Also at page 56:

"We bid farewell to Mr. Tait, with a feeling of sincere thankfulness to that God, who has not left destitute the society to which he belongs, and which we cannot but fear is of the earth earthy, of a portion even of those graces which are most opposite to its natural temper. May he be led to follow out to their consequences his own views!"

Finally at page 79:

"Never of course, ought England to have incorporated herself, whatever were the political advantages of an union, with a nation where the Catholic Church was not recognized. Much less should she have bound herself, by the Act of Union, to maintain in her stead a sect of human origin; to suffer her monarchs at their coronation to swear to maintain inviolate an institution unsanctioned by Him from whom on that day they receive their crown. To consent to such regulations as a fundamental and essential condition of the union, without any alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any sort, for ever,' was, we fear, too much like a deliberate preference of earthly policy to the law of God."

I shall next read an extract from the Rev. Mr. Palmer's Treatise on the Church of Christ. There is a clergyman of this name at Oxford, who has recently distinguished himself by a furious, and, indeed, since the Council of Trent, an unexampled discharge of anathemas against Dissenters, Presbyterians, and Church of England Evangelicals; but the author of the Treatise on the Church of Christ, though also of Oxford, and of the same party, is a different person, of greater ability and learning, I believe, and also of higher standing in the Church. In the tenth chapter of the second part of his work, which chapter bears the title, "On the Reformation and Schisms in Scotland," Mr. Palmer says"I am now to speak of the Presbyterian societies in Scotland, and examine their claim to be considered a part of the Christian Church." "It would be a great mistake to suppose that the question between the Presbyterians and the Church was merely a dispute on Church government: it was concerning the most vital principles of church unity and authority. The presbyterians were innovators who separated themselves from the church, because they judged episcopacy anti-christian, and thus condemned the church universal in all past ages. Their opinion was erroneous, but had it merely extended to a preference for the presbyterian form, it might have been in some degree tolerated: it would not have cut them off from the Church of Christ: but it was the exaggeration of their opinion: their separation for the sake of this opinion, their actual rejection of the authority and communion of the existing successors of the apostles in Scotland, and therefore of the universal church in all ages, that marks them out as schismatics; and all the temporal Palmer's Treatise is a great authority with Mr. Gladstone in his book on The State, in its Relations with the Church.

enactments and powers of the whole world could not cure this fault, nor render them a portion of the church of Christ. With regard to all the other sects in Scotland, which have seceded from the Presbyterian community, such as Glassites, Sandemanians, Seceders, Burghers, Antiburghers, Constitutional Associate Presbytery, Relief Kirk, Scottish Baptists, Bereans, Independents, &c.; the same observations apply to them all. Their predecessors, the Presbyterians, voluntarily separated themselves from the Catholic Church of Christ, and they in departing from the presbyterian communion have not yet returned to that of the true church. Consequently they form no part of the Church of Christ."

The last illustration that I shall give of the Oxford party's views respecting us, is from certain proceedings of the London Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge. This Society is said to be probably the most important and influential religious association in England, comprising, among its members and supporters, all the bishops, nearly all the clergy, together with about an equal number of the laity. About the beginning of 1838, it was proposed to confer a complimentary privilege upon the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, and a notice of motion, embodying the necessary alteration in the Society's rules, was given accordingly. The Rev. Mr. Dodsworth objected to the terms of the alteration contained in the notice, because the words were "the Bishops of the Episcopal Church of Scotland," and said that they should have run "the Bishops of the Church in Scotland." At the subsequent meeting, when the motion was to be disposed of, the language was varied by the mover, and the title then offered to the approval and adoption of the Society was, "the Protestant Bishops of the Church in Scotland." The qualifying word "Episcopal," which, so long as it was used, implied the existence in Scotland of a Non-Episcopal Church, was dropt in conformity with the wish of Mr. Dodsworth. The doctrine being, that the Episcopal body was the only Church, there was no need for describing the Church as Episcopal. The word was superfluous. But while the Presbyterians were thus brought down to their proper level, there was another class of persons to whom justice had to be done. These were that part of the Episcopalian denomination which was subject to the power of the Pope. The Popish section of "the Church in Scotland" had its bishops too. This had been forgotten, appa

66

rently, in former times when it was usual to say, "the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church;" but surely no more fitting occasion could have been found for correcting the error, and recognising the catholicity of the Popish Episcopalians, than when disowning and casting off the schismatical Presbyterians; and, therefore, when Episcopal" was struck out of one part of the title, "Protestant was introduced into another, and it was made to stand in the motion, "the Protestant Bishops of the Church in Scotland." Some fault was found, however, with the treatment thus given to the Scottish Establishment, and this brought out the Oxford men, of whose remarks I shall read a few specimens as reported in the Record newspaper.

"The Rev. W. Dodsworth (we understood to say) did not think there would be any reflection if Dr. Short's words were adopted. (Dr. S. was the mover.) He considered that it was merely accidental that Presbyterianism had been established in Scotland, and that this BOARD OUGHT NOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT COMMUNITY AS A CHURCH.

"The Rev. R. W. Whiteford observed, that the precedent in the rules for District Committees had been brought forward; but was it competent for them to use the precedent of their past act, if that act was in its nature evil? There was only one true Church. By their creed they confessed that they believed in one Holy Catholic Church, and they could not give up that article of their belief. They were indeed bound to submit to the decree of the State; but they were not bound to speak their words. 6 They must obey God rather than man.' The State could not make a Church; it had indeed established the Presbyterians in the Churches in Scotland. To this, therefore, we patiently submit, waiting God's time.

"The Rev. S. C. Wilks said, he understood the object of the motion to be to unchurch the Church of Scotland. (No, no.) If told distinctly that the carrying of the resolution was not intended to unchurch any of the Protestant Churches, he would not oppose it.

"The Rev. Dr. Short would distinctly state that, as far as he was concerned, such an idea as that of unchurching any Church, had never entered his head, and he would contend that it was not implied by the words of the Resolution.

"Rochfort Clarke, Esq. said, that when Dr. Short had stated that it was far from his mind to unchurch any Church, some members cheered him, who he thought meant very differently from Dr. Short. They meant that they should not unchurch any Church, because they did not admit the Presbyterian to be any part of the Church. He therefore wished to ask Dr. Short what he would no doubt readily answer, whether he considered the Presbyterians of Scotland to be a Church?

"The Rev. Dr. Short said that he could not admit Mr. Clarke's right to put that question, and he must decline answering it.

A member said that great anxiety had been shown to avoid giving offence to Presbyterians; he thought that the same anxiety should be

shown not to offend Churchmen, as some thought with him that if the amendment were adopted, they might as well blot the words out of the creed, one catholic and apostolic Church.'

"Mr. Cooper's amendment was then put, and after the chairman had counted the hands twice, a division took place, when there appeared, for the amendment 34, and AGAINST it 36.

"Thereafter the original resolution, as proposed by Dr. Short, was put and carried.”

I understand that, at a subsequent meeting of this Society, the Bishop of London interfered, and effected a compromise between the two sides, by inducing them to agree to alter the words of the motion, so as to imply no opinion about us, either way, whether we are a Church or not.

Such, then, is the light in which, following out their principles to their just conclusions, the Tractarians of England regard all bodies of Christians which are nonepiscopal, in their sense of the word. Such are the exclusive and unbrotherly views of a most numerous, active, and powerful party-of a party which seems only in the youth of its career, but which, nevertheless, has already secured the advocacy of nearly half the press of England, with the Quarterly Review and the formidable Times at its head-which, as we have seen, is boldly urging its narrow dogmas upon the adoption of the Monarch-and which, as Irish Presbyterians can testify, is even telling upon the legislation of the empire.

But are these the views of the Scottish Episcopal Church? I believe that they are. I think it can be proved. I am persuaded that it can be clearly shown that the unchurching tenets which are held by a party, great and influential indeed, yet still no more than a party, in the Church of England, are the prevailing, the all but universally received, opinions in the Scottish Episcopal Church. It does, moreover, appear to me that we are at present especially called to attend to this fact, if fact it be, by the circumstance of the project for rearing among us a Scottish Episcopal College. I cordially admitted to the Presbytery before, and I repeat it now, that the right of establishing a College is as free and full in the case of Episcopalians, as it is in the case of ourselves, or of any other denomination of Christians. They are entitled to propagate, and to create institutions.

for propagating, their own views, whatever these may be. To say that their views are exclusive and intolerant, and that they deny the Christian standing and ecclesiastical character of their brethren, and refuse them a share of the benefits of Christ's covenant, were nothing to the purpose as a reason for abridging their liberty. But, while that is true, it does not at all follow-if such can be shown to be their views-that we are not entitled and required to take steps for defending ourselves, when we see that means are preparing on their part for more active and determined aggression. Aggression, I say ; for there can be no doubt that the simple promulgation of the sentiments which have been quoted from the Oxford divines is essentially of the nature of an assault upon Churches which are not Episcopal; and much more so is any scheme which is calculated to promulgate them with increased power, and on a more extended scale. I therefore most confidently submit that it is fitting and seasonable, in the existing juncture of affairs, to adduce the evidence which, in my opinion, proves what I have affirmed of Scottish Episcopacy, and connects the proposed Episcopal College with the exclusive and mischievous ecclesiastical theory embraced in the system of the Oxford divines. It is proper to do so on another ground. Sir, it is well known that Presbyterians in this neighbourhood have been extensively applied to for their contributions and their support to the College; members and even office-bearers of our own Church have been engaged as committee-men in order to its advancement; magistrates and ex-magistrates who are of our communion, and some of whom are elders in our congregations, and occasionally sit as members of this Presbytery, have been solicited and prevailed upon to patronize it. And, Sir, these gentlemen were never told that the religious system of the College would embrace the principle that they are not members nor office-bearers of a Church, albeit members and office-bearers of an Establishmentthat those of them who are elders are usurpers of ecclesiastical authority, and invaders of the function they pretend to exercise-and that the very baptism they have received is truly no baptism at all! I think, then, it is high time that we ourselves should let them know this,