self becaine, and led his followers to become, Independents, placing themselves in a conventicle which is under no authority, and is in connexion with no church or sect.

Mr. Drummond is amenable to no jurisdiction save that of his congregation. He may inculcate the most fearful heresies, or he may fall into the worst practical errors, or he may entirely subvert all order in his public worship. And all this with the most perfect impunity; for he is under no control-he is beyond all discipline. Indeed he has virtually admitted this very peculiar position, for he has publicly declared his intention of dispensing with the rite of confirmation, being well aware that he can ask no bishop to administer it to the young schismatics of his conventicle; or that, if he did ask it, no bishop could comply. He must also be aware, that he could equally, without fear of ecclesiastical censure, omit either of the sacraments of Baptism or the Lord's Supper, or introduce any innovation, such as extreme unction, or love-feasts, or washing his people's feet; because he has made himself altogether superior to law, and has placed himself beyond rule, and without the pale of order.

This is his real condition, which he attempts to justify, and to dignify, by the pretence of falling back upon the Church of England, and continuing, in virtue of his orders of Anglican Presbyter, to minister to a congregation of professing Anglicans in Scotland.

He may possibly flatter himself that he can adduce, as cases in point, examples of Anglican congregations on the continent, and also precedents of Anglican congregations, during the last century, in Scotland. But the former case affords him no countenance, because the congregations of our countrymen on the continent are those of Anglicans in a Romish, Lutheran, or Calvinistic land, where the terms of national communion differ from ours; with whom we never have had intercommunion, and where there are either no bishops, or such bishops as would repudiate any spiritual superintendence over us or our people. And, moreover, where there is no Anglican bishop expressly appointed for such congregations, (as in the case of the bishops of Gibraltar and in Jerusalem,) they are under the superintendence of the Bishop of London, who has actually exercised that duty by confirming on the continent.

The case of the Church in Scotland is equally little a precedent; for, during the last century, the English congregations which were settled in that country, were, by civil enactments, separated from the Scottish Church; which, at that time, was nonjuring. And whether this was, or was not, a reason which could have satisfied the consciences of sound Anglican Churchmen, resident in Scotland, in keeping aloof from her, is not the question. A state of civil coercion, as that then was, is no precedent to us under altered circumstances. And this restraint was entirely done away at the time that the Scottish Church ceased to be nonjuring; when the English congregations in Scotland were united to her and placed under her bishops. And, moreover, that mutual relation which, on sound church prin

ciples, ought always to have been acknowledged between the Churches of England and Scotland, has been very lately authorized and confirmed in the eye of the law, by a recent act of parliament, which acknowledges the bishops of the Scottish Church in their episcopal character, and declares Scottish presbyters eligible to officiate within English dioceses. This is mentioned, of course, not as strengthening the ecclesiastical bond between the churches, but as legalizing that of Scotland before the law of England, and completely nullifying any character of precedent which the separation, during a former century, between the dominant Church of England, and the despised and unacknowledged Church in Scotland, might seem to afford.

But Mr. Drummond was not satisfied merely to incur the guilt of schism by a voluntary excommunication of himself from the Scottish Church he assumed an aggressive attitude, as the best way of acting on the defensive. He assumed the tone which, as we have already remarked, was taken by Mr. Craig, accusing the Church of Scotland of having changed her character, and having adopted terms of communion incompatible with those of the Church of England.

In addition to the remarks which we have already made on those charges, as advanced by Mr. Craig, we would add, that they come with a still worse grace from Mr. Drummond, who, even after the alleged obnoxious changes in 1838, continued to minister as a presbyter in the Scottish Church for nearly four years. During that period he conformed to them without scruple or difficulty; and now, for the first time, he attaches importance to them as an after-thought, in order to fortify himself in his schism, and to give to his rebellion the shadow of an excuse with the unthinking and the ignorant.

An

Moreover, even (as is not the case,) if the introduction of Canon 28th did effect a change in the Scottish Church, and that a change in essential matters, it does not, therefore, become of none effect to those who may consider it as a change for the worse. inferior civil magistrate is not permitted to oppose an act of parliament which has passed since he was admitted to the magistracy, because he does not approve of it. He may indeed resign his commission of the peace; but if he does act, it must be in accordance with the law, changed as it is; be it for the better or for the worse. A new enactment is binding upon those who lived under the law as it formerly stood; and its novelty is no excuse for disobeying it, if it be legally enacted. If Mr. Drummond had pleased, he might have resigned his charge in the Scottish Episcopal Church in 1838, when the new canon, the 28th, was introduced; or he might afterwards have resigned. No one would have been disposed to question his motives if he had done so quietly, avoiding the sin and scandal of schism. But when he was first guilty of disobedience to him that was over him in spiritual things, and then of schism against the Church in which he had so long ministered, his acts assume a dark and grievous character, which is only heightened by his lame and rently insincere attempt to excuse them by an after-thought.

When he resigned, he did so entirely on the ground that he was not allowed to hold his meetings without using the Liturgy. Thereupon a committee was soon formed of his friends, who declared that his christian liberty had been infringed upon, and began to make arrangements to set up a congregation in Edinburgh out of communion with the Church of Scotland, but professing to hold that of England, to which they invited Mr. Drummond to minister.

Upon this, the clergy of the diocese of Edinburgh met in a body, in order to convey a solemn protest against this conduct; and they accordingly expressed their unanimous opinion to Mr. Drummond, entreating him to interfere and avert the threatened schism; at the same time demonstrating the folly and sinfulness of such a step. But so far from attending to the advice of his brother presbyters, he accepted the invitation of his misguided friends, and commenced his ministrations in a conventicle unconnected with the Church in Scotland, or in any other country, but all the while falsely assuming to form a portion of the Church of England, while, in fact, their position is that of Independents.

On the other hand, the conduct of the Bishop of Edinburgh has been marked by very great moderation: so great, indeed, as might rather be considered to amount to an abstaining from the salutary exercise of his authority as one of the chief pastors in Christ's Church. He has allowed active steps to be taken only on Mr. Drummond's side, he himself remaining wholly passive. Mr. Drummond may be said to have acted with as much worldly wisdom as any man can do who is guilty of a great fault, in his voluntary separation from the Scottish Church. He did not wait until ecclesiastical censure should have been pronounced against him by degradation or excommunication he seceded of his own accord, instead of incurring the risk of being turned out. And had he then withdrawn to England, or, while in Scotland, had he retired from the exercise of his ministry, the matter would there have ended; but, by committing an act of schism, he has virtually excommunicated himself in the eye of the Church, as effectually as if the public censure of the bishop of the diocese, or the bishops of the Church, had been pronounced against him.

This is doubtless the view taken of the matter by the Bishop of Edinburgh, and he considers it unnecessary for him to execute that sentence upon the schismatic which he has already executed upon himself. Yet it would be well if the Bishop were to consider how far a different line of conduct may not be due to the general interests of the Church of Christ, in which he has a sacred trust to fulfil. And it cannot be denied that if he had solemnly expressed the censures of that Church against him, he would have rendered an essential service to the Christian world, demonstrating that a power still existed to visit a rebel with punishment; and that the Church, when unimpeded by any state connexion, though unaided by any adventitious worldly advantage, had still the courage

to vindicate the authority which has been handed down, as a sacred deposit, from the Apostles.

We cannot doubt but that such would have been the course pursued in the days of Cyprian, Athanasius, or Ambrose; and we can as little doubt that if the Bishop of Edinburgh had acted thus, he would have conferred a most valuable boon upon the Church, and that his name would hereafter have been handed down with honour, as the assertor of a right and holy cause in the midst of schismatical rebuke and latitudinarian blasphemy. He might, it is true, have been exposed to persecution, he might have stood almost singly, to bear the reproach of an intolerant bigot, actuated by a spirit of tyranny equally injudicious, illiberal, and harsh; but, unquestionably, if he had degraded or excommunicated Mr. Drummond, he would not only have benefited his own immediate branch of the Church-he would have deserved well of the Church universal, by vindicating sound ecclesiastical principles in these days, when they are trampled to the ground. Although there might at first have been a fearful uproar, which only he could stand unto whom the angel of the Lord should appear, as he appeared to St. Paul, in the midst of the tempestuous winds, saying, "Fear not!"

And there is no reason to think that the time for this salutary exercise of episcopal authority on the part of the Bishop of Edinburgh, or of the bench of Scottish bishops, has gone by: the delay which has already taken place would rather impart to a sentence, when it did come, the additional force of deliberate moderation and matured judgment. Indeed, such a step, on the part of the Scottish bishops, seems to be requisite, not only with a view to vindicate the violated integrity of their branch of the Church, and to do their duty as its heads, but also to induce the Church of England fully to synpathize with them, and to enter into their cause. We know, indeed, that Mr. Drummond is a schismatic, and that it is our duty clearly to show that he has no sanction whatever from us; but, in order that we may have some document, some ground of action, there ought to be a previous measure of the Scottish Church. Her heads have on their part also a duty to perform; and, if they fail in doing it, they will render themselves amenable to the judgment of the Church universal, both now and in future times. For this matter, though in itself trivial, is one which involves important results; which will cause the parties who have been actors in it to be remembered either for evil or for good report. Should these pages ever chance to be perused by the Scottish bishops, they may receive the opinion here expressed as that of a numerous and influential portion of the Church of England; that portion the most anxious to see justice done to their office, and its authority vindicated. And, it may be, that a sense of what is expected from them may lead them to question the wisdom of a course of inactivity-which has almost the appearance of impotency-in a matter which loudly calls for the exercise of their apostolic authority.

Yet, even as it is, the schism of Mr. Drummond from the outward and visible Church of Christ is sufficiently apparent, notwithstanding this vain assertion of falling back upon the Church of England, and continuing his ministrations as a minister of that Church to a congregation of its members.

It may be worth while to mention the strongest instance which can be given of the degree in which Mr. Drummond is repudiated by his former brethren of the Scottish Church, even by those who have hitherto generally coincided with his views, and have been the most in the habit of cooperating with him. When the so-called Church Missionary Society was expected, as usual, to send a deputation to Edinburgh, those clergymen in the different parts of Scotland who had been in the habit of giving the use of their churches to the deputation, took care to intimate to the Society that, in the present instance, they would withhold this permission, if the deputation should come with the intention of preaching or holding meetings in Mr. Drummond's conventicle; and, in consequence of this, no deputation from the Society is to visit Edinburgh this year.

Mr. Drummond boasts that he possesses the sympathy and is sure of the cooperation of many clergymen of the Church of England. If so, it is not improbable that other clergymen, with similar views, will come from England on a crusade against the alleged Romanisms of the Church in Scotland, and will set up as Independents, in schismatical opposition to the Scottish bishops; trusting to the probability of raising congregations among the numerous disturbed and unsettled persons, whom the extraordinary disruption of the presbyterian establishment in Scotland may possibly, ere long, throw loose upon the troubled sea of ecclesiastical contention.

This is a mournful prospect, and one which, for the sake of the Scottish episcopal communion, we must wish may not be realized. At all events, however, it is as yet hypothetical. But we of the Church of England have reason to lament a consequence of the Scottish schism already existing, and most grievously affecting our position as a branch of the Church Catholic.

It is because of this, and with no view of dictating to the heads of the Church in Scotland, of whose difficulties we confess ourselves to be no fit judges, that we have deemed it expedient humbly and earnestly to bring this appeal before our brethren, members of one common Church, in the hope that a consideration of the evil and dangerous principle involved in our apathy towards the aggression of schism, will lead them to prosecute some remedial measure.

But it may not be inappropriate to introduce the consideration of the way in which the Church of England stands affected by the Scottish schism, by an account of an appeal which has already been made by the fathers of the Scottish Church to the fathers of that of England, in a letter which the Primus, and other bishops of Scotland, addressed to the Archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of England.