« السابقةمتابعة »
CHURCHMAN'S MONTHLY REVIEW
1. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE RIGHT REV. C. H. TERROT, Bishop of the Scotch Episcopal Church in Edinburgh, and the Rev. D. T. K. Drummond, Minister of Trinity Chapel, Edinburgh. Lindsay. 1842.
2. RESOLUTIONS OF THE CLERGY OF THE SCOTCH EPISCOPAL CHURCH. Edinburgh. 1842.
3. REPLY TO RESOLUTIONS OF THE CLERGY OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF THE DIOCESE OF EDINBURGH, in which the Rev. D. Drummond is declared to have separated himself from that Church "totally without Cause." By the Rev. D. T. K. DRUMMOND. Edinburgh: Lindsay. 1842.
4. STATEMENT BY THE COMMITTEE OF MR. DRUMMOND'S FRIENDS, November 12, 1842. Edinburgh: Lindsay. 1842.
5. REASONS FOR WITHDRAWING FROM THE SCOTCH EPISCOPAL CHURCH, and for accepting an Invitation to continue his Ministrations in Edinburgh, as a Clergyman of the Church of England. By the Rev. D. T. K. DRUMMOND. Edinburgh: Lindsay. 1842.
6. A LETTER TO SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE VESTRY OF ST. JAMES'S CHAPEL, in reference to the Scottish Communion Service. By the Rev. DANIEL BAGOT, Minister of that Chapel. Edinburgh: Johnstone. 1842.
7. THE SCOTTISH COMMUNION OFFICE EXAMINED, and proved to be repugnant to Scripture, and opposed to the Articles, Liturgy, and Homilies of the Church of England. By the Rev. D. K. DRUMMOND. Edinburgh: Lindsay. 1842. 8. ON THE IMPORTANT DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AND THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL COMMUNITY; showing the schismatical Character of a Subscription by English Clerics to the Soottish Communion Office of 1765. By the Rev. EDW. CRAIG, A.M. formerly Pastor of St. James's Chapel. Edinburgh. 1842. 9. THE CHRISTIAN ALTAR: a Sermon preached before the University of Cambridge, October 23, 1842. By the Rev. JAMES SCHOLefield.
THESE pamphlets open a large field of peculiarly interesting and important discussion, not likely soon to terminate, and pregnant with issues affecting the Episcopal Church in England as well as Scotland. Seldom have we felt more the need of heavenly wisdom to guide men to a just and scriptural judgment, than in the deeply interesting transactions which have called forth these pamphlets. There is a difference of judgment even among pious men, and we can hardly hope that the conclusions to which we have come will be satisfactory to all. We have endeavoured to look rather to the authority of Christ, the true head of the Church, than to human opinions, and have sought to be guided rather by the word of God, than by the sentiments of some whom we esteem very highly in love for their works' sake.
We will endeavour, first, to put our readers in possession of the
The whole subject began with a letter from Bishop Terrot to Mr. Drummond. This and his reply are as follows:
"From the Right Rev. Bishop Terrot to the Rev. David Drummond. ‘Edinburgh, Oct. 3, 1842. "Rev. and dear Sir,-I am about to write to you on a subject of grave importance; and I do so, not on my own spontaneous motion, but in consequence of suggestions from a quarter which I am bound to respect. same time, I should not have been influenced by such suggestions, had I not been conscientiously convinced that they were just. The subject, then, on which I have to address you is your ministrations in Clyde-street Hall, where I am informed you meet a congregation weekly, during the winter, and where the service is conducted by you in the way of extempore prayer, without the use of the Liturgy of our Church. I have no doubt you consider this as the most effective way in which you can carry out the great purpose of our ministry, and that you do not consider it forbidden by the law which you are bound to obey, and I both to obey and enforce. As to the efficacy and expediency, I am not called upon to judge; but as to the lawfulness, I take a very
different view from that which I presume you have taken. In the 28th Canon, On the Uniformity to be observed in Public Worship, it is decreed, 'That if any clergyman shall officiate or preach in any place, publicly, without using the Liturgy at all, he shall, for the first offence, be admonished by the Bishop, &c. The preceding clause forbids mutilations of the Liturgy; this forbids its total omission.
"I have never been present at your service in the Hall, and know the fact of the case only from common report. If my impression as to these facts be erroneous, I beg you will set me right. But if my description of your service be correct, I beg you to consider whether such a practice be not opposed both to the letter and to the spirit of the canon which I have quoted. You will understand that it is very far from my wish to circumscribe your ministrations, either as to time or as to place. You have a right to open Trinity Chapel for service every day, if you please. You may have my licence for officiating in Clyde-street Hall, if you can show that circumstances render that place more convenient. But in neither case could you lawfully officiate without using the Liturgy. If you should be disposed to object, that for the year, during which I have presided over the diocese of Edinburgh, I have given a tacit sanction to the ministrations in Clyde-street Hall, of which I now complain, I must confess that I have felt an extreme unwillingness to interfere in this matter; an unwillingness still existing, but now overpowered by a sense of my official obligation. I beg, then, Rev. and dear Sir, that you will consider this as an admonition, in terms of the canon; and I hope that you will find it possible to preach the gospel without violating the law of the Church. I am, your faithful Friend and Brother,
"C. H. TERROT, Bishop."-(pp. 9, 10.)
"From the Rev. David Drummond to the Right Rev. Bishop Terrot.
'4, Bruntsfield-place, 6th October, 1842. "Right Rev. and dear Sir,-The subject of your letter is one which so deeply and seriously affects my responsibility, as a minister of the Gospel, that I trust you will bear with me if, before proceeding directly to reply to it, I ask you for information on the following points.
"Besides my weekly meeting to which you refer in your letter, I had, during last winter, and intended to open again during the ensuing one, a Bible Class for young persons of my congregation. We were in the habit of meeting in Clyde-street Hall, and the only prayer used was extempore. Does this fall under the condemnation of Canon XXVIII.?
"I had likewise, together with Mr. Bagot, a monthly prayer-meeting in the same room, in connection with the Church Missionary Society, and the Jews' Society. Is this also a breach of the canon?
"A sacramental meeting is held every month in the room under St. James' Chapel, which has, I believe, existed for many years, and in which the Liturgy has never been used. Does this come under the operation of the canon?
"I am frequently called upon to address a school, and open it with prayer. Does extempore prayer in this case also infringe the canon? I am often asked to attend public meetings for religious purposes. If I open such meetings with extempore prayer, and address it, or otherwise take part in its proceedings, do I break the canon?
Sometimes I am also present at public meetings for religious purposes, which are opened by using collects and prayers selected from the Liturgy. If I use such collects, and then address the meeting, am I transgressing that portion of the canon which is directed against the mutilation of the Liturgy? I trust, Right Rev. and dear Sir, that you will excuse my thus troubling you for the expression of your opinion on the above, as in consequence of your communication I am naturally most anxious to know whether any or all of the religious services to which I have used the freedom of calling your attention, and which appear to me to partake more or less of the character of my
weekly meeting, are forbidden by the canon, and if not all, where the line of demarcation is to be drawn?
"Perhaps, also, you will not consider it an impertinent question, if I ask, who are the parties that have laid the accusation against me of disobedience to the canon, since you say that you have not interfered willingly, but in consequence of suggestions from a quarter which you are bound to respect;' for it seems only just, and I hope you will see it in the same light, that when an accusation has been officially brought and officially acted upon, the accused party should know from whence the complaint against him emanates.
"To yourself, Right Rev. and dear Sir, I feel grateful for the kind and gentle manner in which you have made a communication which must have been painful to you, inasmuch as you assure me that you would not have taken up the matter had you not been overpowered by a sense of official obligation. I remain, with much respect, yours very faithfully, "D. T. K. DRUMMOND."-(pp. 11, 12.)
This led to several farther letters on both sides. Bishop Terrot, while preferring the authorised formularies of the Church, stated in his letter of October 15
"The Missionary Prayer Meeting, and the Bible Class appear, by their very names, to be special, for legitimate objects not contemplated or provided for either by the framers of the Liturgy and Rubrics, or by the Synod which enacted our canons. For such special meetings no forms are provided, and I do not see that in them the use of extempore prayer is prohibited."-(p. 19.)
In reply to this Mr. Drummond shows how insufficient such distinctions were, to cause one meeting to be condemned and another allowed; while Bishop Terrott still pressed his opinion, that the prayer meeting alone was contrary to the canon of the Scotch Church. Under these circumstances Mr. Drummond felt called upon to resign his connection with the Scotch Episcopal Church.
His friends soon afterwards inserted an advertisement in the public journals, to ascertain who were friendly to the purpose of having a Church-of-England congregation at Edinburgh.
The other ministers of the Scotch Episcopal Church, unwilling to lose so valuable a fellow-labourer as Mr. Drummond, came to resolutions censuring his friends for wishing him to continue his ministry apart from that Church, and in the hope that he might still remain, stated their opinion that the canon did not in the slightest degree interfere with their liberty to invite their own people in any private room for private social worship, wheresoever and whensoever they pleased, without being compelled to use the Liturgy. They condemned the proceedings of his friends as schismatical, and directly at variance with the first principles of Episcopal Church polity, affirming that such a congregation would be independent and not episcopalian.
Mr. Drummond, in his reply to these resolutions, gives the history of the twenty-eighth canon, and objections to bringing the matter before the Diocesan Synod, which seem conclusive.
The statement of Mr. Drummond's friends followed next. They observe:
"It remained for them to consider how they, as lay members of the Episcopal Church, and sincerely attached to its principles, stood affected by the act of Bishop Terrot, and the interpretation which the canon had received. They found that, in the present instance, meetings were held to be within the prohibition of the canon, having for their object the delivery of instruction upon the Scriptures, more methodical and detailed than is to be expected or wished when Christians meet to offer up common prayer, in fulfilment of the express obligation of Scripture and the orders of the Church. It seems difficult to say what meeting for a religious purpose, in which ministers of the Church take a part, may not be brought under this rule. A meeting of friends and fellow-presbyters, for mutual improvement, or the discussion of religious topics, a series of lectures on Biblical criticism, or any other department of theological study,-in short, any meeting where religious instruction is given and not prayerlessly given or received-may be held to fall within the canon. It is vain to say, that neither Bishop Terrot nor any other of the Episcopal College would apply the canon to such a case. Liberty does not consist in the sound discretion exercised by a superior; but in the existence of a just and wholesome rule. The Right Rev. Bishop has no doubt declined to hold this canon applicable to other religious meetings within his diocese. Without wishing to raise any further question as to the soundness of the distinction which he has taken, and which appears to them to be rested almost entirely upon the names of the different meetings, Mr. Drummond's friends are by no means confident that another Bishop might not adopt a more rigid criterion. It appears to the Committee, that by the rule as presently enforced in this diocese, one class of meetings of a kind quite in accordance with the rules and constitution of the Church of England, and of the other orthodox Episcopal Churches, is practically prohibited. While, in so far as they can understand the principle upon which this exercise of discipline has proceeded, the same authority may reach much further than it has yet done, and must always be exercised in a manner very discretionary, and therefore uncertain.
"Upon such a state of matters, the friends of Mr. Drummond have been unable to arrive at any other conclusion, than that it involves a grievous infringement of the Christian liberty, both of ministers and laymen, and an undue tightening of the rules of the Church, detrimental to the Christian usefulness of her ministers, and the edification and spiritual improvement of her people.
“They are anxious, moreover, that it should be distinctly understood, that, in adopting and giving expression to these views, they continue in unabated attachment to the liturgy and entire constitution and principles of the Church of England, as these have been received and professed, in time past, in the Scottish Episcopal Church. They are willing to comply strictly with the rubric, and to receive the liturgy, when, and how, it is there directed to be used. To do more than this, and use it as the means of practically putting a stop to religious meetings, for which it was not adapted by those who framed it, is not to honour the liturgy, but to make it an instrument of evil."(pp. 7-9.)
In order to ascertain the correctness of the course they proposed to take, of having a separate Church-of-England congregation, as consistent with the principles of the Church of England, they instituted enquiries in quarters the most authoritative to which they could obtain access, and state this as the result: