431

ART. VII.—1. The Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal. Edinburgh. (Nos. for July and August, 1858.)

2. Report of the Speech of the Reverend GILBERT RORISON, before the Bishop and Synod of Aberdeen, 15th and 16th June, 1858. Aberdeen: Wyllie and Son.

3. Appendix of Authorities to ditto.

4. A Pastoral Letter addressed to the Clergy and Laity of his Diocese. By J. W. TROWER, D.D. Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. London: J. H. Parker. 1858.

5. Considerations suggested by a late Pastoral Letter on the Doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist. By JOHN KEBLE, M.A., Vicar of Hursley and Honorary Canon of Cumbrae.

If an apology be due to a portion of our readers for so frequent a recurrence to the course of events in Scotland, it will yet be acknowledged that our remarks have been compressed within the limits of a reasonable brevity. In once more criticising certain words and acts of our friends in North Britain, we still intend to be comparatively brief, although many of our remarks must extend to the discussion of general principles, which are as important in one country as in another.

And, firstly, as regards our differences with the Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal. The one, which receives the earliest notice from our contemporary, will be best set forth by the following extracts from two parallel columns, occurring in page 105 of his July number.

Theory.

"Take even the expense of giving a more elaborate character to our present system-more frequent assembling in Synod, in proper locality-with appropriate form and ceremony-legal functionaries and public proceedings,-how are even such charges to be paid for? It is easy to theorise on the subject. It is easy for the Christian Remembrancer to paint glowing pictures of the gathering of such provincial councils. But how are they to be realized? We fear that, practically, the reference to "Dreamland" would prove the truest point in the description.

Practice.

'A special Episcopal Synod was held at Edinburgh on Wednesday, the 21st inst. The Right Rev. the Primus, the Bishops of Argyll, Brechin, Glasgow, S. Andrew's, and Aberdeen. The Bishop of Moray was absent from family affliction. After prayer, and the celebration of the Holy Communion at S. Paul's Church, York Place, the Synod having been constituted, assembled at S. Andrew's Hall. The Primus stated that arrangements had been made for the College of Bishops to have the assistance of a legal adviser in the matter which was about to

The whole "array of Prelates, Presbyters, and Assessors; the seemly chapter-house-the faithful laity— the formal investiture-the imposing ceremony-the venerable model”. would perish before the question of finance."

be brought before them; and that the public were to be admitted during the proceedings, subject, however, to exclusion, if any occasion should arise during which it might appear necessary to the Bishops to deliberate with closed doors. These arrangements the Synod approved.'

The main points on which we insisted, were the desirableness of publicity, and of the presence of a legal adviser. It is with much thankfulness and with a deep conviction of the happiest results, that we observe that the Synod, held on July the 21st, adopted both of these important changes. So long as we see our suggestions put in practice, we are not solicitous respecting the reasons for their adoption. We make no vain claim of having been, in the slightest degree, instrumental in bringing about an alteration, which may probably have been made without any reference to our humble observations. But, meanwhile, we are at least encouraged to persevere. It will be easy to bear the charges of being dreamers, unpractical, Utopian, so long as after all we witness signs of progress in the very direction whither we have ventured to point. Solvitur ambulando (it has been justly remarked), though it is bad logic, is in practical matters excellent common sense. Let us be reproved, so but we know at least that we are not speaking to deaf ears. the Athenian of old, we exclaim, Strike, but hear me!'1 And reproof at any rate, to all appearance, we are not likely to lack, when we touch upon events in Scotland. That we may not run the risk of any approximation to garbling,

With

1 Since the above was written, we are glad to see fresh evidence of a desire to face publicity in the Diocesan Synod held at Lochgilphead, by the Bishop of Argyll and the Isles, and at the Diocesan Synod of Glasgow, where both the laity and reporters were permitted to be present. We must be permitted to add that we are far from unprepared, Utopians though we be, to meet the remarks of our contemporary even on the most practical and commonplace ground of finance. We have already shown that the most important features in our 'Dreamland' sketch became (within a few days after its publication) actual realities; and as to the seemly Church or Chapter House,' we suppose that few English travellers have failed to visit S. John's Church, Edinburgh, and S. Ninian's Cathedral, Perth, either of which would meet the object we have in view, without entailing any cost, inas much as they are already built. We presume that the Scottish Bishops and Clergy are not unprovided with those robes of their respective offices which formed one of the minor accessories of the picture. Nor do we apprehend that the cost of the services, for say three days at the utmost, of a legal adviser at the annual September Synod (held during a time of year when the Courts are not sitting), would prove an insuperable obstacle. In the case of appellants and respondents, counsel would only be employed when both sides desired it; nor would it be any real hardship to individuals, nor otherwise than conducive to the peace of the Church, were there such a moderate tax upon controversial litigation as would serve at least as a pledge of the earnestness of those who resorted to the Court of Appeal.

we reprint in extenso from the Scottish Ecclesiastical Journal, the following account of the last Number of the Christian Remembrancer :

An impotent conclusion mars this otherwise interesting and able number. A guarded and ceremonious stricture on the Synodal Letter of the College of Bishops in Scotland, traversing, with little novelty of idea or argument, the well-trodden grounds of exception to their late proceedings, passes suddenly into a fierce onslaught upon ourselves. The transition is strange; but the change from suavity to severity, in the excitement of the moment, betrays the true, though suppressed, animus of the preceding article. The comments upon our last number need little answer; but there is one point which we must notice-the designation of the Synod held at Edinburgh on May 27th, and the Pastoral Letter then issued, as the meeting and act of "the Six Bishops."

"This title, varied more or less offensively, according to the character of the periodical, has headed almost every article which has appeared in our contemporaries on the subject; and we regret to find the Christian Remembrancer echoing the same cuckoo-cry. We emphatically protest against the phrase. It is part of the same system of unfairness and abnegation of fact which we have elsewhere mentioned. No act or expression of opinion could have been more strictly Synodal. The meeting was convened as a Synod, and acted throughout as such.

The non-judicial character of its proceedings made it no less a Synod; nor was it rendered informal by the fact that one member of the College was himself the subject of debate. Councils, and Convocations, and Synods of the Church innumerable, could be informalized if the case were otherwise. And what we complain of is, that those who must be aware of the truth should adopt this designation, with the unworthy object, as it would seem, of profiting by the effect which it is calculated to have on the public mind, leading the uninformed and unthinking to assume that the issuing of a Pastoral was a partial or private exercise of authority, and that it is not, therefore, strictly entitled to the respect or obedience of the Church.

We have the same observations to make with regard to a pamphlet which has just appeared, from the pen of the Rev. John Keble, of Hursley. We We are even more surprised, that one so eminent and justly esteemed should have lent himself to the same unfair and disingenuous course.'

Now we have no right to complain of these comments, so far as they concern this Review, as in any way passing the limits of fair criticism. Nevertheless, when a brother journalist takes upon himself to explore the secrets of our heart, and to assure his readers that we have written with a certain 'suppressed animus,' it must be as lawful for us to deny, as for him to make the assertion. And we do most emphatically, most seriously, deny it. Both in the article itself, and in the postscript respecting our contemporary, we spoke precisely as we felt. There was no concealment, no suppression. It surely does not follow that, because we adopt a particular tone of expostulation with A, we are therefore bound to use precisely the same measure towards a very different personage, B. The causes of the difference in the particular case before us we will try very briefly to explain.

The body of our article discussed a document which, however open to objection, both as regards the manner of its production and the matter of its contents, was yet put forth by responsible rulers of the Church, avowing their responsibility. We never forgot, we trust, for a moment while we wrote, that we were only anonymous critics, while the authors of the document were bishops, entitled to respect from character as well as office; we never forgot that they were really (though partly by the act of some of their own body) placed in a position of considerable difficulty; neither did we wish to ignore the existence of very much in the contents of their joint letter, which appeared to us very true and excellent. We wrote, we repeat, precisely as we felt; and we rejoice to learn (even our opponents being judges), that our strictures were 'guarded and ceremonious,' and that our tone was one of 'suavity.' But when, turning from comment on an Episcopal manifesto, we felt compelled to notice the very surprising utterances of our contemporary, there was no longer any call for ceremony. Even if (which we really hope and trust was not the case) the penman of the remarks objected to should prove to be a person of high station, such a revelation, though wholly unlooked for and unsuspected on our part, could not affect the merits of the question. All anonymous critics stand upon equal terms: those who write, as those who travel, under an incognito, must be content to accept the disadvantages, as well as the advantages of their position. They may be enabled to say much which it might be inconvenient to utter in proprid personá; let them not complain, if they are treated as equals by those to whose position they have temporarily reduced themselves. We employed, we believe and trust, the language of honest indignation, of righteous 'severity,' against what seemed to us a putting forth of garbled extracts, and most ungenerous insinuations; and we cannot retract or regret one syllable that we uttered. The comments upon our last number,' says the journal, 'need little answer.' Be it so; but they have not received even that little.

One word upon the charge of disingenuousness which is brought against ourselves. We ought, it appears, to have spoken of the Pastoral issued by the Episcopal Synod,' instead of the 'Declaration of the Six Scottish Bishops.' Now, if of two forms of expression one is certainly correct, as being plain matter of fact, and the other (though it may be just and true) at least open to doubt, we prefer to employ the safer one. We understood that there were grave doubts whether the Synod, having acted without precedent and the slightest support from the Canons of the Scottish Church, had not lost its claim to be considered as legitimè congregata. The protest of the Bishop

of Brechin received no reply that in our judgment resolved these doubts: on the contrary, we know that many excellent lawyers pronounced it to be unanswerable. The Ecclesiastical Journal may have forgotten, though we have not, its own. remarkable admission: We doubt not that legal objections might be raised, perhaps even sustained, against the Bishops'

' act.'

Hence, as we felt a doubt, we adopted a title which expressed that doubt. It may arise from obtuseness, or gross prejudice in favour of our own acts, but we are still unable to perceive in what way such a course can with propriety be termed 'unfair and disingenuous.'

However, we do not stand alone: the author of the Christian Year is pronounced, on the same authority, to be just as guilty as ourselves. Possibly some of our readers may draw a different inference from this circumstance. They may happen to estimate the character of Mr. Keble as highly as that of his anonymous accuser; and argue that if the Christian Remembrancer has only done what 'one so eminent and justly esteemed' has since countenanced by his own practice, its character for fairness and straightforwardness is not yet hopelessly ruined.

6

And here we would gladly dismiss this portion of this subject; but it is necessary to add a few remarks upon the August number of the same journal. That number re-echoes the censure, passed in the Charges of the Bishops of Argyll and of Glasgow, on Mr. Keble, and begs English periodicals and English brethren to spare their sympathy. Eheu! quantùm_mutatus! In June the note was, 'Our readers will be interested, and, we 'trust, gratified, by the favourable opinions of the Synodical 'Letter of the Bishops, expressed in the following extracts by the English Church Press. But now that same press is requested to be silent. The Letter is again and again proclaimed, in private and in public, to be the voice of the Church.' Congratulations, addresses of thanks, fresh pamphlets on the one side, are all welcome, or at least permissible. On the other side silence and submission are a bounden duty. Roma locuta est; causa finita est: and Mr. Keble is described as one urging on the presbyters of another Church resistance to regular authority.' Truly, an unfortunate epithet! The word regular we find explained in the first dictionary that happens to be at hand as 'agreeable to rule;' an explanation justified, we imagine, by etymology. But the Pastoral, whatever else it may be, is confessedly unsanctioned by any rule or canon whatsoever. The attempt to compare it to the right of censure upon books, exercised of old by the English Convocation, only

6