equally
intelligible." We beg, however, the Bishop's pardon : to us this conduct is
perfectly " intelligible ;" in plain words, it amounts to the viola
tion of a moral compact, which Mr. Miles will yet live deeply
to regret. The church of St. Jude was chiefly built, and the
congregation entirely formed, through the Rev. Robert Mont
gomery. This, we presume, is well known. We doubt not
also, that many of the members of the Christian Knowledge So
ciety, will recollect tbe vote of 100^. which was granted for the
same purpose. Now, let us add to this another fact, — not only
were some hundreds of English money given to this said St.
Jude's, on the distinct understanding that the church was to be
under the control of the Bishop of Glasgow ; but that the first
words of the memorial requesting the Bishop to sanction the
' See Appendix, Note XII.

74 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
new congregation ran thus : " Your memorialists being sincerely
attached to the Scottish Episcopal Church, are desirous of being
formed into a congregation in connexion with that Church.''
Let all this, we say, be considered, and who will not reprobate
the retention of such a Church, in schismatic separation from its
right and lawful Bishop ? True, Mr. Miles went through the
prudential drama of a " resignation ;" but he immediately put
the Church into schism, by continuing to officiate there, and
forthwith reaccepted from the hands of the managers an ap
pointment, which he must have known they never intended to
take from him. But, instead of further detail, we shall avail
ourselves of some quotations from Mr. Montgomery's letter: we
do so the more willingly, because it not only adverts to the case
in hand, but also touches on those great principles which are
essentially involved in all discussions of a similar character.
[Here follow quotations from the " Letter to the Manager of
St. Jude's."] *****
It is now time to revert more immediately to the two pam
phlets named in order at the head of this article, which treat on
some events posterior to the proceedings we have just spoken of.
Before we do so, however, let us express our scorn for the sec
tarian bigotry that libels every respectable avowal of what is
Catholic and Apostolical in Episcopacy, with the flippant charge
of " Puseyism," " Tractarianism," " Jesuitry," and with all other
names, by which the malignancy of the so-called " religious" jour
nals loves to denote whatever their tasteless evangelism happens
to dislike. Let us boldly tell these revilers of their brethren,
that sound Church principles, involving as they do, spiritual loy
alty to the Catholic Church of this country, cannot by direct
agency conduct their conscientious maintainers to Rome. For
our own part, we are free to confess, that Romanising unfaith
fulness against our own Ecclesiastical Mother is alike abhorrent
both to our reason, conscience, and convictions. And as to all
thoughts of the English Church being reconciled with, or united to,
that of the Romish apostacy, we consider such as the mere dreams
of morbid ecclesiastics, who do not understand the meaning of their
own words. The only terms upon which Rome would consent to
hold communion with the Anglican Church, are in harmony with
the spirit of Nahash the Ammonite, who said, " On this con
dition will I make a covenant with you, — that I may thrust out

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 75
all your right eyes." Moreover, if the schismatical disturbers of
the Scottish Church desire a real expression of what genuine
Churchmen feel in reference to Rome and her principles, we
imagine few of them would object to have the Rev. Dr. Christo
pher Wordsworth for their spokesman, when he says :
" The destructive character of Romish principles, when carried to
their legitimate results, is, m my opinion, subversive of aU that is most
valuable and sacred in morals, politics, and religion."'
But pray, what is the connexion between a hearty abhorrence
of Roman superstition, and a sickly passion for all the crudities
of wilful dissent ? Or, to put the question in another light, is
not the relation between Catholic principles of Churchmanship
and a propensity for the errors of Trentine Popery, the mere
creation of puritanic religionism ? If not, then how comes it to
pass that, the noblest champions which our Church and country
have produced against the Pope and Popery, have invariably
been those very men whom the ultra-low Church party now
presume to calumniate, under the abusive titles of " Puseyites,"
&c. ? WeU would it be for these fiery zealots who confound
their own ideal orthodoxy with the Divine canon of Revelation,
1 to remember that, almost without one solitary exception, each
of those hapless men who have apostatised from the Catholic
Church of England to the sectarian communion of Rome in this
country, were the very men who once embodied, in all their
rankness and their bigotry, the precise principles which certain
admirers of Geneva in England, now profess and applaud.
Should, then, our remarks come uiider the eye of our mis
taken brethren who prostrate their conscience under that Pope
of their mistaken Protestantism, John Calvin, — we entreat
them not to disgrace reason, disgust common sense, by pouring
forth wholesale charges against men who are quite as conscien
tious in their allegiance to the word of God, as the holiest of
their party can be.* We would recommend to their perusal the
following extract from a work which, we doubt not, is well
known to them, " The Gospel in advance of the Age."
" 1. We must now introduce for our consideration, a Party in
decided opposition to the one we have just considered ; and that is —
the Sectarian party ; whose principles, theories, and efforts, also tend
' Letters to M. Gondon, p. 9.
2 The reader is requested to observe, that this extract was not inserted in " The
Theologian" by the same person who is responsible for the rest of the Article.

76 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
to promote and prolong those controversial agitations by which our
Church is now convulsed. In applying the term ' Sectarian' to this
class of persons, we are far from intending to insult by a sarcastic
term those whose piety we revere, and whose honest but mistaken
enthusiasm for what they consider evangelical orthodoxy, we highly
appreciate. But, amid this willing homage to their zeal and inte
grity, it cannot be disguised that in their views of an ecclesiastical con
stitution, the commission of the clergy, validity of sacraments, and the
corporate Being of a visible Church, — they symbolise to a very great
extent with those fundamental errors which are the root of all secta
rianism. Let us, then, explain ourselves in a kindly spirit, but still with
unflinching candour. The total corruption of our fallen humanity ; the
need of the regenerating Spirit to renew it unto the Divine image of
Jesus ; the universal redemption of mankind by the vicarious atone
ment of our Lord ; the justifying righteousness which cometh upon the
state of man, by faith in the Redeemer's work ; the sovereignties of free
grace ; sanctification by the Indwelling Spirit ; Scripture as the rule
of faith, as containing all things essential unto salvation ; — on these
high matters and holy mysteries, the Sectarian party are all which the
Church of the Living God in every age should be. But here they un
fortunately pause : and hence their faults are negative deficiencies,
rather than positive errors. They love an abstract Christianity, rather
than a defined Creed ; and have a religion, rather than a Church. The
spiritual, the unseen, and the unlimited, is that after which the yearn- '
ings of their hearts most tend ; while truths enshrined in visible forms,
positive laws embodied into palpable rites, and limiting ordinances from
without, which restrain, control, and correct the self-moving will within,
— are considered as an intrusive formalism, which their liberty of
conscience in Christ authorises them to reject. Hence, as it is un
deniable that, the organic form of our Church is opposed to any system
which resolves Christianity into the mere egotism of individual hfe
under an evangelical expression, — the Sectarian Party are often un
comfortable and dissatisfied at the ideal of corporate privilege, which
her liturgy and sacramental offices hold forth to all her engrafted mem
bers. They, for example, would like certain sublime assurances of
membership in Christ withdrawn from the Catechism; the baptismal
service they sometimes mutilate, and always desire it were modified ;
certain expressions too m the Eucharist they dislike, as tending too
strongly towards Romanistic errors ; while every allusion to the source,
nature, and authority of the Christian Priesthood of our Church, as a
function transmitted from Christ down through the Aposties, and by
them to their ministerial successors,— is either silently regretted, or
received with pious alarm. In one word, even as the Romanistic Party,
by their system, exaggerate the social life of the Church so as to absorb '
the indmdual ; so the Sectarian Party unhappily magnify the individual

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 77
life until they destroy the social. Thus by both parties, instead of that
subhme whole, under which the Church of Christ presents herself to
the consciousness of redeemed humanity, truth is distorted into a
mangled shape, where symmetry of feature and grace of expression no
longer exist. Of course, tendencies of this sectarian order have always
existed in our Church from the days of Puritanism ; but recent move-
nients and Romish assumptions have greatly increased, and heightened
them Viewmg with religious horror and just anxiety, the ulti-a views
which the Tractarian leaders have propounded ; moreover, being dis
gusted with the fanaticism, foppery, and antichristian bigotry of cer
tain parties who wish to revive a kind of spurious Romanism in our
Church,— these excellent but rather feeble-minded personages, have
rebounded to the very brink of dissenterism and congregational inde
pendency. Like their adversaries, thus have they committed the egre
gious blunder, of striving to e.xpel extreme principles by opposing con
trasts. Instead of humbly and prayerfully examining, how far the
Church-movement was allied with some deep want and religious cry
of the heart for more central hfe and visible unity, they have preferred
to look entirely at what appears wrong and dangerous : and are now
madly endeavouring to put down High Churchmanship, by virtually
denying that Jesus Christ established a visible Society, to be perpetuated
in fellowship with apostolical order ! And, indeed, it is a heart-dis
tressing spectacle to observe what is now going on in the Sectarian
Party. In order to sdence their Romanistic adversaries, they resort to
fierce assaults, personal charges, blind assertions, baseless arguments :
and, with an intention of being what they call ' Decided Protestants,'
sometimes terminate in being Evangehcal Chartists, — whose Church
is, ' I will ;' whose Christianity, ' 1 think ;' and whose Creed, ' I choose.'
Dismayed and shocked at the semi-papal mimicries of the Romish
mass-book, and the dramatic ritual wbich certain authors advocate, and
certain enthusiasts in our Church adopt, — they think it best to resist •
all this by a vehement denial of every one principle, which, in any
degree, authenticates the prerogatives of Christ's visible Church. Nay,
the bare sound of 'Church,' 'sacrament,' 'communion of the saints,'
'apostolical succession,' ' vahd orders,' &c., are notes of alarm, and
cause them to exclaim, 'Popery! Popery! — the Jesuits are coming,
and our Protestantism will be destroyed !' In accordance with this
unwise, and unspiritual conduct, newspapers, magazines, and tracts are
multiplied on all sides ; spies are sprinkled through our Churches ; and
if a clergyman should happen to fift his eyes in prayer, turn to the
east in repeating the Creed, have the ' Amens' in the service chanted,
or bow his head occasionally at the holy Name of Jesus ; above all,
should he describe the Church of England by her apostolical attributes,
¦ — why, ¦ correspondents' of all sizes and shapes will bespatter him in a
' rehgious newspaper,' and assail him with epithets which Hildebrand

78 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
himself almost deserved. And really, if the subject were not allied
with too much that is awful and responsible in man, we might be par
doned a smUe of compassion at that weak and womanish horror which
some pious enthusiasts display, whenever allusion is made to antiquity,
primitive order, and apostolical commission in our Church. As if, for
sooth, because the rule of St. Vincent of Lirens has been grievously exag
gerated and rashly applied, the antipodes of that principle must be
right ! Thus, ' Quod nunquam, quod nusquam, quod a nobismet ipsis,'
is to be the motto of modern evEuigelism. Thus, forsooth, tendencies to
Romanism on the one hand, are to be resisted by tendencies to secta
rianism on the other ! And how ludicrous likewise are the alarms,
which ignorant heads and bigoted hearts are taught to take by papers
and magazines, at every little rite or ceremony, which they consider as
novel and Papistic. Indeed, it sometimes comes to this, ' Puseyism'
means something / cannot appreciate, and 'Popery' something which
/ cannot comprehend. And is not this style of controversy and agita
tion, we demand, to be mourned over, by all who desire the spread
of gospel truth, and the increase of Messiah's kingdom ? Can any man
think that Romanistic dangers are to be overcome by such opposite ex
tremes ? Or that, if successful, they would not leave pur Church at
last to be absorbed into the multitudinous sects and schisms of our dis
tracted country. God forbid that the venerable Church of England
should have no other form of defence but one, which, in order to defend
her from the crafty superstitions of Rome, would hand her over to
the cruel mercies of Geneva.
" Meanwhile, perhaps, we shall not be considered arrogant, if we
venture to append some few remarks on the part which our friends are
taking, in this foolish endeavour to arrest the dreaded advances of Ro
mish error, by confronting them with principles which conduct us to
congregational dissent. Nothing, then, can be more Scriptural than
their views of a withering formahsm, which substitutes the ' opus opera-
turn' of outward rites, symbolic acts, and ritual observances, for that ,
spiritual life which is the essence of the soul's communion with its
reconciled God. Again ; nothing can be more just than their riews of
man's mdividual responsibility unto that Redeemer, whom the Gospel
proclaims to be the ' Head of every man.' But is that all we intend by
beUevers in Christ } Are we only to select that part of His revelation
which leads to personal experience, and neglect aU the rest, which
authorises and endows social communion, as an essential element in
ApostoHcal rehgion .? And it is precisely at this point so many of the
Evangehcal party break down, and are utteriy incompetent to contend
with those who not only beheve that Jesus Christ founded a religion for
man, but also organised an Express Society, to be administered by po
sitive laws, and expressed by fixed rites, definite Sacraments, and cere
monial acts,— through which His revealed system of faith and doctrine

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 79
should act itself out upon the hearts, and consciences of men. The
Christianity therefore of Christ, is not simply a spiritual influence felt by
the individual believer ; but it is also an incorporated membership with
an universal Body, or Kingdom of fellow-partakers in this influence ;
and which influence is itself a life dispensed over the whole Body from
one Head, Jesus Christ. It seems therefore that it is not according
' to the mind of Christ ' our religion should be nothing more than per
sonal experience, or individual life, however spiritual, holy, and rapt it
may be thought ; but that we should be ' joint heirs' of Him, and be
compacted into one Body of communing hearts and minds, where the
selfishness of the indiridual, will be counterpoised by the corrective law
of the social, life in Jesus. Now we fear the root of all sectarian errors
lies in this, namely, — that although Christ leaves man no choice for his
religious system. He does permit him to choose any form by which that
system can be developed. In other words, sectarians think the external
and the formal in Christianity are nothing; and that the internal and
spiritual are all. Hence, as a natural consequence, they practically deny
that Jesus Christ established a visible corporation, or externally organ
ised Church on earth ; and conclude that if a man belong to that eccle
siastical invention, that anomalous ideal, and imaginary home of all the
sects and schisms under the sun, yclept some invisible Church ! why, he
believes all which the Gospel requires. Now, we enter our protest against
this ; we solemnly, and in the name of Zion's crucified and crowned King,
appeed against this theory, as equally opposed to the glory of the Re
deemer, and the welfare of the Redeemed. On the contrary, so far from
believing that a man may choose what he calls ' his Church,' even as he
may select his residence, or from thinking that the risible Church is
nothing more than a voluntary adherence of separate and independent
units into any ecclesiastical organisation they choose, — we are convinced
that, as certainly as Christ revealed a system of Divine Truth, so cer
tainly did He authorise personally, and by His Apostles, a positive in
stitution, through which that truth might be applied. To enter on this at
full, is here out of the question : but inasmuch as our Lord's allusion to
a ' kingdom' in His sermon to Nicodemus, involves this, and as the great
controversy of the day turns on this very point, we shall just intimate
the heads of an argument, for a reply against those sectarian disposi
tions which deny the social, in order to protect the individual life of
the Church.
" 1. The signs of God intending humanity to exist under the mode
of a spiritual constitution, are not confined to Scripture ; but may be
eridenced by the fact that, every human being who comes into the
world, — enters it under the law of relationship: hence, the family
constitution is an eloquent symptom of God's intention that.man should
not exist for Mmself alone. In like manner we may reason from the
fact that national communions exist; which are also signs of some

80 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
universal and positive institutes, designed to limit the indulgence of
individuality; and which institutes, moreover, do exist, whether man
wills it, or not.
" 2. A Church absolutely invisible on earth, would seem to be a mere.
creation of the intellect, which can have no objective reality in this
coarse and actual world. Even the sect called the Quakers, who more
than anybody have desired to hve upon the Idea of an internal or un
seen Church, — have been compelled to use some risible tokens and
outward signs, wherewith to connect themselves with the world, and
with one another.
"3. We demand where the invisible Church, as essentially distmct
from the visible, is recognised by ihe Bible ? Indeed, so far as we
have read the Scripture, we can only detect one Church of the living
God from the beginning, — ' the ground and pillar of the truth.' When
Churches are spoken of in particular, the distinction is geographical,
and the plurality altogether a thing of local definition.
" 4. Although it be manifest, when we compare the magnificent
privileges and mysterious endowments which Scripture attributes to
the ' Body of Christ,' with its present characteristics, — we are ap
palled by the hideous and unholy contrasts which present themselves,,
— yet does the same Scripture prepare us for this. A blended con
dition of light and darkness ; of sin and holiness ; of chaff and
wheat ; of branches which bear fruit, and those which bear none ; of
nets which hold good fish and bad; — such is the description which
our Lord Himself gives of His Gospel kingdom on earth, till the
grand hour of final separation before His throne arrives. And we
may ask, is not this sad inconsistency in the experience of the uni
versal ' Body,' illustrated by a resembling experience as to every
• member in particular' ? If the corporate life of the Church be so
lamentably deficient, is not the individual life of the believer continu
ally marred, by a like defection from holiness and truth ?
" 5. We have before endeavoured to prove, that if religion only
provided for man's welfare as a spiritual unit, it would be a defec
tive system ; and altogether out of analogy with those relations which
every human being bears to the settled constitution of a family, and a
nation. Indeed, spiritual egotism would be all which such an isola
tion of religious principle would produce. A law of positive restraint
to act upon our faculties from without, is just as requisite to the per
fection of our nature, as a spiritual principle to operate on our moral
springs within.
"6. The whole doctrine of the Church, as laid down in the Bible,
confirms this view of the Church as designed not to be only an unseen
influence for the individual ; but an imbodied Constitution, a visible
framework, or sacramental Ark, — for containing and preserving the
truth.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 81
"7. Both the rehgious wants, and the very nature ofa man, require
something outward and visible, as well as the inward and invisible, in
religion. And this is true, because, 1st, Body and soul were both
brought under the curse by primal transgressions ; and therefore, the
spiritual corrective must be appHed to both parts of our compounded
being. And 2d, By a primitive law of our nature, every internal
principle seeks to express itself by some outward development ; and, by
such external manifestation, both strengthens itself, and the religious
constitution out of which it proceeds. Now, with what consistency
can it be maintained, that Christianity violates the whole analogy of
our human being in every other respect } If the rehgious principle
be truly inward as a life, why should it not also be really outward
in development? Hence, rites, ceremonies, and sacramental emblems
become requisites, in order to interpret through sensible media to
others, what must otherwise have been incarcerated in our own solitary
bosoms. " 8. Analogical proofs that spiritual powers and agencies should
operate upon humanity through external and by defined forms, which
depend upon God's absolute will alone for their authority, — abound
on all sides, and wonderfully strengthen the argument for a visible
Church, to be considered as an organised receptacle for those who re
ceive Christ for their Lord. Thus, when we contemplate 4;he myste
rious kingdom of nature, we have no revelation of nude essences and
abstract l^ws ; but what we call by the names of Gravitation, Attrac
tion, Chemical Affinity, &c., are mere exponents of a hidden life, thus
realised to a man's observing senses. So also, if we revert to God's
empire of proridential government, we behold all carried on through
the palpable instrumentality of acts, persons, and events, which, how
ever transient and slight they may outwardly appear, often produce
influences on the spiritual destinies of mankind, beyond human calcu
lation to overtake. Let not, therefore. Rationalism cavil at the exceed
ing glory of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ being asso
ciated with a form of communication, so simple as bread and wine :
— for, how often have the revolution of kingdoms and the welfare of
untold myriads depended on a look or tone, a passing word or single
deed, of a human being }
" 9. In order to perpetuate religious principles and sacred doctrines,
it appears necessary to enclose them in the protective framework of
palpable rites, ceremonies, and exterior symbols. In accordance with
this requirement, God has ever communicated Himself to our nature
chiefly by Tokens and Testimonies, which were the coverings of His
spiritual approach to the soul of man. Thus did He manifest Himself
in fiery visions, a ' cloud of glory,' &c., to the patriarchal and Mosaic
worshippers, of old. Hence we conclude, the Kingdom of Christ is
not simply truth revealed, and grace and gifts imparted; but that it

82 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
also consists of a positive institution, wherein and whereby, such truth,
grace; and gifts are taught and conveyed.
"10. The spiritual and the visible are distinctions, but not opposites.
The one may be intelligibly allied vrith the other ; even as the soul is
not less real in the body, than when out of it. Those, therefore, who
are afraid to admit the importance of the visible in rehgion, are as
much mistaken in their philosophy, as they are incomplete in their
Christianity. "11. Again : it is very remarkable that, in the New Testament our
corporate life of spiritual privilege in the Body of Christ, is far more the
subject of apostolical counsel, exhortation, and warning, than the per
sonal experience of the single believer. The ' we ' and the ' us ' are
infinitely more frequent than the ' I ' and ' thou.' Now, a Communion,
to be effective and permanent, must be organic ; and therefore some
external institute is plainly implied, as a means for collecting the indi
ridual members into a generic whole. In other terms, a visible Church
must be constituted, if an external Communion is to be maintained in
this sensible world.
" 12. Finally (and as we venture to think, incontesiably), in Scripture,
again and again, by analogies, metaphors, figures, parables, &c., God's
elect in Christ are so described, as to annul the idea, that the mere faith
of the individual is all which the dispensation of Christ is intended to
produce. As a proof; consider that ' the Church ' is represented under
the following illustrations : a ' Bride,' the ' King's Daughter,' the
¦' Beloved,' a ' Mountain,' the ' Lord's House or Temple,' the ' Kingdom
of Heaven,' the ' Body of Christ,' the ' Spouse,' the 'Lamb's Wife,' the
' Ground and Pillar of Truth.' Now, if we attach any meaning at all to
these phrases, it must be one which implies the soul's experimental
union with Christ, and through Him, sympathetic communion of the
Saints with each other. True, our blessed Lord says, ' The kingdom of
God is within you;'^ but this assertion does not, in the remotest degree,
interfere with the doctrine of a Catholic Body, public and palpable, to
be seen, and heard, and understood of men. It simply intimates that
the primary work of the Divine Spirit is ' within ' the circle of man's
own invisible spirit; but, when that spirit is thus quickened by the
Sanctifier, the new principle of heavenly life in Christ wiU speedily
embody itself in exterior operations, and thus become a member of the
Church catholic and visible. In truth, an objection against a Positive
Church from this text, would be equally fatal to all conjunction, or out
ward fellowship, for any religious purpose whatsoever.
" Thus, then, we humbly think, that the sectarian party who desire
to subdue into silence theh Romanistic opponents, by making personal
Truth all, and corporate Life nothing, — cannot fortify their position either
by the principles of reason, the analogies of Providence, or the declara-
1 Luke xvii. 20, 21.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 83
tions of Scripture. Let them, rather, meet them on the scriptural ground
which the Church of England takes, whose doctrines, both as to Indi
viduality and Cathohcity, are in perfect harmony both with the teach
ings of the Bible, and the moral need of the human mind. She neither
exaggerates, distorts, contracts, nor abbreviates one principle in rehgion,
in order to enforce another ; but, finding it the will of Christ that man's
individual life should be maintained in conjunction with his social life.
She provides for both with maternal love, spiritual wisdom, and tender
care. And would to God, instead of rending our Church by these
unholy controversies, we could all say with affectionate reverence. Oh !
my Mother Church, ' If I forget Thee, let my right hand forget her
cunning !' " — Gospel in Advance of the Age, Part 3.
We must now call the reader's attention to Mr. Christie's
triumphant pamphlet, which, in every respect, merits a meed of
earnest gratitude from all loyal Churchmen and honest men. It
is, indeed, what the title-page asserts, both a " Vindication" of
the Church in Scotland and an " Exposure'' of a hollow piece
of controversial injustice, dignified by the inapplicable title of
" Historical Sketch." Of course, Mr. Drummond's sentiments
can only be known to his God and himself. But this we do
fearlessly assert, tbat not only has Mr. Christie utterly de
molished him as a controversialist, but at the same time exposed
such polemical unfairness, as to render any man with a healthy
conscience, humiliated for the remainder of his days.
Mr. Christie's pamphlet should be read vrith the deepest
attention by every one : it completely exhausts, and in a most
masterly manner, the whole subject. It consists of three chap
ters, in each of wbich he writes like an earnest-hearted and
loyal-spirited Churchman ; not with bitterness, or with spleen,
but at the same time, with no false delicacy and feminine hesita
tion, when be feels himself called upon to denounce the per
versions which sully the pages of tbat printed Thing, which is
called a " Sketch." Our extracts must be chiefly taken from
his first chapter, which disproves to demonstration " the Legal
Position of Schismatics from tbe Tenth of Queen Anne, and
other Acts of Parliament." We consider this chapter, upon
the whole, by far tbe most valuable in the work, because it cuts
away the fallacious ground upon which this heartless Schism has,
again and again, so insolently proclaimed itself to stand. Our
readers, we presume, are acquainted with the intense Erastianism
of Mr. Drummond's plea, derived from what he calls the " statute

84 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
law of the realm." And here, we cannot but express our won
der, that a Clergyman, who stood forth to be cheered on the
platform of the " Free Kirk" Assembly, when it first met in
the Cannon Mills of Edinburgh, should be, positively, the most
political ecclesiastic we have almost ever met. He seems to be
utterly unacquainted even with the theory of a spiritual Organisa
tion, constituted by Incarnate Deity, and deriving all its essential
privileges and Sacramental properties from Him alone. So far
as we can understand his views, they appear to us, if carried out
to their utmost tension of untruth, almost to render a Parliament
the Political God of English Erastianism. So again, in regard
to the powers of Excommunication, which are requisite to the
very being of a spiritual constitution like the Church, he appears
to be equally in the dark; and yet, even the most irregular
communions on earth, which approximate to the lowest preten
sions of being disciplined organs of truth, might have taught him
a sounder theology. Obviously, he and his compeers, associate
the idea of papal mercilessness with excommunication ; but are
excommunication and cruelty convertible terms ? If so, then
why did not Messrs. Drummond and Co. lift their testimony
against Dr. Candlish, &c., who, in a public document of that
day, declared the Sacraments, as administered by the seven pro
scribed ministers of Strathbogie, as invalid? And why? Be
cause the " Free Kirk" party had ejected these men from the
Scotch Establishment, for their obedience to the Civil Courts.
So much for consistency on the part of the English Schismatics,
who are in shudders of sacred alarm, when ¦& Scottish Prelate
ventures to exercise even the milder laws of canonical discipline.
But now let us present the reader with our promised extracts
from Mr. Christie.
At page 12, we read :
"We now proceed to overturn, yet further, his assumptions, from
the title and language of Queen Anne's Act. It may be well to do this
from the quotations he has himself made.
" ' It shall be free and lawful,' he quotes, ' for all those of the
Episcopal communion in that part of Great Britain called Scotland, to
meet and assemble for the exercise of Divine Worship, to be per
formed after their own manner, by Pastors ordained by a Protestant
Bishop,' &c. The Act is styled, ' an Act to prevent the disturbing
those of the Episcopal Communion in that part of Great Britain
called Scotiand, and in the use of the Liturgy of the Church of

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 85
England,' &c. It is very important that the reader bear in mind the
words which Mr. Drummond has ' warily' left out at these two et cmteras.^
" 1. Instead of the second ' et catera,' we should have been pre
sented with the following language : ' and for repealing the Act passed
in the Parhament of Scotland, intituled an Act against irregular Bap
tisms and Marriages.' If these words, which occur in the title of the
Act, had been given, they would at once have pointed out, in the
clearest manner possible, the religious body for whose benefit it was
enacted ; namely, the clergy of the Scottish Church, who, under the
invidious appellation of ' outed ministers,' were prohibited and dis
charged by the Act" passed in the Parliament of Scotland ' from bap
tising any children or solemnising marriages betwixt any parties, under
pain of imprisonment, ay, and while he find caution to go out of the
Kingdom and never return thereto.' It is obvious, then, from the
title of Queen Anne's Act, that it was for the protection of the Scottish
branch of the Church, which was now allowed to perform those holy
offices which its own parliament had strictly prohibited. ' Let the reader
bear this in mind.'
" 2. The declarations omitted at the first ' et cxtera' are even more
remarkable and significant, and testify stiU more strongly against his
claim : ' and who are not established Ministers of any Church or
Parish, and to use in their congregations the Liturgy of the Church of
England, if they think fit.' To leave out these words, and those at the
other et ceetera, was certainly a prudent, although a most dishonest
caution." At page 15 the Author thus sums up his evidence :
" ' Let it, then, be distinctly noted how the matter stands.' We
have proved —
" 1. That the 10th of Queen Anne recognises and sanctions no
• Episcopal ministers' but ' Pastors ordained by Scotch Protestant
Bishops.' " 2. That to persons so ordained, ' to such Episcopal ministers and
those of their own communion,' it extends fuU protection ; and more
over, allows them ' to perform Dirine Worship after their own manner ;'
the Church in Scotland can make her own prayers and communion
office, or she may ' use, if she thinks fit, the Liturgy of the Church of
England.' " 3. That such Scotch ordained ' Episcopal ministers and those
of their own Communion,' can call upon all Sheriffs, Magistrates, and
Justices of the Peace to give them aU manner of protection' against
' " He gives an abstract of the Act indeed in his Appendix ; but when, in the
body of his work, he would prove his ' legal position' from it, he is obliged to have
recourse to suppression." G

86 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
the intrusion or interference of any ministers or members of the ' estab
lishments' in either country.
" And, lastiy, that English or Irish ordained clergymen, if they
wish to avail themselves of its protection and sanction, must place
themselves under the jurisdiction of the Scottish Bishops, and become
' ministers of their communion.'"
After a masterly exposure of Mr. Drummond's unfair use of
certain arguments falsely drawn from Mr. Greenshields' ecclesi
astical position in Scotland, Mr. Christie thus proceeds :> —
" 3. He says, the Bishop thus expresses himself: ' After alluding
to the supposed violation of this statute, by the introduction of the
Liturgy into an English chapel, they legislate,' &c. Let the reader
peruse the paragraph from which this extract is made, and he will
find that the sentiment conveyed in the language is not Bishop Rus
sell's, but that of ' the commission of the general assembly.' It was,
however, convenient for Mr. Drummond to say so, that he might con
vict the Bishop of inconsistency and fallacy ; ' the Bishop uses the
very expression in 1834, which he so pointedly condemns in 1844, a
title by which he warns all ' not to be deceived.' The et ceetera was
useful here also, that Mr. Drummond's readers might infer that Mr.
Greenshields, as an English clergyman, ' introduced' the reading of
the Enghsh Liturgy; whereas, had he continued his quotation, they
would have seen, that the commission ordered ' presbyteries, in whose-
bounds these innovations are, or may happen to be, to take notice of
such innovators [not innovator], and innovations, and be careful to
prosecute the foresaid innovators.' Well did he himself know, from
the Bishop's history, that, for many years before Mr. Greenshields
returned to Scotland, ' the use of the English Book of Common Prayer
became very general in the Episcopal Chapels throughout the greater
part of Scotland — it was almost every where adopted.'
" 4. We come now to a still more glaring suppression. The Bishop
records that Mr. Greenshields ' produced his letters of orders revised
and approved by the Lord Primate of all Ireland and by two other
Bishops, as was attested by their several subscriptions' Instead of the
words printed in italics, Mr. Dnimmond puts an ' etc.,' well assured
that, had he done otherwise, he would have been obhged to ' unravel
the web' and mention the fact related by the Bishop, that Mr. Green
shields, after all, did not derive his orders from England, hut was
' ordained by the deprived Bishop of Ross soon after the Revolution ! !'
' Hence his efforts to divert the pubUc mind from its consideration,'
we are using the language of the ' Sketch,' that he might the more
easily make the assertion, ' Mr. Greenshields had no connexion with
1 P. 30.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 87
the strictly indigenous Clergy, but was ' an English minister in Scot
land at that day ! I'"'
We reluctantly pass over much excellent matter, and beg
the reader's attention to another specimen of Mr. Christie's
" Exposure." " ' The pertinacious adherence,' says Mr. Drummond, ' of the
Scotch Episcopal Church to the doctrines as developed in the Scotch
Communion Office, is the cause and origin of the continued opposition
which has existed from the beginning of the last century to the present
day, between the two Episcopal Communions in Scotland.' A more
daring and gross misrepresentation could sCcU'cely be made. Yet such
is this man's obtusion or hardihood, that he repeatedly states the
same, forgetful that he stands convicted by the unvarnished declara
tion of Mr. Miles, marked by his friend in capitals to arrest attention,
of ' Injustice — This is the cause of my secession !' forgetful also of the
truth which he himself elsewhere acknowledges in his ' Sketch,' with a
desire, too, that it may be noted by his readers !'- 'I wish likewise
expressly to state that the Scotch Communion office was not the cause
(the italics are Mr. Drummond's own,) of my leaving the Scotch
Episcopal Church. That I have distinctly made known in my ' rea
sons for withdrawing, &c. ! !'^ It is both marvellous and instruc
tive to observe how truth is frequently elicited, in defiance of all efforts
towards concealment. The sequel of his work has destroyed his
statement, and, curious enough, Mr. Drummond and his own friend
are the insti'uments in accomplishing his destruction ! ! But, although
he had not fumished us with this striking specimen of self-condemna
tion, there is no one, with the shghtest pretension to a knowledge of
Ecclesiastical history but knows assuredly, that ' the cause of the op
position between the two Episcopal bodies' was sltogether political —
originating in unrighteous and persecuting Acts of Parliament passed
against the wish of the whole of the English Bishops ; Acts, however,
which were repealed by the statute of King George the Third in 1792,
and gave place to the statute of tbe 10th of Queen Anne. ' As Enghsh
ordained Clergy,' writes Lawson,* ' had taken oaths which the Scot
tish Bishops and Clergy refused during tbe life of Prince Charles
Edward, they could not, on account of their political situation, submit
to the jurisdiction of the Scottish Bishops. On the other hand, they
laboured under all the disadvantages resulting from the want of Epis
copal Superintendence ; and, although they professed themselves to be
Episcopahans, they were ui reality independents, and were under no
superior ecclesiastical cognisance. Many of them were, indeed, well
aware of their pecuhar situation, and of the inconvenience resulting
1 Sketch, p. 134. ' Sketch, p. 78.
3 Hist. p. 345. ¦" Annals.

88 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
fi-om it ; but it still appeared to them, that so long as the penal laws
existed, they could not consistently unite with the Church.' But, no
sooner were ' the penal laws,' the true ' cause and origin of the op
position,' repealed, than the more thoughtful and consistent of the
Enghsh Clergy joined the Church. ' Out of twenty-two chapels m a
state of separation, fifteen united themselves.' "'
Again, we entreat the regard of all candid minds to another
specimen of the manner in which the maligned Communion
Ofiice of the Scottish Church has been perverted into a poor
apology for Schism.
" This man and his followers have, in various ways, been guilty of
much insincerity. He signed Canons wbich recognise the Scottish
office as ' of primary authority' and as ' the authorised serrice' of the
Church in Scotland. Yet, he says, he knew nothing of its nature!
Why, then, dared he to declare repeatedly, that the Scottish office was
' the cause and origin of the opposition between the two Episcopalian
bodies in Scotland ?' — ' Episcopalian bodies !' There were only two
congregations in ' opposition' to the Church, until he had the unenri-
able notoriety and satisfaction of renewing the schism. But he was not
ignorant of the Scottish office. The Rev. A. Lendrum, of Muthill, in
his excellent pamphlet, declares — ' He knew well of the existence of the
Scotch Communion office, and must have been aware of its contents
from his childhood ; for his family were members of my congregation,
and attended the serrice of the Church with as much regularity as a
distance of eleven miles would permit. They were always communi
cants when the opportunity offered. In this Church no other than the
Scottish Communion office was ever used since a Liturgy was intro
duced.' Yes ; ' he knew well of the existence' and the nature of the
office. He sought preferment in the Church, when her hohest serrice
was virulently slandered and stigmatised by Dr. Henderson, of Aber
deen, and when one of his brethren of the Edinburgh clergy wrote a
pamphlet in rindication of his Holy Mother."^
One more quotation, and we must refer to " The Deputa
tion." The necessity of a permission from our English Prelates,
in order to allow an Episcopal Clergyman from Scotland to offi
ciate in any Churches belonging to their respective dioceses, — ^has
been meanly paraded as an argument against the full recognition
of the Scottish Church by her Anglican Sister. To this Mr.
Christie thus replies : —
" The necessity of this ' written permission' shews, he says, that
there is only a ' certain communion' between the Churches. But, he
ought to have knovra that by the Sth of Queen Elizabeth's uijunctions,
^ P. 71. " P. 90.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 89
and by the 36th and 50th Canons of the Church of England, no Cler
gyman of English Orders can legally officiate in another diocese in Eng
land without a hcense from the Bishop of the diocese. Hence, accord
ing to Mr. Drummond, there must ' only be a certain communion' be
tween the dioceses of the same Church of England ! In other words,
one diocese of the Church of England is not in fuU communion with
another ! ! In corroboration of what we have advanced, we shall tran
scribe the foUowing language from a note appended to the Bishop of
Glasgow's charge for 1845. ' As it fell to my lot," writes the Bishop,
' to be deputed by my brethren of the Episcopal order here, to answer
in London such questions as might be put to me relative to the objects
of the proposed bill, I had an opportunity of becoming acquainted with
the reasons which dictated the restriction now mentioned. ' When
legislating,' said one of their Lordships of the English Bench, ' we can
not place you on a better footing than our own Clergy, for the law of
our Church is, that the Clergy of one diocese shall not officiate in any
other diocese without permission from the Bishop of that other. — This
law,' he added, ' has long been a dead letter amongst us, for the Clergy
go from one diocese to another without asking anybody's leave ; and
such wdl soon be the law which we are making for you.' "^
And now, let us proceed to oSer a few comments on that bald
and meagre production, headed, " Report of the Deputation,"
&c., which obviously emanates from the genius of Mr. Drum
mond. But, inasmuch as an Irish Prelate's censure of the Scot
tish Communion Ofl5ce has been boastfully exhibited, let us
preface what remains by yet one more passage on this subject.
The Bishop of Cashel having asserted " the word Protestant
does not occur once in the Canons of 1838," Mr. Christie re
marks, — " if he had looked at the Canons instead of plagiarising
from the ' Sketch,' he would have seen that it occurs twice in one
page." And then follows a pointed refutation of the Popish
calumny : —
" The sentiment of the pious Bishop Home must force itself upon
him, that the Scottish office is more scriptural and primitively Catholic
than his own. The English consecrates after the Roman form; but
the Scottish in the language of the ancient Liturgies, and after their
manner — 1. By using our Saviour's words of Institution ; 2. An obla
tion ; and 3. An Invocation. And, be it remembered, the very lan
guage of her Invocation, which has been said to savour so much of
Roman corruption, has, as we remarked in our ' Vindication of the
Scottish office,' been denounced by ' the Cardinals Bessarion, Bona,
Arcadius, and Goar.' because it is opposed to the doctrine of transub-
1 P. 116.

90 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
stantiation ! Cardinal Bona, for example, pronounces the primitive
manner of consecration, and especially the primitive invocation-prayer,
such as occurs verbatim in the Scottish office, as ' a most vricked and
execrable error.' Away, then, with the Bishop of Cashel's calumny
that our national office is Roman."'
We must now introduce, what Mr. Drummond is pleased to
designate, " Report of a Deputation appointed (by whom ?) at a
Meeting held in Aberdeen, May 1846." And let us at once
candidly confess, that on perusing this very extraordinary pro
duction, we almost suspected the " Deputation" were four
ingenious persons, who, being desirous of changing the air,
took a trip into England in order to enjoy a solemn experiment
on the credulity of Anglican Prelates. But, supposing this
" Report " to be genuine, we ask our readers if the annals of
History contain anything so utterly at variance' with good taste,
canonical practice, or common sense ? Here are three English
Presbyters (witb an unfortunate victim in the shape of a medical
layman, after the manner of an Appendix), who, after having
broken loose from their vowed obedience to the Scottish Bishops,
and insulted their Church with every possible contumely, — coolly
march into England, in order to delude the English Bishops into
combination with their proceedings ! Only imagine, reader, the
mild and venerable Primate of England, and various other Pre
lates, — being compelled into an interview with these intruders,
who, not content with doing their utmost to promote schism in
Scotland, have the intolerable presumption to expect that the
Church of England, through her Prelacy, is to countersign their
misdemeanour! Bad as have been all the preceding steps of
these misguided Presbyters, we think this last is enough to
shock every person who understands the first principles of eccle
siastical decency. But our readers must be regaled with a speci
men of the " Report."
" Your Deputation left Scotiand on the 8th of June, and, after
spending a day in Liverpool, proceeded at once to London. Those of
the deputation who first arrived there, having taken counsel with one
or two well-known and tried friends, agreed that it was adrisable at
once to put themselves in communication with the Bishops of their
Church. They did this, not to obtain a recognition of their position,
which is already done by the statute law of the country, but from
courtesy to the Rulers of their Church, to shew them the respect due
to their office, and, by a voluntary explanation of what has taken place
' P. 121.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 91
in Scotland, to afford them an opportunity of asking any questions in
reference to those events."'
This is pretty well for a commencement. The solemnity of
"your deputation"! and above all, the stultifying nonsense of
saying in one breath " not to obtain a recognition," &c. and
yet professing all the while " courtesy to the Rulers of the
Church." Marvellous courtesy indeed ! though certainly not
much better than schismatical principles might be supposed to
generate. Tbe character of the courtesy is quite on a par with
the natui'e of its origin.
The next quotation is really quite amusing, admirably
suited to the preposterous folly of the whole. " Your deputa
tion were received with great courtesy, and their statements
listened to with marked attention." Surely his Grace and
their Lordships are in danger : the fatal eloquence of " your de
putation" is about to prevail ; but do not be alarmed, reader ;
the whole matter seems to end in this — neither his Grace nor
their Lordships forgot what was due to good breeding and
Christian propriety, and therefore they listened patiently. We
derive this comfortable assurance from the next passage which is
given us.
" In most instances their Lordships entered freely into the question
at issue, and the prominent points of the case were brought fully under
their notice. Several objections, your deputation have reason to be
heve, were removed by a mere statement of facts. One of the Right
Reverend Prelates, whose judgment had been aheady known to be ad
verse to the cause of Enghsh Episcopacy in Scotland, admitted that
your deputation had ' made several statements of great weight,' whUe
some expressed a warm and affectionate interest in the success of the
cause. " It is true that several Prelates, who were known to be inimical,
expressly refrained from giving any opinion on the questions brought
before them — nor, indeed, were they or any other of the bishops asked
to do SO; and whUe it would be unfair to draw from their sUence,
under such circumstances, the inference, that they favoured the pro
ceedings of the English Episcopahans in Scotland, yet it is also true
that, whatever might be the riews privately entertained by some of the
Prelates who were waited upon, no condemnation was uttered by any
one of them to the deputation, regarding the attempt now made to
maintain the rights of the members of the English Church in Scotland."
Till we have further proof, Messrs. " your Deputation"
must allow us to doubt the fact mentioned in the concluding
' Pages.

Q2 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
lines. We do not, and cannot believe, that some at least of our
Prelates must not have condemned a Schism, which makes the
Anglican Church virtually the persecutrix of her Sister in Scot
land. We dare say, however, the reader, with ourselves, is
quite content with such specimens of the proceedings of these
people. We must, therefore, be very brief in what remains.
The following extract ought, however, to be quoted, because
it is characteristic of the sophistry which distinguishes the whole
spirit of this schismatical revolt.
" In an interview with one of the Prelates, who had openly ex
pressed an opinion unfavourable to the cause of Enghsh Episcopacy in
Scotland, the Bishop asked Mr. Dmmmond whether it was not true
that, for the space of four years before he left the Scottish Episcopal
Church, he had acted in opposition to Bishop Terrot's wishes and ad
monitions. Mr. Drummond assured the Bishop that the assertion was
utterly unfounded ; that he had never been interfered vrith m his minis
try by Bishop Terrot tiU within a fortnight of his leaving the Scottish
Episcopal Church; and that he resigned his charge for the express
purpose of not occupying the false position of professed submission, but
real resistance."'
Now, we beg tbe reader's attention to this passage. One of
our Bishops asks Mr. Drummond whether he had not " acted
in opposition to Bishop Terrot's wishes and admonitions for the
space of four years ?" And pray, what is the answer ? why this :
" He had never been interfered with in his ministry by Bishop
Terrot." Observe the Jesuitry here. In the way of public ad
monition, it is true Bishop Terrot did not " interfere" with Mr.
Drummond's " ministry ;" but Mr. Drummond knows as well as
ourselves, that for a long period, his dissenting proceedings in a
hired hall were utterly opposed to the " wishes " of the Bishop,
and in many private ways he was acquainted with this fact.
Moreover, he knew that nothing but a nervous dislike to disturb
the harmony of the Church delayed the canonical " admonition"
which Mr. Drummond finally received. ^
One more passage, and we leave this most repulsive " Report."
" Your deputation took the opportunity of assuring the Bishops of
the Church of England, that their present position was one of necessity,
' P. 6.
^ Why did not Mr. Drummond also have the candour to tell the English Pre
late, that Bishop Terrot cociD not have " interfered" much earlier than he actually
did, — because at the period referred to, he had not long been consecrated Bishop of
Edinburgh ?

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 93
and not of choice. That it was from no love of change, nor from any
restless desire to be free from due ecclesiastical control, that the mem
bers of the Church of England had acted as they have done, but because
they were fuUy satisfied that, had they done otherwise, they would have
been betraying the interests of their own Church, and, what is of stUl
higher moment, the interests of Christianity itself. They expressed their
readiness to have their communion so organised in Scotland as to put
to silence those who could see nothing in their movement but rebeUion
against constituted authority, and defiance of all control. They endea
voured to shew, that it is of the very essence of true and scriptural sub
mission to authority to resist aU that is unlawful and corrupt." '
Surely, the audacity of this crowns all ! They expressed their
readiness to have their " Communion (of what and with what ?)
so organised." What does the " Deputation" mean ? Pray, do
the English schismatics intend to solicit an English Bishop to
preside over a Sectarian mass of discontented people, who spend
their lives in abusing Scottish Prelates, and in writing pages
upon pages in religious journals, in dispraise of the " Scotch
Office ?" Truly, we hope there is a little sense of propriety,
and some spark of sacred conscience, yet alive in the English
Church !
But we must now conclude ; and let us aSbrd the reader our
parting assurance that, however we may have treated the sub
ject, we terminate this paper with no other feelings than those of
sadness, and solemnity. Personally we know little, or nothing, of
the English Presbyters whose unnatural revolt we so deeply re
gret; still less can we possibly retain for them, as individuals,
the slightest unkindness. Indeed, should these pages meet their
eye, we hope they may at least persuade them to reconsider their
conduct, and yet to return, with holy contrition for the past, to
the bosom of that Church they have so grievously outraged.
Let them be assured of this, — that finally they cannot, and will
not, succeed in their wretched attempt to render the Anghcan
Church the insulting Persecutrix of the Church in Scotland.
By degrees, the exaggerations of Party will be removed, and the
mists of prejudice rolled away ; and then, those who have been
deluded into a partial support of their schism, will be the fore
most to condemn their conduct, and repudiate their principles.
Again we say to these rebellious Presbyters, " Consider your
way ,¦" and may the blessed Spirit of Harmony, Peace, and Love,
so instigate the hearts of these erratic Presbyters, as to " bring
' P. 35.

94 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
them home" to the shepherds they have outraged, and to the
folds they have deserted.
At all events, the duty of the Scottish Church is clear and
plain ; and with intense earnestness do we supplicate the Great
Head of'His Mystical Body, to bestow upon Her, in larger de
grees and far loftier results than ever, the rich abundance of His
protecting favour and grace. Most gladly do we echo the spiri
tual heroism of those sentiments, which occur towards the close
of Mr. Christie's pamphlet; nor can we imagine, there is one
truly Catholic Clergyman in Christendom, who will not give
to them his high approval, and hearty Amen. Speaking of the
Church of England, he says :
" If she, who is mighty, who has the command of numbers and of
wealth, and smUes under the caresses of the State ; if she, who is so
highly favoured, has had her spiritual decisions set at nought by that
law which is bound to support and protect her, — wonder not if her poor
and humbled and despised Scottish sister, who has long been tried in
the furnace of affliction and persecution, and is now but merely tolerated,
should meet with a simUar fate. The Court of Session may thus treat
her, and exact penalties from her for ' declaring' Sir WUliam Dunbar
guilty of schism ; but, as the Archdeacon of Middlesex has weU re
marked in his late charge, ' If any act can be an act of schism, surely
that is so, when a Clergyman, who owes a spiritual obedience to his
Bishop, establishes himself as a Pastor of an Independent Congrega
tion.'"' ' As the charge against the validity of the Scottish succession and Orders, is
renewed, and this, too, by the same men who assert that apostolical succession is a
tractarian figment, — let lis hear what Mr. Christie states in his " Critical Analy
sis," which has just appeared :
" The schismatic conscious ofhis calumny against the Scottish Orders.
" The sorrow of the sincere Christian, on reflecting on the self-willed conduct of
the originator of this schism, must be increased ten-fold by a knowledge of the fact
that he was perfectly conscious, from Lawson and Skinner, that he was propagating
atrocious libels against the orders of the Scottish Church. He saw Lawson stigma
tising the calumnies and untruths he was uttering from the mouth of a Sievewright 
as retailed in 1842, by Dr. Brown, a sectarian— as ' discoveries,' which ' he ought,
as a learned Doctor of Divinity,' to have known from the Concordate of 1731 were
' untruthful assertions ;' and ' if he was well aware of this document, and purposely
suppressed it,' as Mr. Drummond did its sixth Article, ' he'— and have we not
occasion to add Mr. Drummond too?— ' displayed a dishonesty and mahgnity so
marked, as to make all their opinions and statements utterly valueless and contempt-
ible.'2 But more ; Mr. Drummond was well aware that Skinner ' was the more
particular,' as he expresses himself, ' in relating the circumstances of the Con-
cordate, on purpose by a plain historical deduction of well-attested facts, to vindi-
" Lawson's Hist. p. 260.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 95
cate the character of Bisliops Battray, Dunbar, and Keith, from whom our present
Bishops derive their succession, and whose consecration some even of our Episcopal
adversaries have been at pains to represent in false coloui-s." He knew all this.
He had read Mr. Skinner's Vindication, and Lawson's Denunciations also ; and yet
he could, without the slightest compunction, represent the orders of the Church in
false coloura ! He could sit down calmly and deliberately to repeat and urge the
very same ' untruthful assertions' ' of our Episcopal adversaries,' which he saw were
completely opposed to ' well-attested facts.''
" The Allegation founded on Perceval's list of Succession, the result of suppression.
" One would naturally think that Mr. Drummond had now expended all his efforts
in the art of fallacious invention. But no : this property of sprouting afresh, after being
again cut up by the roots, is as remarkable in Mr. Drummond as, according to him,
it is iu Rome itself: ' the root,' from which, he says, ' the fatal Upas-tree of Popery
first sprang, still possesses such powers of renascence, that it soon begins to put forth
its leaves and its fruit again, and to poison with its noxious shade.' His inventive
faculties can be neither killed nor crushed. He must complete his libels and accu
sations against the Church's orders by reference to Perceval's Catalogue of the Scot
tish Bishops, being the most unsatisfactory one which he could select. He saw,
even there, however, the list of succession given, be it remembered, unbroken ; but
because Mr. Perceval, in twenty-six instances, for a sufficient and particularly spe
cified reason, puts a blank instead of the names of the Consecrators of the Bishops
who form the succession, Mr. Drummond holds forth the twenty-six consecrations
as ''supposed ones.' He chose to suppress t'he known and specified reason of the
blanks, in order that his allegation might appear true .' and he substitutes the follow
ing comment of his own : ' Where Perceval has left a blank, in consequence of the
consecrations being unrecorded, the word unknown has been introduced, in order to
render the fact more conspicuous ! ! ' Mr. Drummond was perfectly aware from
Lawson's list of the Scottish succession, to which he was malcing marked and sneer
ing reference, that Mr. Perceval's blanks were filled up by this historian in two in
stances. But he ' warily keeps this in the background,' and introduces in every
case his o^vn ' unknown .'.'' Now, allowing, for the present, that the names of the
Consecrators in twenty-six instances are ' unknown,' in consequence of their not
being recorded by Perceval ; yet, if this allegation proved that ' the consecrations
are supposed ones,' a similar assertion, as he well knew, could be urged more
strongly against the succession of the Church of England ; where Perceval, in thirty-
six instances, does not record the names of the consecratoi's ; nor does he specify
any, much less a sufficient, reason for his not doing so ! ! But here again Mr.
Drummond exercises his usual caution. He takes no notice of this, because it
would have stultified his reasoning against the Scottish Church ; and would have
shewn the erroneousuess of his statement, that ' the Episcopal Church in the United
States of America is not involved in the same predicament as the Scottish Episcopal
Church,' because its Bishops ' are in regular unmixed descent from the Prelates of
the Church of England.' It would have convinced the most superficial reader that
his own claim to ' minister in English orders' was a complete deception, inasmuch
as his allegation against the Scottish Church, if true and valid, proved with double
force that he himself had no orders at all ! ! But the time in which the consecra
tions to which he Eilludes took place, ought to have suggested to him the hollowness
of his attack. It was not when the Church was suffering from severe depression and
unexampled persecution ; when her ' teachers were removed into a comer,' and
obhged to perform the Divine ordinances of their Lord by stealth, and in obscm-ity ;

' Hist., vol. ii. p. 648.

96 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
it was not during this eventful period of her history that the supposed consecrations
are alleged to have taken place. It was when the Church was honoured by the
world, and endowed with its goods ; and when, as he states, she was established.
The supposed consecrations took place when her Bishops were nominated by the
Sovereign, and consecrated under the eye of the law, and with the sanction of Par
liament. But although Mr. Drummond deems the sanction of law and Parhament
— a sanction, however, which he claims unwarrantably — competent to render valid
a schismatical act done in violation of solemn oaths and promises ; yet the acts of
the Church really and warrantably performed, under the direct control and cogni
sance of the same sanction h^ brands as invalid. Truly this is one-sided justice, and
logic which baffles all comprehension. But, during the period of the Church's esta
blishment, • no irregularity could have been practised,' nor ' canonical requirement
disregarded,' without the knowledge of the ' Law' and the ' Parliament ;' not to speak
of the notice and representation of the Church's enemies and rivals — the Puritans and
Papists. As we are ignorant, however, of the name of the Puritan or Papist who no
ticed and represented the Church's memorable delinquencies in twenty-six successive
consecrations ; as we are equally ignorant of the Session of Parhament or the Legal
Tribunal which took cognisance of such glaring, and perverse, and continued derehc-
tion of duty ; we request that our memories may be refreshed on the subject. Nor
will this satisfy. We demand proof, such as an honest man can produce. We are
not to have such calumny fastened upon us by malicious surmise, nor a mere ' it
may have been." Proof resting on such slippery foundations maybe considered
ample by 'dignitaries of the Church of England, of extensive erudition,' [! !] who
are pleased to hail as ' godly ministers,' the originators of schism, and the violators
of oaths and solemn promises, and the perverters of historical facts, and inventors of
reckless assertions ; but it will not ' satisfy' the truly ' godly,' nor the anxious and
unprejudiced inquirer of the truthfulness ' of the charges alleged against the Scottish
Episcopal Church.' Again, then, we demand fair and legitimate proof. And ' if
Mr. Drummond can not bring any one pregnant testimony,' to borrow the language of
Bishop Downame, cited by Mr. Harington,- ' any approved authority or example
— if he cannot do this, a^ we know he cannot, then let him for shame give place unto
the TRUTH.'
" Here we cannot contemplate Mr. Drummond's ' unknown^ and the fallacies
in connexion with it, without having forced upon us the uucandidness and mahgnity
of his conduct. We believe, that ' even an upright heathen,' with the real cause
of any matter pressed again and again upon his attention, ' would have recoiled
from the monstrous' hypocrisy, perversion, and suppression to be met with here.
Yet has it been twice urged upon the notice of this 'Christian man ' and ' godly
minister,' by Perceval and Lawson, in the same words and in the same way — the
melancholy, the ' regretted reason :' he himself even cites the opening pa/rt of it
because it availed him in vilifying the Church ; and, after all, he boldly and ' con
spicuously' invents aud sets forth his own '¦unknown' instead of the noted reason;
a reason which, when perused, ought to have excited sympathy in a sincerely Chris
tian breast, instead of reproach and misrepresentation ; a reason of which the Church
has no cause to be ashamed ; which does not, cannot say, as is falsely alleged, that
' there is a, flaw in her succession;' a reason which, when known, 'will involve'
more and more ' in detrimental character' the person who could so pervert and
suppress its true character. ' It is with regret that Mr. Perceval found himself un
able to give more particulars of the consecrations in Scotland between 1662 and
1688 ;' not because the consecrations were ' supposed ones,' ' irregular,' and ' in
fringed canonical requirement,' but because— 'A collection of Ecclesiastical Records
' Report, p. 41. a Sermons, p. 97.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 97
belonging to the Church of Scotland, which had been deposited by Bishop Campbell
(43) in the library of Sion College, London, was burnt in the fire which destroyed
the Houses of Parhament, where it had been taken for some purpose of inquiry.'
' Oh, how fearful it is to contemplate the sacrifice, the meditated and studied sacri
fice of truth, on the part of the schismatics, for the purpose of covering schismatical
wickedness!' — 'Read and tremble.' Here we meet with suppression upon sup
pression. We are presented with ' complex forms of deception.' Perceval's Note
is suppressed ; Lawson's Supplements are suppressed. The blanks which he sup
plies are filled up with a mendacious ' unknown.' And last, though not least, a
list of the Scottish succession, in which one and all of Perceval's blanks are filled
up by the Church's latest and most voluminous historian, this last list of succession
which issued from the press with the names of the consecrators in all the twenty-six
instances, this list is skulkingly eluded, — is 'warily kept in the background!!'
The Records were unfortunately bumed ; but, by the good Providence of God, suf
ficient accredited materials remain from which Mr. Stephen has fumished the names
of the consecrators in all the twenty-six instances.^ It appears also from the hst,
that either the Archbishop of St. Andrews, or the Archbishop of Glasgow presided
at each one of the consecrations.- Now it cannot be urged in mitigation of Mr.
Drummond's oftence, that he was ignorant of this Ust. The utmost stretch of
Christian charity will not allow us to say so ; for he has had intimate knowledge
of Mr. Stephen for many years. He has not been ignorant of that gentleman's
various writings from the time that he was a member of St. Paul's Church, Carru-
ber's Close, Edinburgh, where Mr. Drummond was admitted a clergyman of the
Church in Scotland. But knowledge is one thing, and candour is another. ' Can
dour,' says the Lord Bishop of Chichester, in his Charge, lately published, 'is
among the most essential of the internal quaUfications ; at the same time, it is a
quality of great delicacy and sensitiveness. The least indulgence of prejudice, or
contempt, or of arrogance, in any form, towards those who differ from us, soils the
purity of that peace-giving inmate of the Christian bosom, tends to corrupt and
change our love of truth, together with our power of perceiving it and following it,
and to substitute the narrow, mifair, and ungodly spirit of party.' Our readers will
be able to testify to the correctness of this picture as it is drawn by the Bishop of
Chichester. The Scottish Church's orders are impugned ; her succession is at
tempted to be 'shivered into atoms' by a series of 'untruthfiil assertions,' ' frau
dulent transactions,' ' falsifications,' ' deceptive statements,' gratuitous assump
tions, and acts of suppression and perver^on' witJiout a parallel in modem history!.'!'
Candour, feimess, justice, or the Christian ' charity' which ' rejoiceth in the truth,'
have no place in Schismatical Ethics. ' Read and tremble ;' but be not astonished.
This is one of the many awful results of schism. Not only does it ' encourage heresy
and unbelief,' but, to continue the language of Bishop Mant, ' it wrests and distorts
the Word of God.' ' Nor is it less noxious in its effects upon the Spirit of God's
' most excellent gifl of charity ; the very bond of peace and of all virtues, without
which whosoever liveth is counted dead before God.' '"
" Orthodoxy of the Scottish Church, and the validity of her Orders proved by various
Public Testimonials from the Cliurch and Parliament of England.
" Had it not been to shew the barefaced accumulation of falsehood and calumny
which pervades the ' Report ;' had it not been to prove that allegations invariably

' See " The History of the Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the
present time." By Thos. Stephen, Esq., Med. Lib., King's College, London.
^ For a correct hst of these consecrations, see a very useful and cheap periodi
cal, "The Church Warder," New Series, for May, 1847.
^ Sermon 27th, vol. ii.

98 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
resolve themselves into 'untruthful assertions,' or fallacious statements, we could
at once have very briefly convicted Mr. Drummond of libel against the Church's
orders and doctrines ; and that, too, before tribunals to which he himself defers.
He claims to belong to the Church of England; and he makes ' Acts of Parhament'
a proof of the validity of his position. The Church of England, then, has, since
the Revolution, publicly testified, in three memorable instances, to the vahdityof
the orders, and to the orthodoxy of the Church in Scotland.
" 1. In 1710, THE Church of England, in terms of a letter sent to Bishop Rose,
the Metropolitan and Vicar-General, desired fully to recognise, and steadily to
maintain, the same spiritual communion and inter-communion with her persecuted
Scottish Sister, as existed when the latter was established.' This letter was received
at a time when ' the ancient usages with which the English Reformation began,'
but which Mr. Drummond stigmatises as ' unprotestant and unreformed,' were pro
minently upheld and conspicuously professed by the Church of Scotland, as enun
ciated in her national Liturgy of Charles I.
'' 2. In 1748, long after the use in the Church'of an altered form of the Scottish
Eucharistic Liturgy of Charles I. ;^ in 1748, when Gadderar, Rattray, Dunbar, and
Keith (whose orders he denounces as invalid) were fresh in the memory; five years,
indeed, after the death of Bishop Rattray, two years after Bishop Dunbar's death,
and during the life-time of Bishop Keith ; in 1748, the Church of England made a
noble stand in behalf of the Scottish Church. ' All the English Bishops uhanimouslt
opposed' the law which was to introduce English schismatical clergy into Scotland ;
boldly testified to the validity of her orders, " acknowledging the Nonjuring Bishops
in Scotland to be, though not legally, yet primitively clothed with the Episcopal
character.'^ " 3. In 1840, the Archbishop of Canterbury and his brethren were not ignorant of
the few variations in our respective Communion Services ; but, being satisfied that
there is no discrepancy in doctrine, they induced the legislature to confer upon the
Bill, presented by the Primate in the House of Lords, the full force of law, per
mitting Scottish ordained clergy to minister at English altars.*
" These are testimonials from the Church of England, sufficient, one would have
thought, to have repressed the invectives^ of those who claim to be her sons. But
if they have failed in repressing the crimination of the schismatic, they will, at all
events, triumphantly prove to the public the injustice and falseness of his ' several
repeated asseverations.' But to go on to Parliament.
" 1. The doctrines of the Scottish office are, to this present hour, ' authorised by
Act of Parhament,' even 'hj three different Acts, as the doctrine of the Church of
England, and ' agreeable to the word of God."*
" 2. In the Sth year of Queen Ehzabeth (c. i.) Parliament enacted, that ' all
persons that then had been, or afterwa/rds should be made, ordered, or consecrated
bishops, priests, and ministers of God's holy Word and Sacraments, or deacons after

1 Vindic. of Church, pp. 66, 67.
2 The " Scottish Communion Office," as we have it now, was in use in 1723, and
all who used a Liturgy celebrated the Divine Mysteries according to it.— See Cheyne's
Vindication, p. 28.
3 Skinner's Hist., vol. ii. p. 668 ; and Lawson's Hist., p. 296.
* Bishop Russell's Charge for 1845.
¦i "I am well aware," remarks the Lord Bishop of Ripon, in his late Charge,
" that indiscnmmate invective will surely recoil upon the head of him who uses it,
and will rather disparage than strengthen the soundest cause.
« See the Rev. T. Bowyer's " True Account of the Nature, End, and Efficacy
of the Sacrament," &c., p. SS.

THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS. 99
the form and order prescribed in the Prayer-Book, were, by authority thereof, de
clared and enacted to be bishops, priests, ministers, and deacons rightly made,
ordered, and consecrated ; any statute, law, canon, or other thing to the contrary
notwithstanding.' Hence, the Scottish bishops, priests, .and deacons, having been
all along ' made, ordered, and consecrated' by the Englisli ordinal, are, according
to Parhament, ' rightly made, ordered, and consecrated.'
" 3. Parliament, in 1792, testified to the validity of the Scottish orders by intro
ducing a clause into the Relief Bill, prohibiting Scottish ordained clergy from
officiating or holding livings in England. If Pai-liament had not believed that
the orders of the Scottish clergy were valid, and entitled them to officiate and hold
hvings in the English Church, the restricting clause would have been perfectly
absurd. " 4. The Act of Q.ueen Victoria, in 1840, testifies both to the vaUdity of the orders,
and to the orthodoxy of the Chureh in Scotland, by repealing the restricting clause
of 1792, and permittingftier bisliops and clergy to officiate and administer the sacra
ments in the EngUsh Church.
" These, then, are memorable and decisive testimonials. The Church and Parlia
ment of England uneqiuvocally, and in repeated form, convict the Schismatic of libel,
and all who join him in his ' untruthful assertion' against the orthodoxy of the Scot
tish Church, and the validity of her orders. Had the Schismatic, with his paraded
claim to be a son of the Church of England, been impressed with rfuii/K? affection
towards that Church ; had his deference to Parliament been merely one-sided and
partial ; the Scottish Church would have escaped his assault and crimination. He
would have felt the presumption, at least, of impugning an authority which he so
boastingly recognised : and a remembrance ofhis own statement would have saved
him the reproach of self-condemnation, that ' The Church of England never denied
the validity of the orders in the Scotch Episcopal Church ; and the Act of Queen
Victoria was a friendly proof of this."
" We would now remove a woful fallacy. The schismatic constantly talks as if
he were a successor and representative of the schismatical Independents of the last
century. These Independents were introduced by Act of Parhament, in order to
serve a pohtical purpose ; and, from the moment they occupied Scottish ground,
they held an antagonistic position to the Scottish Church. But how men, who
came into Scotland with the avowed purpose of ministering in the Scottish Church,
and continued within her pale, till the commission of acts which demanded her re
prehension, induced them to rebel, and to set up a rival worship, how men who have
thus wormed themselves into Scotland, without the sanction of the law either of
God or man, can claim to be considered in the same position as the legal Indepen
dents of the last century, requires a degree of understanding of which we are not
possessed. There is a break, he says, in the succession, which renders the claim
' the veriest figment.' Allowing that the claim was valid, it must ever be remem-
¦ bered that ' all the Enghsh Bishops unanimously opposed' the law which was to
introduce the Schismatical English clergy of last centm-y. Episcopal Acts, as it is
boasted, may have been performed in the last century by individual EngUsh Bishops
m behalf of these clergy, but such Acts were wholly schismatical, contrary to Pri
mitive canons, and to the judgment of the Church of England, as exhibited in 1748
by ' all her Bishops unanimously.' No acts, however, can be instanced after the
repeal of the penal statutes in 1792, when the EngUsh Independents lost their legal
position.2 Mr. Drummond may delude the simple and the credulous into the belief
1 Sketch, p. 121.
» See the first chapter of the Vmdication of the Church, where the legal position
of Schismatics is disproved from the lOth of Queen Anne and other Acts of Parlia
ment.

100 THE SCHISM AND THE SCHISMATICS.
that he is not a schismatic, and that he has a connexion with the Church of Eng
land ; but the moment he withdrew from the Scottish Chureh, and set up a hostile
worship, his connexion with the Church of England ceased. He became by the
EngUsh canons ' ipso facto excommunicated.' Whatever he may pretend, he is a
schismatic. The Archbishop of Canterbury looks upon him as one;' and, by the
provisions of the ninth canon of the Church of England, he cannot ' be restored but
by the Archbishop.' Till then he has no connexion, no spiritual concord with Eng
land beyond the fact, that there have been members of that Church who have pre
ferred his Puritanical and schismatical dogmas to the doctrines of the Reformed
Church of England, and the public declarations of the Spiritual Head of the
Church, the Archbishop of Canterbury; a connexion and a concord which they
have manifested towards the Presbyterian Establishment itself, by preaching in its
pulpits. But while the declarations of the Archbishop of Canterbury brand him
as a Schismatic, and while the canons of the Church of England declare that a
Schismatic cannot be restored but by the Archbishop, — no sincere nor consistent
member of that Church will ever mistake him for a clergyman of the Church of
England. The Puritans who nestle in the bosom of the Church, may, and pro
bably will fraternise with the Schismatics in Scotland, because they generally prefer
nonconformity to order, and rebelUon against ecclesiastical government to humble
and submissive obedience."

' See his Grace's letter to the Rev. A. Ewing, and also his letter in the
Appendix.

APPENDIX.

Note I.

The reader wiU require no CEdipus to teU him who was the writer of
the foUo\^'ing grave proposal.
Scottish Bishop for the English Metropolis.
{From the "Glasgotv Citizen" of2Sth August, 1847.)
[A paragraph having been circulated during the past week, stating,
that in the ensuing session a biU would be brought into Parhament for
enabUng an English Bishop to preside over the clergy and laity of
Scotland who have rejected the authority of the Scottish Prelates, the
foUowing inteUigence will not be altogether uninteresting. We may
just add, that we are indebted for the information it affords to an
Enghsh clergyman, weU known for his unwavermg loyalty to the
Episcopal Church in Scotland.]
Duly sensible of the apostohcal blessing which is proposed to be
conferred on certain Episcopal brethren in Scotland in the form of an
Anglican Prelate, who is to expand his cathohc sympathies over their
present anomalous and neglected condition, the venerable Scottish
Episcopal Church proposes to repay her Anglican sister in the foUowing
manner. In the metropoUs and elsewhere there are large numbers of
persons, both laical and clerical, who originaUy belonged to the Epis
copal Communion in Scotland. In addition to these, there are also
numerous members of the English Church who inwardly pine for a
purer Episcopacy, denuded of those splendid circumstantials which now
oppress the spiritual healthfulness of the Anglican Episcopate. Under
these circumstances, the friends of primitive order and discipline will
truly rejoice at the wi.se determination about to influence the Scottish
Episcopal Church. In substance, we presume, it wUl amount to this.
As soon as those bishopless congregations which are now mourning for
a chief pastor in Scotland are provided with the paternal superinten
dency of an Enghsh Prelate, the Episcopal Church of Scotland wUl
ordain a missionary Bishop, who may preside over the Scottish Episco
pahans living in England, and moreover, be authorised to receive into
communion with them such members of the Anghcan Church who long
for a more genial shepherd, and a more guarded fold, than they now
enjoy. The metropolis wiU, we understand, be the chief residence of
H

102 APPENDIX.
the new Scottish Bishop; and when it is remembered how awfuUy
destitute London is in ecclesiastical government, we doubt not the real
admirers of the Church wUl hail this movement with intense dehght.
For our own part, we freely confess we should regret to see any thing
like ingratitude on the part of the ancient Church in Scotland. If
England is about to be episcopally gracious toward those who require
her services in Scotland, let her Scottish sister reciprocate this catholic
feeling, and return the compliment, by ordaining a Scotch Prelate for
those who require her sympathies in England. There wiU then be a
sweet rivalry of love between two venerated Churches, not paralleled
since that golden period of primitive unity, when the heathen cried,
" Behold I.how these Christians love one another !"
In reply to those timid persons who may suggest that the Act of
Union, and the Canons of the Universal Church in all ages, are somewhat
opposed to this movement, we beg to observe, that the legislative genius
of a Hberal Parliament will soon overcome these superficial objections.

Note II.
Remarks on the " Peculiarities of the Scottish Episcopal Church."
We here give Mr. Christie's Critical Analysis of some of these "Pecu
liarities :" —
" There lately appeared, in an Aberdeen paper, an advertisement of a
pamphlet by " Justitia," being an attempt to prove " the pecuUarities of
the Scottish Episcopal Church." To make the pubUc beheve that the
Scottish schismatics are patronised by the Archbishop of Canterbury—
and hence that they have a connexion with the English Church ; that
his Grace is impressed with the existence of the pubhcly announced
"Peculiarities" of the sister Church; " Reader— mark" — the schis
matics prefaced their advertisement with an intimation of a meetmg,
in Sir WiUiam Dunbar's conventicle, of the Church Missionary Society,
" Patrol) — the Archbishop of Canterbury ! !" The " Pecuharities,"
when examined, are found to be a tissue of gratuitous averments ex
tracted chiefly from the "printed Thing— the Sketch," and the " un-
genuine thing— the Report." Let the following statements be m-
stanced. 1. "The epithet 'Protestant' was introduced into the Canons in
1828," (p. xix.). It existed in the Canons of 1811. See page 4,—
"The Protestant Bishops in Scotland."— 2. "In 1838— the epithet
• Protestant' was withdrawn," (p. xix.). It occurs twice in one page (7)
— " The Protestant Bishops— the Protestant Episcopal Church of Scot-
land."— 3. The English office was used during Mr. Marshall's incum
bency at Blairgowrie, (p. 49). The Churchmen there can testify to

APPENDIX. 103
the felsity of this statement.— 4. The hbel, which the Bishop of Cashel
plagiarised from the schismatics of the last century, is repeated in re
gard to an " alteration of the services of Baptism, Confirmation," &c.
(p. 40). His Lordship and Justitia would have found the untruthful
ness, of this assertion, if they had, as they ought to have done, before
circulating a calumny, referred to the Scottish Canons, which permit
no alteration whatever in the services alluded to. — 5. It is falsely insin
uated that Bishop Innes's Catechism teaches Transubstantiation. The
truth of this charge is substantiated by putting a period for a comma,
and by suppressing the words — "but not in their substance." "Are
the bread and wine not changed, [by consecration] ? Yes, in their
quahties, but not in their substance." " Reader — mark," as you go
along, the "base and unprincipled conduct" of this Justitia. — 6. Each
Bishop, before his consecration, must sign a document in which he
pledges himself ' strenuously to recommend the use of the Scotch Office
by his own practice and by every other means in his power,'" (p. 1).
Were this the case, the act would be perfectly justifiable ; but, accord
ing to the practice of the Church, the assertion of Justitia is a deliberate
untruth. — 7. At page xvi., Justitia puts language into Bishop Seabury's
mouth, which the 5th Article of the Concordate between the Churches
of Scotland and Connecticut demonstrates that he never used. — 8. It
is asserted, page xvi, that Bishop John Skinner " proposed to intro
duce a schismatical class of Bishops into America to assist Bishop Sea-
bury in upholding the Scotch Communion Office, which he pledged
himself to 'insinuate.'" Consult the "Vindication of the Church,"
chapter ii., and this will be discovered to be as devoid of foundation as
Justitia's other untruths. — 9. It is affirmed, page xvii., that " the
Episcopal succession in the American Episcopal Church is derived from
the Church of England alone." See Perceval's hst of the American suc
cession, which shews the reverse. — 10. The subscription to the Articles
after the repeal of the penal statutes in 1792 was insincere — " every
subscriber explaining them to himseK" This is a wicked falsehood,
founded upon dehberate perversion and suppression. When the fact
is given ungarbled, it tells against the sincerity of the English, not the
Scottish Clergy. See " Vindication of the Church," p. 84. — 11. " The
Scottish Liturgy of Charles I. is taken weU near word for word out of
the sinks of Rome." — Proof: " The main portion of the Offertory is
the placing of the bread and wine upon the altar, and the offering of
them up to God even before the consecration, with certain prayers, to be
a peace-offering, that so they may be fitted for the matter of the pro
pitiatory sacrifice foUowing." (p. 41). The peiiect falsity of this state
ment wdU appear by reference to King Charles's Liturgy. — 12. "To
their back-prayers for the good of the living in all degrees and caUings,
they immediately subjoin ' not only their thanksgivmgs, but their
prayers and supplications for the dead, even for the salvation of theu:

104 APPENDIX.
soul,'" (p. 41). Consult again King Charles's Liturgy, and they will
be found to be as untruthful as the previous allegation. But here we
must ask, — If the last two positions are true, why did Mr. Drummond
intimate that " he took much blame to himself for supposing that the
Scotch Communion Office, of the Canons, was the same as King
Charles's?" (Sketch, p. 79). The present Scottish Office, he "con
ceived" to be Popish ! but King Charles's was not so ! ! — 14. In the
present Scottish Office, he says, there is " the literal offering up, as a
material sacrifice to God, of the consecrated bread and wine," (page 38).
— 15. "The prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the con
secrated elements," (p. 39). These last two statements are again de
hberate untruths (see " Vindication of the Office," pp. 55, 56), the
reiteration of which, by the Record and Justitia, is the more wicked and
deceitful, inasmuch as Mr. Drummond was most particularly reminded
of the fact about five years ago ! by his friend Mr. Bagot, (see Mr.
Bagot's letter,) when he wished to " enlist this clergyman in the dis
graceful service," as Mr. Bagot expresses himself, " of defaming the
Church of which he had been a minister for seven years [and Mr.
Drummond for ten years,] — of calumniating her Bishops, of misrepre
senting her services, and of branding her Presbyters with the sin of a
schismatical subscription to Popish and heretical doctrines."
Let it then be noted that we have extracted at random fifteen
falsehoods from Justitia's " Peculiarities ! ! !" If we confine our inves
tigation to a single page (xiii.), the result is as follows : —
1. It IS AFFIRMED that Mr. Greenshields began the use of the Enghsh
Liturgy in Scotland. Mr. Greenshields affirms the reverse — that he
knew it was in use many years before he began. (Vind. of Church,
p. 32.) — 2. The English Episcopalians sent a petition from Aberdeen
in 1710, to Queen Anne. It went from the sons of" Scots Episcopacy."
(Vind. of Church, p. 109.) — 3. In the same year in which the petition
was transmitted, the 10th of Queen Anne was passed. It was passed
two years afterwards. (Vind. of Church, p. 109.) — 4. The Liturgy
was not in use among Scotch Episcopahans in 1710, when this petition
was forwarded. Skinner records that " the English service was, in
1707, set up in St. Andrews, in Aberdeen, and at many places in Angus
and Moray." (Hist. vol. i. p. 606.) — 5. Queen Anne's Act is falsely
aUeged to be for the sake of English Episcopalians ; Eind the proof is
obtained by means of an et ceetera. The suppressed part shews that the
Act was for the benefit of Scotch Episcopalians. (Vind. of Church,
pp. 12, 13.) — 6. As if Lord Thurlow's affirmation was true, that by a
" Protestant Bishop," in Queen Anne's Act was meant an English or
Irish Bishop, reference is made to the Annals of Scottish Episcopacy.
The Annals prove that the Statement is perfectly incorrect, as was
testified by Lord Thurlow's contemporaries in both Houses of Parha
ment. — (See Annals, particularlv p. 103).

APPENDIX. 105
Here in less than a page occur six "untruthful assertions!!!"
Once more, let us examine page 11. 1. It is stated, that there were
only " three Usager Bishops." We have seen from Stephen and Skin
ner that there were four College Bishops, and that the CoUege and
Diocesan Bishops were of egual numbers. 2. Tljat Bishops Rattray and
Dunbar were consecrated in opposition to the College Bishops forming
the majority. There was no majority ; the " numbers were equal."
3. That Bishop Dunbar was consecrated on the 4th of June, " seven
days after the consecration [of Rattray and Dunbar], that is on June
11, 1727." Bishop Dunbar, as we have seen, was not consecrated on
the 4th of June. 4. That the consecration of Rattray and Dunbar was
declai-ed null and void. It was their election. 5. That this sentence
was never repealed. The 6th Article of the Concordate of 1731, which
Mr. Drummond suppresses, proves that this assertion is at variance
with truth.
Here again ai'e five unfounded allegations in less than half a page f
If we sum up the falsehoods that have now been extracted, the amount
is no less than twenty-six! Thus is " the impudent fraud of the
schismatics made so palpable, that they may blush, (if it be possible for
such foreheads to blush at any thing)" (Peculiarities). Here is a
" malapert changing" of truth into falsehood, not " in twenty particu
lars" (Pecul.), but in twenty-six. This is the way to prove a difference
of doctrine between the English and Scottish Church — this is the way to
make out " indigenous pecuharities of form and principle" with a ven
geance !" — From Christie's Critical Analysis.

Note III.
Letter, of date June 1847, from E. Wagstaff, Esq., Gordon
Castle, Fochabers, to the Archbishops and Bishops of the
Church of England, with their Lordships' replies.
My Lord, — The circumstances of the following case wiU, I trust,
be a sufficient apology for the trouble I give your Lordship. I write
to your Lordship in common with the other EngUsh Archbishops and
Bishops, in the name of an humble Congregation of Scottish Episcopa
hans. The incumbent of our Chapel having lately retired from the
charge, the patron, her Grace the Duchess of Gordon, has appointed as
his successor a Clergyman, calling himself an English Episcopal Clergy
man, and disavowing the authority and jurisdiction of our Diocesan, the
Bishop of Moray. This appointment, though involving a complete
change in our religious position, and in fact, separating us from the
Church to whose communion we are attached, was made without our
being in any way consulted ; nor was a representation which we after
wards made to her Grace, of our feelings and convictions on the subject
of the new appointment, attended with any effect. An attempt, how-

106 APPENDIX.
ever, has been made to reconcUe us to the change. We are given to
understand, that though separated from our own Bishop, we at once
enter into communion with your Lordships, the English Bishops, and
may henceforth regard ourselves as a portion of the Church of England.
And to convince us of this, a pamphlet has been put into circulation
amongst us, purporting to be the Report of a Deputation to some of
your Lordships, from a body in this country calling themselves English
Episcopalians. Our situation and circumstances of life are not such as
to qualify us to form a judgment for ourselves in a matter of this nature,
and we are therefore anxious to ascertain from your Lordships, what is
the state of the case ; and how far your Lordships claim spiritual juris
diction in Scotland, or acknowledge any such body in this country as
that calling themselves Enghsh Episcopalians.
We feel ourselves, in some degree, guilty of presumption in thus
approaching your Lordships ; but at the same time, we are assured your
Lordships would not willingly allow your high names, and great weight
and authority in the Church, to be made use of. in leading astray any,
even the poorest and lowliest members of Christ's flock. Our inabUity
to judge for ourselves between so many opposite and conflicting opinions
and assertions, wUl, we trust, be accepted as some excuse for our pre
sumption. I have only, in conclusion, in behalf of the Episcopal Congregation
of Fochabers to assure your Lordship of our deepest and most sincere
veneration for your Lordship's person and office; as well as of our
great reverence for the distinguished branch of Christ's Church in which,
in the Providence of God, you have been caUed to bear rule.
I have the honour to be,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's most obedient humble servant,
(Signed) E. Waqstatf.
The preceding letter was counter-signed by the Bishop of the Dio
cese, the Right Rev. Bishop Low, LL.D.
No. 1.
From the Archbishop op Canteeeurt. Lambeth, June 16, 1847.
Sir, — In answer to your question, I have no hesitation in stating
tha.t no English Archbishop or Bishop has, or imagines he has, any
claim to spiritual jurisdiction in Scotland.
My opinion respecting the bodies referred to m your letter has been
distinctly expressed in a letter which I addressed some time ago to the
Rev. Mr. Ewing, and which has been so extensively circulated, that 1
have no need to repeat its contents.
I remain. Sir,
Your very humble and obedient servant,
(Signed) W; CANinAE.

APPENDIX. 107
No. 2.
From the Bishop op London. London, June 16, 1847.
Sir, — In answer to your inquiry, as to the question of English
Episcopalian Clergymen officiating in Scotland, and of my jurisdiction,
Ibeg to state, that 1 retain unchanged the opinion which I expressed in
a letter to the Right Rev. the Bishop of Glasgow, dated 21st November,
1845, which letter has been printed in more than one pubhcation on
the subject. I remain. Sir,
Your obedient humble servant,
(Signed) C. J. London.
No. 3.
From the Bishop op St. Asaph.
37 Jermyn Street, June 14, 1847.
Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge your letter, dated June,
and directed to me at St. Asaph, relating to a chapel at Fochabers.
As nothing which I can individuaUy say can have any other authority
than the expression of my own individual opinion, I venture in answer
to observe. That as a Welsh Bishop I can have no authority over any place out
of my own Diocese in "Wales, or over any Clergyman, unless he hold
preferment in my Diocese, or shaU hereafter wish to come there.
That as to the tenure of the chapel in question, I can know no
thing. That there can be no doubt that the Episcopal Church in
Scotland is m communion with the Church of England and Ireland ;
but that whether a Clergyman of the Church of England and Ireland
would be guilty of schism in officiathig to Enghshmen in Scotland or
America, without jouiing those Churches, is a question not enthely
free from real difficulty, and to which different Bishops might give dif
ferent answers.
I presume tbat the Episcopal Church in Scotland must have a right
to alter her own Liturgy,— but she might so alter it, that a member of
the Church of England might decUne joining in the service; and
whether he were or were not guilty of schism in so doing, is a ques
tion which I should not pretend to decide, tUl it was so brought before
me that I was bound to decide it.
Agam, I cannot understand the position of a Clergyman of the
Church of England officiatmg regularly in Scotland, without putting
himself in connexion with the Scotch Bishop,— or under what Enghsh
Bishop he would claim to act, and who would have any direct autho
rity over him.
With these difficulties before my eyes— with a strong feehng of the
state into which Presbyterians have brought their Church by their divi
sions, by theh determination to bring matters to a point, I should not

108 APPENDIX.
be acting as a Christian Bishop, if I did not press on all who may see
this letter, the duty of trying to preserve peace. In many cases it is
better to suffer wrong than to maintain one's right wrongly. If a
weak brother from England object to the alterations in the services al
ready made, treat him as a weak brother. If his conduct be schismati
cal or contumacious, deal with him as though he were weak. It is
more likely to subdue his heart. If the congregation have been under
the Scotch Bishop, and the chapel belong to those who have power
to appoint a clergyman from England, the Scotch Episcopahans may
shew their humble forbearance by giving way where they have no
power to resist. They may point to the late Act of Parliament, which
allows clergymen to officiate in England — to prove the inter-commu
nion of the Churches ; and if they wish to shew that they belong to
the Church of Christ, I can have no better authority than that of my
Master, who said, " By this shall all men know that ye are my disci
ples, if ye have love one to another :"— and praying that He may pre
serve peace among all members of His family,
I beg to subscribe myself,
Your humble brother in Jesus Christ,
(Signed) Thomas Vowler St. Asaph.
No. 4.
From the Bishop of Salisbury.
40 Chesham Place, June 14, 1847.
Sir, — I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter,
which has only reached me to-day ; and to say in reply to it, that as
Bishop of a Diocese in England, I do not olaim spiritual jurisdiction in
any part of Scotland : nor do I think that I could rightfidly exercise
such jurisdiction over any congregation in that country.
I expressed this opinion very plainly to one of the members of that
Deputation, to whose report of their visit to this country your letter
refers. I remain. Sir,
Your very faithful servant,
(Signed) E. Sarum.
No. S.
From the Bishop op Hereford. Hereford, June 17, 1847.
Sir,— In reply to your letter received on the 16th (yesterday) m
London, I beg to say that, with aU respect for yourself and the congre
gation whom you represent, I must decline any positive answer to your '
queries, except in consultation with some of my brethren, or with the
Episcopal bench at large. I am, Sir,
Your most obedient servant,
(Signed) T. Hereford.

APPENDIX. 109
No. 6.
From the Bishop of Rochester.
Danbury Palace, Chelmsford, June 21, 1847.
In reply to your letter, I have no hesitation in stating my opinion,
that any clergyman of the Church of England, who places himself in
opposition to the Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, by
officiating in their Dioceses without their license and permission, is
guUty of an act of schism spirituaUy, although he does not legally sub
ject himself to any penalties or ecclesiastical censures which can be
imposed upon him by our Church.
2dly, I am of opinion that no English Bishop has any authority or
jurisdiction within the Diocese of the Scottish Bishop.
I remain, Your faithful servant,
(Signed) G. Rochester.
No. 7.
From the Bishop of Llandaff.
Deanery, St. Paul's, June 23, 1847.
Sir, — ^When I say, in answer to your letter, that I have abstained
from entering into the disputes which have lately occurred in Scotland
relative to matters of discipUne among Episcopalians, it is not because
I think hghtiy of those matters, or that I approve of the proceedings of
Enghsh Episcopalians which have led to these disputes ; but because I
did not feel confident of my acquaintance with the subject sufficientiy
to declare any opinion respecting it, — ^whUe the business of my own
Diocese, and other duties, leave me httle leisure to attend to things not
within my proper sphere of action.
It has, however, been aU along my strong impression that Episco
pal Clergy from England are not justified in officiating in Scotland
without the sanction of the Bishop in whose Diocese they exercise their
functions. Our Bishops have certainly no jurisdiction there. If,
therefore, a Clergyman of the Church of England refuses to acknow
ledge the authority of the Scottish Bishop in whose Diocese he offi
ciates, he seems to act without Episcopal authority at aU, even where
Episcopal authority prevaUs, — and thus to he guilty of schism.
If conscientious scruples are aUeged against some expressions in
the Scottish Liturgy, 1 understand that the Bishops readUy permit the
use of the EngUsh Liturgy ; and therefore it appears to me that they
have no legitimate excuse for setting at nought their authority.
You wUl perceive that I am now writing my opinion as an in
dividual ; and that I do not pretend to have studied the question
thoroughly. But I was unwUling to withhold an answer to an appeal
from a quarter for which I entertain the utmost reverence and esteem.
I am, Sir,
Your very obedient and faithful servant,
(Signed) E. Llandaff.

110 APPENDIX. No. 8.
From the Bishop op Bangor. -Warren's Hotel, June 26, 1847.
Sir,— I had hoped, before I replied to your letter, to have made
myself acquamted with some particulars, unknown to myself, to which
you refer.
I wiU now merely state, that I am unacquainted with the proceed
ings of the Deputations to which you advert, and that, in point of fact,
they never came to my knowledge.
In reply to the questions which you have proposed to me, I can
only answer for myself, that I claim no spiritual jurisdiction in Scot
land, and that I do not acknowledge any such body in that country as
that caUing itself EngUsh Episcopahans.
I lament much that the peace of your venerable and Apostohcal
Church should have been disturbed by clergymen of EngUsh ordmation,
claiming exemption from the jurisdiction of your Episcopate.
With the question of patronage you wiU readUy believe that I am
unacquainted. I have the honour to remain. Sir,
Your faithful servant,
(Signed) C. Bangor.

Note IV. — The reference in p. 17 to this Note, should have been
to Note II.

Note V.
Letter from Rev. R. Montgomery.
To the Rev. Francis Close, of Cheltenham.
Glasgow, February 25, 1842.
Mt dear Mr. Close, — Aware of the deep interest you have, for
many years, taken in the proceedings and progress of " The Church
Missionary Society," I venture to trouble you on a matter of some im
portance connected with that institution. I presume, then, that you
are acquainted with the step which Mr. Drummond has taken, in conse
quence of an admonition given him by his Bishop, in reference to some
irregular proceedings of his, in holding public worship without the use
of an appointed Liturgy. Now, after all the protracted, entangled, and
tedious discussion which this subject has called forth, I need not inffict on
you any argument of my own as to the propriety or impropriety of Mr.
Drummond's conduct: I wUl simply remind you, that the whole ptYA of
the question is contained in this, — Was a hired chamber, situated some
mUe and a half from Mr. Drummond's church, for the expenses of which
the collection at the door was partly made, and to which not only the
members of Trinity Chapel, but, in fact, the public in general, from aU

APPENDIX. Ill
parts of Edinburgh, were admitted — was this, I say, a violation of an ex
press canon of the Scottish Episcopal Church, or not ? In the conscien
tious mind of Bishop Terrot, and also in the sincere opinion of (I think I
may say) all the Episcopal clergy in Scotland, by this proceeding on Mr.
Drummond's part the canon was violated; and in harmony with such a
view Bishop Terrot acted, as I humbly conceive, with dignity, firmness,
and Christian moderation. But I need not pursue this subject. Mr.
Drummond has since not only separated himself from the Scottish Epis
copal Church, and followed up his secession by charging the Scottish
Episcopal Church with holding the doctrine of transubstantiation,' but
' Since this letter was published, the insane charge of holding the hideous dogma
of transubstantiation, has again and again been brought against the Scottish Chureh :
her enemies might as well accuse her of teaching cannibalism. The Reverend Gen
tleman, however, who now presides over the rehgious services in St. Jude's, thus
expressed his sentiments to Bishop Russell, on entering the diocese of Glasgow :
" In my own judgment, I think the objectionable clause in the Communion Office is
explained by other portions of the serrice, even as certain strong phrases in the Eng
lish office are in like manner qualified. Still, I shall rejoice for the sake of others —
for the sake of episcopacy in this country — when the stumbling-block is removed."
These closing words suggest the propriety of the present writer's offering a pass
ing word on the fact, that he signed a petition in Glasgow for assimilating the Scot
tish Communion OfSce to the Anglican one. Let him now be permitted to state,
the petition was unexpectedly put into his hands amid the hurry and excitement of
his departure from Glasgow, and that when he added his signature to those of some
fellow Presbyters, he did so under the charitable hope that the episcopal communion
would thereby be strengthened, and not from the absurd idea that the office itself was
Popish, and treated of transubstantiation. Meanwhile, he is forced to confess his
great error in not giving that petitisn a more serious reflection. Assuredly, could
the writer have foreseen the clamours which have now been raised on the subject, he
would have declined to do what he then did, from the purest motive — even that of
promoting the peace and concord of the Church. And now, on the subject of the
Scotch Communion, let us hear the competent words of Bishop Russell :
" The Catechism, while it states that the outward part of the Lord's Supper are
bread and wine, asserts, ' that the inward part or thing signified are the body and
blood of Christ, which are verdy and indeed taken and received by the faithful in
the Lord's Supper.' When a clergyman gives warning of the celebration of this
sacred rite, he invites the religiously and devoutly disposed to ' the most comfortable
sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.' In his exhortation he addresses himself
to those who ' mind to come to the holy communion of the body and blood of Christ'
— where ' we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink his blood ; where we dwell
in Christ, and Christ in us.' — In the prayer of access we say, ' Grant us, gracious
Lord, so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that
our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and out souls washed through his
most precious blood.' We pray farther, that we, receiving the creatures of bread
and wine, according to Christ's holy institution, ' may be partakers of his most
blessed body and blood.' And finally, in the post Communion Service, we heartily
thank the Almighty, who doth vouchsafe to feed us who have duly received the
holy mysteries, with the spiritual food of the ' most precious body and blood of his
Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ.'
" From the language of the Anglican Chm-ch, as now quoted, there cannot be
any doubt that she regards the consecrated elements as the body and blood of Christ,
in the mystical sense in which He Himself, His Apostles, and the primitive Church,

112 APPENDIX.
has, moreover, set up a schismatical congregation, over which no Bishop,
either in England or Scotland, wiU exercise the slightest control; but
where, in short, the minister of an anomalous conventicle wUl centre all
things in himself, and himself in all things ; so that his foUowers wUl be
originally used the expression. The Scottish Communion-ofiice holds precisely the
same view in regard to these sacred emblems. In respect, indeed, to doctrine, pro
perly so called, there is not the slightest shade of difference : the only point in which
there is any variance is in the prayer of consecration, by means of which the bread
and wine are blessed, and pass into or become the ' consecrated elements,' figura
tively called the body and blood of Christ. In the Anglican form this process is
understood to be accomplished by simply pronouncing the words of institution, ' In
the same night He was betrayed. He took bread; and when He had given thanks.
He brake it, and gave it to them, saying, Take eat, this is my body, &c. Likewise
after supper He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them,
saying, Drink ye all of this, for this is my blood,' &c.
" The recital or narrative now given is also held by the Church of Rome to be
the means or instrument of consecration ; and every sincere member of that com
munion believes the miracle of transubstantiation to be effected, when the priest
pronounces the words of our Lord, translated into Latin, ' Hoc enim est corpus
meum,' &c. At that moment, the wafer which he holds in his hands is understood
to be changed into the actual body which was conceived of the "Virgin Mary, born
at Bethlehem, and stretched on the cross at Jerusalem. Hence the Roman CathoUc
maintains that, after consecration, the elements of bread and wine no longer remain,
but that a perfect body of our Saviour is given to every individual who receives the
host at the hand of the priest ; so that a miracle is constantly repeated, to the reality
of which the senses bear no evidence.
" Though holding a very different doctrine, the EngUsh Church relies upon the
same form of words for consecrating the elements, namely, those spoken by our Lord
when He instituted the sacrament of the Last Supper. To avoid the scandal of the
corporal presence, Cranmer consented to relinquish the Invocation ; a prayer in
whicJi God's Holy Spirit is invoked to bless the bread and the wine ; the principal
petition of which is thus expressed in the first Liturgy of Edward : ' Hear us, 0
merciful Father, we beseech thee j and with thy Holy Spirit and Word, vouchsafe
to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may
be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son.' This is esteemed
the proper prayer of consecration ; and it was in substance, and indeed neariy in the
same terms, used by all the Churches of the West, long before the errors of Popery,
relative to the Lord's Supper, were introduced. Before I conclude, I shall have
occasion to shew that it has been approved by some of the most learned divines of
the Church of England, who regret its omission in their form, and lament that so
important a sacrifice was made to conciliate the benevolence of those who had no
power to do good.
"I have already suggested that the eucharistic forms adopted by the Scottish
Episcopahans have received the approbation of many learned divines in England.
Though Bishop Horsley's opinion has been so frequently quoted that it is famihar
to every one, I cannot deny myself the satisfaction of repeating it in your hearing.
I think the Scotch OflSce more conformable to the primitive models, and in my
private judgment more edifying, than that which we now use; insomuch that were
I at liberty to follow my private judgment, I would myself use the Scottish Office
in preference. The alterations which were made in the Communion Office, as it
stood m the first book of Edward the Sixth, to humour the Calvinists, were in my
opinion much for the worse : nevertheless, I think our present Office is very good;
our form of consecration of the elements is sufficient; I mean, that the elements

APPENDIX. 113
presented with the curious spectacle of beholding a self-appointed and
self-regulated leader.
Now, it is here the question touching the Church Missionary Society
arises. Mr. Drummond happens to be one of the secretaries to the
are consecrated by it, and made the body and blood of Christ, in the sense in which
our Lord Himself said the bread and ivine were His body and blood.'
" Sensible of the apparent defect in the present English Office, the pious Bishop
Wilson, whose praise is in every church, in his ' Short Introduction to the Lord's
Supper,' directed his readers, immediately after the prayer of consecration, to ' say
secretly. Send down thy Spirit and blessing upon this means of grace and salvation,
which thou thyself, 0 Jesus, hast ordained. Most merciful God, the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, look graciously upon the gifts now lying before Thee, and send
down thy Holy Spirit on this sacrifice, that He may make this bread and wine the
body and blood of thy Christ, that all who partake of them may be confirmed in
godliness, may receive remission of their sins, and obtain everlasting life.'
" Archdeacon Daubeny admitted that the Episcopal Church of Scotland, ' by
forming her Communion-Service upon the model of that first set forth for the use of
the Church of England, keeps closer to the original pattern of the primitive Church
than the Church of England herself now does.' Bishop Fleetwood, in his ' Reason
able Communicant,' observes, that ' the Church of Christ did heretofore pray that
the Holy Spirit of God, coming down on the creatures of bread and wine, might
make them the body and blood of Christ.'
" In reference to the same subject, Dr. Waterland remarks, that ' in the liturgy
• of 1S49 (the first of Edward) there was a solemn address to God for His propitious
favour (a very ancient, eminent, and solemn part of the Communion-Service) in
these words : ' We, thy humble servants, do celebrate and make here before thy
divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed
us to make, having in remembrance His blessed passion and precious death, His
mighty resurrection and glorious ascension. — Why this part,' he adds, ' was struck
out in the review, I know not, unless it was owing to some scruple (which, however,
was needless) about making the memorial before God, which at that time might
appear to give some umbrage to the Popish sacrifice, among such as knew not how
to distinguish. However that were, we have still the sum and substance of the pri
mitive memorial remaining in our present Office ; and not all in one place, but
interspersed here and there in the exhortations and prayers.'
"One of the latest historians of the English Church, the present Bishop of Man,
when adverting to the alterations introduced into the Communion-office of the second
Liturgy of Edward, remarks, ' It is difficult to understand why the invocation of the
second and third Persons in the Trinity was left out ; it has been wisely restored in
the American Prayer-Book.' Approving the prayer that God by His Word and
Holy Spirit would bless the bread and wine, this learned writer thereby acknow
ledges, and so far regrets, the want in the Anglican Office, where there is no longer
any such petition.
" In the face of the high authorities which have now been quoted, it must
appear to every candid reasoner extremely absurd to charge the Scottish Communion
with a Popish tendency. It is obvious that the imputation op such error might,
with a greater show of reason, be turned the other way. An able author of
the seventeenth century observes, that the mere ' recital of the words of institution.
Take, eat, this is my body, passeth in the common vogue for a consecration. Were
I ROMISHLT INCLINED, I SHOULD RATHER IJIPUTE UNTO THEM THE POWER OF IRAN-
SUBSTANTIATION ; FOR THAT A B-ARE NARRATIVE CAN BE QUALIFIED TO CONSECRATE IS
CERTAINLY NEW DIVINITV, UNKNOWN TO SCRIPTURE, AND TO ANTIQUITY INTERPRETING
II. Therefore I must adhere in judgment to those learned men who derive con-

114 APPENDIX.
Edinburgh committee of the Society, to which ours in Glasgow is an
auxiUary ; and I understand, as on former occasions, the reverend gen
tleman is making arrangements for receiving the London deputation
from the parent society. Now, what I desire most solemnly to urge
upon you, and aU who wish well to the Church Missionary cause, is
this, namely, — that it is believed that not one of the Scottish Episcopal
clergy, either in Edinburgh or Glasgow, or elsewhere, can wdth any pro
priety, decency, or consistency, afford the use of their pulpits to the de
putation, if those clergymen who form it sanction the schismatical pro
ceeding of Mr. Drummond, by preaching in his pulpit, I cannot but
hope, my dear Sir, that if you consider the matter, you will come to the
same conclusion ; and hence the result of my letter is, that you will co
operate with us in soUciting the parent society either to decline occupy
ing an unlicensed chapel, or, if not, to defer coming to Scotland this
year; and we, amongst ourselves, either by a mutual interchange of
pulpits, or by occupying our own, will do our utmost to promote the
cause of an admirable society, in which we are all deeply interested.
Should, however, the London committee, unhappily, be induced to dis
regard this wish of the Scottish Episcopal clergy, and persist in sending
a deputation, and that deputation occupy Mr. Drummond's pulpit, I do
not hesitate to say that the Church Missionary Society wiU take a step
most fatal and irretrievable. Not only wiU all the pulpits of the Scot
tish Episcopal Church be necessarily closed against it, but the ecclesias
tical insult which the Society wiU thus offer towards the Bishops and
the discipline of our Church will be justly resented by an immense por
tion of the clergy in England ; and so a noble institution will greatly
suffer, both in revenue and character, by a bUnd adherence to the schis
matical conduct of an English Presbyter, who is now gratifying a taste
for dissent at the expense of our Church's common peace and fellow
ship. I cannot conclude this letter without assuring you, that this is
the first time I may be said directly to have discussed a subject in every
respect most painful and distressing. But, inasmuch as both Mr. Almond,
of St. Mary's, and myself, are now caUed upon for the use of our pul
pits, I cannot, for my own part, be altogether silent, nor allow you, nor
any other respectable minister of the Cljurch of England, to imagine
that, because I may be compelled to decline the wonted use of the pulpit
of St. Jude's to the London deputation of the Church Missionary So
ciety this year, therefore my sincere love for that exceUent Society, and
secration from the word of God and prayer, the very way by which our Saviour
Himself sanctified those elements in His first institution, calling upon God for His
blessing, and giving thanks. Though the primitive Fathers, in the act of consecra
tion, did usually join the narrative of Christ's institution with the words o£ blessing
and thanksgiving, thereby, as it were, shewing their commission, yet were they far
from imagining that the elements were sanctified any other way than by prayer.
The Papists make the words of institution the great operators in the conversion,
that is, of the elements into the real body of our Lord, in the process of transub
stantiation.'"

APPENDIX. 115
my warm prayers for the success of the hallowed cause it maintains, are
in the least degree lessened or become cold. The second sermon I
preached after ordination was in behalf of the Missionary Society ; and
when I caU to mind how highly the good Spirit of our God has honoured
and distinguished its catholic exertions, believe me, I view with the ut
most pain any line of conduct it may be tempted to adopt, which shaU
terminate in clouding its chai-acter, or in abridging its usefulness.
Once more, before I conclude, the " Drummond Schism" in England
is greatly misunderstood, and many good people have needlessly afforded
their sympathy to a bad cause, under the idea that a Scottish Bishop has
endeavoured to put down private social prayer-meetings. But this is
altogether false and unjust; Mr. Bagot, myself, and, indeed, aU our
brethren in the ministry, have ample means for indulging a rational
liberty in conducting a private meeting of a social and congrega
tional NATURE. But when these meetings fairly come under the for
mal character of public worship, then we feel it, not a hardship, but,
on the contrary, both a privilege and a duty, as sound Churchmen, to
obey the canon of our Church, and use the appointed Liturgy. And,
surely if aU things are to be done " decently and in order;'' and if the
visible Church of Christ is not to be reduced into a chaos of clashing
wiUs, but to be maintained in the outward harmony as well as in the
' inward " beauty of holiness," — may I not affirm that, in matters indif
ferent, the liberty of an individual member must sometimes be surren
dered, in order to procure and maintain the collective unity of the whole
body? And now, my dear Mr. Close, with the eamest hope that you will
promptiy offer your urgent counsel to the committee of the Church
Missionary Society on this subject, I conclude by assuring you that I
remain, yours very faithfuUy, Robert Montgomery,
Minister of St. Jude's, Glasgow.

Note VI.
The following introduction to the " Code of Canons of the Epis
copal Church in Scotland," may serve for a practical comment on
this passage :
" Religion, implying the obligation which we Ue under to the service
of God, must be of Divine Institution : because God alone can teU how
He wUl be worshipped and served by His creatures. Having revealed
His wUl for this purpose. He has also from the beginnuig constituted and
set apart certain persons to act as His more immediate Servants or Offi
cers, and in that official relation to assist mankind in the performance
of tiieh reUgious duties. That this was the case under the Patriarchal
and Mosaic Institutions, is evident from the history of both, contamed

116 APPENDIX.
in the Old Testament ; and that the case is the same under the Dispen
sation of the Gospel is no less manifest from the account which the New
Testament gives of the Establishment of the Christian Church. It is
there recorded for our instruction, that our Blessed Saviour, .the Author
and Finisher of our Faith, and the Head over aU things to His Church,
when He had ' caUed His disciples unto Him, chose twelve of them ;'
whom He was pleased to distinguish by the title of ' Apostles,' or per
sons sent with a particular Commission to preach the Gospel ; and with
power to work miracles for evincing the authority with which they were
vested. The appointment afterwards of other seventy Disciples appears
to have been of a temporary nature, to prepare for their Lord's recep
tion in ' every city or place,' which He was to bless vidth His presence.
After His resurrection from the dead. He enlarged the Commission given
to His Apostles, extending the object of it to the conversion of ' aU na
tions,' making them His Disciples, and bringing them under His tuition
and discipline, by baptising them after the form and order of His ap
pointment. Hence it is evident, that as long as there are nations or
people upon earth, to be thus converted, disciplined, and baptised, so
long must there be persons duly authorised for that purpose ; and whose
authority can flow down in no other channel than that which leads up
to the only source from which it can be derived — the command issued
by Him to whom all power was given, both in heaven and on earth :
and who, after declaring Himself invested with this universal sovereignty,
immediately added, as a consequence of it, this extensive Commission to
His Apostles ; ' Go ye, therefore, make Disciples to me of all nations,
baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost ; and teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you ; and, lo ! I am with you always' (in the act of handing
down this Commission) ' even unto the end of the world.' This is the
fundamental charter by which the Church of Christ holds its continu
ance in the world, and wUl do so as long as the world itself continues.
The preservation of its spiritual powers, in the way of Episcopal succes
sion, has ever marked the ' continuance' of Christians, after the example
of the early converts, ' in the Apostles' doctrine and feUowship ;' and
from the constant attention shewn to this ecclesiastical arrangement in
the Apostolic age, we may justly infer, that it was then considered as
one of those things which our Lord's Apostles were commanded to
teach the nations to ' observe,' to watch over and preserve, in its
pure and original form. Such is the form in which has been regularly
handed dovra the ecclesiastical authority of the Episcopal Church in
Scotland ; a Church in itself completely constituted and organised in
respect of spiritual power and sacred ministrations by its own Bishops,
Priests, and Deacons. In this character, being in fuU communion with
the Church of England and Ireland, and adopting as the standard of her
T^aith the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, as received in that Church,

APPENDIX. 117
she claims the authority which, according to the thirty-fourth of those
Articles, belongs to • every particular or national church, to ordam,
change, or abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by
man's authority, so that all things be done to edifying.'
"The doctrine of the Church, as founded on the authority of the
Scripture, being fixed and immutable, ought to be uniformly received
and adhered to, at aU times, and in all places. The same is to be said
of its government, in aU those essential parts of its constitution which
were prescribed by its adorable Head. But m the discipline, which
may be adopted for furthering the purposes of Ecclesiastical Govern
ment, regulating the solemnities of public worship, as to time, place,
and form, and resti'auiing and rectifying the evils occasioned by human
depravity, this character of immutability is not to be looked for. The
Discipline of the Church is to be determined by Christian wisdom, pru
dence, and charity ; and when any particular Church has drawn up a
body of Canons for its own use, regard has always been had to its pecu
liar situation at the time when its discipline was thus regulated. In
one country, a pure Apostolic Church is found to be legally established,
amply endQwed, and closely incorporated with the State ; whUe in
another, forming a part of the same Empire, it is only tolerated by the
State ; and as to aU matters of spiritual concern, derives no support fi-om
the CivU Government.
" Such is precisely the difference of situation between the Established
Church of England and Ireland, and the unestablished, the merely tole
rated Episcopal Church in Scotland. In things of a purely ecclesiastical
nature, embracing the doctrine and Government of the Church, the faith
peculiar to Christianity, and the mode of transmitting an Apostolic
Episcopacy — in these respects the Reformed Episcopjd Church is the
same in every part of the British Empire. That system of reUgious
faith and Ecclesiastical Order, by which it is distinguished in every dis
trict of England and Ireland, is also its mark of distinction to the re
motest comer of Scotland ; and although in this country it is wholly
unconnected with the State in the exercise of its spiritual authority, yet
does it StUl depend, imder God, on the civU power for peace and pro
tection in the enjoyment of aU its rights and privUeges, as a society
purely spiritual, and constituted for the purpose of affording the means
of grace and salvation to the Members of Christ's mystical body.
" Viewmg it in this hght, the Clergy of the Episcopal Church in
Scotiand declare, in the most sincere and unequivocal manner, that the
Ecclesiastical Commission handed down to them has no relation to such
secular powers and privileges as are peculiar to a National EstabUsh
ment ; nor does it m the least interfere with the rights of the Temporal
State, or the jurisdiction of the supreme CivU Magistrate. On the con
trary, the Clergy of this Church, of every rank and order, feel no hesi
tation in asserting and maintainhag that the Kmg's Majesty, to whom
I

118 APPENDIX.
they sincerely promise to bear true allegiance, is the only ' Supreme
Governor within his dominions, whose prerogative it is to rule all estates
and degrees committed to his charge by God ; and to restrain, with the
civU sword, the stubborn and evil doers of every denommation. Clergy.
men as weU as Laymen. They further declare, that no foreign Prince,
Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to have, any juris
diction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within this realm; and they do from their hearts, abhor, detest,
and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and posi
tion, that Princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any
authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their
subjects, or any other whatsoever.'
" Such are the solemn acknowledgments of the King's Sovereignty
required fi-om Candidates for Holy Orders in the United Church of
England and Ireland. A simUar obUgation, as extended to aU ecclesi-
astical persons, was enforced in a Code of Canons intended for the
Estabhshed Church of Scotiand in the Reign of Charles the Fust. But
the attempt to introduce a proper system of disoipUne, conjoined to the
uniform use of a Liturgy, was completely frustrated by the events of
that disastrous period ; and the troublesome state of affairs, in the two
succeeding reigns, was equaUy unfavourable to tbe establishment of
order and unit)"^ in the Church. The Revolution in 1688 set aside the
legally estabUshed Episcopacy of Scotland ; and for several years after
the shock which our Church received by the termination of that national
struggle, the Bishops had enough to do in keepmg up a pure- Episcopal
succession, tiU it should be seen what, in the course of Providence,
might be further effected towards the preservation, though not of an
Established, yet of a surely primitive Episcopal Church, in this part of
the Kingdom. For this purpose, a few Canons were drawn up, and
sanctioned by the Bishops, in the year 1743, which, though very well
calculated to answer the purposes intended by them, whUe the Church
was under legal restraint and threatened with persecution, have yet left
room for considerable enlargement, and require to have embodied with
them, or added to them, several Regulations suited to the now happUy
tolerated and protected state of the Episcopal Church in this country.
" In accomplishing this good work, some aid might be expected from
the Canons appointed for the Church of England in the year 1603, for
the Church of Ireland in 1634, and for the Church of Scotland in 1636.
For the purpose of collecting from these,* and other sources, a System of
Ecclesiastical Disciphne proper for the Church under their Episcopal
charge, the Protestant Bishops in Scotland came to the resolution of
holding a General Ecclesiastical Synod ; and being duly convocated by
the Primus, did accordingly meet at Aberdeen, on "Wednesday, the 19th
day of June, in the year of our Lord 1811, together with the Deans of
their several Dioceses, and a Representative of the Clergy from each

APPENDIX. ] 19
Diocese containing more than four Presbyters, when a Code of Canons
for preserving and regulating Order and Disciphne in the Protestant
Episcopal Church in Scotiand was adopted and sanctioned. A Second
General Synod met at Laurenceliirk, in the County of Kincardine, on
Wednesday, the 18th day of June, 1828, when the Canons of 1811
were revised and altered. A tiiird was held in Edinburgh on Wednes
day, 17th of June, 1829, when some enactments in the Sixteenth Canon
of 1828 were repealed. A very general desire being expressed through
out the Church, especiaUy in the year 1837, that a further revision of the
whole Code should be made, another General Synod was in consequence
duly summoned, and met accordingly in Edinburgh, on Wednesday the
29th August, 1 838, and being then and tiiere duly and solemnly constituted
with prayer, after full deUberation and discussion during several succes
sive days, the Synod so assembled and constituted did, and hereby do,
ADOPT and SANCTION the foUowmg revised and amended Code of
Canons, and declare them to be in future the stated Rules and Regula
tions for preserving order and discipUne in the said Church in Scotiand.
In testimony whereof, WE, the members of the said Synod, have hereunto
annexed our names and designations in the Register-Book of the Epis
copal CoUege, and we have, -moreover, entrusted to a Committee in
Edmburgh the duty of causing the Re-idsed and Amended Canons now
approved and sanctioned to be inserted in the aforesaid Register, and,
together with this Introduction, to be carefully printed for the general
use of the Church. For these purposes, an authentic Copy, verified by
the Primus, the Clerk of the Episcopal CoUege, and by the Prolocutor
of the Second Chamber, in the presence of the Synod, has been given
to the Committee, which they are required to preserve when these pur
poses are attained, along with the Register-Book aforesaid ; committing
the custody thereof to the Clerk of the Episcopal College, whose duty it
is to preserve the said Register, and the general Records of the Church.
" James Walker, D.D., Primus.
Patrick Torrt, D.D., Bishop.
W. Skinner, D.D., Bishop.
D-AVID Low, LL.D., Bishop.
Michael Russell, LL.D., Bishop.
David Moir, A.M., Bishop.
Heneage Horslet, A.M., Dean of Brechin, and Prolocutor.
John Torrt, A.M., Dean of Dunkeld, &c.
John Gumming, Dean of Aberdeen.
Charles H. Terrot, A.M., Dean of Edinburgh.
William Routledge, Dean of Glasgow.
George Gordon Mille, A.M., Delegate of Dunkeld, &c.
William Henderson, A.M., Delegate of Brechin.
P. Chetne, A.M., Delegate of Aberdeen.
Charles Fxvie, A.M., Delegate of Ross, &c.
E. B. Ramsay, A.M., Delegate of Edmburgh.
Wm. S. Wilson, A.M., Delegate of Glasgow."

120 APPENDIX.

Note VII.

Protests from some English Bishops against the Schism in
Scotland.
As an undeniable proof that the Scottish Schism is condemned by
the leading Prelates of the Anglican Church, let the subsequent letters
testify : — Coleorton Hall, \Q Aug, 1845.
" Rev. and dear Sir, — Being absent from London, to the neighbour
hood of which I propose to return at the end of this week, I did not re
ceive yolir letter of the 14th tiU this morning, and I lose no time in
answering the question which you have put to me.
The Episcopal Church in Scotland is in communion -with the United
Church of England and Ireland, through the medium of her Bishops, as,
without referring farther back, wiU appear from a recent act of the
Legislature, the 3 and 4 Vict. c. 33.
Of congregations in Scotland not acknowledging the spiritual juris
diction of the Bishop in whose diocese the chapels are situate, yet call
ing themselves Episcopalian, we know nothing. In order to prove their
right to this designation, they should be able to shew what Bishop in
England has authority, by law or by custom, to regulate their worship,
and to direct or control their ministers in respect of discipline or doctrine.
In default of such proof they cannot be considered as EpiscopaUan,
though the service of their chapels be performed by clergymen who have
been regularly ordained by a Bishop.
In the case of Forres, my subscription was given on the understand
ing that the chapel was subject to the jurisdiction of a Bishop, and 1
should undoubtedly refuse to contribute to the building of any place of
worship which was not under his authority.
I remain, Rev. and dear Sir, your humble and obedient servant.
Rev. A. Ewing. (Signed) W. Caniuar.
Fulham, 29 July, 184S.
" Rev. Sie, — I subscribed 51. towards the erection of a chapel at
Nairn, having been assured that the plan was approved of by the
Bishop, and therefore concluding that the chapel was under his Epis-
copal jurisdiction. Upon learning that this was not to be the case, I
desired that my subscription might be refunded, which was done. If it
should turn out, that the chapel when buUt will be subject to the Bishop
in whose diocese it is situate, I wUl readily pay the sum above named
towards its erection. I am, Eev. Sir, your faithful servant,
Rev. A, Ewing, (Signed) C. J. London.
Fulham, 21 Nov, 1845.
" Right Rev. and dear Sib,— Accept my thanks for the copy which

APPENDIX. 121
you have been so good as to send me of your Address to the Managers
and Congregation of St. Jude's, Glasgow. I earnestiy hope that it may
produce the desired effect, and make the parties to whom it is directed
sensible of the schismatical nature of their proceedings.
My opinion, as to the obUgation which binds an EngUsh clergyman,
desirous of officiating in Scotiand, to seek for authority to do so at the
hands of the Bishop within whose diocese he is to officiate, and to pay
his canonical obedience, has long been made known in that country. I
retain that opinion unchanged.
As to the jurisdiction which, it appears, some persons suppose me
to possess as Bishop of London, over English clergymen residing in
Scotiand, I absolutely disclaim it. Were I to pretend to any such
jurisdiction, I should be intruding into a province which does not belong
to me ; and any attempt to exercise it would be productive of schism
and confusion. If I possessed any authority over Mr. Miles or Sir
WUham Dunbar, I should exert it for the purpose of inducing them to
return to the spiritual allegiance which they owe, while in Scotland, to
the Fathers of the Church in that country. The duty of paying that
aUegiance I urged very strongly upon Sir WUliam Dunbar, when he
quitted the Diocese of London, to take charge of a congregation in
Aberdeen. The refusal of it must lead to disorder, and to a weakening
of the Church, at a time when aU her energies are needed, to resist the
assaults of those who are equaUy hostUe to the Scotch and English
branches of Christ's Holy CathoUc Church, as possessing the apostolical
inheritance of Episcopacy. — Believe me.
My dear Bishop of Glasgow,
Your affectionate friend and brother,
The Right Rev, the Bishop of Glasgow. C. J. London,
Bisliopstowe, Torquay, Aug, 10, 1845.
" ReV. StR,-^Your letter of the 4th would have received an earher
answer had I been at home when it arrived here. But I lose not a sin
gle pCst in giving it such an answer as, 1 trust, you have sufficient
Charity to expect from me on this occasion.
I have been rarely more astonished than by the statement which
you say has been made in some of the local newspapers m your neigh
bourhood, that I am about to consecrate a church in the diocese of
Moray, Ross, and Argyle. I should have thought that the glarmg
absurdity of such rumour would have secured its non-admission into
any journal which is under the direction of a person of ordinary in
formation. J
I have no more right to intrude into the Bishop of Moray s diocese
than he has to exercise jurisdiction in mme; and I certainly have as
littie incUnation as right to do so.
You are at liberty to give the fuUest and most unqualified contradic-

Igg APPENDIX.
tion to the statement. I cannot even guess what can be pretended as
its foundation. TiU your letter reached me, I was not aware of the
intention of any one to buUd a new church at Nairn, or elsewhere in
Scotland. ^ r^t. ¦
The Bishops in England have no jurisdiction whatever out of their
own diocese respectively.
The Church of Scotland is as independent as that of England, and 1
deem any priest or deacon, whether ordained in England or Scotland,
who presumes to minister in any diocese in Scotland m defiance of the
Bishop's authority, is guUty of most manifest Schism.
The notion ofa chapel at Nairn, being in connexion with the Church
of England, unless through the Bishop of Moray, is monstrous.
Heartily praying the great Head of the CathoUc Church to bless the
pure and ApostoUc branch of it which, by His grace, is planted in
Scotland, , . ^ . ,
I am, Rev. Sir, your faithful servant, and brother in Chnst,
To the Rev. A. Ewing, H. Exeter,

Note VIII.
Remarks on Bishop Daly's Letter.
By way of neutraUsing the above unequivocal statement, an Irish
Bishop's letter has been printed with boastful triumph. From this
document we quote two passages; — 1st, " It has been a source of
great grief to me that the Scottish Episcopal Church has departed so
widely from the doctrines of the Church of England ;" and 2dly, " I
never considered myself guUty of schism when I attended a Church-
of-England place of worship in France, or Belgium, or Germany,
though under the jurisdiction of no episcopal authority in those
countries." Now, in reply to the first point, we beg to assure his
Lordship, the Scottish Church has NOT departed from the docti-ine
of the Church of England ; the mere fact that certain members of the
Episcopal Communion may have preached and printed doctrines which
are at variance with our English Church, is no more a proof that
the Church, as a Church, has done this, than the Romanising pubUca
tions of certain ministers in the Anglican Church, prove that the
EngUsh Church, as such, has departed from Scriptural truth and the
Catholic faith. As to the second quotation, let us be allowed, with
all respect for the sterling worth of his Lordship's character, and un
affected reverence for his office, to observe, that his attempted parallel
cannot be maintained. When his Lordship attended English chapels
on the continent, he did not attend conventicles set up by schismatical
clergy in direct opposition to the local Bishops — for the obvious reason
that no EngUsh bishops have any diocesan status on the continent.

APPENDIX. ]oy
But in Scotiand the Scottish prelates are the lawful and acknowledged
successors in office to the ancient Bishops of that countiy, and the
dioceses over which they now preside rival in antiquity those of the
EngUsh Church. The comparison, therefore, which his Lordship wishes
to draw, has really no basis on which to stand. The mere historical
accident, tiiat the Scottish prelates are not formally acknowledged by
the State, does not in the remotest degree interfere with their episcopal
prerogatives in Scotiand. Surely his Lordship would not sanction the
Erastian dogma, that an anomalous thing, like a creedless Pariiament,
can by any possibiUty make a Bishop, originate a Liturgy, or constitute
a Church ? MeanwhUe we are assm-ed. that the venerable Primate of
England's voice, backed as it is by that of his distmguished brethren.
wiU not be unheeded by those who beheve an Archbishop to understand
the nature of his own Church, and the real extent of her powers.
Note IX.
Letter from Bishop RusseU to Rev. R. Montgomery, authorising
him to collect Funds for building St. Jude's Church.
Glasgow, May 23, 1839.
Reverend and dear Sir, — It gives me much pleasure to find that
you can command sufficient time to make a journey into the south, to
lay the case of our poor Episcopahans before the wealthy and generous
people of England. They are not aware that thousands of individuals
in the lower classes of our population — natives of England or of Ireland
— have no means of worshipping God according to the ritual of their
native Church ; and that hitherto, amidst aU the zeal and improvement
of modern times, they have been utterly neglected. In this labour of
Christian charity you have my best wishes and fuU approbation ; and
I trust you wiU be weU received, for your work's sake. Our task is
great, and our means are smaU ; but, as the motive is good, and the
result wUl be most beneficial, I have no doubt that your exertions wUl
be crowned with success, and viewed by every one in the most favour
able hght, even in cases where it may not be convenient to co-operate
with you. I am, Rev. and dear Sir, your faithful friend and brother,
The Rev, Robert Montgomery, M. Russell, Bishop of Glasgow.
Minister qfSt, Jude's Church,

Note X.
Bishop Russell on the original Constitution of St. Jude's.
Bishop Russell must be heard on this point : — " Permit me io
remind you, that the Congregation of St, Jude's was received into the
communion of the Scottish Episcopal Church upon your own earnest en-

124 APPENDIX.
treaty. Without any particular reference to the cu-cumstances in which
you originally assembled, I may confidentiy state that you came to me
without any invitation on my part. Your motion towards the Church
was voluntary, and du-ected. I beheve, by the impulse of sound prin
ciple, and with the full intention of fulfilling aU the obligations which
your union with a regular Society necessarily implies. About the end
of September 1838, I received a Memorial, signed by four hundred
and fifty-five individuals, which, I was informed in a letter from the
Chairman. WiUiam Frederick Burnley, Esq., had been read and adopted
at a meeting held on the 25th of the month just specified. The said
deed, so signed and authenticated, runs in part as foUows : —
' Unto the Right Reverend the Bishop of the Diocese of Glasgow.
' The Memorial of the undersigned Inhabitants of Glasgow, being either
bona fide Episcopalians, or desirous of becoming so,
" Humbly Sheweth.
" That your Memorialists being sincerely attached to the Scottish
Episcopal Church, are desirous of being formed into a Congregation in
connexion with that Church.
' That your Memorialists are persuaded that the foUowing facts
form a sufficient reason why the prayer of their application should be
granted — facts which they are ready.to substantiate, if necessary, but
which are doubtless well known to your Reverence.
' The Episcopalian population of our city has been estimated at
10,000, and the number, from the growing intercourse with England and
Ireland, is steadily on the increase. There are three Churches of that
Communion in Glasgow, which collectively wiU not afford accommoda
tion to more than 3000 souls, leaving the surplus altogether unpro
vided with the means of grace.
' That your Memorialists are desirous to provide for themselves th6
blessing of gospel ordinances in the Church to which tliey are attached f
to meet, as far as they can, the increase of the Episcopalian Commu^
nion ; and to furnish their poorer brethren with the means of reUgioUs
instruction at a moderate rate.
' That a sufficient sum has been realised to warrant entering into
contracts for the building of a permanent place of worship; and the
Interim Committee of Management have actually advanced far in the
erection of a Church, ^nd in connexion therewith, have come under
liabilities to an extent exceeding 5C00L
' May it therefore please your Reverence to take this Memorial
into your consideration, and grant Ucense for forming the Memorialists
into a Congregation, IN CONNEXION WITH THE SCOTTISH
EPISCOPAL CHURCH.'
" Three conditions were stated by me as indispensable to a right

APPENDIX. 125
determmation of the matter thus submitted to my official judgment;
namely, that there should be a sufficient number of Episcopahans, or
of persons desirous to become such, to form a new Congregation ; that
there should be provided a sum of money equal to the expense of a
moderately sized Chapel; and that the proposed building should not
be erected within half a mile of any existing Episcopal Church. The
names affixed to the Memorial seemed to meet the first condition;
a subscription-paper sent to me, containing obligations to a large
amount by some of the Managers, satisfied the second ; and the site
selected for St. Jude's was held sufficiently remote from the nearest
Chapel to justify acquiescence. But while some doubt still remained
as to this last point, I received a letter from the Managers, signed by
their Chairman, entreating that the condition might not be too rigidly
enforced: adding. Doubtless you will unite with us and with every other
well-wisher for the extension of our Apostolic Church in Scotland, in say
ing of our undertaking, ' destroy it not, for there is a blessing in it,'
" In order that the views of all parties might be fully realised, it
was resolved that the ingraftment of the new Congregation into the
Scottish Episcopal Communion (into which it was formally admitted by
the institution of the Clergyman to his pastoral charge) should be re
cognised in the Constitution, about to be drawn up for the manage
ment of their affairs. The first article, accordingly, of that Deed is
expressed in these words : ' The Congregation of said Church shall be
in connexion with, and subject to the discipline of. the Scottish Epis
copal Church.'
" It is scarcely necessary to mention, that such connexion with the
Episcopal Church in Scotland, and acknowledgment of its discipline,
ore avowed on the part of the Clergyman by the act of signing the
Canons and the Thirty-Nine Articles.
" Sis years passed in repose and mutual confidence during the incum-"
bency of your late Clergyman, the Reverend Robert Montgomery, who
loved peace and ensued it. From the conduct of your present Pastor;
too, I was at first led to expect the enjoyment of simUar quietness, co^
operation, and good wiU ; for he not duly signed the Canons with readi
ness and a wilhng mind, but even declared to me that if he could not
Conscientiously sign them, he would go whence he came, rather than re
main in this country if he could not hold communion with the Church
in it. The foUowing letter wiU fuUy explain the sentiments with which
he entered upon his duties at Glasgow, and his opinion of the ' un-
happy controversies' recentiy agitated in Edinburgh and Aberdeen :— ^
" 98 Bath Street, Glasgow, Dec, 1, 1843.
" Right Reverend Sir,— I have been favoured by Mr. Burnley with
a perusal of the two letters which he has lately received from you, rela
tive to my institution as Mmister of St, Jude's Church in this city.

126 APPENDIX.
' It has afforded me considerable pleasure to note the observations
therein expressed, and I feel that it is my duty to convey to your Re
verence the assurance, that in the propriety and justice of those obser
vations I perfectiy acquiesce.
' When I left England, I was quite ignorant of the nature of the
Canons or Communion Office of the Episcopal Church in Scotland ; and
in accepting my present appointment. I was guided by an impression
that in every particular point there was harmony with the Church of
England. The late unhappy controversies in Edinburgh and Aberdeen
had reached my ears, but it so happened that I had never found time
to read them.
' However, since my arrival in this . country I have been made ac-
quainted with the details of the questions at issue ; and drawing my in
ferences from what I heard. I began to anticipate the probabiUty of my
refusing to connect myself vnth the Scottish Episcopal Church. StiU
I never contemplated a decision in my judgment untU I had fairly ex-
amined the whole matter, and certainly I had no intention of aUowing
other parties to decide the matter for me. I was determined to peruse
and criticise the Canons, and, if they appeared in their plain and ob-
¦vious meaning, according to the grammatical construction of the lan
guage, to mUitate against the Canons of the Church of England. I was
equaUy determined to decline the required subscription.
' Your Reverence will. I am sure, excuse the freedom with which I
am making you acquainted with my own mind. The Canons I have
now examined. I took the precaution of reading them before I con
sulted any controversial writings bearing on the subject. The result
was acquired without the shghtest difficulty. I must frankly say, that in
asmuch as they relate only to discipline, and not to matters oi faith, and
inasmuch as they cannot compel me to adopt in my own Church the Com
munion Office^— a clause in which I decidedly hold to be objectionable,
as likely to disturb weak minds — / shall have no hesitation in affixing my
signature; and I will endeavour, when opportunity offers, to assist
IN suppressing the outcry that has been so unadvisedly raised.
' In my own judgment, I think the objectionable clause in the Communion
Office is explained by other portions af the Service, even as certain strong
phrases in the English Office are in like manner qualified. Still. I shaU
rejoice, for the sake of others — for the sake of Episcopacy in this
country — when the stumbUng-block is removed*
'Trusting that nothing wUl prevent your Reverence from visiting
Glasgow on thfe 1 4th instant, I have the honour, &c.'
" Such a letter was dndoubtedly well calculated to confirm my bope
of peace,— to remove certain painful impressions which had been made
on my mind by repeated paragraphs in the pubUc prints, originating in
a quarter equally unfriendly to Mr. Miles and to the Scottish Episcopal

APPENDIX. 127
Church. The allusion to the unhappy controversies at Edinburgh and
Aberdeen, and the assurance that he would endeavour, when oppor
tunity offered, to assist in suppressing the outcry that had been so
unadvisedly raised against the Scottish Communion Office — these
remarks taken together, could not faU to encourage the beUef that I
should find in the successor of Mr. Montgomery, a friend with whom I
might at all times talce safe counsel, and on whose aid I might confi
dently rely. The wish to remove from the mysteries of the Eucharist
a cause of disturbance to weak minds, and a stumbling-block from the
path of those who have not learned to guide them, is not less amiable
than conciUatory. Nay, Mr. MUes did not conceal his opinion as to
the merits at least of the Edinburgh ' controversy.' He pronounced
Mr. Drummond in the ivrong, and repeated his conviction that, had he
acted with greater moderation, the schism in the metropolis might have
been prevented.
" The form of subscription, promising obedience to the Canons, is
as follows, and wtis solemnly made in my presence : — ¦ ' I. Charles
Popham MUes, do hereby solemnly promise, that I wUl give all due
obedience to the Canons of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, drawn
up and enacted by the Bishops of that Church, in a Synod holden for
that purpose in Edinburgh, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and thirty-eight ; and I in lUce manner promise that I wdl
shew, in aU things, an eamest desire to promote the peace, unity, and
order of the said Episcopal Church, and wiU not appeal from any sen
tence to a Civil Court, but acquiesce in the decisions of the Ecclesiastical
Authorities, in aU questions foUing under their spiritual jurisdiction.'
" Upon the basis of this subscription as weU as on that to the Thirty-
nine Articles, that one obUging canonical obedience, the other to A
sound faith, I proceeded on the 14th December, 1843, to institute Mr.
Miles to his charge, when I, in virtue of my office, as Bishop, established
between him and you the pastoral relation : authorising and licensing
Mm, as Minister of the Congregation assembling iu the Chapel of St.
Jude. — ^AUuding to the Presentation sent to me by the Managers, I said,
'We, tiie Bishop before mentioned, have sustained the same, and do
hereby institute and appoint the said Reverend Charles Popham Mfles
to be Pastor or Minister of the said Congregation, he having previously
made in our presence the subscriptions required by the Canons of thfe
Episcopal Church in Scotiand, and Ukewise exhibited to us his Letters
of Holy Orders : and we do farther license and autiiorise the said Rev.
Charles Popham MUes to read in the said Chapel, or in any other Chapel
that may be consecrated or licensed by us or our successors m office,
for the use of the said Congregation, the PubUc Prayers of the Church,
to admmister God's Holy Sacraments, to preach His holy Word, and to
perform, according to the rites and ceremonies of tbe Episcopal Church
in Scotland, every other sacred office, which it is competent for a Pres-

128 APPENDIX.
byter to perform: And we do hereby strictly prohibit and discharge
every other Clergyman from performing any sacred office in the said
Chapel, or from interfering, directly or indirectly, in the pastoral care of
the said Congregation, without the consent and approbation of the said
Reverend Charles Popham Miles ; whom we do also certify that he
shall be accountable to us and our successors. Bishops of Glasgow,
for his conduct as Minister of the Chapel to which he is now instituted,
and as Pastor of the Congregation which is now committed to his care.'
" By accepting this Institution at my hand, as Bishop of Glasgow,
and in the presence of the great God and his assembled people, Mr.
Miles acknowledged at once the authority with which, as his Ordinary.
I am invested, and his obligations to obey me in all lawful things, as
defined by Canon and regulated by the usage of the Episcopal Church.
At his ordination, he also promised, in a manner the most solemn that
can be imagined, the obedience and submission to which allusion is now
made. The Bishop, ' in the name of God and of this Church,' de
manded of him : ' Will you reverently obey your Ordinary, and other
chief Ministers, unto whom is committed the charge and government
over you ; foUowing with a glad mind and wiU their godly admoni
tions, and submitting yourself to their godly judgments ?' To this ques
tion, which admits of no ambiguity, he replied, ' I vrill do so, the Lord
being my helper.'
" Surely Mr. Miles had not this awful scene present to his mind
when, in reply to an earnest exhortation on my part to devote all his
thoughts and exertions to the duties of his ovra charge, he wrote, on the
Sth of the present month, the following sentences : ' I beg to acquaint
you that I am no longer in connexion with the Episcopal Church of
Scotland, and that your Reverence must henceforward consider me as
entirely vrithdrawn from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of the diocese
of Glasgow. On the 14th of December last, I signed certain Canons
whereby I readily acknowleged you as my Ordinary, and cheerfuUy
promised obedience — obedience in all lawful matters : I now, in the
exercise of my Christian liberty, recal my subscription, and, in virtue of
this deed; hereby claim exemption from your authority, and cease to be
a Presbyter of the Scottish Episcopal Church.'
" It is certainly a strange species of ' Christian liberty' which can bd
so exercised as to exempt a man from a solemn obligation, incurred iil
the presence of God and of his Church, as soon as he finds it incon
venient to comply vrith its requisitions. Had Mr. Miles resigned the
charge of the Congregation when he discovered that he could no longer
hold it on the terms to which he acceded when he received it from my
hands, he would have had on his side a good shew of reason ; bvt to re
tain the charge, and, at the same time, to repudiate the authority which
invested him with it, is, to say the least, not equally intelligible." — (Bishop
Russell's Affectionate Address.)

-APPENDIX. 129
Note XI.
On the Catholic Ideal of the Anglican Church.
As the present writer has been virulently assaUed in the coarsest
terms, and libelled in certain ultra prints, as a "red-hot tractarian,"
"half a Romanist," &c. &c., he takes the liberty to extract from his
pamphlet, entitled " The Ideal of the English Church," — two pas
sages, in which he has endeavoured to state, what he considers a fair
exposition of the Anglican Church, in regard to her theory of Scrip
tural forms, and her creed of Catholic Churchmanship.
" On the ideal of the Church as to ritual, forms, and cere
monial EMBLEMS. — In the religion of Jesus Christ there is a body of
visible Forms, and a soul of invisible Principles, which respond to the
two-fold attributes which compose our human nature, even that of
material flesh and immaterial spirit. And in what does the perfec
tion of practical devotion consist, but in maintaining an harmonious
counterbalance between these parts of our religion and these proper
ties of our nature ? When is the life of faith more fruitful, and the
science of our worshipping souls more heavenly and complete, — than
when it yields to our senses such a proportion of outward rite as they
require, and to our souls such an amount of inward doctrines as they
need ? The entire man is redeemed by Christ, and, therefore, the entire
man must worship Christ. But how can the Saviour be adored by our
human entireness, and a religion commensurate with our entireness be
put into action .' Consequently, a liturgy exclusively spiritual would
be altogether unsuited to man in his earthly condition as an embodied
soul. Were it all viewless spirit, what would become of his sensible
faculties ? Were it all visible form, what would become of his spiritual
faculties ? But let him be provided with a religious apparatus respon-
sively adapted to meet the distinct requirements of his compound nature,
and the whole humanity is then suppUed with a sacred nourishment
suitable to its weaknesses and wants.
" In theory, of course, few wiU deny these observations to be grounded
on a correct interpretation of Christ's rehgion and man's need. But.
alas ! in practice, how often have the Church and her children violated
the harmony which the Redeemer hath established between His faith
and our faculties !"
"In every age a bias of disturbing prejudice hath dislocated the pro
portion which He designed ever to be preserved between the body and
soul of Christianity, and the body and soul of the Christian. Some
times this bias has tended to a reUgion exclusively ad extra, or one of
embodied rites ; and again, in another period, the bias has incUned to
a rehgion exclusively ad intra, or one of internal experiences. Thus.
more or less, there has ever been (especiaUy since the Reformation) a
great contention where there ought to have been a glorious concord.

130 APPENDIX.
One class of theologians have unwisely separated the means too far
from the end in reference to salvation, and the result has been — ritual
formalism. Again, another species of theologians have separated the
end too far from the means, and the consequence has been — spiritual
fanaticism. In either case, this is indeed to be sorely lamented, as
tending not more to dishonour the wondrous perfection of the Re
deemer's economy, than to disturb the proportions of man's being.
Would that the via media, along which apostles, saints, and martyrs
walked in fraternal unity and loving concord towards their common
heaven, had been reverently kept ! This, indeed, is at once the pri
mitive, sincere, and Catholic way. This is a path which verges
neither to the right hand nor to the left; which tends not to one
extreme or to another ; but leads man by a direct Une straight to
wards his final home. " What God hath joined together, let not
man put asunder" (Matt. xix. 26). Here is a due regard for the use
of means as connected with an end; and what "God" hath put asunder,
let "not man" "join together;" here is also a right esteem for the end
as distinct from the means."
" On the ideal of the Church as to the creed which her ca
tholic MEMBERS maintain. — 1. They hold that Christianity itself, so
far as it is a religion of positive requirements, is a means, and not an
END. They cannot, therefore, mistake their '.creed for a Christ, nor
magnify their religion into their God. The end, therefore, of the
sublime Economy revealed unto mankind in Christ, they believe to
be a fellowship with the Triune Jehovah for evermore : which
commences in the operations of covenanted grace now, and will be
consummated in the fruitions of endless glory hereafter. Hence, with
them, Christ is "all in all" in time, and through Him as Redeemer,"
and by His imparted Sanctifier, God may become their " all in all"
in eternity. Hence, Forms, Rites, and Sacraments are not' with them
believed in as absolute and final, but relative and instrumental. Form
alism, therefore, in principle, is as much opposed to their views, as
heresy in doctrine."
2. " But while true Catholics believe that Means are never to be
falsely glorified into Ends, they are equaUy convinced that it is a wicked
presumption on the part of man, to aim at the End without the Means.
Hence again, forms in religion are not by them considered merely as
contingent appendices, or local modifications ; nor as venerable ReUcs
of the ancient Church, to be regarded with the traditional enthusiasm
by Priests and Churchmen; but rather as instruments of a positive
connexion between God and man; or as attesting symbols which
outwardly shadow forth inward truths; or as sacramental convey
ancers of Christ's free grace to His Body the Church. Holding there
fore these views of Forms, — they cannot sympathise -with those who
arrogate to themselves the right to reject formal institutes which
Christ or His Apostles have ordained; any more than they can approve

APPENDIX. 131
of others who wish to modify doctrines which Christ and His Apostles
have also revealed.
3. " The CathoUc Churchmen believe that in England we have a
rauE Branch of Christ's holy and Apostolical Church, which
Church is one ; though partiy visible in one sense, and partly invisible
in another. Moreover, tliey beheve that of this Church Jesus Christ,
and He only, is the Invisible, Universal, and Everlasting Head.
And thus, if contemplated under the aspect of a Kingdom, they con
sider this Kingdom to be founded on the Incarnation of the Son of
Grod ; whereby a union hath been estabUshed between God reconcUed
and man redeemed, through the life, sufferings, and death of Jesus.
Thus the Church is rooted and grounded in Christ ; aud by a Uving
communion with Him, both in a corporate or individual capacity, — our
Humanity attains its consummation of bliss now, and its glory hereafter.
4. " They beheve that as this kingdom of Christ was designed to be
universal, spiritual, and yet visible, — so hath Christ not committed it
to the invention of human wisdom, nor to the protection of human feel
ings; but that He ordered, endowed, and appointed it in aU things
requisite unto " decency," dignity, and permanence.*'
5. " For the government of this kingdom, or Church Cathohc, they
resort to Christ's wUl as developed in His Word, expounded by His
Aposties, and carried out and continued on from their day unto the
present hour : — during the whole of which period Christ has never been
without a witnessing body for Himself, on earth."
5. " Catholic Churchmen beheve that the Church of England hath
been in possession, from the earhest ages, of certain signs and symbols,
which exhibit the infallible proofs of her truly and apostoUcally forming
a part of the Redeemer's Spiritual Constitution. Among these
they consider the following : — a Creed, the Sacraments, Offices, Litur
gies, and Orders. And moreover, they delight in the glorious fact, that
amid aU the mutations of time, the revolutions of kingdoms, Emd the
passing away of earthly systems and schemes, our Apostolical Church
hath stood firm and fast to the " faith once deUvered unto the saints."
The presence of her Great Head hath been with her ; and her clergy
at this day can trace their ministerial commission, not to historical con
tingencies, nor poUtical convulsions, nor to the expediencies of State
craft, nor to the social inventions of any age or country; but by a
transmitted line, upvrardly and unbrokenly, to an ApostoUcal origin;
and which origin itself is ultimately resolved into the commission of
Christ from the Fathek. " Go ye forth," &c. AS my Father sent
me, SO I send you."
7. " They beUeve that the Reformation, in the majesty and purity
of its great principle, was from God ; and that our glorious Reformers
were human instruments in His hands for effectuatmg the mighty deh-
reiance of our Church from the thraldom of Romish assumption, idola-

132 APPENDIX.
try, and superstition. Thus, they are a protesting body of CathoUc
beUevers; that is. men who, because they are Catholics, cannot be
Romanists. The so-called headship of the Pope, they are convinced.
is nothing less than a Satanic caricature, set up by pride and ambi-
tion AGAINST the sacerdotal and regal offices of the Lord Jesus. In
their valiant protest against this horrible intrusion of a sinful creature
between Nations and Christ as also their Head alone ; between indi
vidual souls and Christ as their only Lord ; — in this they admire and
reverence the mission to which the martyrs and leaders of the Anglican
Reformation were caUed. MeanwhUe they are perfectly aware that
many faults, inconsistencies, and errors accompanied this grand deliver
ance ; but. from the very nature of the case, it could hardly have been
prevented, but that the distinct- personalities of nations and men.
rather than the corporate privileges and duties of the Church, must
have exclusively employed and engrossed the minds of the Reformers."
8. "But while the Catholic party abhor Rome, they heartily and
honestly reject Geneva ; as superstitions and idolatries are to be de
tested in the one case, so sectarian egotism and schismatical novelties
are to be avoided in the other. The Catholic believer must have an
embodied Church as weU as an abstract creed ; and hence he is
persuaded, that as the communication of grace to a sinner is altogether
a free act of royal wUl on the part of Christ, — so must the mode and
the method, by which and through which such grace comes, be left
entirely and implicitly in the hands of our blessed Redeemer. Under
this solemn impression, true Churchmen further believe that it is dis
honorable TO Christ to imagine that He intended a ministry, but
left no rules for the selection and commission of ministers ; and insti
tuted Sacraments, but made no provision for their dispensers ! Hence
it appears unto them that the Church of Christ (functionally viewed) is
not chosen by man. but constituted for him, by the Redeemer ; and
that instead of being a mere Spiritual Club where each contributes
his sum, and enters according to his own arbitrary taste or wUl. it is a
sublime organisation founded upon the positive decrees of Christ,
and built upon the Apostles and their successors in the ministry. Be
tween the Catholics, therefore, and Sectarians, there is an immense
gulf, not to be bridged over except by spurious charity and blind indif
ference to the law of the Redeemer."
9. "So far from thinking that to view Christianity as appUed to man
not only as an isolated person, but socially as a member in a body,
is to encourage formalism, they rather conclude that thereby Christ is
especially magnified. For as long as religion is confined to the frames,
feeUngs, and experience of an individual, there is danger of egotism,
self-indulgence, and self-righteousness. But when faith beholds the
" BODY of Christ," and each man as a member related thereby to the
whole, and in that whole enjoying a communion-life, the heart expands

APPENDIX. 133
into a largeness which is heavenly and divine. Above all, this realisation
of Christ and Christ alone, as the actuating Life and ruUng Head not
only of doctrines, but of institutes and forms in the Church, tends to
empty the creature of aU merit, and to ascribe every thing holy, spiri
tual, and real, unto the Lord. The Word preached ; the Sacrament dis
pensed ; the prayer offered ; the chapter read, and the praise ascribed —
oh ! the genuine Churchman in each and all can say. He is the Alpha
of their vaUdity, and the Omega of all then- effect."
"10. and lastly. In their positive aspect the Catholic party believe
that aU tiie yearnings of the Age ; all the restlessness of exacting intel
lect ; the aspirations of Society for feUowships on a broader basis, and
the cry for education, enlightenment, liberty, and peace, — are to be met
BY that spiritual PROVISION FOR HUMANITY WHICH ChRIST HATH
TREASURED IN His Church. Thus too, whUc they dread Dissenterism,
they can perceive that in every form of self-will which the manifold
sectarianism of the heart exhibits, there are distorted truths, mangled
DOCTRINES, and mutilated principles at work, which are capable of
finding a true explanation and deliverance in that spiritual constitu
tion which the Kingdom of Christ exhibits. In fact, they believe in
the Church, and in the Church alone, the harmony, unity, and co-ex
istence of all those separate ideas and clashing systems which sectarian
ism loves and invents, are to be realised. This creed, therefore, engen
ders no harsh bigotry, hatred, or intolerance, in the minds of those who
hold it ; but whether they cry " Glory to God in the highest," or " Good
will to man," they are convinced both the glory and the good- will are
best promoted by tiiose who live, feel, and act, under the controlling
power of these words, " I believe in the holy catholic Church."
—From " THE IDEAL OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH," London,
Smith and Elder. 1846.

Note XII.
Rev. Francis Garden on the Scottish Communion Office.
" Your principal ground of objection is, of course, the Scottish Com
munion Office, — which, though used but by the minority of, has pri
mary authority in, our Church, — an office different, certainly, not only
in words, but in outline and structure, from the EngUsh, though hitherto
defended by our divines here, and recognised by those of England, as
identical in meaning and purpose. In declaring that' this office " more
than justifies the separation from the Scottish Episcopal Church of any
person who has signed, and ex animo assents to the Twenty-eighth
Article" of the Church of England, your Lordship seems aware that
you may be considered as setting yourself against some very ^high
authorities. You say that " the exalted Prelates, whose letters are
K

134 APPENDIX.
quoted in favour of the Scottish Episcopal Church, appear to have had
their attention dhected to but one side of the question — that of dis-
ciplme and Episcopal authority ; the important point of doctrine
appears not to have been before them." Now, my Lord, do you
mean seriously to suggest, that the Prelates in question are or were
ignorant of the Scottish Communion Office ? Have you forgotten that
the Act Vict. 3 and 4, c. 33, was brought in by the Archbishop of
Canterbury himself ? And do you mean to pay the admirable Primate
of the English Church so sorry a compliment, as that he did this in
ignorance of the doctrines avowed by the community which he was thus
bringing into closer alliance with his own } Unless I be very greatly
mistaken, there are few things for which his Grace is more remarkable
than the minute accuracy of his information on all matters wherein he
bestirs himself. Is the Bishop of London ignorant of the Scottish
Office ? — the Bishop of London ! who, in addition to aU the means of
information previously at his command, chose one of our most distin
guished and zealous clergy for his examining chaplain, and paid Edin
burgh a visit three years ago ; ahd whether he, of all men in the world,
was likely to fail of inquiring into the ecclesiastical affairs of the com
munity in which he found himself, 1 leave you to judge. Of the Bishop
of Exeter's good information, there can be just as little doubt.
' " But let us leave the distinguished living, and turn to the Ulustrious
dead. Bishop Horsley's approbation of our Church was by no means
confined to its Episcopal Constitution, for he is known to have bestowed
the most minute attention on her Communion Office, and he bore the
most explicit testimony to its orthodoxy. I cannot find any statement
of Bishop Home's specially bearing on the office ; but as he gave great
attention to the state of our Church, at a time when she had no other,
and became her warm eulogist and advocate, I cannot conceive but that
it met with his full approbation."
" Having thus, I trust, disposed of your Lordship's attempt to shake
the confidence of our Laity in the high English authorities who have borne
testimony to the merits of our Church, 1 now proceed to consider your
objections to her Communion Office. This you have pronounced radi
cally and essentially different from that of England, on two grounds.
In your former letter, you had respect only to its similarity with that
contained in King Edward Vl.'s first Prayer-Book — its similarity with
that which you said the Church of England had " advisedly given up."
In your second letter, you have brought forward an objection which has
no reference either to King Edward's first Liturgy, or the points wherein
the Scottish Communion Office resembles it. I admit that you were
fully entitled to bestow separate consideration on this point ; but I may
be permitted to express my astonishment that you should have reiterated
your former argument, without the slightest reference to Bishop Terrot's
forcible reply thereto. In your last letter, you address the Bishop of

APPENDIX. 135
Moray as foUows: — "You say that office" (the Scottish) " is almost
identical with Cranmer's first office of Edward VI., and if your Com
munion Office only went hack towards Popery as far as to the first
Prayer-Book — if it only brought the people back to that formulary
¦which Cranmer and our other Reformers thought so objectionable as to
require reformation and amendment, it would be a sufficient reason," &c.
Now, my Lord, Bishop Terrot had proved that Cranmer and our other
Reformers did not think the first formulary objectionable at all. Most
men would be satisfied with his proof; at all events, few controversial
ists would have reiterated your statement without ti-)'ing to answer
him. I wUl again place before your eyes the words quoted by him from
the very Act which superseded the first by the second Prayer-Book.
It speaks of the first as " a very godly order, agreeable to the Word of
God and the primitive Church. — very comfortable to all good people
desiring to live in aU Christian conversation." How this last clause is
compatible with your Lordship's dictum, that a return to this formulary,
so " very comfortable to all good people," &c., would be a sufficient
reason for separating from the body making such a retum, 1 leave you
to consider. But the Act, as quoted by Bishop Terrot, aud as unno
ticed by your Lordship, goes further, — it says, that the change from the
first to the second Prayer-Book was made " because there had arisen
in the use and exercise of the foresaid common service (the first Prayer-
Book), divers doubts for the fashion and manner of the administration
of the same, rather by the curiosity of the ministers and mistakers than
fi-om any other worthy cause." Thus the very authority which set aside
the first Prayer-Book eulogised it ; thus, in the very Act whereby the
Church of England substituted a second, did she confirm and sanction
the doctrine of the first !"
" Truly, my Lord, you ought not to have reverted to your former
ground, without re-establishing it ; for in all ordinary eyes, it seems
knocked from under you. I cannot imagine that you are satisfied with
an attempt at reply to Bishop Terrot, which appeared in the columns of
a newspaper, and which, referring the words just quoted to the whole
first Prayer-Book of King Edward, conceived that their force was thereby
taken away as regai-ds the Communion Office contained therein. But
as its Communion Office can never be a subordinate accidental part of
a Prayer-Book, and as we are accustomed to look upon tbe language of
Acts of Parliament as studiously accurate, it is difficult to imagine that
so important a feature was overlooked in the words in question, the
ratlier, that it had been the subject of much discussion. The other dis
tinctive features of the first Prayer-Book will not help this writer, for,
with few exceptions, they ai-e of such a character, that by referring the
words of the Act of 1552 to them, he makes it speak approvingly of rites
and sentiments still worse in his judgment than those contained in the
Communion Office. So that against the strong, authoritative argument

136 APPENDIX.
brought forward by Bishop Terrot, his anonymous antagonist has no
thing to adduce but a bare conjecture — (that the Communion Office was
overlooked in the words of the Act of 1552) — a conjecture which, as I
have shewn, is very improbable, ^ and which, even if it could be rendered
less so, would in no degree prove that the Church of England has con
demned her former formulary, or justifies separation from a Communion
adopting that, or a similar one.
" Seeing, then, that nothing can be concluded against us in respect
of those points which the Scottish Communion Office has in common
with King Edward's first Prayer-Book, let us turn to what your Lord
ship regards with still greater horror, and which it has not in common
with that Prayer-Book,2 but with the early Liturgies. In the Prayer of
Invocation, our office contains the following words : — " Vouchsafe to
bless and sanctify with Thy Word and Holy Spirit, these Thy gift's and
creatures of bread and wine, that they may become the Body and Blood
of Thy most dearly-beloved Son." It is these words which you say
" more than justify" a separation from us ; going further, as you con
sider them to do, than the parallel ones in King Edward's first Prayer-'
Book, or even than those of the Roman Mass itself (a circumstance
which deserves consideration) ; both these latter inserting the qualifica
tion nobis, " that they become to us," " that they may be to us," &c.
" Now, my Lord, let me seriously ask you this question, which I
heard put by a divine, neither enthusiastic about the Scottish Office,
nor of a markedly ritual turn in general, on reading your objection :
Do YOU MEAN to SAY, THAT IT IS OR CAN BE WRONG TO APPLY TO THE
Eucharist the very terms, neither less nor more, which our
BLESSED Saviour applied to it; to pray that each individual
celebration may BE MADE THAT WHICH, ON OCCASION OF ITS INSTI
TUTION, He, without qualification, called it ? For He inserted
no modifying clause or word, no " to you," no " spiritually." He
simply said, " this is My Body," — " this is My Blood." " True," you
will reply, " but the analogy of faith compels me to interpret those
words in a particular way." Be it so ; then the words in the Scottish
Office must receive the same interpretation. Of whatever modification
our Lord's language may be susceptible, as spoken by Him, of the very
same must it be susceptible as accurately quoted by us. What reason
have you for imagining, that in simply quotmg, our Northern' Brethren
' I may say, impossible. 'When the King, under Cranmer's direction, consented,
for peace' sake, to such change, he declared that "the Lord's Supper as thereby,"
by the first ofiice, "administered, was brought even to the very use as Christ left it j
as the Apostles used it ; and as the Holy Fathers delivered it."
= By the way; though the feature now to be considered be not common to the
Scottish Office and King Edward's flrst Prayer-Book, as respects the words put into
the priest's mouth, it is otherwise as respects rubrics. In those of the latter, the
consecrated Bread is called the Body of Christ without any limitation.

APPENDIX. 137
mean more than our Lord Himself did ? You must produce some
reason ; for your objection, as it stands, seems to be to the faithful use
of our Redeemer's language. Simple and devout minds would naturally
imagine that they were never safer or neai-er the truth than when con
fining themselves to such faithful use ; and seeing that their Divine
Master had pronounced the one hallowed element His Body, and the
other His Blood, without qualification or reserve of any sort, would at
once understand that in praying God to make the Eucharist, in which
they were about to join, His Blessed Son's Body and_ Blood, they were
but praying Him to make it what that blessed Son designed and insti
tuted it to be. Again, I ask you, why our Lord's very words are to
come under one rule of interpretation as He used them, and another as
reverently quoted in the prayer of His Servants ? Of course this is no
occasion on which to discuss the inward and Sphitual Grace of the
Lord's Supper. 1 am not now saying whether any or what modification
ought to be applied to the words of Institution. Among the many
interpretations of them which have been contended for, it does not mat
ter for our present purpose which is the right, or which your Lordship
favours. That which is the right will comprehend them as used in the
Scottish Office, — that which your Lordship favours, be it right or be it
wrong, wiU comprehend them as used there also. Even did your Lord
ship adopt, as I have never heard that you did, the wretched doctrine
of Hoadley, you could have no greater difficulty in bending the words of
the Scottish Office to that doctrine, than in bending the same words as
used by the Lord Jesus."
" Indeed, my Lord, it strikes me that your objection to the Scottish
Office is no slight concession to your Romish brethren. For if that
office, by reason of the words to which you object, as being used with
out reservation, " differs Uttle, if at all, from the Transubstantiation of
the Church of Rome," then the Scriptursd record of the original Institu
tion must, by reason of the same words being there used equally with
out reservation, " differ littie. if at aU, from the Transubstanti-ation of
the Church of Rome."
" But reaUy. my Lord, what can be more incompatible with the Ro
man doctrine than the words of the Scottish Office, standing in the
place where they do ? I doubt whether they would be tolerated by
Rome in that position, after the consecration by rehearsal of the origi
nal Institution ; and consequently after, according to her doctrine, TrEui-
substantiation has been already effected. Anyhow, all who are ac
quainted with the school in whose sentiments the Scottish Communion
Office originated, and to whom it seems to be so dear, must know that
its members were and are very hostile to Transubstantiation. I am no
otherwise concerned to vindicate that school, than as it contains some
valued feUow - churchmen ; and as through it the Church to which I
belong may happen to be attacked — for I cannot consider myself as

138 APPENDIX.
belonging to it. As, in some other matters, so in the doctrine of the
Eucharist, I am at issue with it. On that sacred subject it seems to
me that an overweening spirit of antiquarianism has led its members
into an opinion different from and/ar below that of the Church Cate
chism ; but then, 1 must add, that it is an opinion much farther from
the Roman. Of course, neither your Lordship nor my readers wiU
understand me to insinuate that the Church Catechism favours Tran
substantiation. But, apart from that dogma, which of course is not
received by either the Catechism or the non-juring school, the former
gives an explanation of the inward and spiritual grace of the Lord's
Supper, not so widely apart from the Roman as that furnished by
the latter.
" But if even this be not enough, it may surprise, and it certainly
ought to gratify, your Lordship, to learn that it is doubted whether we
are committed to the words in question. The Scottish Office is indeed
confirmed in our Church by solemn Canon, but no particular text of that
office. This at least is the opinion to which I incline on examination
of the evidence. It is an opinion which perplexes those who have been
in the habit of believing that Liturgical worship necessarily involves that
every word, small or great, should be fixed by authority. It is so, no
doubt, in England, because there the Prayer-Book being, as has been
said, one long Act of Parliament, wears in its very minutest words the
unbending character of a Statute ; and it may have been so in the
Roman Obedience since the Council of Trent ; but it was not the case
there before, and it could not have been the case in the Primitive
Church, before Liturgies had been committed to writing, when they
were orally handed down from Bishop to Bishop. In those times we
know that each Bishop, so long as he adhered to the essential structure
of his Church's Liturgy, was permitted to make subordinate variations
for the use of his own Diocese. There is therefore nothing incongruous
in the position, that the Episcopal Church of Scotland should have a
recognised Communion Office of a certain cognisable outline and struc
ture, and with some great distinctive features, but, nevertheless, with a
text not altogether fixed. 1 wUl now tell your Lordship why I consider
the case to stand thus.
" It was not till 1811 that either the Scottish or the English, or any
other office, was legislatively recognised in this Church, — both Scottish
and English being sanctioned under different conditions in the general
Synod held that year — a sanction which has since been twice renewed.
Now, the Canon then adopted speaks of the Scottish in the following
terms : — " The Episcopal Church in Scotland, avaiUng herself of this
inherent right" (that asserted in the twentieth and thirty- fourth of the
Thirty-nine Articles), " hath long adopted, and very generaUy used, a
form for the celebration of the Holy Communion, known by the name
of the Scotch Communion Office," &c. Now, to what do such words

APPENDIX. 139
point? What had been "long adopted and very generaUy used?'
what was " known by the name of the Scotch Communion Office ?"
On more documents than one had the title been previously bestowed.
The best claimant to it would, at first sight, seem the Liturgy of King
Charles, which it is not impossible that the framers of the Canon had
in view, when they spoke of their " respect for the Authority which
originaUy sanctioned the Scottish Liturgy," and which they may have
supposed identical, or nearly so, with that actuaUy in use. But King
Charles's Office is too widely different from the latter to have any
title whatever to the descriptions " long adopted and very generally
used." Whatever, therefore, the framers of the Canon intended, they
have not, 1 think, in fact sanctioned that Office, and we must seek
for one that had been " long adopted" and " very generally used."
¦WeU, then, from somewhere about 1723 to 1764, there had issued a
succession of documents, all purporting to be the Scottish Communion
Office, aU based on that of King Charles, and, to use the phrase of the
day, developed out of it ; all very similar to each other in outline and
general features, but none of them precisely the same with any of the
rest. Of these, two may be considered to have greater authority than
their companions, that of 1743 aud that of 1764. The former bore on
its title that it was King Charles's Office, altered iu arrangement, and,
under the name of " the Scottish Liturgy," received the sanction of a
Synod of Bishops, " by whom sixteen Canons were enacted, which
formed the Code of discipline for the Church in Scotland tUl the year
1811." It may be to this sanction that the Canon of 1811 refers. In
1755, however, there appeared another, with new variations ; and,
finally, in 1764. there was issued the office "known to your Lordship,
not certainly without Episcopsd sanction — for it seems to have been
introduced into each Diocese by the Diocesan's authority — but not, as
far as appears, SynodicaUy confirmed. Though varying, these three
are sufficientiy identical to be classed under the general title of " Scot
tish Office ;" and, even as the case now stands, I think it is far from
clear that the Canon of 1811 ties us down to any one of them, — to any
thing but their common features. However, some further facts are
considerable. It seems, that between 1764 and 1811 there was no one
text universaUy used. Bishop Abernethy Drummond of Edinburgh had
an edition of his own, vdth numerous variations from that animadverted
on by your Lordship, and with the adverb spiritually introduced into
the sentence " may become the Body," &c. His doing so seems to
have given rise to some discussion, and his vindications of himself are
worthy of notice, as it is quite clear that he considered he was but
exercising a right from which no authority had then debarred him, and
thought that there was even then no fixed text. In 1792, he thus
writes to one of his brother Bishops : " Besides some alterations in the
daily office, I think we should have a new edition of the Scotch Com-

140 APPENDIX.
munion Office, once for all, never afterwards to be altered in our time ;
whereas hitherto every single Bishop has made editions, and even some
changes and additions, according to their liking." Again, in 1796, he
says to the same correspondent, — " As the Primus takes greater liberties
in reading the offices of the Church than any clergyman I ever heard,
and has made an edition of the Communion Office for his own use, I am
resolved to take the same liberty.''^ So that, unless Bishop Abernethy
Drummond be wrong respecting facts with which he bad every means
of being perfectly familiar, there was no fixed text in his time, that is,
in the interval between 1 7 64 and 1 8 1 1 . But none was specified in 1 8 1 1 ,
so that what was open then must be considered as open stiU. It is true
that the Canon of 181 1, in sanctioning both Scottish and English Offices,
enacts, " that in the use of either — no amalgamation, alteration, or inter
polation whatever shall take place ;" the effect of which, beyond all
doubt, is to tie the Scottish Priest, using the English Office, down to
the ipsissima verba of that office, and which would have a simUar effect
on his use of the Scottish, supposing there were in that ipsissima verba
whereto to tie him down. But if there were none such before 1811,
and the Synod then held specified none, it is not easy to see how their
restriction can amount to more than debarring us from amalgamating
it with the English, or from innovating on those main features which
it had hitherto carried, though with subordinate variations.
" All this is in nowise essential to my argument, and I merely throw
it out for consideration. At the same time, the case in favour of liberty
seems to me at present so strong, that, supposing I were called statedly
to use the Scottish Office (which it is in no degree probable that I ever
shall be), and that weak consciences stumbled at the words of our
Saviour, I should take into serious practical consideration whether or
not to insert the " to us" of Rome and King Edward's first Liturgy, or
the " spiritually" of Bishop Abernethy Drummond, both of which were
used in the Scotch rite at different times last century." — See Letter to
Lord Bishop of Cashel by Rev, Francis Garden, pp. 9-17.
\
' MS. Correspondence of Bishop Abernethy Drummond, iu Edinburgh Episcopal
Church Library.

THE END.

PttlNTED BY LBVET, ROBSON, AND FRANKLYN,
Great New street, Fetter Lane.

NEW WORKS
PUBLISHED BT
JOSEPB MASTEES. ALDEKSGATE STREET.

Stories from Heathen Mythology and Greek History
for the Use of Christian Children. ' By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A., Author of
"Tales of Christian Endurance," "Christian Heroism," &c., Warden of Sackville
College, East Grinsted. Price 2s.
Stories from the Chroniclers, (Froissart),
illustrating the History, Manners, and Customs of the Reign of Edward III. By
the Rev. Henry P. Dunster, M.A. Price 2s. 6d.
Sursum Corda : Aids to Private Devotion.
Being a Body of Prayers collected firom the Writings of Enghsh Churchmen.
Compiled and arranged by Francis E. Paget, M.A., Rector of Elford. In
Two Parts, square 24mo., Bordered Pages, and Beautiful Frontispiece, price os.,
or in plain Morocco 7s. 6d. ; for presents, Morocco Extra 10s. 6d., or Antique
Morocco 22s. 6d.
*^* This is the work announced in the " Christian's Day," under the title, " A
Manual of Devotions," as a Compaiuon to that work.
The Christian's Day.
By the Rev. F. E. Paget, M.A. New Edition. In square 24mo., with Bordered
Pages, and Frontispiece from Overbeok. Price 3s. 6d.
Stories of the Crusades.
De Hellingley and the Crusade of S. Louis. Comprising a Historical View of the
period. By the Rev. J. M. Neale, M.A., with Frontispiece by Selous, and Two
Flans. 12mo., cloth, 3s. 6d. ; morocco, 5s.
The Progress of the Church of England since the
Reformation. Reprinted, with corrections, from the " Ecclesiastic.'' Small
8vo., in a neat wrapper, 6d., or cloth, 9d.
The Churchman's Companion is carefully edited,
and adapted for general reading for all classes. Vol. I. strongly bound and cut
edges, price 2s. 9d., with an allowance to the Clergy for Lending Libraries.
Vol. II. will be ready on the 15th December.
Published in monthly parts, price Is. 6d.
The Theologian and Ecclesiastic.
A Magazine relating to the Affturs of the Church, Education, &c.
Vols. I., II., and III., including Parts I. to XVIII. with Titles and Indexes, are
now ready, price 10s. 6d. each, bound in cloth. Also XIX. to XXIV. Is. 6d. each.
Published every alternate month, price 1 s. 6d.
The Ecclesiologist.
Published under the Superintendence of the Ecclesiological late Cambridge
Camden Society.
Seven Volumes are now published, and may be had at the following prices, in boards :
—Vol. I., 5s. 63. ; Vol. II., with Two Engravings, 5s. 6d. : Vol. III., with Seven En
gravings, 6s. 6d. ; Vol. IV., (New Series. 3.) with Four Engravings, 8s. ; Vol. V., (N.
S. II.) with Three Engravings, 8s. 6d. ; Vol. VI. (N. S. III.) with Three Engravmgs,
price 7s. 6d. ; Vol. VII. (N. S. IV.) with Three Engravings, 8s.
The English Churchman's Kalendar for the Year
of our Lord 1848, being Leap-year. Compiled from the Book of Common Prayer.
Third Year. Price Is.

The Churchman's Diary. An Almanack for the
year of Grace 1848. Second Year. Price 3d.
" We can only again repeat our entire concurrence in the plan of the Churchman's
Diary. It is the cheapest of the Church Almanacks, and seems to set the Church
more vividly and less controversially before us, as a living body, than anything of the
kind with which we are acquainted. This is no slight praise." — Ecclesiastic.
Liturgical Preaching, or Sermons for Sundays,
Festivals, Fasts, &c., arranged according to the Cycle of the Church's Year. These
Sermons, contributed by some of the most able and learned Divines in the Church
of England, aud Edited by the Rev.. Alexander Watson, M.A., vriU be found
to contain an excellent body of sound Practical Divinity. This work is pubUshed
in Eighteen Parts, price Is. each, pr 3 vols, strongly bound in cloth, 7s. 6d. each.
A Hand-Book of English Ecclesiology.
By the Ecclesiologicsl late Cambridge Camden Society. In 18mo., price 7s. ;
interleaved, and strongly bound in limp^calf, price 10s. 6d.
In good bold Type, price 6s. 6d.
Sermons for Working Men.
By WILLIAM JOHN BUTLER, M.A., Vicar of Wantage, Berks, late the
Perpetual Curate of Wareside, near Ware.
The object of these Sermons is to meet a difficulty often expressed ; viz. that of carry
ing religious truths, both of doctrine and practice, before the minds of the working
classes in this country in a distinct and definite form.
Steps to the Altar ; a Manual of Devotion for the
Blessed Eucharist. Compiled by a Parish Priest. Third Edition. Cloth, 9d.
Holiness in the Priest's Household essential to the Holiness of the Parish.
A Plain Address to my Household.
By a Clergyman. In small 8vo., price 6d., or 8d. by post.
IN THE PRESS, AND NBARIiV READV.
Five Sermons on the Nature of Christianity.
Preached in Advent and Christmas Tide, 1846, before the University of Cambridge.
By W. H. MILL, D.D., late Fellow of Trinity College, and Christian Advocate;
Chaplain to the Most Reverend the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.
Visitatio Infirmorum ;
Or, Offices for the Clergy in Directing, Comforting, and praying with the Sick,
Compiled from Authorized Sources. With an Introduction. By William H.
Cope, M.A., Minor Canon and Librarian of S. Peter's, Westminster, and Chaplain
to the Westminster Hospital ; and Henry Stretton, M.A., Curate of Chideock,
Diocese of Sarum, late Senior Assistant Curate of S. Pavd's, Kuightsbridge.
A Reprint of the Book of Common Prayer of 1661,
according to the Sealed Copy in the Tower of London. In small 8vo., to be hand
somely printed in red and black, with the old Elzevir type, forming a suitable
volume for a Clergyman's use either iu the desk or closet. *
PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION.
Memoirs of the Life of Nicholas Ferrar.
The Combatants.
An Allegory. By the Rev. Edward Monro.
The Christian Life,
In Twelve Sermons. By Richard Cress-well, B.A., Curate of Salcombe
Regis, Devon.
Life of Dr. Allestree.
Duchenier, or the Revolt of La Vend6e.
By the Author of Tales of the Crusades.
Enthusiasm not Religion, a Tale.

YALE UNIVEHSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 04077 3278