the Eucharist, viz. the attendance of persons at Holy Communion without receiving. It was, as we have seen, the deliberate judgment of Bishop Torry that such persons should withdraw, and the Bishops, in agreement with the tradition on the subject, declared:

The custom of the Scottish Church does not authorise or sanction, but rather forbids, the practice of presence at Holy Communion of persons who are not to receive the Sacrament, and this Synod decidedly disapproves the practice. The Synod sees no sufficient reason for making an exception to the above declaration in the case of persons who have previously received the Holy Communion on the same day, or in the case of choirs.

This was a point on which many persons then felt strongly, and probably more strongly than at present, when the great frequency of Communion services makes it less natural for all communicants who are in the church to be prepared to communicate. But in Mr. Keble's judgment, as well as in that of the Bishop of St. Andrews, the practice, at least in its broader form, was open to serious criticism, and it must be carefully watched.'

When the Synod was over those of the Bishops who felt themselves most concerned made use of the individual liberty reserved to them by the resolution finally adopted,2 to issue a joint Pastoral-a proceeding which seems rather

1 See Keble's Letters of Spiritual Counsel, L. cxvi. 207: 'I have a strong feeling against the foreign custom of encouraging all sorts of persons to "assist" at the Holy Eucharist without communicating. It seems to me open to two grave objections: it cannot be without danger of profaneness and irreverence to very many, and of consequent dishonour to the Holy Sacrament; and it has brought in or encouraged, or both (at least, so I greatly suspect), a notion of a quasi-sacramental virtue in such attendance, which I take to be great part of the error stigmatised in our xxxist Article. Even in such a good book as the Imitatio Christi, and still more in the Paradisus Animæ, one finds participating " in Missa vel Communione" spoken of as if one brought a spiritual benefit of the same order as the other. This I believe to be utterly unauthorised by Scripture and antiquity; and I can imagine it of very dangerous consequence.'

2 See Bishops Eden and Wordsworth's Statement of 29 December 1857.

calculated to weaken the authority of the general body. The resolution clearly only contemplated single Bishops addressing their own Dioceses.

The agitation was chiefly in the Dioceses of Edinburgh and Glasgow, and Bishops Terrot (Primus) and Trower were joined by Bishop Ewing of Argyll-a warm-hearted, poetical, and impulsive man-in publishing a declaration of their own on the subject of the Eucharist, without, however, mentioning any names.' Almost at the same time Bishops Eden and Wordsworth put out a Statement' explaining why for the present they withheld any expression of their own opinion (29 December, 1857). A copy of the Three Bishops' Declaration,' as it may be called, was sent by someone to Mr. Keble. He mistakenly supposed that it was sent him by the Bishop of Edinburgh and that his teaching was specially censured in it. His reason for so doing was that he had sent his treatise on Eucharistic

2

There may be some doubt how far Bishop Terrot, who was a great mathematician but not much of a theologian, really wished this Declaration to be published. See Humble's Letter to the Bishop of St. Andrews (1859), p. 18, note. There is very little on this controversy in Rev. Wm. Walker's pleasant sketch of Bishop Terrot in his Three Churchmen (Edinb. 1893). Bishop Trower was certainly the leading spirit in the matter. The Declaration may be found in his Pastoral Letter, published in June 1858, p. 15 foll. Bishop Ewing was very half-hearted about it: see his Memoir, by Ross, p. 275. It may be found also in Rev. Donald J. Mackey's Bishop Forbes, p. 98 foll. (1888), but in neither copy is it dated. It must, however, have been between 14 and 24 December, 1857, since it is mentioned as in hand in Bishop Ewing's letter of the 13th, and occasioned the Clerical declaration to which Bishop Terrot replied on the 26th. Bishop Trower's action at this time led also to the loss of [Dr.] Wm. Bright's services to the Church in Scotland. He was then Bell Lecturer and Tutor at Glenalmond, and is now the honoured Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Oxford: Statement of Facts (London, Masters, 1858).

see his

2 The Statement, by Bishops Eden and Wordsworth, may be found printed in a disagreeable pamphlet, entitled Romanism and Scottish Episcopacy, a word with the Scottish Bishops on their declaration and statement, &c. by Veritas. Edinb. T. Constable & Co. &c. (1858), pp. 31 foll. The Clerical address to Bishop Trower, and his reply on 26 December, are also printed, p. 34.

Adoration' to the Scottish Bishops, and supposed that this was an answer to it; though he certainly should have been undeceived when he observed that particular expressions were censured, which he had not used, and which had been used by Bishop Forbes. Mr. Keble probably considered (as on a later occasion) that as a Canon of Cumbrae he had also a sort of locus standi in the matter. His letter is in the rather provocative form of a series of interrogatives. It seems to me chiefly important from the suggestion that the 'substantial identity of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist with the Sacrifice of the Cross' might be explained by the supposition that the former was a repetition of our Lord's sacrifice before His Passion in the Upper Room. If the disputants had meant this generally no doubt the controversy could have been settled more readily. This letter was published by Mr. Keble himself in theScottish Ecclesiastical Journal,' a proceeding, like many others at this time, which was hardly considerate or conciliatory.

In Scotland itself the Declaration of the Three Bishops was met by an address from the Dean and nineteen clergy of the Diocese of Edinburgh, expressing their full concurrence, but still making no reference to Bishop Forbes. A similar address was adopted by the clergy in the Diocese of Glasgow. Early, however, in February 1858 a memorial, signed eventually by nearly six hundred laymen, was presented to the Bishops in which he was named, and this of course made a peaceful solution less easy, and, indeed, may be said to have forced the Bishops into action.

On the 16th of the same month the Bishop of St. Andrews addressed a short Pastoral Letter to the Laity of his Diocese,' in which he states that he departed from

This letter was printed by him as an appendix to his Charge of 1859, pp. 31-33. He did not reprint it with his Charge of 1858, in accordance with his desire to act with reserve as far as he was an individual.

his resolution not to take any part in the controversy that had arisen, except as a member of the Episcopal Synod, in deference to the urgent representation of several of his clergy. Bishop Forbes is not mentioned, and the letter is directed generally to discourage excitement and too confident definition of mysterious truths. In it the question of Adoration is hardly touched; but, as regards the Sacrifice, the Bishop commits himself to the use of the terms 'virtue and effect,' of which Bishop Forbes had spoken so slightingly.

1

On the other hand the Bishops received another address, signed eventually by about sixty of the clergya large number for Scotland-pointing out the inconvenience of the issue by the Bishops of declarations on points of doctrine which wore the aspect of definitions, and deprecating quasi-definitions of faith by individual prelates.2

Nevertheless, very possibly the storm might have passed over without an open rupture between Bishop Forbes and his brethren, had it not been for the inopportune appearance of Mr. Patrick Cheyne's Six Sermons on the Doctrine of the most Holy Eucharist,' with a preface, dated Septuagesima [31 January], 1858. These sermons, with one exception, that on 'Adoration '-which shows evident traces of the influence of Keble and Forbes-had been preached in Lent 1857. Their publication now was distinctly a stirring up of strife. It was also one of the unfortunate features of Scottish Church History at this time that the antagonisms incident to contested elections to Bishoprics were prolonged afterwards, and sometimes

This is the number of signatures given by Mr. Humble, Letter, &c., 1859, p. 19. He gives the Clerical Address as Appendix H.

2 See also Mackey's Forbes, p. 106. This and the Lay Memorial, and other papers, may be found in Documents &c. circulated to the Lay Memorialists by their Committee. Edinb. R. Grant & Son, 1858.

became very like personal conflicts. This was not only the case in the Diocese of St. Andrews, but also in those of Aberdeen and Brechin.

Mr. Cheyne, who had been Incumbent of St. John's, Aberdeen, for nearly forty years, and was much respected in that city, was a candidate for the office of Bishop after the death (15 April, 1857) of the then Primus, the third Bishop Skinner, when Bishop Suther was elected. Mr. Henderson, who afterwards promoted the case against Bishop Forbes, was in a similar position in the Diocese of Brechin. Mr. Cheyne's sermons were, as he himself calls them, 'mere sketches,' with almost no justificatory notes, but they were sufficiently aggressive to call forth immediate criticism. They were published evidently in consequence of the three Bishops' Pastoral, and were a sort of challenge to the Bishop of Aberdeen, who had so far remained neutral.2

Mr. Cheyne's teaching was indeed, in its general result, much the same as that of the Bishop of Brechin, but it was expressed in a hard and irritating manner, and without the balancing considerations and explanations and respect for the feelings of opponents often, though not always, manifest in the Charge.

Bishop Forbes himself says of the sermons, at the commencement of his 'Opinion' on Cheyne's appeal, Under the circumstances I have regretted very much the publication of these sermons.' 'There is a baldness of statement in

Bishop Suther was consecrated at Edinburgh 24 June, 1857.

2 On Quinquagesima Sunday [14 February] 1858 Keble wrote to Pusey: 'I am so sorry this storm has reached your ears. But if Bishop Forbes will be quite patient, as I trust he will, there seems hope of its turning to good. I believe the Bishops of St. Andrews and Moray [Eden] and Aberdeen are all peaceably inclined. But the pressure from the Edinburgh and other laity is excessive.' Liddon's Pusey, iii. 450. Cp. his reference to Cheyne's sermons on the next page.