In this letter two very important questions were asked with the view of ascertaining the light in which the heads of the Anglican Church regard schism from that of Scotland, as affecting the general ecclesiastical position of the schismatic. First, Do the archbishops and bishops of England consider the Scottish Episcopal Church to be in full spiritual communion with the United Church of England and Ireland? Secondly, Do the archbishops and bishops of England consider that a congregation in Scotland, professing to be of the episcopal communion, and using the Liturgy of the Church of England, under a clergyman of English or Irish ordination, but being separated from the Scottish Episcopal Church, is, by that separation, guilty of a culpable schism?

To the first of these questions an unhesitating answer was returned in the affirmative by the English bishops. As to the second query, they replied, that so many questions were involved in it, that they were unwilling to express an opinion, which, while it could have no legal effect, might bind them to a course of proceeding which might hereafter be questioned in a court of law. The letter is, as might have been expected, couched in the most courteous terms towards the Scottish bishops, and contains a disclaimer of any supposed approbation of the late schism; but, at the same time, stating that any formal denial of a falsely alleged approbation was unnecessary.

Thus the opinion of our bishops is perfectly obvious. As theologians, and chief pastors of the Church, they totally disapprove of the late proceedings; and, in their minds, they consider Mr. Drummond, and his congregation, to be schismatical. But they are prevented from giving any effect to this opinion by the state of the law, which might hereafter compel any one of them to admit Mr. Drummond (schismatic though he be judged by them) to a living in his diocese, to which he might possibly be presented. The English bishops have plainly said, We regard the Scottish Church as being in full spiritual communion with that over which we are placed in the Lord. There is nothing in any of your services, or in any part of your ritual, which makes us hesitate in thus frankly acknowledging our approbation of you, and our fellowship with you. We do not make exceptions against any portion of your discipline, ritual, or doctrine. Nor is your peculiar Communion Office in the least degree a stumbling-block to us. Consequently, if we were to express our sentiments, we should say that a separatist from your communion, who continues to live in Scotland, and in schism from you, is guilty of culpable schism, and must, ipso facto, be in schism from us, and therefore cannot fall back upon us, and challenge our protection. Such is our real judgment. And we think it unnecessary formally to refute those who have causelessly attributed to us approbation of conduct, which, in our hearts, we condemn.

But we are so situated, as respects the law of the land, which has a peculiar hold upon us, from our connexion with the state as the establishment, that we probably could not refuse to receive Mr.

Drummond were any patron to present him to a living. Thus, were we to say what we think, we might possibly be obliged to act inconsistently with our expressed sentiments; and, in order to avoid incurring the risk of this, we will not express them.

It is impossible not to feel the embarrassment in which the Fathers of the Anglican Church are thus placed. In order to avoid a very painful inconsistency,--that of being compelled to act in a way contrary to their expressed opinions,-they run into the inconsistency of not condemning (as heads of a branch of Christ's Church,) the acts of a presbyter, whom they themselves have ordained; acts which have been grossly schismatical towards another branch of the Church with which they declare themselves to be in full spiritual communion. And this with the view of, possibly, (nay, probably,) ere long, being led into the further inconsistency of receiving that schismatic as a well-beloved son; and of admitting to a place of trust in their communion, him who has been already guilty of rebellion, and has misguided the flock of which he was overseer, into the bye-paths of schism. This is assuredly an anomalous and very painful position for our venerable Fathers to be placed in; and it is one which, for their sakes, as heads of the Church, and for our own sakes, as its members, we deeply deplore.

If we might be permitted, without boldness and irreverence, to hazard an opinion on the subject, we would venture to suggest a course, which, though it would not have relieved our bishops from the embarrassment of forced inconsistency, would still, in some degree, have vindicated the violated principle of churchmanship. Might not they, as heads of the Church, and as theologians, have unhesitatingly expressed their sentiments; giving to such a separation as that of Mr. Drummond and his flock, its right name of culpable schism, and fully admitting that he and they had no right to fall back upon the Church of England, but had virtually excommunicated themselves from her? Might not our bishops have thus expressed themselves; always, at the same time, allowing that, from the actual state of the law, and the working of the Establishment, they might, nevertheless, be compelled to act in a way contrary to this principle, by admitting Mr. Drummond to an English benefice?

The latter fact is no more than what is known to the whole world; while the former expression of deliberate opinion would have gladdened the hearts of all true Churchmen, and would have fulfilled what they had anxiously expected from their spiritual fathers.

As regards the compulsory working of the courts of law, the case would not have been altered if the Bishop of Edinburgh had at first taken the course to which we have already adverted, by proceeding against the refractory presbyter according to the canons of the Church. On a refusal to induct Mr. Drummond to an English living, on the grounds of the Scottish excommunication, or degradation, the English courts of law might say, We do not recognise the Scottish Episcopal Church, or any of her acts. The only ecclesiastical authority that

ment.

we acknowledge, north of the Tweed, is the Presbyterian EstablishThe non-established Church is, in the eye of the law, a species of nonentity. And an excommunication, or degradation, proceeding from her, as affecting the interests of a clergyman appointed to an English living, are as null as they would be if pronounced by any dissenting sect in England or Scotland.

Indeed the Presbyterian Establishment would possibly take alarm if the acts of the non-established Church within its bounds were to be recognised as affecting the interests of any one in relation to the English Establishment. However, this latter ground has been, of late, happily rendered untenable, by the Act of the 4th of Victoria, which fully recognises the existence of the Scottish Episcopal Church as a public body, expressly naming her bishops, and conferring upon them, and upon her presbyters, certain ecclesiastical rights and privileges, which, during the century of their political depression, they did not possess.

We believe, indeed, that this want of inter-episcopal communion, (if we may use the expression,) is not confined to our relations with the Scottish Church. For a presbyter who, like Mr. Drummond, reared himself aloft in independency in the diocese of an English bishop, might, if not prosecuted by his diocesan before the proper court, and if a due sentence were not pronounced against him, compel another bishop to induct him to any living to which he might be presented. Only, in this case, the sentence pronounced would be sustained by an English court of law, which might repudiate a Scottish sentence.

It would, indeed, be difficult to conceive a situation more anomalous than that in which the Church of England is, at this moment, placed. An act of schism is committed by one of her presbyters against a communion with which she is connected by the closest and most sacred ties, which is, in fact, an immediate branch of herself, and which has very recently been solemnly acknowledged as such, and admitted to a full intercommunion; and yet no measure whatever is taken by her, as a Church, in order to express the slightest censure of this act. The schismatic is permitted, without contradiction, to fall back upon her, to claim her countenance, sanction, and support. He daily, and without rebuke, renews his act of schism, and thereby compromises her catholicity; ministering in her name to a congregation of persons who profess to be her sons, and who misuse her venerable authority as a cloak to their deeds, which are, in the eye of the Church, lawless and indefensible.

While those of the Anglican clergy, to whom right church principle is sacred, regard this, now, with disapprobation, and reject all intercourse with him; there are not wanting others who hail him as a confessor, and extend to him the right hand of cordiality, bidding him God speed in his unlawful course.

Our venerable Fathers are, in the meanwhile, prevented from expressing their sentiments by the embarrassing consciousness, that they may be compelled by law to act in a way directly inconsistent with their

sentence. And it is only too probable that such would be the consequence; for, were our bishops to be led by their principles and natural feelings as Churchmen to pursue a less cautious course than that which they have followed, there are not wanting those who, for the sake of a wicked triumph over their consistency, would gladly involve them in that embarrassment, by exercising the right of patronage in favour of him whom, as bishops and churchmen, they must and do condemn a right to which, notwithstanding a previous expression of their judgment, however strong, they would, probably, be compelled to give effect, as the law at present stands.

We do not, however, say more than probably, as the case now is, and supposing an English Bishop to have nothing to allege against Mr. Drummond but his act of schism in Scotland. But whilst we were reasoning on the light in which the English Courts of Common Law would regard his claims to a benefice, supposing Bishop Terrot were to excommunicate and degrade him, we were speaking merely of what would, in all likelihood, be their first impression of the law. The law itself, we hope, is really very different; for the Canon Law, which of course looks to the ecclesiastical authority which has pronounced an excommunication, not to the place where it was pronounced, is still in force with us, except so far as it may interfere with one or more of these things-Royal Prerogative, the Statute, or the Common Law. Of these, the two former have nothing to do with the present question; and as little has the third. Common Law does not define wherein excommunication consists. It merely says that a Bishop shall not impede a competent clerk from entering on a benefice, to which he has been lawfully presented, without due cause shown. But then the clerk must be competent. If excommunicated, of course he is not; and it will be in vain for him to appeal to the Common Law-which asserts no right in his case. In this view the question would, we think, be well worth trying; but as the issue might be doubtful, it were, perhaps, well, for their own protection and our safety, if our Bishops were to procure a Declaratory Act, setting forth that the law empowered them to keep from livings all persons pronounced excommunicated, by the authorities of a Church with which we were in full communion, and whose orders we recognised. Our recognition of the Scottish bishops is now invested with Parliamentary sanction; and it were stultifying that sanction for Parliament to refuse to acknowledge one of its fairest consequences.

Mr. Drummond's schism has been followed by the secession of a Sir William Dunbar, of Aberdeen, who has thought proper to violate the canons, to write offensive letters to his bishop, to withdraw from communion with the Church, and to flatter himself that he also can still remain a Presbyter of the Church of England. We are glad to observe that one of the congregation of St. Paul's, too long significantly distinguished as the last which refused to accede to the Unions, has replied, in a very satisfactory "Letter to the Rev. Sir William Dunbar," &c. (Aberdeen.) It is not improbable that we may have occasion to recur to this painful subject.

108

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

Agnes de Tracy. A Tale of the Times of S. Thomas of Canterbury. By the Rev. J. M. NEALE, M.A. &c. Cambridge: Stevenson. London: Rivingtons. 1843.

OUR readers may remember the warm terms in which we recom mended to them our author's former little tale, "Herbert Tresham." If we are not so hearty in our assurances in favour of the present, it is from no falling off that we have observed, either in Mr. Neale's powers or his invention. This tale is certainly a clever one, and the descriptions of medieval worship and customs are not only lively and attractive, but would, at another time, we think have been very useful. At present, however, the public mind is in no very fit state for receiving them. On no side do men seem capable of thinking temperately on the subject of the epoch in which Mr. Neale has fixed his story, or of the extraordinary person whom he has made its hero. Let us hope that, in a year or two, a man may venture to announce what estimate of Thomas à Becket he may have been able to form, without being supposed thereby to involve all manner of doctrinal and practical consequences.

Mr. Neale takes a most disparaging view of Bishop Foliot, speaking of him as a mere hypocrite. Our author's master, Mr. Froude, formed a more mixed, more charitable, and, we think, a more probable, estimate of his character and principles.

But it is of comparatively little consequence in what light Mr. Neale regards the characters either of Becket or Foliot. What we complain of is that, in his enthusiastic descriptions of the ritual and practice of the Church in their age, he gives no sign of discrimination. A heedless reader will consider him to think that all was right then, and that all is wrong now. To produce such an impression was, doubtless, far from his design; but people in general look so much at first appearances, that we are sure of ultra-Protestants denouncing his book as popish, and ultra-medievals claiming it as on their side, and making it serve as one pretext more for a discontented repining after the past, and shutting their eyes to the plain duties connected with the present.

We may mention a literary defect. The whole dialogue consists of sentences cast in an inverted mould, and having sundry phrases and peculiarities, which, along with the other feature, have, by Sir W. Scott and his followers, been employed as conventionally appropriate when their scene is fixed any time between the Conquest and the age of Elizabeth. It is a peculiarly tiresome structure of sentence; and as it never could have been used in conversation, being in fact a clumsy imitation of the more objectionable features in the literary styles of the seventeenth century, we think it had better be abandoned. Mr. Neale's characters must really have talked Norman-French or AngloSaxon. We grant that it would have been inconvenient to have given their conversations in either language; and since the facts of the case must therefore be departed from, and their talk represented in a translation, why not in such English as should resemble talk?