and, in case they should be slow to believe what must sound so strangely and harshly in their ears, that we should bring proof of the fact that cannot be gainsaid.

In the course of last autumn a report had been circulated that the College was to be a Tractarian or "Puseyite" institution, so far as religion was concerned. This report was deemed injurious to the prospects of the College, and the friends of Episcopacy took, in consequence, some notice of it. I have seen three letters on the subject which were inserted in the newspapers, one of them without a name, and the other two by clergymen of the Scottish Episcopal Church. In none of these letters was the report dealt with in a satisfactory way. In none of them was there a disclaimer of the obnoxious tenet which places Presbyterians and Dissenters beyond the pale of Christ's visible Church. True it is that the charge in the report was general, but a general charge is sometimes most effectually put down by an answer that is particular and specific. In the anonymous letter, which appeared in our local organ of the Episcopal party, there was not only no denial of the doctrine of exclusion, but there was what was very much like glorying in it. Dr. Pusey, Dr. Hook, and the Tracts for the Times, were extolled to the skies; our friends of the Episcopal persuasion were styled "the Church of Christ in Scotland;" and Bishop Walker was mentioned as "the late venerable and pious Primate of all Scotland."* The letters of the Clergymen were, of course, more cautiously expressed. But that is all that can be said of them. They contained nothing to show that the rumour, which had caused them to be written, was unfounded. All the length that the Rev. Mr. Lendrum,

* This letter appeared in the Perthshire Constitutional towards the end of October last. It is dated at London, and contains the following remarkable tribute to the Scottish Episcopal Church as the source of the Oxford "Revival" :-" Dr. Pusey and his illustrious friends have been, under God, eminent instruments in reviving the ancient Catholic doctrines of the Church in England. But they have taught nothing new, they have only drawn men's minds to doctrines embodied in the Prayer Book, and which have been taught in the Church in Scotland since her foundation. This revival may peradventure be traced to the year 1825, when Dr. Luscombe was consecrated a Bishop for the Continent, by the late Primate Bishop Gleig at Stirling. Dr. Hook, better known, perhaps, as the Vicar of Leeds', went down to Stirling and preached the Consecration Sermon, AND THERE CAUGHT THAT FIRE, WHICH HAS SINCE ISSUED WITH SUCH POWER AND VIGOUR FROM OXFORD, from that distressed and persecuted Church which has burnt so long in the wilderness, nec tamen consumebatur."

C

in his letter to the Perthshire Advertiser, dated September 25th, could go, was to give us the very ambiguous denial that the teachers of the College would be "Puseyites any farther than the sentiments of Pusey are in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England," while he said nothing as to what, in his opinion, any of these doctrines were; and there was, besides, the somewhat suspicious circumstance that his manner of employing the word "Church" was in conformity with the strictest Oxford rules. Mr. Ramsay of Edinburgh, who is the other clergyman, uses language which is pretty strong, but to me at least he seems not a whit more explicit. The following is his letter:

"To the Editor of the Witness.

"Sir-I trust to your candour and fair dealing for insertion of a few words in reply to a paragraph which was copied from the Dundee Warder in your paper of October 20th, and headed, 'Puseyite College at Perth.' I can assure you that all such expressions as Puseyism in its rankest form,'Popery under the guise of Episcopacy,' &c. are unfair and ungenerous, when used in reference to this institution. The proposed College (if set on foot) will attempt no more than is claimed for every religious denomination in the United Kingdom, viz. the education of youth for the ministry, or for the general business of life, according to its own religious principles. Of this attempt no member of the establishment need feel any jealousy. The government of the proposed College will be vested in the Bishops, and no authority will be acknowledged, no principles recognized, except those of the Thirty-nine Articles, the Formularies, and Homilies, of the Church of England. By these, and not by the views and opinions of individual divines, must the proposed institution be regulated. I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"11, Ainslie Place, Edinburgh, "26th October, 1841."

"E. B. RAMSAY, "Presbyter of the Scot. Ep. Church."

Mr. Ramsay, it is alleged, is one of those gentlemen to whom the merit of projecting the College belongs ;* and, if that is the case, he must be considered as a high authority in all that relates to it. It is, then, a serious matter, and has no light bearing upon this argument, when we find Mr. Ramsay shrinking from a fair encounter with the difficulty to which the charge against the College gave rise. Obviously he does not meet it by stating that "no authority will be acknowledged, no principles recognized, except those of the Thirty-nine

"They (the projectors of the College) as has been frequently stated, were Mr. (W. E.) Gladstone, Mr. Hope, and the Rev. E. B. Ramsay, of St. John's Church, Edinburgh."-Perthshire Constitutional, 27th October, 1841.

Articles, the Formularies, and Homilies of the Church of England," because conflicting and opposite opinions exist, within the Church of England, as to whether the tenets of the Oxford party are, or are not, in accordance with the principles of her standards and constitution. A less sophistical, and a more conclusive, course would have been to fix upon a point or two, to take some cardinal dogma of the Oxford scheme that one, for example, which strips our Establishment of the character of a Church, and her ministers of the character of ambassadors for Christ, and likens Scotland to "Samaria" -and to assure us that the College would repudiate it, and that the Bishops would tolerate no such bigotry. Even had Mr. Ramsay dropt a hint that he himself does not hold that sentiment, had he, by the mere phraseology of his letter, indicated the belief of his own mind. that the "Establishment". here is a Church, as he has done in regard to the Establishment across the border, -had he done this, and done no more than this, it would have been something; it would have shown that there is at least one individual, having influence in connection with the College, who is untainted by one of the most pernicious errors of that Anti-Protestant, Romanising school, which is corrupting and destroying the religious life of England. Mr. Ramsay, however, did not do this; and, whatever the end which his letter may have served, it certainly furnished no ground whatever for disbelieving the report which it seems to have been designed to counteract.

The next thing to be noticed in the history of the College is deserving of peculiar attention. I refer to the publication of an address concerning it by the prelates of the Scottish Episcopal Church. The address begins thus, "To all members of the Reformed Catholic Church, the Bishops in Scotland greeting;" and in the body of it, the expression occurs, "We, the Bishops of the REFORMED CATHOLIC CHURCH IN SCOTLAND." Now the meaning of the first of these clauses is indeterminate. Whatever may have been the intention of its authors, it may denote all Protestants who truly hold the Head, and profess the gospel, when it speaks of "the Reformed Catholic Church." But if the meaning of the first

clause be indeterminate, not so is the meaning of the second. It tells us explicitly, that "the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland" is that religious body which is governed by the bishops subscribing the Address. Bishops Skinner, Torry, Low, Russell, Moir, and Terrot, announce themselves as "the bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland;" and that is a plain declaration that "The Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland" consists of "The Scottish Episcopal Church." The inference is, that the Presbyterians of Scotland, and the Protestant clergy, whether established or dissenting, are not embraced in the "Reformed Catholic Church," that is to say, are not members of the visible body of Christ.

The address containing these remarkable claims naturally created a strong sensation. It did not rest on anonymous authority; it did not proclaim the opinion of an individual clergyman, or of a number of clergymen temporarily associated: it bore the signatures of the heads of the Episcopal communion; it was subscribed by the whole of the Scottish Episcopal bench! It was a new name that they assumed in it. It was a name unknown to their canons, and a name that could not have been assumed without a reason. What could the reason be? It was a name that unchurched their brethren of other communions. Could the reason, then, really be, that the bishops held Christ's Church to be confined to Episcopalians? It had been assumed, too, at an ominous time at the very time when a powerful party in England were crying up Episcopacy as of the essence of a church, and telling our Queen to her face that the Scottish Establishment was not a church-was merely a "community of Presbyterians"! Was it possible that the key to their conduct was, that the bishops had always cherished exclusive pretensions for their sect as "the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland," and were now emboldened by the language, the waxing strength, and the expected aid, of Tractarianism, to bring their pretensions prominently forward? Two excellent men—a clergyman and a layman of their own body—were so deeply concerned by the phraseology of the address, that they publicly challenged it in the following letters:

"To the Editor of the Edinburgh Advertiser.

"Sir-I have this day received some papers relative to an Episcopal College to be founded in Scotland. With regard to the desirableness of such an institution, if conducted on right principles, I do not suppose there can be two opinions; and, as an Episcopalian, it has my hearty approbation.

But one of the papers alluded to, a Synodal letter, signed by all the six bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Communion, is calculated to awaken serious doubts with respect to the real design of the College, and the kind of theological instruction it is intended to communicate. It is addressed "To all faithful members of the Reformed Catholic Church," and another paragraph commences with the words, "Now we the Bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland, in Synod assembled," &c. It is much to be deplored that such a deviation from the terms of the Canons of our Church should have been adopted. We are members of the "Scottish Episcopal Church," and not of the "Reformed Catholic Church." The latter is a new and unauthorized title, evidently levelled with an exclusive feeling against our Sister Scottish Church.

"It cannot be concealed that such a phraseology, used for the first time by the Scottish bishops in the ominous days in which we live, may well excite feelings of deep anxiety as to the issue, and, taking it in connection with the proposed foundation of a Theological Seminary, I feel constrained to declare that I have no guarantee that the latter shall be conducted on sound Protestant principles.

"As the Synodal Letter is addressed to all members of our communion, a layman may be permitted, without being guilty of presumption, to express his sentiments. I trust that I shall not stand alone in the performance of this duty, for such I consider it on the present occasion.— I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

"George Square, December 30, 1841."

"ROBERT K. GREVILLE, LL.D."

"To the Editor of the North British Advertiser.

4, Bruntsfield Place, January 7th, 1842. "Sir-In your paper of the 18th ultimo, there appeared an advertisement respecting a College proposed to be founded in connection with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

"Circumstances of a private nature have hitherto prevented me from noticing that advertisement.

"Now, however, I feel compelled to refer to it, though with extreme reluctance and pain.

6

6

"I have nothing to say regarding the special object put forth in the advertisement. My present business is with the recommendatory letter it contains; that letter professes to be written by the Bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland.' Now, Sir, I beg most respectfully, but firmly, to protest against the assumption of this title by any member or members of the Scottish Episcopal Church.' The canons to which I have promised obedience are the canons of the Scottish Episcopal Church,' not of the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland, and there is not one of these which authorizes any change in the designation of our communion. This alteration has been made, therefore, without competent authority; while, at the same time, it seems to aim a blow