there would have been separation in taking upon ourselves to introduce the religious changes which were made, apart from, and in defiance of that authority. And here lies the mistake which people are apt to make, because they do not distinguish between the usurpations of the Church of Rome, and its corruptions. Grant the authority which the Church of Rome claimed over us to have been legitimate; and then our Reformation, made as it was in defiance of that authority, would, I believe, have been, upon Scriptural grounds, fairly questionable, if not absolutely indefensible. Let the corruptions have been what they

might, some other method must have been found to reform them, without the rejection of legitimate authority; because that rejection must necessarily involve a breach of unity, which the Scripture has led us to regard as a greater evil than the worst corruptions short of actual apostacy and denial of the faith. But, as I have said, I know of nothing in the Bible to condemn what the English Reformers actually did. They did not begin by rejecting either the doctrine or the practices of the Church of Rome. Had they done so, while they recognised its authority over them, they would have been separatists. But they first asserted for themselves the rights of a free and independent National Church-rights which the Bible nowhere disallows, but would rather seem to vindicate and uphold—and then in virtue of those recovered rights they proceeded, not irregularly, not unconstitutionally, not without the proper authority of their legitimate governors both in Church and State, they proceeded, I say, in the great work of Reformation. They did what they could, not as building up a new Church, but as restoring and purifying that which had been from the beginning. As they had not separated from Rome, but cast off the yoke which Rome had unjustly and tyrannically imposed, so neither did they separate among themselves, or from their Fathers in the Christian faith; but they adhered to the same communion, desiring to reject only what was corrupt, to retain all that was sound, and to recover all that had been improperly neglected, or fallen into disuse.

This is the light in which the History of the Reformation is to be read, as regards the Church of England; and, so read, it affords no example, no excuse whatever to those who, while unable to shew that the authority exercised by that Church is, upon Scriptural principles, usurped and illegitimate, have withdrawn themselves from it and so made a division in the body into which they had been baptised.

In Scotland the case which we are examining was far more complicated, far more difficult. In that country the highest authorities both in Church and State were unhappily opposed to the Reformation ; and their opposition was overborne by a few of the nobles, supported by many of the middle and lower classes, and headed by John Knox,

who, though in holy orders, had risen only to the priesthood. This led to the unreformed hierarchy being supplanted at first by a mixed system of Church Government, in which neither Episcopalians nor Presbyterians can recognize their legitimate ancestry. But when the minority of James was at an end, and when he had not only nominally but potentially succeeded first to the Scottish and subsequently to the English Throne, he endeavoured, after the lapse of half a century, to give to the northern Reformation, as far as could then be done, the legitimate character which it was desirable that it should have possessed in the first instance. The same usurpations and the same corruptions of the Church of Rome which had existed, and had been removed in England, had existed and had been removed in Scotland, but (owing to circumstances which no human power could control) they had not been removed in the same way. There had been a rising up not only of Scotchmen against the usurped authority of a foreign Church, but of the Scotch Laity and lower orders of the clergy against the legitimate (if indeed, under all the circumstances of the case, it deserves to be so called the legitimate) though corrupt authority of the higher orders Through this means the Catholic character of the Church had been compromised, and the Catholic succession lost. In endeavouring to retrieve that character, and to repair that loss, King James had to encounter difficulties which must have been great and formidable under any circumstances, but which the absence of the Sovereign and of the Courtabsence commenced in his own reign-tended perhaps more than anything else to render eventually insurmountable. Sovereigns like the Stuarts, who, with some good and amiable qualities, contrived nevertheless to bring about first a rebellion and then a revolution in the country to which they had removed, were not likely to see their wellmeant but ill-conducted efforts for the settlement of the Church in the country they had left, crowned with success. Still it is to those efforts we owe the fact that there exists to this day in Scotland a Church strong in the principles which it maintains, strong in the influence which it exercises for good, although in numbers, through the persecutions which it brought upon itself by its chivalrous but unhappy attachment to the fallen fortunes of the House of Stuart, miserably weak -a Church, which, while it has repudiated the usurped authority of the See of Rome, has done what it could to realise the true ideal of the Reformation, by clinging to the forms of the original Christianity of the country, and discarding only what the truth and purity of the Gospel required it to discard-a Church fully recognised by the Church of England (that Church which has never separated), as in union with her and with her affiliated Churches throughout the world—a Church which can therefore and does shake hands (so to speak) with the

VOL. II.-NO. XIII.

5

Church of England across the Tweed; and which I trust will never cease to invite the other religious denominations of Scotland, and especially that which is now by force of law its Established Church, to place themselves in the same position. And why? Because that position is what (so far as I can see) no other is, viz., a Scriptural one -a position which fulfils the revealed will of God for the unity of the Church of Christ. Or if this be not so, let it be shown that the argument which you have heard, as derived from Scripture, is fallacious or inconclusive. Let it be shown in some other and more satisfactory way what (according to Scripture) UNITY is, and what SCHISM is; in order that we may all endeavour to amend our present practice in these respects, so far at least as that practice shall be found to be irreconcileable with the requirements of the Divine Law.

It is true that we the so called "Episcopalians of Scotland are sometimes spoken of as Dissenters. But I cannot admit that the designation is a proper one. We have been disestablished, in times of civil commotion, as the Church of England was disestablished by the Long Parliament. We have been disestablished a second time at the Revolution of 1688, to serve a political purpose, and simply by political, not

by any Ecclesiastical power. We have been disestablished, but we have

never dissented. And it is but just to the State to say that, notwithstanding our disestablishment, it has for the most part treated us in a manner different and distinct from that in which Dissenters, whether in England or in Scotland, are wont to be treated. The proofs of this are trifles in themselves; but they bear important testimony to the truth of the facts of our past history, and to the validity of our Ecclesiastical position as still recognised to some extent even by the civil power. And may it not be said they give ground for hope that the time may yet arrive when all parties, who are not hostile to Church establishments, will desire to see the inconsistency removed, which at present cannot but tend to unsettle and perplex the minds of many in both countries; and when one uniform standard of our common Christianity may be established by common national consent throughout the united kingdom?

I know it has been said by a writer of eminence upon matters of state, but of less authority in matters of religion-I mean Lord Macaulay—that “the union accomplished in 1707 has been a blessing both to England and Scotland. But it has been a blessing because in constituting one State it left two Churches."-(Hist. of Eng., vol. iv. p. 268). If by this it be meant that any attempt to force into prematüre conformity with each other the religious convictions and sympathies of the two countries could only have been followed by a result the very reverse of that which it was desirable to effect, I accept the saying and acknowledge it to be just. But I cannot accept it—on the con

trary, I must denounce it as venturing with little short of blasphemous presumption to bless what God has not blessed, if it would encourage us to look for happiness from a state of disunion among brother Christians, who, while they are content to live in political harmony under one ruler's sway, do not concur in religious fellowship under the sceptre of the King of kings. Nor can I stop there. Having observed among your printed rules that the second object of your Institute is "the extension of general knowledge in subordination to Christianity," I cannot omit to guard you against the false impression which that sentiment of Lord Macaulay-and I must add the similar sentiments of another eminent writer upon English history and general literature, I mean Mr. Hallam (Const. Hist. vol. iii., p. 443 seq.)—are calculated to convey, viz., that the discordant organisations of the two Churches are both equally tenable, equally satisfactory to a Christian mind. If it be true, as I am sure it is, that the one organisation has existed from the beginning, while the real origin of the other is to be traced to the troubled times of the sixteenth century, it is needless to point out that the claims of the two are not commensurate; and this will appear still more undeniable if it can be shown, as I believe it can, that a separatist cha. racter attaches to the latter, while the former is altogether free from that defect.

And now to sum up what has been laid before you. The conclusion at which we have arrived—the principle, which, unless I am mistaken, has been established by the remarks which you have now heard, is this:-As Christians, desiring to be guided by the Word of God, we may, if occasion calls for it, and calls for it from us, we may admonish, we may protest, we may, as far as we can, reform and amend-reform ourselves, reform one another, reform whatever needs reformation—we may do all this, but we may not separate. And why? Because no necessity is sufficient to justify the breach of unity. "Præcidendæ unitatis nulla est justa necessitas." Such was the judgment of the ablest theologian of Western Christendom-the great S. Augustine (Vol. ix. p. 103); and I confess it is my own judgment. Granting that a separatist body is right in the view they take of the point for which they separate, yet the command of God against separation is clearer and stronger than it is in favour of their supposed view; unless the point in question be downright apostacy. It is plain that this principle, if faithfully applied, would enable us to unravel the whole web of schism, in which, by the craft of our common enemy, we are now entangled to our great discomfort, our great danger, our great confusion. I may be asked what, according to this principle, I should do if it had been my lot to live in that part of Italy which is legitimately subject to the authority of the Bishop of Rome. I will frankly say, anti-Romanist as

I am by the strongest and most deep conviction, I should not separate. But certainly supposing I had received the truth as I now hold it-I should feel myself bound to take such steps by protesting, and by endeavouring in all other lawful ways, to reform the worst corruptions of the Romish system, that in all probability I should soon be excommunicated, as Queen Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V. in 1569, and as all Protestant Churches have been repeatedly excommunicated by other Popes; and when this was done, my conscience would be relieved, and the sin of separation could not lie with me.

It only remains for me to thank you, one and all, for the patience and attention with which you have listened to this long address, and to express my earnest and most cordial hope that your Institute may be crowned with all the success which you could desire; that the Divine blessing may rest upon it, and that it may be enabled effectually to fulfil each of those laudable and excellent purposes which it has in view, but especially "to promote kindly intercourse among Churchmen.”

At the close of the address, a vote of thanks, says the Berwick Journal, was moved to the Bishop, which was carried with acclamation.

CHURCH INTELLIGENCE.

WE are anxious to make the Scottish Guardian the medium of intelligence of all the events that take place in our Church. We have determined to give "news" the precedence of all articles and literary notices. We calculate then upon the Clergy sending all accounts of meetings or services of local interest. Greater prominence will be given to events in the English, American, and Colonial branches of the Church, which, owing to many difficulties we have had to contend with, has not yet been supplied. The Magazine, under its new auspices, issuing from the old head-quarters of Scottish Episcopacy, will, we trust, fulfil the most sanguine expectations of its friends.

It has been long the custom in our Communion to decry every attempt to inspire life into the body, to ridicule as utopian any scheme for her development or extension; recent events, however, have to a great extent removed many impediments in the way of her onward progress. The recent financial development she has undergone, the meetings at Aberdeen, and at Glasgow, the bolder tone which has been assumed by the leading members of our Church, with respect to her position as a National Church, all are evidences of the growth of an inner life within her. The ancient Church of Scotland will go on well if she be let alone. It is not by making her an imitation of the Church of England, highly as we respect that Church; it is by giving fair scope