1

very evil which, by our needful warning, we had considerately attempted to avert :—

"With too good cause, I fear your prophecy of ill-tidings is by no means unlikely to be fulfilled. There is such an apathy on the part of those who ought to be in the foremost ranks, such a cold-blooded indifference amongst our laity, and such an abject Church-of-England-worship amongst our right reverend bishops, that I quite think with you that the Scottish Office will eventually, in no long time, be given up altogether. The 'silent revolution,' as you term it, is fast changing or wiping out the old landmarks and much for which in sincere devotion I laboured and lived. The bishops have half turned it out of Trinity College, they may allow it to remain at the College of the Spirit at Cumbrae, because its founder is both the son and brother of a peer. Bishops who are not peers, always give a devout cultus to laymen whose relations and connections are."

Mr. Cazenove has no doubt learnt by this time how quixotic was his amiable, but in some respects commendable attempt, to re-polish an unpolishable institution. Our facts and remarks were neither novel nor uncalled-for. We were but putting into our own language what had been previously set forth by those high in authority. The ripe scholar and eminent theologian who presides over the Episcopal district of Argyle, forestalled us eight years ago in one or two of our most important statements. For example, "his lordship" fully admits the decrease of Episcopalian flocks and the failure of Episcopalian ministrations. Here are "his lordship's " words:" Our flocks suffer, yea our flocks fail us; the provision is not sufficient, it is not nourishment. [The Bishop appears to be alluding to the painful infrequency of Eucharistic celebrations in Scotland, and to the practice of using the so-called "Table Prayers."] All creatures are attached to those who feed them, if ours are not attached, it is because they are not fed; not with food convenient for them, not with that indicated by the Good Shepherd when He said 'Feed my sheep-feed my lambs.'"-(P. 5. Letter to the Primus, by the Bishop of Argyle, Edinburgh, 1858.) And again, in reference to the notorious decrease on all hands, "Our flocks fail us, and we gain no additions to them from without." And as regards the poverty of Episcopalians, "Surely the inadequate resources of our institutions, the miserable allowances to our clergy, are easily accounted for. Would the intelligence and wealth of Scotland (for most of the learned and landed interests belong to our communion) suffer such things, were their affections engaged with us. Is it not

because they are not so ?" If the grammar of this sentence be not very understandable-the truths set forth are at least accurate and important, and are, moreover, in perfect harmony with those upon which the UNION REVIEW has already commented.

Marking the increase of Roman Catholics in Glasgow,* Archdeacon Aitchison thus writes, giving a key to the unlocking of those statistical difficulties given in our March number, which have equally astonished many Scotch Episcopalians and English Catholics :-" This I do know-that it was and I suppose still is, the practice for the Romish bishop and his clergy to visit the Infirmary and Fever Hospital regularly, by turns of a month each; while the then resident Episcopal clergy declined to do so when asked, with the exception of the late Dean Routledge, who was ever ready to do all such works of charity. We have no reason to complain that the Bishops and clergy of the Romish communion receive the name of the Catholic clergy' in Glasgow, while he of the reformed Church who is called 'the Scottish Episcopal Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway,' resides chiefly in Edinburgh, and merely passes two or three days a week in his city, including Sunday, and deputing the shepherding of the poor to the few clergy who cannot possibly tend one-tenth part of the professing Episcopalians."-(A Free Inquiry, p. 31.)

Once more, on the general character of Episcopacy the same writer remarks, "It must be admitted that the Holy Apostolic Scottish Church [what a queer name!] is now under the denomination of the Scottish Episcopal Church' degraded into the form of a dissenting body," (p. 38,) and again further on-"The Scottish Episcopal Church, it must be confessed, is completely at sea. It has abandoned its only vantage-ground by the surrender of its claim to nationality, and is utterly disqualified from offering resistance to any attempted invasion of the National Church."-(P. 44.)

"Private spite," "desire of vengeance," and "one-sided and falsified account," (Scottish Guardian, p. 224,) are the choice terms which Mr. Cazenove's correspondents apply to us and to our criticisms. While we regret, we can afford to pass over, and charitably forgive, such a style of controversyrevealing as it does the extreme weakness of a bad and feeble

cause.

The further statement that there was "rarely a single

*We find that at p. 132 of our article on "The Two Communions of Scotland," we have greatly understated the number of Roman Catholics in Glasgow, by five and twenty thousand. The number is not 100,000 but 125,000.

word of praise" for Scotch Episcopalians is, to use adjectives of moderation and mildness, entirely inaccurate and untrue. We praised those "devoted Scotch Episcopalians" influenced by the Oxford movement, at p. 142, Bishop Forbes at pp. 139 and 143, Mr. Cheyne at p. 140, and the whole of the Catholic school in sentences of sincere admiration at p. 157. There was no necessity to do more, because other people had already occupied that pleasant ground.

in

As Mr. Cazenove alludes to the Church Review with approbation, and speaks admiringly of its aggressive article upon ourselves, we venture to remark that in nothing we have written have there been more pertinent criticisms nor more damaging facts than in the Scottish correspondent's papers that serial. We do not complain, however, that the Church Press Company, composed, as its board of directors is, mainly of Scotch Episcopalians, should have forced upon the conductors, as is reported, the insertion of an article, so strongly at variance with the general tone of their Scotch correspondent's interesting communications; because the more enquiry is generated, the more surely will Truth prevail. The incongruous inconsistency of our contemporary, notwithstanding, has been a subject of general remark. However, the consistency or inconsistency, the wisdom or folly of the Church Review is

not our concern.

The following extract from its impression of May 26th completely ratifies the comments we thought it our duty to make on the true character of the 20th of the new Scotch

canons:

"At length the crowning act of a long series of irregular and schismatical doings has been performed in the consecration of the new church at Crieff. It is only needful to remind your readers that there already existed at Crieff a church, built by Mr. Lendrum and consecrated by the late Bishop Torry. The Bishop, on a number of foolish and unreasonable grounds, maintained that Mr. Lendrum had no rights connected with the congregation; and, although the congregation went with Mr. Lendrum in his views, the Bishop had recourse to the principle embodied in the maxim, divide et impera. By a series of welllaid plans, he did what it is not at all difficult to do he made a second party in the congregation; and, with the aid of the new canons, which have given the bishops unheard-of powers, he planted a new mission next door to the old Church, whilst he refused to institute a pastor to the existing charge. The very ease with which the thing could thus be done only increases the scandal of it. Pecca fortiter conveys the notion of something of nobility. But, as one knows perfectly well that such a course

would not have been attempted had the congregation been wealthy, this act of spiritual high-handedness is unrelieved by one touch on which anyone can look with complacency. Then, owing to the delightful state of no-law in which we live, when appeal was taken to the College of Bishops they simply refused justice and hung up the case, on the plea that there were issues in it which might come to be tried in a civil court! Seeing that the Church has a great jealousy of the civil power, and has in her canons provided that cases shall not be tried there, it was certainly rather odd to be referred to the Court of Session. But the Episcopal Synod in Scotland is the very ideal de l'imprévu. No one knows what it will do. Any further hope in that quarter was at an end. The bishops washed their hands of the case, and the poor congregation of Crieff were left to the unequal contest with a bishop having previously unheardof powers, and a Court of Appeal who deliberately handed them over to his uncontrolled disposition of them. So, one by one, every ecclesiastical principle has been violated. A consecrated Church has been regarded as common by a bishop; a congregation has been conceived to have no privileges; a founder to have no rights; and a reign of anarchy has been inaugurated, from which, unless I greatly mistake, this Church will not be very long in suffering as she richly deserves."

And here we have done with an unsavoury subject to which we need not again revert. While thanking those of our correspondents who have acknowledged the service we have rendered to Scotch Episcopacy by "speaking the truth in love," we cannot but feel confident that the struggling units of a once well-bonded-together Catholic party, heirs of a school almost extinct, will be efficiently helped by our advocacy of their failing cause. The general attention as well as the rude abuse we have received, in patience and charity, coupled with the now proved weakness of Mr. Cazenove's controversial position, are at once evidences and testimonies to all but those who are blinded by prejudice, interested by position or puffed up by national vanity, that the author of "The Two Communions in Scotland," like S. Paul in peril of his countrymen and in peril of false brethren, has neither gleaned facts nor "laboured in vain."

ART. XVIII.-THE OTHER GOSPEL.

In recent times within the bosom of the Anglican Church there has sprung up a new race of teachers, who are bringing forward very old doctrines as if they were something new; and who are uttering the most common-place and threadbare sophistries, as if they were something profound. The teaching of this new school we term "the Other Gospel," for relatively what the teaching of Judaism was to the Catholic faith in primitive times; that, the teaching of this Other Gospel is to the same faith now. It is the relation merely which holds good, and not the absolute nature of the teaching itself. The other gospel of S. Paul's days was essentially traditional, literal, conservative, and inflexible: the other gospel of our day is essentially untraditional, mystical, democratic, and elastic. In fact so intangible, so destructive, and so slippery, that it is very difficult to reduce it to a positive form. It is not the gospel of the Church in England; for whatever may be her deficiencies in practice, she is thoroughly Catholic in theory; she accepts the Catholic Canon of Holy Scripture, and she admits Catholic tradition to be the Interpreter of that Scripture; her creeds, her liturgy, her authorized formularies of instruction; all imply her allegiance to the tradition of the Universal Church. Its want of being systematic, the absence of literalism in this Other Gospel, renders it difficult to reduce it to a system; and then as it is not conservative, it is ever changing its form; and the old material of thought and theology, cannot be traced, as worked up anew into the recent structure.

Some have endeavoured to compare the Other Gospel with the Alexandrianism of the third century, but the comparison is one that will not hold good. The founders of the school of Alexandria were indeed mighty men, men of renown; Pantænus, Clement, Origen, were but the brighter planets amidst a host of brilliant constellations. The teachers of the Other Gospel, are not leading men: are not great masters, and great teachers: they are prophets of a new order indeed, but slenderly endowed with the prophetic gift. The Fathers of Alexandria combined a profound knowledge of and reverence for Holy Scripture, with a deep and living knowledge, of the highest intellect, that the world has ever seen: and they applied their knowledge of Plato to the interpretation of the Bible; in fact they did very much with Plato, what the Schoolmen subsequently, did with Aristotle. It was the natural