or by reason, or by the joint light of the two, is our rule of action."-(vol. ii. p. 56.)

The

Having thus taken a survey of the Christian precepts which constitute the rule of life, and the necessity of their observance and culture, the work concludes with some chapters on Polity, chiefly devoted to "the Duties of the State,"-which chapters appear to us to be by far the most valuable part of the work. author's acute and powerful mind is here remarkably exhibited, in the masterly style in which he discusses, in the briefest space, and yet in the most conclusive manner, such questions as "a state provision for the poor:"-" the relations of the State to the Church:"-" the duty of educating the people," &c. We should be greatly pleased to see these chapters printed in a separate form, for the use of those numerous classes who have no taste, nor any time, for the more difficult discussions of abstract "rights" and "obligations."

We prefer this part of the work, too, because in dealing with POLITY, we feel less averse to proceed, as Professor Whewell has done, on merely rational grounds, than when discussing "VIRTUES and DUTIES." During the greater part of his work, able and lucid as it is, we felt, we confess, a degree of impatience. The task of laboriously working out, by mental process, "a rule of human action," seems to us something very much like a waste of time. The Professor's remark, that "the precepts of scripture cannot be a rule to those who have never received the scripture," does not suffice to establish the necessity of elaborating a system of morals, independent of scripture, for the use of men who have the scripture in their hands. Such a course seems like shutting out the light of day, the glorious sunshine which God has given us, in order to shew how good a substitute we can furnish, by oil-lamps or tallow-candles.

There is such a comfort, such a security, in " Thus saith the LORD," or, " It is written," that we feel a sort of wonder at the patience, and also at the taste, of any one who can voluntarily quit that safe anchorage, to venture on the dangerous ocean of human speculation. And, while we readily admit the skill and power with which Professor Whewell has executed his task, we still long for a work on the same subject, but executed in a different spirit. One which should make CHRIST the sun of the system: one which should not arrive at revelation in the 385th page; but should lay the revealed will of God as the foundation-stone; and should return to the same quarry at every step, till the corner-stone was at last raised, and the whole building stood complete, having the heavenly inscription on every side," HOLINESS TO THE LORD."

TWO SERIES OF DISCOURSES, ON CHRISTIAN HUMILIATION AND THE CITY OF GOD. By. C. H. TERROT, D.D. Bishop of Edinburgh. Parker.

We have a most conscientious regard for the episcopal order, independently of the earthly baronial dignity associated with it in our land. Nay, we are not prepared to admit that the prelatic overseers and examples of the flock gain anything of real elevation to their high calling, when, in compliance with this world's conventional arrangements, they bind the baronial balls around the mitre. And we are certain that when, in compliance with the gracious politeness of a sovereign, our colonial bishops admitted the unsubstantiated and anomalous title of "My Lord," they did injury to the cause of episcopacy and truth. We are prepared, therefore, to admit with reverence the claims of the Scottish prelacy to all due honour; more especially as there is no question that their orders are derived directly from the English Church. Only let them abide honestly by the sound reformation-teaching of that communion to which they owe the episcopate, and we will give them equal honours for the mitre, though utterly disconnected from the ermine and the coronet. We acknowledge their episcopal authority, though without a legally-defined diocese.

But a serious charge stands recorded against the present occupiers of the Scotch episcopal bench, that they have suddenly and unexpectedly, after a solemn act of concordat, altered the fixed terms of communion in their Church. While the Stuart family in the direct line was not extinct, and the Cardinal York could yet be looked to by the expiring embers of the party, as a claimant to the British throne, there were necessarily in Scotland two bodies of Episcopal clergy-the remnant of the Scotch Episcopacy, who were on principle disaffected to the Hanover family, and had been considerably compromised in the successive rebellions of 1715 and 1745-and the English ordained clergy, whom, with a view to pastoral care, the loyal part of the Scottish nation were compelled to bring over the border. Towards the close of the last century, the Scottish Episcopal nonjuring clergy and their congregations were at a very low ebb. But they had the mitre exclusively with them; while the congregations under English ordained clergy had the substance and wealth of the episcopal body of worshippers. These, however, were, to a certain extent, in an anomalous position; because they could not possibly join with Episcopalians who would not pray for the reigning sovereign; nor could they recognize the chief characteristic ordinance of the Scotch Episcopal Church

the communion office-which had been recently modified, so as to be essentially identified with the Romish mass. They remained, therefore, conscientiously episcopalian in sentiment, without the advantage of direct episcopalian government; because to them the indigenous episcopate was palpably heretical; and because they had not been diligent and earnest in seeking, in those times in which it would have been readily given, the consecration of some of their own pastors, so as to complete the platform of their government. So matters stood at the death of Cardinal York; when the Jacobites could, consistently with their former scruples, acknowledge the Brunswick as the legitimate line: and then, as the great barrier to union was removed, proposals for approximation readily appeared. On the one side was the episcopate, and on the other the great proportion of pastors and people. Union was desirable; and the true basis of that union would have been the precise features of the English Church and its formularies; and if a resolute stand had then been made, the bench would have given way; a stable union would have been effected on Anglican terms, and a flourishing Episcopal Church established beyond the Tweed. But the Scottish bishops found in Mr. Sandford, an English clergyman then recently settled in Edinburgh, a man of small means and eager expectations, who was but too ready to accept the mitre; consequently, the terms of union ultimately agreed upon were not so Anglican as they might and ought to have been. The ground taken by the English clergy, and allowed by the Scotch, was this: "Set us free from all accessory and actual participation in your communion-office, and take our Prayer-Book and Thirty-nine Articles, and we will join you." These terms were in a certain sense agreed to. The Scottish clergy signed the Thirty-nine Articles with explanation and reservation as to their meaning, and adopted a canon, by which the consciences of the English clergy were entirely freed from any approval or use of the Scottish communion-office. The Scottish clergy adhered to their office: the English held their own opinion of it, and repudiated its use. this arrangement the terms of the concordat, as embodied in the canons of the Church, directly sanctioned. The English clergy relied on the honourable dealing of their brethren of the north, and gradually entered, with their congregations, the Scottish Episcopal communion.

And

Under these circumstances, honour and honesty required that the covenant terms of the union should have remained fixed and irrevocable. There was no more moral liberty to alter those terms, than there is civil power in an individual to alter statute law. Nay more, those terms ought to have been preserved with a tender

and punctilious regard to the consciences of men, who had thus, in a measure for peace' sake, committed themselves to their brethren. Yet it appears, that just when the union, except in one or two instances, was complete,-when the net of the Scottish episcopate was just closing round the whole body, an unexpected violation of the covenant was perpetrated. A synod was assembled in the year 1838, composed of the bishops, the deans, and six delegates from the six dioceses, in which the canons, which were the basis of the concordat, were hastily altered, in respect to the essential points previously in lite; and the approbation of the objectionable office was forced, as a term of communion, upon all the English clergy; who had united upon distinct, safe, and satisfactory ground before. In that synod there were only two Anglican ordained clergy, who, had they adhered rigidly to their own previous engagements at ordination, to use no other but the English sacramental office, might have protested, though perhaps vainly and ineffectually, against so unjust a procedure. But the synod had been well chosen; and these English clergy silently sacrificed the previously-secured privileges of their brethren. They were prepared to affirm the superiority of the Scottish office to that in their own Prayer Book. They were prepared to use it. The canons, as altered, received the sanction of the synod; and they now place every English ordained clergyman in the Scottish Episcopal Church in the strange and anomalous position of avouching his approbation of, and his readiness to use, a sacramental office, doctrinally at variance with that to which, by his ordination vows, he stands exclusively pledged; so that he virtually separates himself, by his signature of the Scottish canon, from doctrinal communion and identity with the Church in which he was ordained; and never can be in entire accordance again with the formularies to which, at ordination, he solemnly put his hand, till he has openly withdrawn from any connexion with that which differs from them. The two offices can never be held and approved by the same person, while he values truth, straightforwardnesss, and consistency. The views of one condemn and exclude the views of the other. The English office provides a distinct intentional condemnation of that which constitutes the prominent and characteristic feature of the other. And no man who has a clear comprehension of the meaning of words in collocated sentences, can ever, with full approbation and with an approving conscience, make use of both. And to use them in any other way, and under whatever process of mystification, is to obscure the distinguishing line between right and wrong, and to sanction an inferior system of morals in respect to the professed tenets of religious faith.

It is on these grounds that the Bishop of Cashel, who thoroughly understands the subject, has said publicly and deliberately :"That the doctrines of the two churches are not the same, is an undeniable fact; and I cannot understand how persons who have subscribed to certain doctrines in England, can be expected to give their assent to other doctrines in Scotland." Let the difference to which the bishop refers, be distinctly shown in the language of the Scottish Episcopal theologians. It will be found very fully argued in a well-known work on the communion-office, by the Rev. William Skinner of Forfar; in which he shows most elaborately that the difference between the English and the Scottish notion of the Eucharist is, that the Scottish Episcopalians regard it as "a material sacrifice," while the English Church regards it as a commemorative feast, subsequent to the one great sacrifice, with an offering of praise and thanksgiving. This is the language of the Scottish deacons and of their party in England: "As the legal sacrifices prefigured the sacrifice of Christ, so does the eucharist commemorate that sacrifice; but as the legal sacrifices were not less sacrifices, because they were figures of the grand sacrifice, so neither can the eucharist be less a sacrifice, because it is a figure and representation of the grand sacrifice." And again: "The holy eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice offered up to God, by way of memorial or bringing to remembrance the grand sacrifice once offered on the cross; and for the purpose of applying the merits of it to the parties who in faith offer it up." And with this view, they pray over the elements, without any qualifying expression whatever," that they may become the body and blood of the Lord." This is no coloured misrepresentation of the Scottish theology. It is the point on which they stand in all their writings, and in their catechisms; and we cannot but feel assured, from their known sentiments, that if the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishops of London and Exeter could give full attention to this subject, they would see sound theological reasons for withdrawing that expression of censure, which they have recently volunteered against the seceding Episcopal party in the north. Truth and conscientiousness are sacred things, and it will not do, merely from a wish to stand by the cause of the mitre, to drive men to a sanction of views which in their hearts they believe to be contrary to their previous engagements. If they value a cordial and ex animo subscription to the English Articles and Liturgy, they must not be expected to treat as a matter of indifference, a conscientious objection to averments which are believed, and can, on good argumentative grounds, be shown, to be opposed to them.