L I E) RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N I V ER_SITY 
 
 or ILLl NOIS
 
 CORRESPONDENCE 
 
 HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, 
 
 THE RIGHT REY. W. J. TROWER, 
 
 BI8H0P OF GLASGOW AKD GALLOWAY. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 
 MAURICE OGLE AND SON; 
 K. GRANT & SON, EDINBURGH ; F. & J. RIVINGTON, LONDON. 
 
 1849.
 
 ADYERTISEMENT. 
 
 It will be obvious that the following Letters were not intended 
 for publication. As, however, an inaccurate account of the Cor- 
 respondence has got abroad, it has been thought advisable by the 
 parties concerned in it, that the Letters themselves should be 
 published.
 
 CORRESPONDENCE. 
 
 WisTON Rectory, December 12, 1848. 
 My Lord Duke, 
 
 It is with mucli reluctance and regret tbat I address 
 your Grace on the matter which will form the subject of this letter: 
 viz., the fact that jour Grace received the holy communion last year 
 at Paisley, (in the diocese of Glasgow,) and the possibility that your 
 Grace may present yourself, either at Paisley or at some other church 
 in my diocese, for the same purpose at the ensuing festival. I think 
 it due to your Grace, and in every way the most pradeat as well as 
 manly course, to inform you, that having been consulted on this subject 
 by the clergyman who administered the sacrament of the Lord's 
 Supper to you last Christmas, I have informed liim that I cannot 
 sanction, under existing circumstances, a similar admission of your 
 Grace to that holy communion. 
 
 It is possible, indeed, that the occasion which he has contemplated 
 as not improbable, may not present itself ; but I had rather run the 
 risk of over-caution in a matter of this kind, than that of either having 
 the question raised at the very time of so solemn an act of devotion, 
 or else of admitting to communion one, whose recent publication 
 breathes throughout so bitter and contemptuous a spirit towards the 
 church at whose hands he had so recently received the sacrament of 
 our blessed Saviour's body and blood. 
 
 Your Grace will, I trust, believe that it is most painful to me thus 
 to bring myself before your notice ; nothing would induce me to do so 
 but a sense of duty, and a resolution not to avoid any responsibility 
 which fairly devolves upon me ; and I the more regret the occasion,
 
 as I understand that the course which your Grace has taken in your 
 exalted station, is such as, in many respects, to entitle you to the 
 sincere respect of your fellow-countrymen. 
 
 I have the honour to be, 
 
 Your Grace's faithful Servant, 
 
 W. J. TROWER, 
 
 Bishop of Glasgnic and Galloway. 
 Ills Grace the Duke of Argyll. 
 
 BosENEATH, \ith Decemher, 1848. 
 Right Reverend Sir, 
 
 I have to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 
 12th, intimating that I labour under sentence of excommunication 
 within the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway. I have to thank you 
 for the expressions of regret with which you have accompanied the 
 performance of what you describe to be a very painful duty. . , ^ . 
 
 Did I imagine that the body to which you belong is the only one m 
 Scotland entitled to administer the ordinances of the Christian Church, 
 this might be a serious penalty. But I generally communicate with 
 another body, which to others I am apt to call the "Church, of 
 Scotland," but which, I fear, you consider better described as the 
 " Form of Schism " established here. It is only ou accidental occasions 
 that I have sometimes communicated with the Episcopal Church in 
 Scotland. I do not anticipate, therefore, any serious inconvenience 
 from your spiritual censures. 
 
 I am not accurately informed as to the extent of power granted to 
 the ministers of your chui'ch in excluding from the communion those 
 who may seek admission. I do not know whether it is practically 
 arbitrary from being undefined; or whether any line has been drawn 
 up to which the exercise of such a power is legitimate, and beyond 
 which it would be unlawful, or, at least, irregular. Practically, 
 however, this question is of little importance. No man can desire to 
 receive the communion from a reluctant, or an angry minister ; whilst 
 few men, probably, are so weak as to believe that the disapprobation 
 
 -U/UC
 
 of any minister is a bar to his partaking of it from more willing 
 hands. 
 
 I have had occasion to know, however, that the mere fact of being 
 a Presbyterian by baptism or education, is not of itself considered in 
 the Episcopal Cliurch ©f p]ngland a disqualification for receiving the 
 communion at her hands. Although your branch of the same church 
 seems ambitious of distinguishing characteristics, I question whether 
 any of her ministers would think themselves justified in refusing the 
 communion on this ground alone. Indeed they must be too well aware 
 of the semi-Presbyterianism of many of her members. Accordingly, I 
 observe, that you make no allusion to the general fact of my being a 
 Presbyterian, but have thought it necessary to assign a farther and 
 a special reason for your communication, 'i 
 
 This reason seems to me to call for some remark. 
 
 You say that I have displayed throughout my recent work, a "bitter 
 and contemptuous spirit" against the Episcopal Church in Scotland: 
 and you allude, as an aggravation of this charge, to the fact, that I 
 had, nevertheless, received the communion at her hands. 
 
 I presume, that before forming your judgment on my " spirit " so 
 decidedly as to entitle you to make this communication, you have felt 
 it to be your duty to read my " Essay " carefully. T conclude, there- 
 fore, that you have seen the expression of ray feeling that " considered 
 as a branch of the Church of England which gradually, and by legiti- 
 mate means has successfully struck root in Scotland," your church is 
 "thoroughly entitled to sincere respect." (p. 231.) 
 
 I must farther conclude, then, that the strong reprobation I have 
 expressed, and shall ever express when occasion requires, of the crimes 
 of the old "Prelacy " of Scotland before the Revolution, is what you 
 condemn as a " bitter and contemptuous spirit ;" and farther, — that 
 you so sympathise with the course of that former party, and so identify 
 your own existing church with it, that you look upon reprobation of 
 the one to be reprobation of the other also, and thus consider my 
 "bitter and contemptuous spirit" as directed against yourselves. 
 
 I deeply deplore this conclusion on yoiu* part, but I do not deplore 
 it on my own account. It is one which does not tell creditably. May 
 I beg of . you, therefore, to be more explicit ? May I ask you to 
 specify what particular condemnation passed by me against the old 
 Prelacy of Scotland do you appropriate as passed against the present 
 Episcopal Church in Scotland? Is it that against the corruption of 
 the "Tulchans," or that against the double dealing of Adarason
 
 Spottiswoode, and Sharpe ; or that against the tyranny of Laud ; or 
 that against the course of the same party under Charles II. and his 
 brother ? 
 
 There is only one other part of my Essay to which you can possibly 
 refer. I have also expressed strong reprobation of the spirit in which 
 certain writers of a literary society (happily defunct, I understand) 
 speak of the church and worship of the niajority of their countrymen. 
 That spirit, you will not deny, is both " bitter and contemptuous." If, 
 therefore, it is my exposure of this spirit which has moved your 
 censure, it follows that your dislike of "bitter and contemptuous" 
 speaking on such subjects, depends, like that of many other men, on 
 whether it is employed for, or against the opinions of your own party. 
 
 I am quite aware that I have no special right to push these ques- 
 tions, because I have no special interest in your answer. I am not a 
 member of your church, and am personally indifferent whether the 
 chapels of your Diocese are open to me, or shut. But though, 
 consequently, youx act is of no importance in its effects, it is of great 
 importance in its principle. I trust, and I know that there are very 
 many members of your church, including almost all its laity, who would 
 be ashamed of claiming sympathy with the course of the old " Prelacy " 
 of Scotland, and who would condemn as strongly as I have done, all 
 the crimes committed in its cause. I am really curious to know 
 whether the free expression of their opinion on such matters would sub- 
 ject them in the nineteenth century, to the penalty of excommunication. 
 
 I do not know, Right Reverend Sir, what may be your idea of the 
 impressions under which Christians must approach the communion in 
 the Episcopal Church in Scotland. You must be aware that your 
 members include every variety of opinion on such questions of ecclesi- 
 astical history. Yet I would suppose from your strange communication 
 to me, that no one is, in your opinion, fit to enjoy the Christian festival 
 in your church, who does not revere the Tulchans, cherish a pious 
 memory of Laud, and, above aU, refrain from designating Presbytery 
 as a " Church," or under any other phrase than a "Form of Schism." 
 
 For my own part, I can assure you, that strong as my opinions arc 
 on the sins which have been committed in the name of Prelacy in 
 Scotland, and strongly as I condemn any cherishing of its evil spirit 
 in our own day, I should be ashamed of feeling under the slightest 
 temptation to bring any thought on such subjects to the Rails of the 
 Altar. I am never disposed to allow these questions to interfere with 
 the intercourse of private life : still less would I suffer them to intrude
 
 9 
 
 in momeuts of devotion. I should deeply regret to be the occasion of 
 such a sin in others. Therefore, I would not wish to communicate 
 again with the clergyman at Paisley. It would be painful to me to 
 feel, (as since your letter I should have too good ground to do,) that 
 when administering the holy communion he might bo remembering 
 with a grudge my " Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland," 
 or thinking, as of an insult to his own church, over my character of 
 the " Tulchans." 
 
 What I have said by argument and implication, I will now say 
 directly, following your example of straight-forward dealing. I have 
 very little doubt that you and this Paisley clergyman think you are 
 only acting under a strict sense of duty. But I have quite as little 
 doubt that you mistake the impulse under which you have come to 
 this conclusion. I believe that impulse to be personal irritation, 
 arising out of wounded party-spirit. I assure you, I do not say this 
 from any angry feeling. K I had the honour of your personal friend- 
 ship, your communication would not have impaired it on my side. I 
 draw my inference from the clearest evidence. There is nothing in 
 my Essay which many members of your church might not have written ; 
 there is nothing of which many have not already heartily approved. 
 It is possible to be member of a church, and yet have no sympathy 
 with the passions associated with its former course, or the crimes 
 committed in its name. I believe, accordingly, that the party with 
 which I fear you are connected, — that party which in the grasp after 
 a national history, cherishes kindness for the Tidchans, and warm 
 sympathy with the prelates whom Middleton and Lauderdale could 
 support, but with whom Leightoun could find no fellowship, — I believe 
 this party to be a small one in your church, your laity do not belong 
 to it. You do that church wrong when you identify that party with 
 it. It is in virtue of membership with this party that alone you could 
 have felt my Essay so keenly. It is against the spirit and opinions 
 of this party that I have expressed the strong disapprobation which 
 you interpret into a "bitter and contemptuous spirit" against your 
 church. I deny and disclaim any such spirit in the Essay. I view 
 the Episcopal Church in Scotland as a branch of the Church of 
 England, and as such "entitled to sincere respect." But even if 
 every one of its ministers were of the spirit which I most condemn, 
 this would make no difference to me. I never think what may be the 
 opinions, or the prejudices, or the passions of a minister from whom I 
 receive the communion. The people ought not to think of such
 
 10 
 
 controversies when they receive : the clergy ought not to think of 
 them when they administer. 
 
 When I published the Essay I was not unprepared for symptoms of 
 irritation from more than one quarter. I confess, however, that I 
 hardly expected them to appear in such a form. I knew indeed that 
 as clergymen deal in holy things they arc very apt to vent their 
 irritation in performing the duties of their office. This is the peculiar 
 temptation of your order. I beg of you to reflect whether, in this 
 instance, you have not yielded to it ; and I trust that on consideration 
 you will yourself dismiss, and instruct your clergy to dismiss, feelings 
 of pique and irritation from such holy ground. I am sure that you 
 must be acting very wrongly when you select the communion table of 
 a Christmas festival as the place and the occasion for testifying your 
 opinion of my "Essay on the Ecclesiastical History of Scotland." 
 
 I beg to apologize for any thing in this letter which may seem to 
 you unnecessarily personal or offensive. I have not wished to go 
 beyond the open and straight-forward statement of the view I take of 
 your excommunication. 
 
 I an), 
 
 Right Reverend Sir, 
 •;oit nJaoieitil) 
 
 ,-.1 / i - Your obedient Servant, 
 
 ARGYLL. 
 
 ■3d i io :■ 
 
 WlSTOW Rkotorv, December 20, 1848. 
 
 My Lokd Ddke, 
 
 If I had the honour of being personally known to 
 your Grace, I think you would acquit me of having acted under aa 
 impulse of "personal irritation, arising out of wounded party-spirit." 
 I could not, indeed, have accepted the office to which I have most 
 unexpectedly been called, unless I had the deepest conviction of the 
 Divine institution of Episcopacy : but " party-spirit," I most unfeign- 
 edly abhor ; and I should be altogether unfit for that office, (unworthy 
 of it I own myself to be,) if I were capable of acting in such a matter 
 under " personal irritation." My feelings towards your Grace are
 
 11 
 
 those of a raiuister of. Christ towards one whom a mistaken sense of 
 duty is leading to devote his high gifts and excellent moral and 
 intellectual qualities against the truth, rather than for it. They are 
 feelings, in which (may I say, though personally a stranger, and in so 
 different a sphere of life,) real personal regard is mixed with deep 
 regret at the course which you have thought proper to take. 
 
 Allow me to obsea*ve, that your Grace misconceives the effect of my 
 letter, when you say that you labour under a sentence of excommuni- 
 cation within my diocese. ' ; 1 
 
 I have pronounced no such gen t^oe^; 'Having been eonsulted by 
 one of my clergy, I have informed him that I could not give my sanc- 
 tion to the admission of your Grace to communion in his ehui'ch ; and 
 I thought it due to him and also to your Grace, to inform you of this 
 reply. But I have taken no step to inform my clergy generally of 
 what I have done ; nor at the present moment do I think of doing so. 
 It is one thing to pass an official sentence, or even to volunteer and 
 circulate the expression of a strong opinion ; and another, when eon- 
 sulted by those who have a right to ask my advice, to give it plainly. 
 
 In the unhappy conflict of religious opinion which is the inheritance 
 of the present generation, especially in Scotland, I think much tender- 
 ness is due to those who have been trained under influences which 
 lead them to a view of Divine truth far different from what approves 
 itself as tnith to my own mind, and what I believe to have been the 
 doctrine of the church of God from the beginning. On this account, I 
 am riot one to recommend violent acts or sweeping denunciations ; but 
 I own that I cannot understand how conscientious persons can, in 
 England, present themselves at the altars of the church, and in Scot- 
 land call themselves Presbyterians; nor could I consciously and 
 formally sanction the admission to communion in the church of those 
 who are in the habit of communicating with other denominations of 
 Christians. 
 
 With regard to your Grace's book, I do not wish to enter into a 
 controversy which would naturally result from an examination of par- 
 ticular passages. The passage to which your Grace refers, p. 231, 
 had not escaped my attention. It is, however, my deliberate opinion 
 that the writer of that book should neither seek, nor be admitted, to the 
 holy communion in a chm-ch, the characteristic difference of which 
 from the principles of Scottish Presbytery, is its acknowledgment as 
 Divine truth of a doctrine which the writer of this book (p. 236) believes 
 to be "the emptiest superstition." The church does ppt,,. indeed.
 
 12 
 
 exact, as terms of commuuion, a formal acknowledgment of what she 
 holds as the truth in this matter ; but it is one thing to' abstain from 
 exacting such a formal acknowledgment as terms of communion, and 
 another, to admit to communion any one who openly — I must say, I 
 think in a bitter and contemptuous spirit — repudiates it in a deliberate 
 and elaborate publication. 
 
 Let me just add, that of course I am not concerned to defend the 
 various means which were taken to introduce and establish what I 
 believe to be the truth, in Scotland. Your Grace, indeed, is, as I 
 understand, a young man ; and I think you will see reason hereafter to 
 acknowledge that your able historical statement is (as often happens) 
 one-sided : but certainly I do not wish to defend the means taken to 
 establish Episcopacy in Scotland. Neither am I concerned, as your 
 Grace seems to suppose must be the case, to maintain its historical 
 claims to nationality. My part is simply to bear witness to it as tjie 
 truth ; and this I conceive that I should have failed in doing, had I 
 (especially after your Grace's publication,) given any other reply than 
 that which I gave to the clergyman who consulted me as his bishop. 
 
 With sincere prayer that your Grace may be led by the guidance of 
 God's Holy Spirit so to employ your talents as, through the merits 
 of our blessed Saviour, to attain a joyful resurrection, 
 
 I am. 
 
 Your faithful Servant in Christ, 
 
 W. J. TROAVEK, 
 
 Bishop of Glasgow and Gallowai/- 
 Hi8 Gkace tue Duke ok Augyi-l. 
 
 RosENEATa, J3eceH»6er 22, 1848. 
 Right Reveeend Sir, i 
 
 I am much obliged to you for your letter of the 2Uth, 
 since in defending what I must think a wrong course, its spirit is such 
 as demands respect. 
 
 I am aware that the communion has long been unfortunately 
 regarded by many as the peculiar token of what I may call sect-
 
 13 
 
 membership, to distinguish this idea from church-membership, in a 
 larger and truer sense. Your position, therefore, is perfectly intelligible, 
 ■when you say you cannot conceive how any Presbyterian can con- 
 scientiously partake of the communion in the Episcopal Church. But 
 I take a wholly different view of the communion. I conceive that it 
 is a "llemembering of Christ," — not a remembering of any thing else, 
 of Episcopacy, of Prcsbyterianism, of Tulchanism, or any other " ism " 
 whatever. One thing only I regard as in all ordinary circumstances 
 necessary, viz.: that we be convinced that the Body and its ministers, 
 along with whom we may communicate, arc in all essentials true 
 branches of the Christian society, and as such, entitled to celebrate its 
 ordinances. I conceive the Episcopal Chxirch to be such a Body. 
 Therefore, I can as conscientiously commmiicate with it as with any 
 other Body of which I entertain the same general opinion. 
 
 I do not hope to content you with such las adhesion. I am aware 
 that the clergy of almost all churches claim much more exclusive 
 homage. But, except on the naked principle that no man ought 
 ever to partake of the communion with any Body of which he is not 
 actually a member, I cannot see that your course in this instance is 
 defensible. Let me beg your attention, for a moment, to the more 
 special grounds suggested by the wording of your letter. 
 
 You say that the characteristic difference between the Episcopal 
 Church and the Presbyterian Church is the acknowledgment, by the 
 former, as a " divine truth " of a " doctrine" which I condemn as the 
 " emptiesst superstition ;" and you conclude that therefore I ought 
 neither to seek, nor be admitted to communion in the Episcopal 
 Chm-ch. 
 
 Now what is the "doctrine" condemned by me as the "vainest 
 superstition?" this — that Episcopacy is the comer stone of the chris- 
 tian temple, and that no Body organized without it is entitled to the 
 name or privileges of the Christian Church. 
 
 This is the "doctrine" I condemn as the " vainest superstition:" 
 and you now inform me that the acknowledgment of this as a " divine 
 tiTith " is the " characteristic " of the Episcopal Church. 
 
 May I beg to be referred to your authority for this statement? 
 Do you really, on reflection, believe yourself to be entitled to lay down 
 this definition of the " characteristic" of the Episcopal Chui-ch? You 
 must be quite aware that many of the greatest men in the history of 
 that church, including, I think, almost the whole of the early English 
 Reformers, held no such "doctrine," and would have condemned it, as
 
 14 
 
 I do, as the vainest superstition. You must also be aware that a very 
 large portion of the members of that church, both in England and 
 Scotland, have no belief in this " doctrine." It may be prevalent 
 among a greater or less number; but you have no warrant whatever 
 for asserting that it is an essential characteristic of the church. To 
 state this is to prove it. It is a notorious fact. It is therefore quite 
 impossible that you can consistently maintain this as a ground for 
 excluding from the communion. 
 
 You seem to be aware of this ; and accordingly you draw a strange 
 distinction between those who merely think, and those who also icnite. 
 Thousands who, like me, disbelieve the " doctrine," and think of it, as 
 I do, an " empty superstition," may be winked at, and tacitly admitted 
 to communion: but those who venture to express their unbelief 
 (especially in "elaborate publications") are unfit to "remember" 
 Christ at a communion table in the Episcopal Church. 
 
 Need I represent to you farther the invalidity of both the above 
 reasons, or need I suggest that two bad reasons do not help to make 
 one good one ? 
 
 But there is one other reason, suggested by the wording of your 
 sentences. It may not be my unbelief in the doctrine — not my elabor- 
 ately expressing it — but the "bitter and contemptuous" spirit in 
 which I do so. This is at least a better reason than the other two. 
 If it were true it might be valid; but I will content myself with ask- 
 ing yourself is it the true reason ? If it be, I make no objection : only 
 I shall hope to see your censures impartially applied. When any of 
 the ftmaticisms of the Presbyterian History are alluded to in " bitter 
 and contemptuous terms," I will hope that your disapprobation will be 
 shown as readily; and if the example is followed, there will be a 
 marked improvement in the tone of the writings emanating from the 
 adherents of the Episco{)al Church in Scotland. 
 
 But I think it due to the spirit in which your last letter is written, 
 to assure you that I have no bitter or contemptuous feeling towards 
 those who hold the doctrine, pronounced by you to be a characteristic 
 of the Episcopal Church. I do indeed think that doctrine to be an 
 " empty superstition " — ■" empty " in itself of all good influence on the 
 character and functions of the Christian Church ; and " superstitious " 
 in its origin and nature. But many good and excellent men hold it. 
 Many good men also hold other doctrines which you would describe as 
 empty superstitions, — such as the bishop of Rome's supremacy. 
 
 I hardly know what value you would have me to put on the distinc-
 
 15 
 
 tion you draw between " exconnnunication " over your whole diocese, 
 and exclusion from the Paisley chapel. But wliatover that value may 
 be, I beg to remind you that your first letter distinctly referred, not 
 alone to that chapel, but specially to all " other chapels in your 
 diocese." 
 
 I sincerely believe that in the answer to this clergyman you have 
 not consciously been acting under any feeling but that of a sense of 
 duty. And so far as he is concerned, I think the answer was right in 
 one respect. He would not have been in a fitting state of mind to 
 administer the communion to me if he had remembered my Essay with 
 such irritation. But you. must excuse me when I say, that so far as 
 any thing in that Essay is concerned, the disqualification was on his 
 side, not on mine. Except on the principle of the communion being 
 the token of sect-membership, there is no ground there for objecting to 
 my admission which will stand a moment's reasoning. I accept your 
 " deliberate opinion " as to the impropriety of one who condemns the 
 "doctrine" you refer to, ever communicating with the Episcopal 
 Church, with all the respect which is due to any " deliberate opinion " 
 of a minister of the Christian Church. But I receive it also with the 
 judgment which must be passed upon a " deliberate opinion," which 
 would equally exclude from the communion much wiser and better men 
 belonging to that church itself. I receive it with the judgment which 
 must be passed upon a "deliberate opinion" which vrould have 
 excluded Dr. Arnold. He not only thought against this " doctrine," 
 but wrote against it too, and that in terms stronger, and much more 
 forcible than mine. He is, in this respect, but one of many. You are 
 therefore clearly wrong when you lay down as an esential characteristic 
 qf the Episcopal Church, a doctrine which is that of a party, not of a 
 church, of a party, larga ijifljeed , a^(J ^-q^pecib^blq, ;b^t, o^, 9- tPOJty ,;^^}1„, 
 and a party only. finnftno?^ nf rfo-rrrrf) rf?-fAo=f„;flr .^^1+ Vo ^-Vi^f^rffw 
 
 I thank you vei'y sincerely for your good wishes, and willingly 
 accept them in the spirit in which I believe them to be given. 
 ohelis; J j.gj^^;^^ muoaotq ,eni j 
 
 Kight reverend Sir, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 ARGYLL.
 
 IG 
 
 AViSTON Rectory, Di.i< mhcr 2C, 1848. 
 My Lord Dukk, 
 
 Id writing to your Grace, it was, no doubt, my hope 
 that you would abstain, in consequence of my letter, from presenting 
 yourself at the holy communion in my diocese. It is not, however, 
 my intention at present to issue any notice on the subject to my clergy 
 in general. If any of them should consult me, I shall feel it my duty 
 (and it is very truly a painful one,) to give the same reply which I 
 have given to the clergyman at Paisley. 
 
 I need not remind yoiu- Grace, that in the early, and, as I believe, 
 the purest ages of the church, the sin of schism (as the sin of heresy,) 
 was regarded as among the greatest of which a Christian could be 
 guilty. In the existing state of things, — especially in the case of 
 those who inherit fi'om their parents a system consecrated, in their 
 view, by many sacred and affecting associations, — I quite admit (as I 
 admitted in my last,) that much tenderness should be exercised in 
 laying down terms of communion. 1 should be slow to exclude any, 
 of whom it was possible to assume that they " drew nigh" in faith and 
 penitence, and with due reverence to the church, at the hands of whose 
 ministers they were seeking so great a benefit. It is plain, therefore, 
 that I would in this way tacitly admit many, of whose opinions and 
 practice, in respect of church-membership, I could not formally approve; 
 and cases might occur, in which, were I formally consulted, I should 
 feel myself bound to give an opinion, which I should not have thought 
 it necessary to volunteer. In any instance, however, in which the 
 person seeking communion had made himself notorious by publicly 
 opposing any of the doctrines of the church, I should consider that in 
 his case, the difficulty of assenting to his admission was much enhanced; 
 and this the more, in proportion as the spirit in which such opposition 
 had been manifested was violent, contemptuous, or irreverent. 
 
 Your Grace disclaims any bitter and contemptuous feeling towards 
 . the church of which I am a chief minister. Your disclaimer, as far as 
 it goes, is creditable to your sense of what is due to that branch of the 
 Universal Church. But your publication is an overt act, which you 
 have (I fear) no thought of recalling or qualifying ; and the expression 
 which I quoted, as virtually applied to a belief in the Divine institu- 
 tion of Episcopacy, and in its being essential to the completeness and 
 authority of a church, — viz., that this belief is " the emptiest super- 
 stition," — this expression is, in my honest judgment, both bitter and 
 contemptuous ; and this use of it must have a most material bearing on
 
 17 
 
 the question, whetbev the avowed Prcsbj-torian wbo uses it, (and who 
 is in open communion witli the Presbyterian body,) shall be admitted to 
 communion in a church, distinguished from his own by the very belief 
 that Episcopal ordination is essential to a due administration of the 
 sacraments. 
 
 It is not for me, on such an occasion as this, to write a treatise on 
 the Divine institution of Episcopacy ; nor on the church's doctrine on 
 the subject. It is sufficient for me to observe, that a belief in its 
 necessity, wherever it can be had, pervades her whole system, and all 
 her Prayer Book. Declaring that the due administration of sacraments 
 is essential to the very being of a church, (Article XIX. ;) and that 
 sacraments are generally necessary to salvation, (Catechism ;) and 
 that they must not be administered by any but lawful ministers, 
 (Article XXIII. ;) and that it is Christ's commission and authority 
 that gives them their validity, (Article XXVI, ;) and that none shall 
 be admitted to holy coimnunion, until tliey are confirmed, or are ready 
 or desirous to be confirmed, (Rubric ;) by her whole practice and her 
 whole ordinal from beginning to end, she declares her mind as to what 
 is to be taken for "lawfulness" in those who claim to administer the 
 sacraments of Christ. There may be too many who hold a doctrine 
 on such subjects far short of what is the doctrine of their church. 
 Your Grace, however, must, I think, see that a Bishop of the church, 
 when called upon for a formal opinion, must give it, not according to 
 the lax interpretation put upon the formularies of his chui'ch by indi- 
 vidual members, but by his own conscientious judgment of what is 
 their plain and natural meaning. 
 
 In conclusion, I would wish to remind your Grace, with all possible 
 gentleness, that a man is not the best judge in his own case. You 
 disclaim a bitter and contemptuous spirit ; but it is for you to reflect 
 that in the deliberate judgment of one whom your Grace acknowledges 
 as a minister of Christ, you have Avritten what may be justly charac- 
 terised by those terms. Of coiu'se I may be mistaken in my judgment, 
 and in the course which I have taken. I have only to say, that I 
 give it imder a distinct sense of the responsibility which I incur here 
 and hereafter. If your Grace should ever hear of any expressions of 
 mine which seem to you bitter and contemptuous, I will thank you if 
 you will trouble yourself so far as to remind me of my fault. I would 
 wish to avoid such expressions myself, and to discountenance them in 
 others. The rule which I have at least proposed to myself, and by 
 which, in this correspondence, I have endeavoured to be guided, is to
 
 18 
 
 speak the truth ; i.e. what I honestly bolievc to be the truth, and 
 what I think myself responsible for bearing witness to as truth, — to 
 speak the truth in love. 
 
 Thanking your Grace for any expressions by which you have 
 intended to soften the apparent harshness of the wording of some of 
 your sentences, 
 
 I am. 
 
 Your faithful Servant, 
 
 W. J. TROWEll, 
 
 Bishop of Glanffow and Galloway. 
 His Grace the Duke of Argyll. 
 
 WiSTON HuRSTPERPOiNT, Janiinry 23, 1849. 
 
 My Lord Duke, 
 
 I regret to find that the recent correspondence 
 between your Grace and myself has become very generally the subject 
 of conversation in Scotland and elsewhere; and as the part which I 
 have taken seems to be, in many respects, inaccurately stated, I write 
 to inquire whether your Grace would object to the printing of your 
 letters, together with my own, merely for private circulation. 
 
 Probably in writing the letters, your Grace did not contemplate such 
 a step as I am venturing to propose : — certainly my own wish and 
 endeavour was, to avoid the necessity for any greater degree of 
 publicity in this transaction than was inevitable. But I know no 
 reason why your Grace should be unwilling that your letters should be 
 printed: and my wish is, that if this transaction be spoken of at all, 
 the part which I have taken should be known accurately. 
 
 Your Grace will not for a moment suppose that I attribute to any 
 inaccuracy on the part of your Grace, the misconceptions which seem 
 to exist as to what has taken place : we all know how common report 
 soon distorts or mis-states, what was at first accurately detailed. 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 Your Grace's faithful Servant, 
 
 W. J. TROWER, 
 
 Bishop of Glasgow and Galloway.
 
 19 
 
 Abdencaplb, 2ath January, 1849. 
 
 Right Revekend Stk, 
 
 I have this evening received your letter of the 23d, 
 and am by no means surprised that you should wish to correct various 
 misrepresentations which have arisen from common report respecting 
 our late correspondence. I have not the least objection to the 
 printing, or even to the publication of that correspondenca, should you 
 wish it to be published ; indeed various persons to whom I have shown 
 it had recommended that such a course should be taken. I should 
 not, however, have thought it worth while ; but as erroneous versions 
 have been published, (one in the Church and State Gazette,) I think 
 it very natural that you should wish to give a correct impression. 
 
 I have showed the correspondence to several private friends — both 
 your letters and my own ; but of course I am not responsible for the 
 mistakes which have been circulated. 
 
 I see nothing which should induce either party to wish to avoid 
 publicity. The letters were not indeed wi'ittcn with that view : but 
 they concern a question of some general interest on which, I presume, 
 neither you nor I am inclined to recede fi'om the opinions expressed in 
 those letters. 
 
 I am, 
 
 Right Reverend Sir, 
 
 Your obedient Servant, 
 
 ARGYLL. 
 
 BKLL AMU BitIN, PBI^TtUS.
 
 \1