Bishop of London; but this evasion is wrested from their hands by his Lordship's disclaimer of all jurisdiction in Scotland. Surely they cannot pretend to be under his Lordship's control, when he disclaims any authority in that country. If then they choose to call themselves Episcopalians, they must be schismatics, inasmuch as they are separated from the Bishop, who is necessarily the centre of unity in an Episcopal Church, and without whom there can be no such thing as an Episcopalian. Whatever, therefore, may be said of such men in England or in Scotland; though their piety may be spoken of as exemplary, and their conduct may be regarded as praiseworthy, by Dissenters and Churchmen whose principles differ not from those of Dissenters; though they may be men of irreproachable morals, and amiable in all the relations of life: there is still a blot upon their character–a blot which is an evidence of weakness or dishonesty, namely, that they profess to be Episcopalians, while they reject all Episcopal authority, and mark out a line for themselves, which, by the principles of Episcopacy, devolves upon the diocesan, under whose jurisdiction their lot, in the Providence of God, may be cast. To withdraw from allegiance to the Scottish Bishops, under the pretence of being in some way under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of the Church of England, is only adding duplicity to dishonesty.[1] It would be
- ↑ "The officiating Clergy in Scotland" says Archdeacon Daubeny, "who make their supposed connexion with the Church of England a plea for their separation from the Church of Scotland, act in direct defiance of that principle, by which the constitution of the Church is maintained: for they are living in a state of exemption from all Ecclesiastical government whatever. The conduct of the Clergy, who set up this pretended connexion with the
