we cordially recommend as a candid and full statement of the course of the Scotch Episcopal Church since 1688, as it bears on the subject of this controversy.

Mr. Drummond brings forward the various Acts of Parliament that have been passed respecting the episcopal clergy ministering in Scotland, and thence gathers this conclusion:

"Thus, it has been incontrovertibly proved, that while, at the commencement of the eighteenth century, in the reign of Queen Anne, English ordained ministers, irrespective of Scotch bishops and their clergy, were at least generally included in the Act of Toleration; about the middle of the century they were exclusively entitled to its protection. The Act of Toleration, again, as we have just seen, is still in force; and, therefore, by Act of Parliament, at the present moment, the qualification by which a minister shall be able to perform service as an Episcopalian in Scotland, is not that he shall be ordained by, or subject to, a Scotch bishop, but simply that he shall have derived his orders from 66 a Protestant bishop;" and, therefore, any clergyman who can produce his letters of orders from an English or Irish bishop, is, ipso facto, "qualified" to perform his ministerial functions in Scotland, at the present time, without let or hindrance from any one.

It is hardly necessary to add, that the numerous English Episcopal chapels, which existed at the commencement of the present century apart from the Scotch Episcopal Church, and some of which still remain, were thus constituted in a perfectly legal manner; nor does the fact, that many of the chapels voluntarily chose to connect themselves, in process of time, with Scotch Episcopacy, make a shadow of difference regarding the perfect legality of the standing of those congregations which still continued separate, or of those which might afterwards choose to be constituted as separate, under an English ordained clergyman.

"But it may be well to clear this subject from the fallacy which Bishop Russell has attempted to throw over it. He says, You will of course be reminded by those who wish to lead you astray, that the law of the land does not forbid an Episcopal clergyman to exercise his office as a Separatist. Assuredly not: in this respect the law is abundantly liberal, prohibiting no class of professing Christians from the enjoyment of religious worship. The Jumper, the Shaker, the Socinian, the Southcotian, the Swedenborgian, are equally unrestrained in their tenets and teaching, provided they do not disturb the public peace, nor blaspheme the sacred name of God. It needs not the solemn assurance of a bishop to satisfy us, that in this land, and in our time, there is the fullest toleration for all sects and denominations, as described above. But what has that to do with the matter? The real question is not, let the reader mark, whether the law forbids an Episcopal minister to exercise his office as a Separatist,' BUT, whether the law, civil and ecclesiastical, does not allow, recognise, and sanction an Episcopal minister, deriving his orders from England, to minister in Scotland AS A CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, and that without any connection with the Scotch bishops? The proof that it does so allow him has been already fully brought forward. Bishop Russell cannot surely be ignorant of this fact, nor can he fail to perceive its real and vital importance in the struggle now proceeding in Scotland: hence, probably, his efforts to divert the public mind from its consideration."

"Even Bishop Horsley, who warmly advocated the claims of the Scotch Episcopal Church, and was very desirous to see all English ministers in Scotland submitting to the Scotch bishops, affirmed, that the attempt to introduce an authorized political Episcopacy into Scotland would be a direct infringement of the Union.' And yet what else but an authorized political Episcopacy' can it be, if every English minister must, perforce, submit to

the territorial jurisdiction of a Scotch bishop, or, ipso facto, cease to be in communion with the Church of England!"

"In the 25th article of the Act of Union, it is enacted, That the said Presbyterian government shall be the only government of the Church within the kingdom of Scotland.' Whatever jurisdiction of an English bishop in Scotland is prohibited by this Act, must, it is manifest, be equally illegal on the part of a Scotch bishop."-(pp. 11-14.)

The reader will thus see that an English episcopal clergyman has full right, by Act of Parliament, to minister to Episcopalians in Scotland, altogether independent of the Scotch episcopacy. It was not indeed till the Scotch bishops agreed to sign the Thirty-nine Articles, that they themselves were tolerated by the legislature.

This right, besides the full sanction of the legislature of our country, has had, from time to time, the sanction also of the bishops of our Church.

Mr. Drummond gives, in Appendix (S.), various letters from bishops of our Church, from 1788 onwards, favouring Church-ofEngland ministers independent of the Scotch Episcopal Church, and ordaining ministers for congregations in Scotland.

Were there indeed no differences in doctrine or practice between the Scotch Episcopal Church and the English Episcopal Church, a separation in the ministry would be greatly to be deprecated. But there are, as our readers may remember we fully showed in our former notices, most vital and essential differences in their liturgy and our liturgy, in their canons and our canons, and in their church government and ours. And all those differences have, as it regards the Scotch Episcopal Church, a tendency towards the distinguishing features of popery: superstition, arbitrary power, and persecution; a tendency that has been growing, and more fully manifesting itself, since the revival of popery and the rise of tractarianism in this country.

THE GOVERNMENT of the Scotch Episcopal Church is left com pletely in the power of her six bishops, and her general synod of deans, appointed and removable by the bishops, and one delegate clergyman chosen by the clergy. This synod has the power to alter, amend, and abrogate the canons, and make new ones, binding not only the minority in the synod, but all the absent members of the Church.

Mr. Drummond, on this constitution, observes :

"A very wide field is manifestly open for legislation. It is, in fact, only limited by the moderation of the parties who happen for the time to exercise authority in the Church; while, at the same time, an equally wide field is given to the executive of the Church, in the exercise of their functions as the ordinary governors of the same. In this view of its constitution, therefore, the Scotch Episcopal Church can never, with propriety, be said to be in full communion with the Church of England. Certain privileges may be from time to time granted by the latter Church to the ministers and members of

the former, but full communion there cannot be as long as the acts of the one are statutory, and cannot be altered but by Act of Parliament; while those of the other are purely voluntary, have no force, except over those who chuse to submit to them, AND MAY BE CHANGED AT PLEASURE. The laws of the Scotch Episcopal Church have, in fact, been very materially changed no less than three times since the commencement of the present century.

"Doubtless the sketch given above of the constitution of the Scotch Episcopal Church, exhibits it as very well calculated to throw irresponsible power into the hands of the bishops-to enforce quiet submission on the part of the clergy generally-and to exclude the people at large from the least control in the affairs of their communion."-(pp. 41, 42.)

The differences of the LITURGY, in the communion-services of the two Churches, are thus stated by Mr. Cheyne, a warm admirer of Mr. Newman and Dr. Pusey; who would revive the confessional and other corruptions of popery.

ἐσ I may be permitted to refer-and I would do it with all reverence-to the doctrines which the Scotch office contains and expresses. They are the following:-1. The sacrifice in the Eucharist; 2. The real spiritual presence and participation of Christ's body and blood; 3. The commemoration of the faithful departed. These are all great truths which that office was designed to preserve and witness, and it is just BECAUSE IT DOES SO MORE FULLY AND CONSISTENTLY THAN THE PRESENT ENGLISH OFFICE, OR THE SCOTCH OF 1637, THAT IT IS PREFERRED TO BOTH. This is the substance of the testimony to primitive truth, which the Scotch Church is privileged to have in her Liturgy. Instead of shrinking from that testimony, every faithful son will count it an honour to share it with her, and will put a proportional value on the venerable form in which it is granted him to bear that witness before angels and men. There is no wish to shrink from these doctrines, nor to explain them away: and whoever attempts to do the one or the other is doing no service to the Church, while, for himself, he is wanting in one great portion of the truth, or else unfaithful to it."-(p. 49.)

In the former reviews we noticed more particularly the differences between the two services, and need not here repeat it; but it is evidently impossible that an English clergyman can legally be called to use a service different from that which he has solemnly promised he will use in the administration of the Lord's Supper.

Mr. Drummond distinctly shows (pp. 57-65), that variations of a serious character have been made, from time to time, by the Scotch bishops, at their own pleasure, in the printed copies of their liturgy. Here again is a real impediment to putting English clergymen under Scotch bishops.

The blotting out of the term Protestant, seventeen times, on the republication of the canons in 1838, is a very significant mark of the growing departure of this Church from the great principles of the Reformation.

We have before noticed, that Mr. Drummond and Sir W. Dunbar left this Church. We must now notice the cases of two other faithful, zealous, and devoted men, who have come out and separated from its corrupt doctrines.

It might naturally be expected that so wicked a perversion of the divine ordinance of excommunication as Bishop Skinner's anathema against the Rev. Sir W. Dunbar, would rouse faithful and devoted men in this Church, to testify against an abomination, bringing, by such a gross and scandalous abuse of spiritual authority, the most solemn ordinances of our religion into utter contempt. It has had this effect on two upright, pious, and zealous ministers of this Church, the Rev. J. P. Miles and the Rev. J. D. Hull.

Mr. Miles went and preached in Sir W. Dunbar's pulpit; for this he was required to make an apology, and to promise not to repeat the alleged offence. This he declined, and at length resigned the charge of St. Jude's, and withdrew his assent to the Scotch canons. He was subsequently re-appointed to the charge by the managers of the chapel. In the course of the intercourse, though Bishop Russell had assured Mr. Miles that the Bishops had, neither as a body, nor individually, given any opinion on the Primus Bishop Skinner's conduct, it appeared that all the bishops had fully approved it, and that Bishop Russell had forgotten the fact !!!

At the close of Bishop Russell's reply he has given a letter from the Bishop of London to him, which we will now give, with Mr. Drummond's remarks upon it.

Fulham, Nov. 21, 1844.

"Right Reverend and dear Sir,-Accept my best thanks for the copy which you have been so good as to send me of your Address to the Managers and Congregation of St. Jude's, Glasgow. I earnestly 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 obligation which binds an English clergyman, desirous of officiating in Scotland, to seek for authority to do so at the hands of the bishop within whose diocese he is to officiate, and to pay him 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 Scotland, 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 William Dunbar, I should exert it for the purpose of inducing them to return to the allegiance which they owe, while in Scotland, to the Fathers of the Church in that country. The duty of paying that allegiance I urged very strongly upon Sir William 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 all her energies are needed to resist the assaults of those who are equally hostile to the Scotch and English branches of Christ's holy Catholic Church, as possessing the apostolical inheritance of Episcopacy. Believe me, my dear Bishop of Glasgow, your affectionate friend and brother,

""To the Right Rev. the Bishop of Glasgow.'

"C. J., LONDON.

"This is a very important letter, as bearing on the questions at issue in the cases which have passed under review. Everything for which the clergymen already mentioned have been contending is here tacitly admitted. There is not a single word in denial of the perfect legality of the position which they have assumed, nor even a doubt expressed regarding their right to act as they have done as English clergymen. The one is unassailed, and the other unquestioned. This, then, is a complete answer to the assertion, that if an English clergyman separates from the communion of the Scotch Episcopal Church while in Scotland, he, ipso facto, ceases to be in communion with the Church of England. The guarded expressions of the Bishop of London's letter show how utterly untenable such a proposition is. The opinion which the Bishop of London gives, as to what he thinks English clergymen ought to do in Scotland may be right, or it may be wrong, but the very suggestion on his part clearly proves that he has no ground on which to rest the distinet avowal of what they must do.

"English Presbyters in Scotland will, of course, always give due respect and consideration to any opinion which may be expressed by the Bishop of London, or by any other member of the English bench;-but then their next duty is as clear, viz., to weigh that opinion cautiously, and assuredly not rashly or unadvisedly to adopt it."

"It will not be considered disrespectful to the Bishop of London to state, that the opinion which he has given cannot be founded upon a full or accurate knowledge of the facts of the case in particular, laid before him by Bishop Russell, nor of the condition of the Scotch Episcopal Church in general. As to the latter, it is earnestly to be hoped, from what has already been set forth regarding the principles and tendencies of that Church, that this assumption is correct. As to the former, there can be no doubt; since the letter in which the opinion referred to is given, was written in reply to Bishop Russell, after the Bishop of London had seen only the statement of the case by the former, but had no opportunity of knowing what Mr. Miles had to state in his defence. It must indeed be considered an ex parte opinion, doubtless given in all conviction that it was the just one, but still based only upon the representations of one of the two parties involved in the question at issue, and therefore it cannot be considered as embracing the whole merits of that question. The same remark applies to the Bishop of London's opinion upon the case of Sir William Dunbar. I do not, his Lordship wrote more than a year ago, even understand what his difficulties were, nor upon what grounds he thought himself at liberty to renounce his canonical obedience. I need not assure you how strongly I disapprove and condemn his proceeding. Here, then, according to his own acknowledgment, the Bishop of London had formed his opinion without knowing the difficulties' and the grounds,' which had influenced the accused party to do that which the Bishop condemned.

"One other observation must be made upon this letter. The Bishop of London absolutely disclaims all jurisdiction over English clergymen in Scotland. It might be supposed from this, that the English clergymen, at present officiating in Scotland apart from the jurisdiction of the Scotch bishops, had advanced some such claim as that which the Bishop of London repudiates. This, however, is not the case. They have neither wished for, nor expected the exercise of any such jurisdiction. The facts which have been laid before the reader in the former part of this Sketch will be sufficient evidence, that they do not stand in need of such a recognition on the part of one, or of all of the bishops of the Church of England. Their position is recognized by act of Parliament, with which the Church of England, as a body, is identified, by the bishops themselves forming a part of the legislature that passed it. English clergymen, therefore, in Scotland, can never consent to receive at the hands of any one bishop in England as a favour, supposing he were willing to grant it, a formal recognition, which they respectfully, but firmly demand as a right from the whole body of the Church of England."(pp. 104-108.)