ion with a Bishop there is no Church." He adds, also, "to this Communion, it appears to me, that all Protestant Episcopalians residing in Scotland, are bound, by their profession as Episcopalians, to belong: for otherwise, neither they, nor the Clergy, who officiate in their Chapels, will find it easy to say of what Church they are really members. While they reside in Scotland, they neither are, nor can be, strictly speaking, members of the Church of England. The Bishops of the Church of England have no authority in Scotland, and never lay claim to such authority."[1] The Bishop naturally and justly adds, "Those who profess Episcopalian principles in this country, Clergy as well as laity, must be content, while they reside here, to consider and conduct themselves as members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, or they can scarcely lay claim to the title of Episcopalians."[2] Let the Clergy, who act in defiance of the Scottish Bishops, proceed, if they please, to preach in their Chapels: but let them be honest and not adopt the miserable subterfuge or evasion, that they are still Episcopalians, since every officiating minister in an Episcopal Church must of necessity be subject to some one Bishop. There was, it seems, a pretence, that such Clergymen were subject to the
- ↑ Remains of the late Right Reverend Daniel Sandford, D. D. Oxon. Bishop of Edinburgh, in the Scottish Episcopal Church, &c. In two volumes, 8vo. Edinburgh, 1830. vol. ii. pp. 332, 333. Bishop Sandford further remarks, "Let them say to which of the dioceses of England they belong, and to which of the English Prelates they owe Ecclesiastical submission." He asks, "how can those be esteemed members of the Church of England, who do not dwell within the bounds of that Church: who do not and can not acknowledge the authority of her Prelates: and who attend the ministration of Clergy who neither have, nor can have, the license of any of those Prelates to discharge their clerical office?"
- ↑ Ibid.
