figurements, we conclude they are the result of some metrical crotchet, which we urgently counsel Mr. Lee to abandon. It is provoking that he selected the gem of his poems for the exhibition of these flaws. We trust to see them removed in a second edition. And then "Petronilla" will be as warmly welcomed by the reviewer, as, we doubt not, it will be now by less critical readers. Of the other poems, Under the Hills, and Alone are special favourites with us. The latter is short enough to quote: "ALONE. I. "Alone, in the noisy restless street; "First far backward a sunnier day Till up-and-down music of chiming bells JESUS and Mary were out at night, When the winds were sharp and the stars were bright. II. "Then a glimpse of my after-delight, Heart with heart and hand in hand, "But Summer was short and Autumn poor, No red glare from an open door. But JESUS and Mary were out at night, When the winds were sharp and the stars were bright. III. "No sweet voice or joyous smile, No kind glance or bosom warm, Cold below, and none beguile. "Alone, alone, keen though it be, The Olive Grove was keener still, The Nails and Lance, the darkened Hill, And all alone for love of me. JESUS and Mary were out at night, When the winds were sharp and the stars were bright. IV. "Alone in the desolate, crowded street, Dipping down with a curve of lights, "Yon church windows, lit up for prayers, Magdalene Saint though Sinner there; And let me tread the golden stairs. When the winds were sharp and the stars were bright." Tennyson and Faber are obviously Mr. Lee's models. For ourselves we confess that we should have preferred more of freedom and naturalness; but he seems to us very fairly to fall in with the taste of the present day, and ought, therefore, to have his share of popularity. THE SCOTCH BISHOPS IN THEIR DIOCESES. A Pastoral Letter addressed to the Clergy and Laity of the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway. By W. J. TROWER, D.D., Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway. London: J. H. and J. Parker. Edinburgh Grant. 1858. Considerations suggested by a late Pastoral Letter on the Doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist. By JOHN KEBLE, M.A., Vicar of Hursley, and Honorary Canon of Cumbrae. Edinburgh: Lendrum. London: J. H. and J. Parker. 1858. WHEN the collective wisdom of Six Bishops incubates on ink and paper, and hatches a Pastoral of so unhappy a character as that produced in the Scottish Church, we can hardly expect that an individual Episcopal unity would exhibit any extraordinary amount of that quality which was wanting in the collective. Bishop Trower's Letter therefore has not disappointed us; we see in it the like misunderstanding of Eucharistic doctrine, that we pointed out in the Pastoral, tinctured with a greater display of ignorance of theological terms than we were prepared to expect. The Bishop was known to us chiefly by seeing his name on the list of the S. P. C. K. as the author of a useful work: we heard of him as the Bishop of the most populous, perhaps the most important diocese in Scotland, where he has the reputation of being the cause of a large increase of Churches and Clergy. He is also known to us as having his residence at Tunbridge Wells instead of Glasgow, from which English watering-place he rules his Scottish Diocese ; an arrangement, we should think, not wholly consistent with the important duties attached to his position as Bishop. It seems, however, that this non-residence is quietly acquiesced in by his clergy, and even defended, for, we are informed, "it keeps up the connection between the English and Scottish Churches." We have frequently asked for an explanation of this statement, but never received anything more than a reiteration of the assertion, accompanied by a shake of the head, as full of meaning as Lord Burleigh's nod. We do know that latterly it has been the anxious wish of the greater number of the Scottish Bishops to curry favour at Lambeth and Fulham, that some of the Prelates of that Church are ready to sacrifice her independence and nationality to effect this: and we also know how those two palaces have uniformly snubbed the northern community, and seemed to take an actual pleasure in countenancing the schismatical conventicles in opposition to the National Church. Yet this uniform treatment, acquiesced in by a great number of English Bishops, only seems to make the Scottish Episcopate more cringing, and more ready to make additional sacrifices to her lordly and wealthy English Sister. The benefit of Bishop Trower's residence at Tunbridge Wells seems to be to keep up this undignified and suicidal position: we say suicidal advisedly, for while we affirm that nothing has been done to conciliate the Lambeth dignitary a great deal has been done to alienate and disgust the only true friends that the Scottish Church possesses in England-the High Church Party. We are well assured that if the Scottish Church had taken high and independent grounds, and had firmly stood on her true principles, she might no doubt have had to endure a severe trial; but would have received sympathy and support from true English Churchmen, which would even in a worldly point of view, have been well worth the temporary inconvenience. To be despised and miscalled might have been her lot, but so it was her Master's; to become unpopular would be her reproach, but the reproach of CHRIST: yet she would have been free from the far bitterer lot, which we fear is hers now, to despise herself, and reproach her spiritual fathers. A Church like that in Scotland, with an establishment hostile to her, a people thoroughly alienated from her, poor and despised in the eye of the world, has really only one safety, one protection, and that is from her Divine Master; her honours, her dignity, would be in her faith and her purity; her stedfastness and her unity would infallibly draw towards her every earnest soul: she would know, and could say that she, like the great Apostle of the Gentiles, had "fought a good fight, had kept the faith, that henceforth there was laid up for her a crown of life which the LORD the Righteous Judge would give her at that Day." Unhappily, we know that the real case is far otherwise; she bartered her heritage for worldly position and worldly favour, and now she is reaping as she sowed; the world is turning round upon her, and treating her with contempt and scorn: sadder still, like Jerusalem in her declining days, she puts her trust in Egypt for chariots and horses, rather than in the true strength of her LORD and Master. An alliance with the world for purely worldly advantages has ever been the snare of the Church from the beginning. When the early Church was under persecution, she was said to have had her holy vessels of wood, but her priests of gold; when the world smiled on her, she had golden vessels but wooden priests. It is time, however, to come to the Letter of the Bishop of Glasgow. The first point that strikes us is the very clumsy way in which the Bishop attempts to account for the remarkable discrepancy between the language of the Declaration signed by himself and the Bishops of Edinburgh and Argyle in December, 1857, and the Pastoral that was issued by these three in conjunction with their three brethren in May of the following year. He says, speaking of the Bishop of Brechin's Charge: "I am merely adducing some of the many passages which led the Primus Bishop of this Church, the Bishop next to him in seniority, and myself, to put forth the declaration which I here reprint. Let me only premise, that whereas, in the first paragraph we used the expression Supreme Adoration, which is due to GOD alone,' instead of 'Adoration' simply: I believe our reason for doing so was this, 'Supreme Adoration' was what had been claimed for the Presence of CHRIST in His gifts.' We wished in this instance to do no more than was rendered necessary, namely, declare that this was not the doctrine which we teach. Dr. Johnson gives to 'Adoration' a secondary meaning, homage paid to persons in high places or esteem.' GOD forbid that I should regard the consecrated bread and wine, except with awe and reverence; for the use to which they are consecrated, for the Presence of which they are the sign and pledge, for the benefits which they are the means of conveying to the faithful; but all this falls far short of what is commonly meant by 'Adoration.'" The passage the Bishop refers to is as follows: "We hold and teach that the Body and Blood of CHRIST are not so present in the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine, as to be therein the proper object of such supreme adoration as is due to GOD alone.". Declaration of the Three Bishops, Dec. 7, 1857. The Six Bishops, (May 27, 1858) in their Pastoral direct the clergy to teach as follows: "You will remember that, as our Church has repudiated the doctrine of Transubstantiation, so she has given us no authority whereby we can require it to be believed that the substance of CHRIST's Body and Blood (still less His entire Person as GOD and Man, now glorified in the Heavens) is made to exist with, in, or under, the material substance of bread and wine." The Christian Remembrancer of July last, points out very clearly the contradiction between these two passages; the latter pointedly denying the Presence; the former implying it. We should have expected that when a Bishop, whose name is appended to both these documents, issues a Pastoral on the subject of these two declarations, he would have thought it his duty to explain to his clergy the discrepancy between these two documents. The passage we have quoted above is all the allusion he makes to it; an allusion that we cannot call an explanation of it. We are consequently led to the uncertain course of conjecture to account for this most remarkable fact. Is it that the three Bishops held one doctrine of the Eucharist in Dec. 1857, and another in May of the following year? Was this change simultaneously effected in those three Prelates by intense study during that interval, or by an external influence of popular opinion? Was it that they had really no definite doctrine at all on the matter, that they adopted Mr. Freeman's views, as enunciated in his book published in the summer of that year, and then for some unknown cause repudiated them five months afterwards? The question of Adoration, which the Bishop alone mentions, leaving it to be understood that in other points these two documents were in accordance, is, as he must very well know, dependent entirely on that of the Presence in, with, or under, the elements: when the Presence is denied, of course Adoration must be so too. What the Bishop ought to have told his clergy is, how came it that his doctrine of the Presence changed in those five months. We need hardly inform our readers that the Bishop of Glasgow avowedly teaches the 'power and efficacy theory' and repudiates that of the Real Presence: this was plainly the drift of the Pastoral, and so it must be of the individuals who signed it. He says: "What does the Bishop [of Brechin] mean by saying that the Divines at the last revision held a real and essential Presence'? Does he mean a Presence in or under the Bread and Wine? If this be his meaning, it would be well for him distinctly to prove it, which I do not believe to be possible."-P. 32. Bishop Trower should have explained, before writing this sentence, how he could use the expression IN the consecrated elements in the declaration of the three Bishops (the Body and Blood of CHRIST are not so present in the consecrated elements of Bread and Wine as to be therein the proper object, &c.') or by what process he repudiates his former teaching, and not only should he call upon the Bishop of Brechin to explain his teaching, but should also |