against multitudes in this country, who, though not Episcopalians, belong nevertheless to reformed' churches, and are in the best sense of the term members of the Catholic Church.'

6

"I hesitate not to add that, by God's help, I shall to the last oppose the adoption of any such title, on this or any other occasion.—I am, Sir, yours, &c. "D. T. K. DRUMMOND."

These are letters that were entitled to some regard. They did not proceed from jealous Presbyterians, but from distinguished members of the Episcopal Church itself. How, then, have they been answered? So far as I know, there have been two replies and two disclaimers for the vindication of the college. The replies are by "A Layman of the Reformed Catholic Church," who answered Dr. Greville in the Edinburgh Advertiser, and who left his address with the editor; and by the Rev. David Aitchison, of Glasgow, who answered Mr. Drummond in the Conservative Journal. A single extract from each of these replies will suffice to explain their character, and to show how far they were fitted to remove the objections of Dr. Greville and Mr. Drummond.

"As to 'sisterhood,' says the Layman, "I never understood that the Presbyterian Establishment insisted upon that endearing tie. When it does, there will be time enough to adjust the terms of family relationship; but why, because its members stand not upon Catholicity, we likewise should be forced to abandon our connection with the great Apostolic body, of which we are a living branch, or to reject its name, is a riddle which I leave such scrupulous objectors as Dr. Greville to solve."

It is impossible not to admire the ingenuity of this Layman, who gets rid of the odium of unchurching Presbyterians by the excellent device of representing that they "stand not upon Catholicity," and so do not pretend to belong to "the great Apostolic body." What harm can there be in saying of Presbyterians what they say of themselves? Pity it is that so much ingenuity should be thrown away for want of its being true that we do not "stand upon Catholicity"! Mr. Aitchison says

"I do challenge Mr. Drummond, and the Globe newspaper, and all the Scottish Presbyterian ministers to boot, to prove the validity of Scottish Presbyterian orders and sacraments, by what lawful calling they do minister in holy things, and from what lawful authority that calling was derived. I do challenge them, one and all, to prove from Holy Scripture, that the Scottish Presbyterian Establishment set up after the revolution of 1688 through the agency of a lawless and

tumultuary multitude, has any just title to be recognized as a branch of the Church of Christ. In the earnest hope that these remarks may lead some of the Scottish schismatics to repent of their schism, and seek to be reconciled to the Church in Scotland-I remain your "DAVID AITCHISON."

faithful servant,

"January 18th, 1842."

The disclaimers, which I mentioned, are by Bishop Terrot and the Committee of the College respectively. That of the Bishop was addressed to the London Christian Knowledge Society, and our acquaintance with it is derived from the proceedings of the Society as reported in a London paper.

6

6

“After mentioning," says the paper, "that some decided Presbyterians were subscribing to the College, the Bishop stated (in his letter) that the words, Reformed Catholic Church,' were used not to manifest their separation from the Kirk,' but their union with the Church of England and Ireland. Except while writing the last paragraph, that we are moved by no feelings of rivalry towards any religious community,' &c. he was sure that they were not thinking about the Presbyterians at all, or on pronouncing a sentence against their catholicity."

6

I cannot but feel, Sir, that there was another way in which Bishop Terrot might have met the objection arising from the name that he and his colleagues had given to their Church. I speak of the frank and straightforward way of declaring that he did believe the Scottish Establishment to be a Church-a Church as true, though not so well and scripturally organized, as his own—and that therefore he, at least, could have meant no reflection by taking the title of "the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland." But instead of a course like this, which, I venture to say, would have been at once dignified and decisive, the Bishop has betaken himself to explanations, which few, I should think, of even his own friends will pronounce satisfactory. They took the name, he says, of "the Reformed Catholic Church" to manifest their union with the Church of England and Ireland. So then we are to understand from Bishop Terrot, that their usual name of "the Scottish Episcopal Church," and "the Protestant Episcopal Church in Scotland," both of which designations appear in their canons, was held to be insufficient for manifesting their union with the Church of England and Ireland, and was on that ground set aside in favour of "the Reformed Catholic Church"!

Others may comprehend this; I profess not to do it. Farther, the Bishop states that, in using the name of "Reformed Catholic Church," "he was sure that they were not thinking about the Presbyterians at all, or on pronouncing a sentence against their Catholicity." It may have been the case. But why does Bishop Terrot need to be reminded, that it is a perfectly possible thing for a man to claim as his own what belongs to another, not only without thinking of the party whose property he claims, but without so much as knowing who that party is? or that an individual, or a body, may make exclusive pretensions to certain rights and privileges, and to a certain status, without thinking about all or any of those whom the exclusiveness of such pretensions may affect? affect? Cannot the Bishop conceive of the Presbyterians of Scotland calling themselves "the Established Church," without having a single thought, while they do so, of the Churches which, by necessary inference from their language, they deny to be Established? May not his own communion be described as "the Scottish Episcopal Church," while not so much as one of the other Scottish Churches, which are thereby denied to be Episcopal, is present to the thoughts, and while no formal intention is entertained of pronouncing upon their government? It is altogether away from the point, therefore, to declare “that they were not thinking about Presbyterians at all, or on pronouncing a sentence against their Catholicity."*

The College Committee's disclaimer occurs in a circular which was distributed a few days ago, and it is as follows:

"The Committee desire to take the present opportunity of saying, that their object is perfectly plain and straightforward; they utterly disclaim any peculiar or party views; they have no purpose beyond that which is plainly set forth in the printed statement. They have received the sanction of, and are acting in concert with, their Bishops, and they have the utmost gratification in stating, that having submitted their proposals to the Archbishops of Canterbury, York, and Armagh, they have been favoured with the approbation and encouragement of these prelates. The Com

"The attention of the Bishop of Edinburgh is respectfully invited to consider to whom the Bishops have addressed themselves, namely, 'TO ALL faithful members of the Reformed Catholic Church.' How is it the bishops were not thinking of ALL, but only of part of those to whom they were addressing themselves?-Reporter of the Record."

mittee believe that, taken in connection with the Synodal Letter of the Scottish Bishops, the names of these venerated Prelates will afford the best guarantee that the individuals who now come forward earnestly entreating, on behalf of Trinity College,' the support of all who take an interest in the Episcopal Church of Scotland, have no object in view but that of promoting her best and dearest interests."

Let this disclaimer be placed side by side with the letters of Dr. Greville and Mr. Drummond, the impression of which it is manifestly designed to remove, and what shall be said of it? Is it such a disclaimer as the circumstances demand? I submit, Sir, that if there was to be a disclaimer at all, it ought not to have been wrapped up in meaningless and evasive generalities. It ought to have been pointed and specific. It ought to have disavowed, in terms which could neither bewilder nor mislead, the tenet of exclusion whereof the chief promoters and authorities of the College were suspected. It ought to have been free of the special absurdity of a reference, without defence or explanation, to that Episcopal missive whose novelties of phraseology were the main cause of the doubt and uneasiness which it aimed to take away and it ought not to have attempted to substitute the weight of great and venerated names for that clear and explicit disavowal which was required.

I had nearly forgot to notice a letter, subscribed "Presbyter Edinburgensis," which appeared lately in the Edinburgh Advertiser, and caught my eye this morning in the local paper of to-day; and which contains what its author trusts "may be considered a final and satisfactory reply to all the objections which have been publicly and privately made against the title which the Scottish bishops have employed to designate themselves, in their circular appeal relative to the projected College." What, then, is this "final and satisfactory reply"? It is in these words," What the Bishops meant by the title was simply this-to describe themselves as those bishops of the Reformed Catholic Church who are located in Scotland. The words, in Scotland,' are connected in sense with the word 'Bishops,' and not with the word 'Church.' The title might be thus paraphrased WE, THE BISHOPS, WHO ARE IN SCOTLAND, BELONGING ΤΟ THE REFORMED CATHOLIC

6

6

CHURCH."""Presbyter Edinburgensis" argues the mat

ter thus:

"The words, 'in Scotland,' have been read as if they were connected in sense, as they unavoidably are in position, with the word Church,' as if the Bishops meant to call their Church the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland.' But this could not have been their intention, for by so speaking they would have represented the Reformed Catholic Church as commensurate only with their own particular communion in Scotland, and would have excluded, not the Presbyterians merely, but the Church of England, and every particular Church in the world, from belonging to the Reformed Catholic Church;' and would have spoken of their own body, as if it, and it alone, were, I repeat it, in itself the Reformed Catholic Church,' and not (what it only claims to be) a branch merely of the Reformed Catholic Church.""

6

So we learn that the Bishops could not have meant to call their Church, "the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland," because that would have implied that their body in Scotland constituted the whole of " the Reformed Catholic Church"! That seems to be the reverend gentleman's argument. I wish he would communicate it to Bishop Russell and others, who constantly call their Church"the Church in Scotland." We have remonstrated against that title as arrogant and exclusive; but we have done it in vain. Perhaps, however, it may open their eyes to the evil of the practice, when "Presbyter Edinburgensis" acquaints them, that, by calling themselves "THE CHURCH in Scotland," they represent THE CHURCH as "commensurate only with their own particular communion in Scotland," and speak of "their own body as if it, and it alone, were, in itself, 'the Church,' and not (what it only claims to be) a branch merely of the Church"! But should it happen that Bishop Russell and his friends are unconvinced after all, I am afraid that we shall not be able to sustain the analogous criticism, on "the Reformed Catholic Church in Scotland," as either "final" or "satisfactory!"*

"Presbyter Edinburgensis" may, if he chooses, try his acumen upon his Church's "Form of mandate for the election of a Bishop," which contains the following expressions:-" Whereas it hath pleased Almighty God, &c. to deprive the Church in Scotland of an able and upright Governor, &c. We, the surviving Bishops and Pastors of the said Church," &c.-" Your choice will necessarily affect the interests, not of the Diocese of M. only, but also of the whole Church in Scotland."-"You are to have in view, therefore, not only the peace and good government of the Diocese of M. but likewise of the whole Church of God which is in Scotland, under the government of the College of Bishops."