was healed, the so-called English congregations submitted to their bishops, and, at the present moment, saving Mr. Drummond's body of Independents, there are only two flocks, at Perth and Montrose, which have not conformed to their ghostly Fathers in God. But among the very last to conform, (we were in error last month in stating it to be "the last,"*) was the congregation of this St. Paul's Chapel, Aberdeen'; however, they did, in 1841, unite themselves to the Church, and this in a Mr. Harris's incumbency. In 1842, Sir William Dunbar found, and accepted the charge of, this flock, in full communion with Bishop Skinner, and of consequence under the canons of that Church of which the Bishop of Aberdeen is Primus; but still, under a private deed of constituency, which, it is said, reserved to this one congregation of St. Paul's for ever a certain "distinctive character." This document (it is reprinted in No. 4) is certainly a very curious one; but we say this distinctly, if, as Sir William Dunbar argues, it contains any provision directly opposed to the letter of the canons, it is only waste paper. The bishop puts this very well; he says, (see No. 1, p. 9,)" he cannot acknowledge St. Paul's to have at one and the same time a distinctive and a united character;" i. e. it cannot be both Independent and Catholic, now church and now meeting. "Under which king, Bezonian ?" this is the real question: it is of little use for the Reverend Baronet to argue that his " accepting the call" upon the force of the existence of the separate deed was equivalent to subscription to the canons under a reserve of the primary stringency of the deed surely if the less is blessed of the greater, so must the less authority in the Church, should they clash, submit to the greater. The deed of union reserves certain rights, as they are termed, to the congregation of St. Paul's; these Bishop Skinner is said to have impugned. Let us see and we accept Sir William's statement of his

own case.

The deed requires the use of the English communion office, (the liturgy, that is,) in St. Paul's: the canons of the Church declare the Scotch liturgy to be "of primary authority," and to be used compulsorily on certain occasions, permitting, at the same time, the English liturgy, but sanctioning the Scotch. In the diocese of Aberdeen, it appears that most congregations, (see No. 5, p. 23,) among them, that of St. Andrew's, one of the Aberdeen churches, use the authorized form: the English is reserved to St. Paul's by the deed already alluded to.

Now, what does Bishop Skinner do? Does he compel Sir William and his flock to use the Scotch office? because this would have been to break the union deed: no such thing; but, at St. Andrew's, where it was regularly and customarily used, the bishop uses this Scotch office at an ordination, and Sir William is present, he having been, as a matter of compliment, asked to preach he declines to receive the Eucharist, walks out of church after the sermon, "objects on scriptural grounds to administer or unite in the service," (No. 1, p. 7,)

We admit, of course, the correction made in our July number, by our Scotch editor at Aberdeen; but, in justice to ourselves, we may quote Mr. Lawson's recent volume, who states distinctly that "the congregations at Perth and Montrose have conformed to the Union," (p. 352,) though he does not specify the date. It matters little; but if we were inaccurate, Mr. Lawson has misled us.

and it is not very clear how much of this was connived at by the bishop; for some part of his conduct, however, or for all, the minister of St. Paul's was reproved by his diocesan; and even the author of No. 2, (p. 8,) thinks that here Sir William had the best of it. We desire to say a few words on this.

We maintain that the provisions of the deed of union were untouched, and would have been, had Sir William, as he was bound by the canon to do, received the Eucharist at St. Andrew's; untouched also by the bishop's rebuke of his refractory Presbyter: the deed reserves the English office for St. Paul's: true; but does the deed say, that the minister of St. Paul's shall never communicate elsewhere? does it say one word about what is to be done at St. Andrew's? His "taking part in the Scotch service" at St. Paul's, would have been a breach of contract; how does this apply to his taking part in it elsewhere? It would be consistent in Sir William, as minister of St. Paul's, to say, "I prefer the English office, and I always intend to use it; first, because it is more scriptural, or what not, and next, because it is reserved for the use of my people by a special instrument;" and all this is quite consistent with Canon XXI., and this is all that the deed contemplated; but to say, as he does, that the Scotch office is popish and idolatrous, which he pretends was what he supposed the union deed to imply all along, is sheer nonsense. For it comes to this; the Church of Scotland accepts for one of her Presbyters a man who, at the same moment, subscribes two documents; one, the canons of the Church, which declare a certain liturgy of primary authority; and another, a private deed, which declares the very same liturgy unscriptural and Popish: which is absurd therefore, this could not be the sense of the deed, which said not one word about the Scotch office; and, therefore, the Reverend Baronet incurred censure, and might have been suspended for violating both spirit and letter of Canon XXI. For, we ask, in what sense did Sir William sign this canon? Not only will he not admit the Scotch liturgy to be of "primary authority," but he says distinctly it is of none; it is therefore perfectly nugatory to talk about "reserve," and "limited conditions," and "equivalent to a protest;" when Sir William can show distinctly that, when he subscribed the canons, he drew his pen through No. XXI., he will have something to say on this head. Either the deed directly contradicts the canon, and if so, it is perfectly worthless; or it can be construed in harmony with the canon only by the course which we have pointed out, and which course Sir William did not pursue; and we make him a present of the dilemma.

:

We have been the rather particular on this head, (and for the other points upon which Sir William has disobeyed we must refer our readers to the pamphlets which we have named,) because it is that on which the authors of No. 2 and of No. 5, (Mr. Lawson we observe, by the initials,) and both defenders of the bishop against this strange schism, seem most doubtful, and, may we add? squeamish: they seem to think the Scotch Office and Canon XXI. rather a sore place; with this feeling, if it exists on their part, we have no sympathy whatever, but rather, with Bishop Horsley, we gladly admit the Scotch liturgy to be superior to our own-with the American Church, we would most thankfully accept a change in the English Office ;-and, with good

Bishop Horne, doubtless alluding to this very privilege, we would answer inquiries as to the existence of Scotch bishops, as he did: "Yes, better than our own." The members of the Scotch Church are almost like the Israelites, in possession of a glorious privilege in this liturgy, and perhaps in other things, of which they hardly show their sense when God is their King they ask for a less heavenly rule: we only wish that we were permitted entrance into that pleasant land, of which, we almost dread, they think scorn: they take for a spot what strangers deem their brightest star.

Another thought strikes us in connexion with the existence of this deed of union, from which our own Church might draw a useful lesson. It seems, at least to us, reviewing the transaction as strangers, and at a distance, that there must have been too much haste in comprehending this St. Paul's congregation into the Scotch Church in 1841. The private deed of reservation may bear a plausible interpretation; could it not be understood in at least a tolerable sense, and one consistent somehow with the constitution of the whole Church, it never could have been acceded to at all, we should think, by the Bishop of Aberdeen: but then, again, though no principle was actually surrendered by him, there was a vast deal too much pseudo-liberality towards the, real or imaginary, prejudices of the " managers and constituent members" of that most anomalous body, the congregation of St. Paul's. They were incorporated into the Church too soon: too much of the leaven of their old independency was connived at: the Church made as though she yielded something there should have been no compromise, or even apparent compromise: the St. Paul's Independents should have not been treated with as a separate sovereign power: they who ask the blessings of an Episcopate should do it on their knees; it is a gift, not a bargain: "all or none" should have been the bishop's alternative. Which, of course, it is much easier to say now than it would have been to act upon in 1841: this we feel; but we allude to it because it may serve as a forcible warning to ourselves, to anticipate into what inextricable difficulties as a Church we shall stumble, if we enter into sudden relations with foreign un-episcopal bodies on terms of equality and mutual surrender; what has happened in Scotland, may teach us what is sure to happen from the Anglican-Lutheran-Comprehension scheme: the Dunbar schism is an index of the success of Bishop Alexander's Jerusalem Mission. In either case there was too much hurry.

:

Next, Sir William Dunbar chooses to think that the fact of the bishop requiring him to make a collection at St. Paul's, in obedience to Canon XL., was inconsistent with the clause in the union deed, which gave to "the managers the sole management of the funds;" which obviously is a regulation only of private arrangement, alluding to the way in which the chapel income and funds should be appropriated; and, as before, what we ask is this,-and we think it more important, because in Scotland it has not been urged with sufficient force: in what possible sense did Sir William subscribe the canons at all, if not in their obvious one? either then he subscribed them in this sense or in none; and if in none, he is bound to show his exceptions against them, made at the time formally and openly.

Again, when in the deed of union, the minister and congregation

Notices of Books.

of St. Paul's promised "to pay all spiritual obedience to the Right
Reverend William Skinner and his successors," what did they mean by
this? did this imply that their minister was to dictate to his bishop
when, where, and how he was to confirm the young people of the
flock? that their minister was to decide what canons of the
Church he was to obey or what to disobey, or how long, or how
often, he was to plead "his scriptural objections," and "his religious
against his bishop's commands? that their minister
convictions "
might sign a paper one year, and twelvemonths after plead that he
did it under a mental reservation which directly contradicted every
word of it? and that by "electing their own minister," they denied
to their own bishop the authority of placing over them their shepherd
in the Lord? *

Of the folly, on Sir William's part, of supposing that he can
still act "Presbyter of the Church of England," though he has
renounced his Bishop, we have spoken so much at large in Mr.
Drummond's parallel case, that we care not to repeat it. Mr. Lawson's
(No. 5) pamphlet, though, perhaps, rather too pungent for our taste,
contains some observations (pp. 9-11,) which it would puzzle Sir
We had marked them for extract, but we are
William to answer.
compelled to pull up somewhat suddenly.

Of these pamphlets we can just afford space to remark, that Sir William's is beneath contempt in matter and style; and that No. 4, "Sir William Dunbar Defended," is the vulgarest rubbish we ever read; with No. 2 we concur heartily, excepting the point which we have Mr. Lawson's is the most able of the set, if he did not eriticised. fall into railing; and No. 3 is remarkable only for its dulness.

We have only to add, that at the conclusion of the affair (we regret that it was not terminated by excommunication; perhaps, however, it is not yet over,) Sir William seemed much disposed to keep the temporalties of St. Paul's, which, in the "History of the Scottish Church since the Revolution," we find to be "perhaps the richest in Scotland," (p. 487,) although he had relinquished the spiritualties; but we are enabled to announce that "the managers, &c." have so far obeyed the Bishop's injunctions as to declare the charge vacant-whether they will present another clergyman yet remains to be seen.

POSTSCRIPT.

After the above notice of the Dunbar schism was in type, and partly worked off, we were favoured with a letter from Sir William Dunbar, requesting us, when we redeemed our last month's promise of noticing this business, to keep in view the conditions of the voluntary union. As the nature and provisions of this document are the very grounds upon which we have argued the case, it is remarkable enough that we and our opponent should have chosen the same lists for the controversy; when he dictates the conditions upon which we are to meet, he can complain of no

*"The Bishop's letter to me shows the following opinions to be entertained by his

reverence:

"First, That he committed to me the charge of St. Paul's.

"Secondly, That until he had done so, I had no authority to read the public prayers of the Church, to administer God's sacraments, and to preach His word. Now, in these sentiments, entertained by his reverence, I cannot concur," &c.— Dunbar, p. 17.

unfairness on our part; and to complete the case against him, we subjoin the terms quoted by the Rev. Baronet:

"That all the present rights and privileges of the members of St. Paul's Chapel, (particularly as set forth in the constitution or decree arbitral, pronounced by the late George Moir, of Scotstown, Esq., and extension thereof,) shall remain entire and be secured in the union, more particularly the choice of the clergyman, the sole management of the funds, and the continued use and preservation to the chapel of the exclusive use of the Liturgy, including the Catechism of the Church of England; none of which rights and privileges shall be infringed upon without incurring the dissolution of the said voluntary union."

A Memorial, &c. The Doctrine of the Cross, exhibited in the Faith and Patience of a humble Follower of Christ.

Burns.

1843.

London :

THIS is a book which we should feel shame to take up as mere critics: it is far too holy and solemn. It is the biography of a female of very simple and childlike obedience, and of a most devout and saintly life, who was graciously led, and this, as far as we may learn, by God's especial grace to "know of the doctrine," by "doing His will." Educated a Quaker, she found that cold scantling of religionism too confined and narrow for even her antebaptismal depth of piety; the full system of the Church alone was sufficient for the perfect development of a rare and exalted holiness; and after passing through some very singular trials and difficulties, she settled down into the most careful and diligent walk in the Catholic faith and practice, at least as completely as her shortened life permitted; for she died before she arrived at "the perfect stature." If we are not mistaken in a conjecture supplied by a single passage, she was, on her incorporation into the Church, an attendant on the ministry of a clergyman of the extreme Calvinistic school: but the insufficiency of modern evangelicalism is forcibly and most practically evinced by her life; had we any confidence in one of the late Mr. Knox's distinctions, though in her case the "foundation" might be laid in the uncatholic modern doctrine of conversion, this biography proves that it was the Church alone which could build the "superstructure Christian." She ripened out of evangelicalism by a gradual and personal experience of its lack of depth and heavenliness: it realized to her neither the true idea of the Divine incorporation, nor the power of being conformed to His image. In her was set forth the true teaching of the Cross; being made perfect through much tribulation, she found her way to eternal joy by suffering here with Christ: her door to enter into eternal life was gladly to die with Christ; and if we required an evidence of the strength of the Catholic system to train saints for life or death, this touching "Memorial" would furnish it. It is rather for tears and humbled hearts than to be talked about; and we recommend it most heartily to those who think that our own Church has not sufficient life to produce a St. Elizabeth of Hungary, a St. Theresa or a Magdalen of Pazzi, as well as to those who say that Catholicism and formalism are convertible.

It appears that the "Memorial" is composed by a near friend--are