General Assembly met in Glasgow in 1638; it abolished Episcopacy, re-established Presbyterianism pure and simple, and sent the bishops about their business. These hapless prelates followed the example of their papal predecessors in 1560 they sank beneath the flood that overwhelmed their order, and disappeared from view.

When Charles II. was restored to the throne measures were soon taken to make the Established Church of Scotland episcopal once more. Only one of the former bishops could be found, so four Scottish ecclesiastics were selected and consecrated bishops in London in 1661, not per saltum this time: those of them who had not been episcopally ordained were required to pass per omnes gradus before receiving consecration as bishops. These prelates, on their return to Scotland, were in the same ambiguous and ungrateful position as their predecessors in 1610; were they successors of the Apostles, or political agents? Both, perhaps. The story of their doings however would lead us to think that while they shewed the greatest backwardness and caution in trying to raise the condition of the Church to greater conformity to Catholic tradition, their zeal in helping the State to suppress the politico-religious party of the Covenanters left little to be desired.

At length the Revolution broke out. James II. (and VII.) was deposed, and William and Mary accepted the crown. The Scottish bishops to a man refused to renounce their allegiance to the Stuart dynasty, and to recognize the new monarchs. The answer to this intransigeance was short, sharp, and decisive. In 1690 an Act was passed by which the sovereigns and the three estates of Parliament to settle and secure the true Protestant religion' ratified and established the Confession of Faith and also the ' Presbyterian Church Government and Discipline . . . to be the only government of Christ's Church in this Kingdom.' The result was totally different from that which took place in 1638; the bishops did not meekly pass out of existence. An Episcopal Church, bishops, and episcopally ordained presbyters, followed by their flocks, emerged from the newly re-established Presbyterian body, which they declined to

recognize as a legitimate branch of the Catholic Church. As the political disturbances of the times made the recalcitrant Episcopal Church not only obnoxious, but very dangerous in the eyes of statesmen, it was subjected to rigorous repressive measures, in the carrying out of which, through the action of its Presbyteries, the Established Church took an active part. The Jacobite risings in the next century caused repression to develop into actual persecution, and with such remorseless vigour were the persecuting enactments applied that the wonder is that the Episcopal Church survived at all; it was in fact reduced (as Sir Walter Scott has it) to the shadow of a shade.' The history of the Episcopal Church for the first hundred years after its disestablishment is a pitiful story from whatever point of view it is considered; the bishops and their Church had indeed to pass through a bitter purgatory of affliction at the hands of the State in expiation of the way in which the sacred office and work of a bishop in the Church of God had been made subservient to the exigencies of statecraft.

But the bishops, with their faithful presbyters and laity, held out bravely. In the midst of relentless persecution, undeterred by the disheartening effect of diminishing numbers and of grinding poverty, despite mistakes and misunderstandings, doubts and fears, the bishops provided as they could for the spiritual needs of their flocks, kept up the hierarchical succession, and slowly-very slowly and gradually-evolved a canonically organized Church out of the wreck caused by disestablishment. This work was accompanied by an ever increasing approximation, in outward things at least, to the use and wont of the Church of England. The year 1792 saw the repeal of the penal statutes which affected the Scottish Episcopal clergy, but it was not until 1864 that the last vestiges of these persecuting enactments disappeared from the law of the land.

It has been said, and writers worthy of credit have repeated the statement, that at the time of disestablishment (1690) more than two-thirds of the population were 'Episcopals'; but it is difficult not to believe that there is some

mistake here. Scotsmen have a way of knowing what they mean and want, especially in matters of religion, and of persevering till they get it; it is hard to believe that if threequarters of the nation had been anxious for episcopal government, they would not have secured it eventually, let any amount of persecution come as it might; and then, if the statement be correct, how was it that Scotsmen settled down so soon to the present state of mind, which teaches them to regard Presbyterianism with pride as a cherished national characteristic? To use modern jargon, perhaps the truth is that while the classes' preferred Episcopalianism, 'the masses' were Presbyterian; the questionable statement may represent what was imagined by the classes.'

The Episcopal Church of Scotland to-day is the lineal descendant of the Church which we have just been looking at in the light of its history. If it is far from having won its way to national acceptance, it is now something infinitely more substantial than the shadow of a shade,' and it occupies, if not a very influential, at least a sincerely respected position among the ecclesiastical bodies which divide between them the religious allegiance of Scotland.

The era of proscription and persecution having come to an end, the two Churches, the Established Presbyterian, and the Episcopal, found themselves side by side, each at liberty to exercise its proper influence in the land; the Presbyterian Church in all the dignity conferred on it by the Act of 1690, the Episcopal Church gradually recovering from a century of drastic repression. Those who have taken the trouble to comprehend the historical aspect of the case, and who know something of human nature, will not need to be told that at first the relationship between the two Churches was anything but cordial; indeed, on the Episcopal side there was a feeling of bitter resentful animosity against the triumphant Church, a feeling which had not died down

There is that in Presbytery which makes it worth having and cherishing dearly; and there is also that in the history of Presbytery in Scotland which makes it well-nigh impossible to be a patriotic Scotsman and Churchman without being Presbyterian.'-A. M. Stewart, Origins of Presbytery, p. 16.

when the present writer first became acquainted with things ecclesiastical in Scotland about half a century ago. This feeling prevailed specially among indigenous Episcopalians in the north, where even up to the middle of the last century stories and traditions were rife of the sufferings of ancestors for the maintenance of their faith. On the Presbyterian side there was a tendency to regard Episcopalianism with suspicious dislike. The dislike was greatly the result of an impression that bishops were an invasion from England on Scottish religious liberty; the suspicion arose from the mistrust of 'popery' which still lies deep in the Scottish heart; Scotsmen find it difficult to estimate what the relationship is that exists between prelacy and popery; there is some relationship they are sure, but what is it? So long as these feelings prevailed on either side, of course there could be no question of union or reunion between the Churches. Time is a wonderful smoother of asperities; at present the traditional episcopalian animosity has probably died out on the one side even in the stern breasts of the men of the north; whether the suspicious dislike has quite disappeared from the other side is another question. But even if it still lingers, this has not prevented men on both sides from raising and facing the questionCould there not be effected between the two Churches a union that would join them in one body devoted to the sacred cause of promoting in the world the progress of Christ's Kingdom?

The first public proposition of the union-idea (of course we speak of modern times) seems to have come from the Episcopal side. The well-known Dean Ramsay advocated union in some published writings; but though admired and respected for his social gifts and amiable disposition, the genial Dean was never an ecclesiastical force to be reckoned with, and his proposals were coldly received in his own communion, and did not attract much attention beyond it. Bishop Charles Wordsworth, of St. Andrew's, devoted the greater part of a long episcopate to a fervent advocacy of union, mostly on the lines of 1610; but the bishop's personal qualities went far to neutralize the power of his endeavours,

and this notwithstanding his splendid scholarship and generous devotion to the cause of the Episcopal Church. He was a man of moods, unduly sanguine when his proposals seemed to gain acceptance, unnecessarily depressed when they were ill received; hence neither side felt certain what the bishop might say or do next; the effect of this was inevitable. Unconnected with Bishop Wordsworth's efforts, on the arising of a 'Disestablishment' scare, a proposal was made (did this not emanate from the southern side of the border ?) that the sister (?) Established Churches of England and Scotland should unite in sort of league for mutual defence; but the suggestion had no practical result. More recently, any open effort on the Episcopal side towards promoting the progress of the desire for union has been mainly confined to the seeking by bishops (and other Episcopalians) of membership with the 'Christian Unity Association,' a society which includes men from all Christian denominations, and which seeks to promote the cause of union by mutual conferences, discussion, and prayer. But while on the Episcopalian side there is a general feeling that union is much to be desired, it can hardly be said that there is any widespread intelligent appreciation of what, if it came into practical politics, it would exactly mean, or what it would involve.

On the Presbyterian side there is a school of thought, chiefly among the ministers, of which it is impossible to speak without the most cordial respect; it includes among its members men of unusual culture and learning, and the general tenour of their principles (which may be learned from the publications of the Scottish Church Society') combines a genuine regard for Catholic tradition with practical acceptance of Scottish Presbyterianism (the consistency of this combination need not be discussed here). These men would gladly welcome union with the Episcopal Church on terms which would save the self-respect of their own Church, and one who has every right to be considered the spokesman of the school, accepts almost with enthusiasm the suggestion made by the Committee of the Lambeth Conference (1908) on Reunion that ' such precedents as those