me only-but to all the fathers of the Christian Church-and to all Christians who have used or still use the name of bishop, not as equivalent to presbyter but to prelate. What shall we say then to the use of the name Sabbath for the Lord's Day? Is not this a misleading phrase? And yet we all acquiesce in it, more or less, with far less reason—or rather with strong reasons for the contrary. Your correspondent has quoted Calvin as supporting his view; but Calvin, we know, with all his extraordinary ability, could say and do things very unreasonable, very extreme, very indefensible; and his position at Geneva required him to say very extreme things, at times, about Episcopacy. But there were also times when he could say, and did say very different things, as all will know who have read his tract "De necessitate reformando Ecclesiæ," and his celebrated epistle to the King of Poland. The same may be said still more of Luther, whom your correspondent also quotes; as I showed at some length in a letter which appeared in your columns on September 29, last year. For my own part, if it is not allowable to alter the scriptural use of a name for sufficient reasons—and there were sufficient reasons for dropping the name apostle, and substituting the name of bishop, leaving to the second order the name of presbyters only-if this be not allowable, I cannot see how it should be more allowable to invent a name like that of "the Trinity," which is not found in Scripture, for a doctrine which we admit-nay, strenuously maintain-to be scriptural. Your correspondent observes that prelatical episcopacy has no name in Seripture, and therefore concludes that it is uuscriptural. Might we not argue upon the very same ground that the doctrine of the Trinity is unscriptural? Or if a doctrine (confessedly essential and fundamental) be in the Bible, though without a name, why may not an office (essential and fundamental, as we believe) be also there, though equally unnamed? He further urges that "there is no mention of an intermediate grade between the apostles and presbyters." But this, as we conceive, is not necessary. Our notion is that the apostolic or prelatical body contained the germs of prelacy, diocesan prelacy, as it was to be instituted throughout the world; that to this body James, whether one of the twelve or no, belonged, when he became Bishop of Jerusalem," and in that position was superior in his own Church and diocese even to the highest of the apostles, such as S. Paul and S. Peter. The same we suppose to have gradually taken place elsewhere-i. e, as soon as the Churches of the Gentiles should be in a condition to receive a similar constitution; and that, meanwhile, the members of the apostolic body, by their missionary travels when they left Jerusalem, having the power of ordination and consecration as prelates, endeavoured everywhere to effect—and did eventually effect, as history testifies, either in their own persons or in the persons of others—such a result.

4. THREEFOLD APOSTOLIC MINISTRY IN GENTILE LANDS.-Your correspondent seems to think that Eusebius and others did not know what they were about, or else knowingly deceived, when they handed down to us the succession of bishops in the see, not only of Jerusalem, but of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, &c.; and that modern chronologists who have placed those lists on a par with the lists of archons, consuls, and emperors, have been also, all of them, equally ignorant, or equally deceivers. This wholesale way of dealing not only with our first fathers in the faith, but with learned men of various creeds, or of no creed at all, cannot be satisfactory, and will not, I trust, be much longer endured. We might as well be told that we don't know what we are about, when we quote the lists of the sovereigns of Scotland or of England; because there has been considerable difference in the extent of their respective powers, and respective dominions at different times; and because Ethelbert was called not king or sovereign, but "Bretwalda," or Lord of Britain. Again, when we speak of the succession of archons at Athens, or of emperors at Rome, we know what

we mean we know that we are not paltering with words in a double sense; yet it so happens that there was, or might have been, at the first, the same sort of confusion in the use of both those official names, as in the use of the name Episcopus. To imagine that a presbyter-bishop is meant by Eusebius, himself a prelate, and others, when they give those episcopal lists, is to imagine them most weakly and foolishly dishonest; to leave unaccounted for, the fact that the name of one only has been chosen out of a body of co-equal presbyters, and to leave the time and process unexplained when presbytery ceased, and prelacy began. That process, in truth, can never be explained without convicting all primitive prelates of unholy ambition, and all primitive presbyters and laymen of unfaithful pusilianimity—together with ignorance of Scripture or disregard of its authority, if its authority be such as your correspondent represents. Ready as we may be at the present day to justify ourselves, and despise others, I can scarcely think that any will be bold enough openly to avow such a judgment-though it virtually underlies much of the reasoning which is commonly advanced in support of uncatholic systems of church government.

There is one observation made by your correspondent, or rather a main conclusion to which he comes, which may appear to carry no little weight; and I can truly say I am honestly endeavouring throughout to do full justice to his arguments. Having stated that "the sacred historian (meaning, no doubt, S. Luke, the writer of the Acts) makes no reference to the episcopal order at all," he concludes that "had the apostles held it to be so essential to the very nature of the Church as our Anglican friends allege, such an omission would be altogether unaccountable." To this I would reply-Admitting for a moment the fact to be as it is here stated—viz., that no reference is made in the Acts to the episcopal order, would such silence be more unaccountable than the silence of the whole New Testament respecting the requirements of belief in the Holy Trinity, or of the observance of the Lord's Day (a point in which some Christians now-a-days appear to place almost the whole of Christianity), or of the practice of infant baptism, or of the admission of women to the Lord's Supper-all points confessedly of great, and partly of first-rate importance? But the truth is that reference is virtually made in the Acts, as well as elsewhere in the New Testament, not unfrequently to the Episcopal order; and very good reasons may be given, and have been given in my charge, why such reference is not more express and more frequent-reasons applicable to Jerusalem, and reasons applicable to Gentile lands; and I am quite sure that it would be impossible to find better reasons for all omission of more express or direct requirement in regard to any of the four points which I just now named. This should lead us to make somewhat more allowance than is sometimes made for the oral teaching of the apostles as interpretative of what they wrote, especially in all matters of practical observance, which could admit of no mistake. For instance, when it is written to all Christians in regard to church government--" Obey them that have the rule over you," and when all Christians in the second century, and thenceforward, would know that they who actually had the rule over them were prelates, or rather clergy of a threefold ministry, and would also know that this system had been set up by the apostles, they could require nothing more to convince them of the importance and obligation of the same system.

In conclusion, your correspondent thinks that if he has succeeded in getting rid of the scriptural authority for the threefold ministry, nothing more remains to be done in answer to the argument of my address. But this, I venture respectfully to say, is not the case. He has still to show that Presbyterian church government, as now established in this country, with kirk-sessions, presbyteries, moderators. &c., is

expressly referred to by "the sacred historian," or elsewhere in the New Testament -in one word, is scriptural. Otherwise, my argument in behalf of a United Church for the United Kingdom, upon the ground of expediency alone, will remain in full force. And I am quite sure he will find that if there is not, as he thinks, sufficient scriptural authority in favour of the threefold ministry, there is far less in favour of any other. I am, &c,

Perth, October 20, 1864.

CHARLES WORDSWORTH, Bishop of St. Andrews.

P.S.-I have just seen the letter of "Vindex" in answer to "Moderator." The former seems to think that I am entitled to "get some rather hardish ”—-i.e., discourteous and unfair-"hits" (for it was of discourtesy and unfairness only that "Moderator "had complained), and this because I "began the fray." I am quite content to receive much worse "hits" than those of "Episcopos" (though sorry that they should be given) in what I believe to be a good and Christian cause. But as to "beginning the fray," my charge was directly invited by Dr. Pirie's address; and, moreover, is intended as an answer (in part) to the Catechism of the Free Church, first published in 1845.

LIKE summer rain on the spread violet,
Pendant at evensong mild with the bright pearls,
On my soft eyelids lies the balm of sleep,
And gently presses them into repose.
Why so unwilling is my heart to yield

To the soft charm? There is no danger here;
The Danes are overcome; thousands lie stark
By the sea-shore; the living fled to their ships:
Ah! many a maiden Dane will mourn her lover,
That never will return to bless the hour
Of love: I pity much the love-lorn lass.
I hear the sentinel's monotonous tread;
And in the guard-room merry voices talk.
Still something in me speaks, and bids to wake!
What shall I do? I cannot, at this hour,
Call for the good Anselmo, holy Druid,
To talk, and comfort me till matin-time.
'Tis said the Castle's haunted: Helen oft
Has told me that; ay, not an hour agone,

She talked about the ghosts-That, after sundown,
On every Friday night, twain spirits meet
In the great hall, and wildly, fiercely fight
Until the sacred cock proclaim the morn!
But I will trust in God: And the sweet rede
Of good Anselmo, teacheth not to fear,
That goblin, ghost, nor spirit ill, can harm
The innocent; for Heaven is their defence,
And that 'tis impious to be afeard :

So would the holy Druid wisdom teach.
But there are fairy creatures :

I know not-never saw a fairy elf;

What are they?

But I have heard, methinks, an elfin's song,
What time, aneath the bonny harvest Moon,
I wandered in the greenwoode, thinking of love,
And Leonatus: And the Sylphid's song
Seemed sweeter than the lark's; for it speaks joy
To lovers true.-Where, at this solemn hour,
Is my dear Leonatus? In sweet sleep,

Dreaming of Imogen? Not revelling
In company of fools and courtezans.

O, no; my maiden heart will never trow
Aught vicious, vile, or low in my Bethrothed,
Aught that would stain a noble character:
I were unworthy of his love could I
Think ill of Leonatus-true as heaven!

Ah! why did Jachimo test my young heart,
Its credence in my lord's fidelity?
Meant he to shake my faith in Leonatus ?
Is Jachimo a villain, with fell aim

To poison love, and nip its dewy buds,

That they may ne'er attain the perfect bloom,
But fade, and droop, and die? And yet, at last,
He spoke so pleasing, fair, why should I fear?
Maybe it is the wily Italian's way;

But such audacity I will not brook.

Goodnight! my Leonatus; O goodnight!
Sweet be thy slumber-as a lovely child's
On mother's bosom, nursing it to heaven,
And, dreaming, smiles in its felicity.
Calm be thy sleep; and of thy Imogen,
Pure be thy dream-of maiden love and truth.
Hark! 'tis the good Anselmo at his harp :
His nightly wont, with solemn psalmody,
And in accordance with the adoring Stars,
Afore he kneel to worship the Great Shepherd.
How powerful music is at the dead hour
Of silent night, when the Moon's silver rays,
Like blessed spirits, visit hall and bower!
Play on, O holy Druid! it may be

A lullaby to me, and I will sleep.

O happy Morn! sweet childhood of the Day;
But few hours old, yet bright and beautiful,
And sweet with sylvan harmony and song:
I hear the merle's soft descant, echoing
In the deep forest dell; beside the fountain
Whereof, at misty dawn, the wild deer drink,
Listening alert, if voice of hound or horn
Disturb the ear of musing Solitude.

Now oped the gate of the far Orient;

Forth comes the Sun, "rejoicing in his might,"
Yet modest as a child by fountain playing,
And blithe are bird, and bee, and tree, and herb,
Mountain, and stream, and valley sing the morn,
Harmonious salutation to the god;

For it is Nature's holy matin-hour,

And happy I must be with happy Nature.

My bracelet-where! How, how not on my arm! My precious jewel, sacred pledge of love

Of love for ever! 'Tis a holy chain,

And consecrated by the God of truth,

More powerful than the stars! I would not lose

The jewel for ten times the wide world's wealth!
Nay, rather lose myself, my life, and all—
Save Leonatus! But lost it cannot be.
Helen, certes, when I was sound asleep,
Had ta'en it from my arm for merry prank.
So I will rest content; and now prepare
For matins. Me the good Anselmo waits.

J. NEVAY.

THE

SCOTTISH GUARDIAN.

DECEMBER 1864.

SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH SOCIETY.

ON Thursday, November 3rd, a highly-influential public meeting, on behalf of this Society, was held in the Merchants' Hall, Glasgow. There was a large attendance, the hall being completely filled. The Right Hon. the Earl of Home occupied the chair; and among those on the platform were the Lord Bishop of London, the Bishop of Moray and Ross (Primus); the Bishop of Glasgow, &c.; the Bishop-Coadjutor of Edinburgh, the Very Rev. Dean Ramsay, the Very Rev. Dean Hood the Very Rev. Dean Henderson, Sir John Maxwell, Bart., of Pollock; Sir Archibald Edmonstone, Bart of Duntreath; Sir Michael R. Shaw Stewart, Bart., of Ardgowan; Sir Archibald Islay Campbell, Bart., of Succoth; Sir Henry Seton Steuart, Bart., of Allanton; Patrick Boyle, Esq., of Shewalton; T. Craig Christie, Esq., of Bedlay; Robert Colesworth, Esq., of Cowdenknowes; D. C. Rait, Esq., James Stewart, Esq., W.S.; Hugh James Rollo, Esq., W.S., the treasurer of the society; Thomas Ogilvie, Esq., diocesan treasurer; William Spens, Esq., William Robertson, Esq., of Kinloch-Moidart; the Rev. Francis P. Flemyng, organising clerical secretary; Robert Shaw Stewart, Esq., of Lagary; Thomas Campbell, Esq.; Rev. Gordon Mitchell, of Kilmadock; and a large number of the clergy of the Episcopal Church.

Prayer having been offered up by the Bishop of Glasgow,

The noble Chairman said-I must begin by expressing the very great pleasure I feel that on this, the first occasion when I have had to undertake any public duty in this great city of the west, I should have had the honour of presiding at this meeting, which I consider to

VOL. I.-NO. XI.

9