distraction, internal strife such as those not behind the scenes have no idea of, steady and fatal decrease in numbers, this is her portion whose faithlessness is as clear as the day.

Two ideas seem to have filled the Scotch Episcopal mind to the exclusion of all higher considerations. These are: (1) A lowering of standards to please Presbyterians within and without; (2) Peace at any price. It is no secret that many members of the Scotch Episcopal Church are not Catholics in belief and practice but Presbyterians with a Bishop and liturgy, taking this last word in its generally, though wrongly applied,

sense.

Bishops, priests, and lay people are at least pretty much at one in this-viz., the endeavour to tone down as far as possible the notes of Catholicity to the uniform dull level of the Presbyterian pitch. The present writer on one occasion had to assert the truth that Presbyterians are external to the Catholic Church. A Deacon just ordained to an important town curacy protested against this broad statement, and the vice-president of the Church Institute (the only one in Scotland) before which I had been speaking could not deny to Presbyterians the right to be considered members of the Church Catholic. The majority of the Institute men endorsed these sentiments which in the latter case were justified on the ground that the vice-president, who is a lawyer by the way, could not bear to think that so many of his relatives were in such an uncomfortable position. Precisely so. Many of the clergy have either sprung from Presbyterian parents or have Presbyterian connections who must be treated civilly. The laity follow suit; "Converts" cannot bear to reflect upon their belongings and surrounding while Episcopalians born and bred are so influenced by the atmosphere of the Kirk which surrounds them, their connections in life through intermarriage, business and pleasure that they find it hard, not indeed to draw the line, but to follow the line of demarcation which the Church has clearly drawn between herself and the sects established or non-established. One who is a fair sample of the thoughtful intelligent Scotch Episcopal layman has frequently argued against any ritual developments such as have obtained in the sister Church in England, on the ground that incense, lights and vestments, choral service, and the decent ordering of the public offices would render "our Church still more obnoxious to Presbyterians: our standards should be lowered rather than heightened in the face of the present signs of the times when the Natural Kirk is stretching forth her hands to us." The argument besides being of course very silly is very wicked, and although in the present instance, only urged by a private layman in a sort of Church debating club, is in reality the argument upon which the retrograde actions of the Scotch Episcopal Church are grounded. It embodies the views not

only of the great majority of the lay people but those also of the Bishops and clergy. In a sense, but a bad one, the Church's cords are lengthened indefinitely in this way. Never mind, however, if in the effort her stakes are fatally weakened. Conciliation and compromise are the cankers that are eating away the heart of the Scottish Communion. Anything like manly independence and clear sharp outline is rapidly vanishing. And all without the result aimed at. Presbyterians are still what they were, and the Scotch Episcopal Church has fallen grievously from her former status. If she has obtained the good will of those "other Christians who surround her, if she has passed through her hour of persecution and trial into something like Parliamentary and Southern favour, it must be allowed that what is Primitive, Apostolic and Catholic has grievously suffered in the process.

And when Scotch Episcopalians are charged with paucity of ritual and meanness of worship, what is the constantly urged excuse ? "Our Church is essentially a missionary Church." Now what is one distinguishing work, one prominent feature in a missionary Church? I answer-warm, earnest, intelligible. preaching, preachments in season and out of season; appeals to the heart in the cause of the Crucified. In preaching the Scotch Episcopal Church most grievously fails. The kirk attracts by the eloquence of its preachers. Dr. Candlish, Dr. Guthrie, Dr. MacLeod, and a host beside, if very unorthodox and antiCatholic, at least take care to set their heresies in decent dress before their rather fastidious audiences. If their sermons are intolerably long, they at any rate convey instruction of a certain order, and have a measure of warmth and a tone of cultivated thought running through them which more than atone for their length in the opinion of those who "sit under" them. But as in other things, so in preaching, the Scottish Episcopal Church cannot meet the wants of its members. Her children ask for bread, she gives them a stone. She cannot boast one great preacher in the ranks of her native clergy. If the enemies are to be fought with their own weapons, surely it is utter madness to neglect preaching. Presbyterians will have preaching, and if they don't get it there is no hope of winning them. It is in vain that Daily Services or frequent Celebrations or Ritual is set before them. Their strong inbred affection for "hearing the Word" must be consulted, or all else will fail. Why are we "Episcopalians ?" Why is the kirk all wrong? These are questions that enquiring Presbyterians want light thrown upon. I never heard a sermon in which these questions were handled with ability or candour. "Lowering the standards" is much

more usual.

It is true that here and there a spasmodic attempt at lively preaching is made, but when the "life" is divorced from

VOL. IV.

2 A

common sense and allied to the ludicrous, the effort is valueless, if not worse. What would be said in the south to such examples of pulpit eloquence as these to which I have listened? "Zaccheus was a little man with the bump of curiosity very large." In a reference to some names in the genealogy of our Lord, certain persons were referred to as "being no better than they should be," while of the Samaritan woman we were told that the least said about her the better." Ponderous homilies of the seventeenth century type, or the productions of divines fresh from Glenalmond, blundered through with perverse emphasis, and directed apparently to the pulpit cushion,-these are the husks with which the children of the Scottish Episcopal Church are fed. I heard perhaps the greatest preacher in this communion a short time ago. His subject was one of very deep interest and importance, and his high position as a scholar, his irreproachable character, and his churchmanship, alike demand respect and deference when he speaks. Only a handful of persons, chiefly women, assembled to hear him. In the same week I attended a service with our Roman Catholic brethren. A searching, piercing sermon was preached on the words "O all ye who pass by," &c., by a Passionist. The congregation consisted of some six hundred mill-workers and artizans, who at eight o'clock at night, after a hard day's work, were willing to meditate on their Saviour, and adore Him at His Altar. Could Scotch Episcopacy in this great city of Glasgow show such a sight? And if not, why not? Of one thing I am certain, that few of our clergy dare speak the plain things that this good young priest spoke from his heart. Scotch Episcopalianism would be offended."

In justice to the clergy I will say that the attendance at sacred seasons is most disheartening and discouraging. I know two churches where during Lent the attendance has averaged in one 12, in the other 20 at the Wednesday and Friday services. Still the laity are not solely to blame. The hours of service are terribly inconvenient, in many cases utterly impracticable. It would certainly be desirable to enquire into the working of the Roman Catholic Church in this matter. Mass at 7, 8, and 9 A.M.; Benediction and Sermon at 8 P.M., in some cases 9 P.M. during Holy Week: are services evidently intended for the masses, not for the few ladies who have mid-day shoppings to do in the city and who find the Church a convenient halting-place. Certain indications of improvement have at last appeared and I am bound to acknowledge them and trust that they will lead to better things. All great bodies, however, move slowly, and amongst all her "findings" the Episcopal Communion in Scotland and the "Protestant Bishops" and clergy thereof, have not as yet found what best suits the requirements of her members. Some few people from England

have latterly tried to set a better example, with what success P. C. J. has shown. When a Bishop, his leading incumbent, and a minister of an "English chapel " are conjointly gazetted in the daily papers as having graced a conversazione in Passion Week, I need scarcely remark upon the gross violation of Advent and Lent by priests and people. I know a priest who makes very great pretensions to Catholic Churchmanship, who honestly avowed having gone to see Charles Kean in Lent. And I have never yet heard the laity rebuked for attending balls, concerts, and parties which in Glasgow come to a grand climax in Passion-tide.

A friend writes regarding a Church in this diocese:

"There was no celebration either on Ascension Day or Trinity Sunday though clause 5 of Canon XXX. directs that the Holy Sacrament of the Lord's Supper shall be administered on the great Festivals.' In the matter of Daily Service the Incumbent is bound by the constitution of the Church in addition to the obligation laid on every priest to perform both Morning and Evening service. Beside this, there is a printed notice on the church door specifying the hours as 10-30 A.M. and 7.30 P.M., the same appearing in Masters' Guide. It will hardly be credited that in spite of all this, only Morning Service is performed. Holy Baptism is never administered at the time the Church directs.

Of the celebration I would rather not quote his account. My own eyes, however, have borne testimony to the sad facts my correspondent details.

According to "Masters' Guide" for 1866, another Church in the Glasgow Diocese is put down for Daily Choral Service at 11 and 2:30. This is, I believe, quite as fallacious as the case instanced by my friend. One evil result of such shams and perhaps the least, is the "unfaith" which is generated in such a useful publication, and the handle given to those priests who are negligent in the matter of the Daily office.

Glasgow, March, 1866.

W. C. D.

"MULTUM IN PARVO," OR, "A CHIP OF THE OLD BLOCK."

SIR,-Most people like to have a key to their puzzle, but it is not often that a puzzle contains its own key. This is what will make Dr. Ward's Preface doubly valuable, if not to those who knew him previously, at least to posterity. On page 15 of it he says "In all these cases alike I hold this without the shadow of a doubt, not because, in any one of the three instances I have personally examined every imaginable his

torical difficulty, but because I know for certain that the Church's teaching is infallibly true."

Consequently, we may reverse the compliment which is paid to another party further on in his own favour. "If any man ever lived who exhibited the principle of private judgment in its most naked features and its extremest shape, it is the Ultramontane Dublinist."-(P. 448, Dublin for April); and assume for certain that Dr. Ward will never confess himself refuted till he refutes himself. This, however, to those who knew him previously may be stale news.-Yours, &c.,

April 7.

PHILALETHES.

[We have been compelled to omit several letters and reviews, notwithstanding an addition of many pages to the present number.-ED.]