add that a little whiff of displeasure has followed the wake of her home-bound keel, in consequence of her not having attended the ministrations of the Established Church of Scotland during the two Sundays which she spent among the Presbyterian portion of her subjects. On the first Sunday, a clergyman from Edinburgh, the Rev. E. Ramsay, of St. John's Episcopal Chapel, officiated at Dalkeith palace; on the second, the chaplain of the nobleman under whose roof she was sojourning. This is argued to have been a marked and intended slight to the national communion of Scotland. Her Majesty ought, it is said, to have attended in royal state at the High Church of Edinburgh, as a token of respect to the Established Church. The question is twofold. Was her Majesty bound to attend Presbyterian worship; and if she was, ought she to have repaired to the High Church of the metropolis for that purpose? Now even supposing her to have been "bound" to attend Presbyterian service, it does not follow that she ought to have gone from Dalkeith to Edinburgh for the purpose. She does not ordinarily go to St. Paul's or Westminster Abbey; and we should have thought, that even if her expedition had not been intended to be as private as propriety allowed, the people of Scotland, who are so honourably distinguished for keeping holy the Sabbath-day, would not have wished their queen to have made a journey from Dalkeith and back, to attend church, thereby causing, with out any plea of charity or necessity, a grievous violation of sacred hours by many thousands of her subjects. Sure we are that if she had thus acted, there are many in Scotland who would have questioned the propriety of her conduct. But might she not have attended at the parochial kirk of Dalkeith? We ask, was she "bound" to do so? Was she "bound" either legally or morally? Assuredly there was no law of the land to bind her; the only law to which she was subject in this matter was that of conscience; and why should not a queen be allowed the rights of conscience as well as her subjects? She is indeed "bound" by her oath to uphold the established Church of Scotland; but not to be a member of it. Sir R. Peel attended Presbyterian worship at the parish church. It is not for any man to ask whether he did so from preference, from policy, from indifference, or from a sincere belief that the Scottish Church is a Scriptural communion, and that where established it ought to be upheld, though he himself preferred the pale of episcopacy. In like manner if the Queen had attended the parish church, it would have been persecution to have sat in judgment upon her motives for so doing. And why is she to be condemned because she adhered to her accustomed habits of divine worship? We ought to conclude that she acted conscientiously. Why was she to rectify her conscience to the latitude of the place? And even if, like her prime minister, she felt no scruple, still she had a right, in so sacred and personal a matter, to enjoy her own private preference and volition; and it may also be she did not wish to encounter unnecessary publicity, and to cause the confusion and inconvenience which her presence would have excited. If it would have been so popular an act to have attended either at the High-church in Edinburgh, or at the parochial church at Dalkeith, her Majesty deserves much respect for taking her usual course, instead of making sacred ordinances subservient to state policy. But the aggravation of the charge, and that which has caused considerable heat in Scotland, is not that her Majesty attended episcopal worship, but that the clergyman selected to officiate at Dalkeith Palace was a minister of the Episcopal Church in Scotland; a church eyed with no favourable regard by the great majority of Scotsmen, it being urged that it was introduced or cradled by Archbishop Laud, amidst civil war and bloodshed; that it allied itself with political and religious bigotry, till it was expelled from the land; and that since its recent revival, it has followed up its old principles of non-jurism, and ecclesiastical, civil, and religious intolerance, under the modern garb of Tractarianism. In disputes of this kind there are usually faults on all sides; and an honest umpire cannot expect to give satisfaction to any. For ourselves we shall not attempt it; but thus much we will say, that the doctrines of Protestant episcopacy had existed in Scotland from the days of the Reformation, though overpowered by dominant Presbyterianism; and that unwise as was the conduct of James I. and Charles I., and afterwards of Charles II. and James II., they did not import episcopacy into that part of our island; for even what are called Laud's Canons and Prayer-book were of home manufacture, being compiled by the Scottish bishops themselves. Nothing, however, could be more intolerant and barbarous than the hard measure which episcopalians with at various periods from the abettors of the prevailing creed and which exasperated, though it did not justify, the oppression and cruelty with which the Presbyterians were visited in their turn met by Episcopalians from the Restoration to the Revolution. These conflicts naturally tended to prevent the Episcopalians of Scotland following the better course of their brethren in England. So long as the proscribed race of the Stuarts laid claim to the crown of these realms, the Episcopalians of Scotland were, for the most part, Jacobites and Non-jurors; the revolution of 1688, which led to their proscription, could not but excite their abhorrence; and having to contend for their doctrines and discipline in the face of opposition and persecution, they were led from the scriptural moderation of the Anglican Reformation to cling still more closely to the untenable assumptions of Laudism; which, it is true, afforded the most pungent replies to Presbyterianism; only that unhappily they were not as solid and scriptural as they were decisive and uncompromising; besides which, they were grounded upon principles by which the Papist was as much a match for the Laudite, as the Laudite for the Presbyterian. Under these circumstances it behoved the resuscitated Episcopal Church in Scotland to follow that wise course which had been pursued by our Anglican Reformers; and to avoid those rocks and breakers by which it had before been wrecked. Located among Presbyterians, who still for the most part regard Episcopacy with very jealous feelings; and being moreover a very small communion surrounded by the members of a national church; much care was requisite to be faithful, yet to give no unnecessary offence; to contend for truth, but to avoid bigotry. The times of late years have been favourable for the extensive enlargement of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. The exclusive divine right of Presbyterianism was scarcely heard of; the injurious identification of Episcopacy with Popery was no longer contended for, except it might be among a few ignorant and bigotted persons; the spirit of the age professed to be favourable to free inquiry; prejudice had abated by increased intercourse with England, and the education of large numbers of the young men of Scotland in our English universities, not only from among the old high families, which were never very hearty for Presbyterianism, but from among those who had acquired wealth by their own industry; and, most of all, there had been a great revival of true piety and zeal in the Anglican Church, and we may add also in Ireland, in America, and in Scotland itself; so that many who formerly regarded Episcopacy obliquely, had been brought to a more correct state of vision, and had begun to say, "We will go with you, for God is with you." These were, and are, tokens for good; but the Episcopal Church in Scotland has not, we fear, made the best use of them. It has been with deep regret that we have witnessed the Oxford Tractarian delusions rife in that church; a regret proportioned to the anxiety we feel for her enlargement, even were it till all Scotland should embrace what we believe to be the most apostolical form of church polity; for though we would not consign Presbyterians, as some do, to what they call "the uncovenanted mercies of God," and though we wish heartily well to the pious labours of the established Church of Scotland, yet we ought not to surrender what we believe to be truth to policy or compliment; and our Presbyterian neighbours, who have their chapels in London, certainly have no just cause to find fault with us if we rejoice to see a zealous let them call it if they will a proselyting-spirit among the episcopalians of Scotland. We hail their widely-extending churches and schools; and are glad that England has had an honourable share in aiding them. But all this, we repeat, only deepens our regret that Episcopacy in that part of our island is, to a mournful extent, Laudism not Anglicanism. We expressed our sorrow that, in the late authoritative appeal in aid of the proposed Theological Seminary, the customary appellation of "The Scottish Episcopal Church" should have been changed to that of "The Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland"_"We the Bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland, in Synod assembled." Much has been said of late, by the Tractarians, of the impropriety of the epithet "episcopal" as applied to a church, since it seems to admit that there might be a church which is not episcopal; as for example, the Lutheran, or the "Samaria" of Scotland; but the Bishops in Scotland, "in Synod assembled," have been the first to embody this doctrine in a solemn official form. What can the people of Scotland understand by this new-fangled title? They will inevitably construe "Reformed Catholic Church" to mean "white-washed Popery." The Established Church of Scotland is thus tacitly proscribed as being neither " reformed," nor "catholic," nor a "church;" this last word being carefully abstained from, as well as the word "Protestant;" the non-ecclesiastical word "community" being substituted for it; as for example, "We are moved," say the Bishops, "by no feelings of rivalry towards any religious Community; but by the desire to supply the wants of our own Communion." The appeal is signed by "W. Skinner, D.D., Bishop of Aberdeen, and Primus; Patrick Torry, D.D., Bishop of Dunkeld, Dunblane, and Fife; David Low, LL.D., Bishop of Moray, Ross, and Argyll; Michael Russell, LL.D., Bishop of Glasgow; David Moir, D.D., Bishop of Brechin: C. H. Terrot, D.D., Bishop of Edinburgh; Edinburgh, 2d Sept. 1841." Do these prelates think they shall either attract or overawe the people of Scotland by this spirit of assumption and exclusionism? If they do, they know little of the Scottish character. Do they not remember the answer which, as Heylin tells us, James the First, who was a canny Scot himself, once gave to Laud in reply to his complaints against the sermons of the Presbyterians: "There is no remedy; for the Scots are Scots, and are resolved to go on in their own way." Now we had hoped that if the Protestant episcopal church would shew them a better way, many of them would be induced to walk in it; but not if they are to be told that their own beloved church is only a "community," not a "communion." This is a deliberate statement from the whole of the Scottish bishops in Synod assembled; but unrestrained individual clergymen are pleased to speak far more strongly, even outvying Mr. Deacon Palmer of Oxford, who in his electioneering letter for Mr. Williams, the candidate for the Professorship of Poetry at Oxford, very magniloquently affirmed: "I utterly reject and anathematize the principle of Protestantism, and if the Church of England should ever unhappily profess herself to be a form of Protestantism, then I would reject and anathematize the Church of England, and would separate myself from her immediately." "I publicly profess myself a Catholic, and a member of a Catholic Church, and say, Anathema to the principle of Protestantism, and to all its forms, sects, and denominations, especially to those of the Lutherans and Calvinists, and British and American Dissenters." "If to desire the restoration of unity with the Church of Rome be Popery, then I for one am a Papist from the very bottom of my soul." And have we gone out of our way to connect the Scottish bishops with the Tractarian movement at Oxford? We On y echo back their own statements. Thus for example the Bishop of Glasgow, in his Charge of this very year 1848, posterior to the full development of Trastarian doctrine in No. 90, and after the numerous protests against it, including those of several of our Anglican bishops, declares that "the doctrines which have been revived in the South" have always been professed by the Episcopalians in Scotland; that Scotland "escaped the malign influence" which affected the Church of England; and in no complimental strain to Oxford Hebdomadal Boards, and Episcopal Charges south of the Tweed, adds, "I find not that they (the "revived doctrines") have been condemned by any who by learning and research have qualified themselves to pronounce a judgment." something so humorously sweeping in There is this averment, that it helps to enliven in all the world, Tractarianism has a dry discussion. In all England, nay not been condemned by any one single individual whom the Bishop of Glasgow, speaking ex cathedra, considers qualified by learning and research to form a judgment! Is Glasgow so full of mills and founderies, of steam-boats and steam-engines, of cotton bags and rum puncheons, that there is no vacant set up for the information of our corner where a book shop might be brethren in the North as to what is said and written "in the South?" for as we would not accuse a Bishop of blind party spirit, we must attribute the above statement to innocent simplicity. The Bishop of Edinburgh also, in a tifies himself with the "Oxford TracCharge recently published, equally identarians;" and under that very name. Thus he says, "No English theologian, or, to speak more plainly, no Oxford Tractarian, so puts the Church in the place of Christ as to believe that the Church purchased his redemption, or that the Church hears and answers his person ever asserted that the Tractarians prayers." Very true; but then no "so" put the Church in the place of Christ as to say that the Church died but though not in this precise way, yet upon the cross or intercedes in heaven ; the Tractarians do put the Church in the place of Christ, and the little word "so," instead of being a denial, is only of the statement. The Bishop adds : a limitation, and thus proves the truth "There can be no doubt that the Scothave forgotten at the moment the new tish Episcopal Church [he seems to nomenclature 'the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland, though he afterwards recovers his recollection, adding, 'Catholic is better fitted to designate whole existence has been characteristiour religion than Protestant'] during its epithet "High-church," not only as being cally High-church." We demur to the offensive in a Bishop's Charge, but as conveying an incorrect assumption; for the Protestant Episcopal Church is what its documents declare it to be, so that those rise "highest" in the scale of conformity to it, who adhere to the standard of the Reformation; whereas Laudites and Tractarians are very low, almost as low as Romanists. We know indeed that we subject ourselves to a severe rebuke for venturing to write on such topics; for the Bishop adds, "Let us ask how it appears that the great Head of the Church gave to the anonymous Editors of newspapers and magazines, or even to the public, for whom they profess to act, any authority to examine and judge the religious opinions of the faithful?"!! This is high-priestcraft and low Popery with a witness! But we will answer the question. It "appears" thus; writers in Magazines or even Newspapers may be themselves among "the faithful;" they may be divines, scholars, clergymen, and perhaps bishops-we speak from personal knowledge. For example, Bishop Hobart, who wrote several pamphlets entitled the "High-Churchman," condescended to vindicate in our pages, under an "anonymous" ous signa signature, the doctrines of High-Churchism; and two replicants to him in the same pages were clergymen who are now bishops. It is a droll surmise that all Editors of periodical publications are infidels. It is also a very remarkable discovery that "anonymous" "Oxford Tractarians" are authorised by the Great Head of the Church "to examine and judge the religious opinions of the faithful" in a vast variety of "Magazines and Newspapers," "from the ninety Tracts and the British Critic to the Times and Morning Post; but that non-Tractarians are prohibited. "The public" also are prohibited prohibited examining ing and judging of the religious opinions of the faithful." But "the public," at least in England, are, for the most part, episcopally baptized persons; and all these, the Tractarians say, are to be addressed as "the faithful;" and thus "the faithful" are not to examine into their "religious opinions." Does the Bishop of Edinburgh mean that the priest is to decide for "the public," the latter being passive recipients of his oracles? pients own The Bible-search ing people at Berea must, according to this doctrine, have been a graceless set; and we fear that the Bishop will find the Presbyterians of Scotland little better. had long denied them? In the Act of Queen Anne (X. cap. 7. anno 1711) entitled "An Act to prevent the disturbing those of the Episcopal communion in Scotland, in the exercise of their religion and in the use of the Liturgy of the Church of England," and permitting their ministers "to administer the sacraments and marry, their clergy are described as "pastors ordained by a Protestant Bishop." This special Act is happily superseded by general "toleration";" but in those days it was a considerable step in advance of popular feeling and opinion in Scotland. But we have one word more in reply to those of the Episcopal Church in Scotland who are ruining her cause by making her the ally and Coryphæus of Tractarianism; and that is, that their own ecclesiastical descent is not so free from genealogical difficulty that they should be the first to unchurch other churches. We will quote a passage from the pen of Dr. Bernard, in 1658, in illustration of Archbishop Usher's "Judgment of the Ordinations in the Reformed Churches." "If the ordinations of Presbyters in such places where bishops cannot be had were not valid, the late bishops of Scotland had a hard task to maintain themselves to be bishops, who were not (even) priests; for their ordination was no other. And for this a passage in the history of Scotland wrote by the Archbishop of St. Andrew's is observable; that when the Scots bishops were to be consecrated by the Bishops Bishops of London, Ely, and Bath here at London-House, anno 1609, he saith a question was moved by Dr. Andrews, Bishop of Ely, touching the consecration of the Scottish Bishops, who, as he said, 'must first be ordained Presbyters, as having received no ordination from a Bishop. hop. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft, who was by, maintained 'that thereof there was no necessity, seeing, where Bishops could not be had, the ordination given by Presbyters must be esteemed lawful; otherwise that it might be doubted if there were any lawful vocation in most of the Reformed Churches.' This applauded to by the other Bishops, Ely acquiesced; and at the day, and in the place appointed, the three Scottish Bishops were consecrated." Our Northern brethren must not be surprised that we remind them of these things, when they are so loudly boasting of their superiority over the Anglican Church, in that they have from the first escaped the "malign influence" to which we were exposed, and have ever held those opinions respecting Apostolical succession, sacramental justification, and so forth, which have recently "revived in the South." The Church of England desires to aid its beloved sister in Scotland, so long "scattered and peeled;" but such settings forth as the above are not calculated to enliven its sympathies. We have stated these facts, to account for the indignation so vehemently expressed in Scotland at the circumstance of a clergyman of the Scottish Episcopal Church having been sent for from Edinburgh to officiate at Dalkeith Palace on occasion of her Majesty's visit. The Queen could have nothing to do with the matter, except to express her wish to attend divine worship in her accustomed manner. It was the business of those who arranged the details of her journey to have notified the propriety of one of her own chaplains accompanying the royal progress; and the time was, when a Sovereign's retinue would not have been considered duly appointed, if a spiritual adviser to the household did not attend it. The riots in the manufacturing districts in the North are quelled; but great numbers of the workmen in various branches of labour, still continue unemployed, standing out for increased wages. So long as they do not impede others who are willing to work at the offered rates, the question is solely between them and their employers; but the agitators are not satisfied with this; they are determined that, as they will not work themselves, nobody else shall, till they bring the masters to their terms; and by combination, intimidation, and violence, they have succeeded in forcing many of the factories to continue closed, while the persons employed in them, many of whom are anxious to return to their vocations, are halfstarving with their wives and families, or are supported by charitable relief, parochial rates, or extorted alms. Great numbers of persons have been already convicted for offences committed during the late disturbances, and are suffering imprisonment, -in pursuance of sentences for the most part very lenient, as was humane and politic where there was such widely-extended popular delusion; yet such as to shew that the public arm is strong, and that law and justice are not to be trifled with; and the jails are still crowded with prisoners awaiting their trial. But notwithstanding these examples, and though active tumults have been quelled, the agitators continue their combinations; and the whole state of affairs in the manufaoturing districts is alarmingly fermenting; so that there requires but some casual spark to cause fresh explosions, far more dangerous, perhaps, than the past. We propose recurring to these matters in our next Number. A form of national thanksgiving to God is about to be issued, as is most due, for the late abundant harvest. So great a blessing demanded a solemn testimony of national gratitude. The benefits of an abundant harvest at the present time of distress and discontent, are of incalculable moment; and there is no blessing of Divine Providence which seems more directly to appeal to the eye and the heart as being the gift of God; for whatever man may boast of achieving, he cannot command sunshine, or shower, or genial seasons. The very heathens acknowledged this; may Christian England feel it so as to be humble, grateful, and dutiful to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom, and through whom, and to whom are all things. or An extraordinary scene has been exhibited by some clergymen at Leeds, in laying the foundation of what they are pleased to call "St. Cross" church. The day chosen for the ceremony was the day called in the popish calendar "Holy Cross day," and which had its origin in one of the most profligate fabrications and gross superstitions which imposture ever invented credulity believed. Our own Church, in its direction respecting the Ember weeks, most guardedly says "September 14," in order to avoid even the mention of the fraudful and superstitious dedication of that day; and yet these clergymen have so cunningly contrived the matter, by their choice of the day, and their references to it, by the inscription inclosed in the foundation stone, and by the speeches delivered on the occasion, that, under a specious title, they are actually about to ask the Bishop of Ripon to dedicate a church to a material piece of wood, which the jugglers of a barbarous and fraudful age pretended to prove by lying miracles was the true cross on which Christ suffered! We intend saying more on the subject in our next Number. ANSWERS TO CORRESPONDENTS. R. F.; C. C.; S. S. M.; B. R.; CLERICUS ; Πίστις; F. S.; A CONSTANT READER; T. J.; J. A.; AN OLD SUBSCRIBER; PHOENIX; and W.; are under consideration. |