AN

HISTORICAL SKETCH

OF THE

EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOTLAND. (Continued from page 321.)

THE Great Rebellion having come to a close, and Charles the Second being restored to the throne of his father, Episcopacy was for the last time, in Scotland, placed on the firm basis of a legal establishment; and the episcopal succession once more renewed in that country, by the consecration of four bishops, for the sees of St. Andrew's, Glasgow, Galloway, and Dumblane. This consecration took place in 1661, and seems to have been performed at different dates by the Bishop of Winchester, and two other of our Prelates. Nor was this return to the ancient form of church government at all disagreeable to the majority of the people. The troubles and contentions to which they were subjected during the twenty-four years which had just expired, had rendered them heartily disposed to receive an ecclesiastical constitution, which was likely to secure to them the enjoyment of peace. moderate Presbyterians attended the episcopal worship in the parish churches and, indeed, at the period in question, there was scarcely any distinction between the two parties, in faith, in religious service, or in discipline.

All the

The old confession of faith, drawn up by the first reformers, and ratified in 1567, had all along been the received standard of doctrine to both; though the Presbyterians had of late introduced the Westminster Confession, which was in many points different from the former, and in some directly contrary to its more sober tenets. Since the attempt to read the new book of service at Edinburgh, no liturgy, or appointed form of prayer, had been any where used in public worship. Many of the episcopal clergy, no doubt, are said to have compiled forms for the use of their particular congregations, with some petitions and collects taken out of the English liturgy; and all of them uniformly concluded their devotion with the Lord's Prayer, and their singing with the doxological; both of which observances the zealots of the other side denounced as being superstitious and formal. The two sacraments were administered by both nearly in the same manner, without kneeling at the one, or signing with the sign of the cross at the other: only, in baptism, the episcopal clergy required the Apostles' Creed as the symbol of faith, while the Presbyterians insisted on the Westmin

ster confession, and some of them, the solemn league and covenant, as the standard of the child's religious education.

With regard, again, to discipline, the established Church of that day had their Kirk Sessions as the Presbyterians have at present. They had their presbyteries, too, where some experienced minister of the bishop's nomination acted as moderator: they had their Diocesan Synods, in which the bishop himself, or a clergyman appointed by him, presided; and they might, on the same principle, have had their National Synods, or General Assemblies, had the Sovereign found it expedient to summon, or to permit their convocations. In short, except the titles of Archbishop and Bishop, we perceive scarcely any thing in the Scottish establishment, of the period under consideration, at all peculiar to an Episcopal Church: and in this way, every stumbling-block might be thought to have been removed to a complete and universal conformity among all classes of Christians. Nay, the clemency of the King, and the accommodating spirit of his Government, proceeded still farther, with the view of gaining the malcontents. An Act of Indulgence was passed in favour of the Presbyterians, by which their minis ters were allowed to hold parishes, without complying with the establishment, or acknowledging the authority of the Bishops, in the very Dioceses in which they officiated. It was certainly quite impossible to carry toleration to any greater extent, without sacrificing entirely the power and dignity of the Church; and yet so refractory and unreasonable were the old Covenanters, in the south and west of Scotland, that they instantly disclaimed all connection with such of their brethren as accepted the indulgence; and even declared war, by proclamation, against "Charles Stuart," as they chose to designate his Majesty, the Duke of York, and all their adherents, subjoining this resolution," to reward those that are against us as they have done unto us, as the Lord shall give us opportunity."

The reigns of the two brothers, Charles and James, were distinguished by measures extremely unfavourable to the interests of Episcopacy in North Britain. They shewed undue severity and undue indulgence; irritating the disaffected subjects without suppressing them, and yielding to their wishes only far enough to encourage new demands. During the twenty-eight years, accordingly, that these monarchs swayed the English sceptre, the Church of Scotland derived very little support from the countenance of Government.

It is not easy to account for the disaffection and turbulence which prevailed in many parts of Scotland, both before and after the Restoration. The distracted state of the country during the Grand Rebellion, the habits of war and pillage to which many of them were inured, the want of employment, and the secret incitement, which, it is sus pected, was practised by many in the higher ranks, who dreaded the restoration of the Church to the full enjoyment of the wealth and privileges which had formerly belonged to her, might, perhaps, be assigned as the probable causes of that seditious humour, which was ever and anon breaking out among the inhabitants of the western coun

ties. At all events, it cannot be denied that a large body of the people had become at once factious and miserable in the extreme. Fletcher of Saltoun, one of the most figuring of Scottish patriots, calculated, that, about the time of the Revolution, there were no fewer than two hundred thousand sturdy beggars threatening the property, and disturbing the peace of the kingdom; and recommended, as every one knows, that this enormous evil should be forthwith remedied by the general adoption of domestic slavery. In such circumstances, it may be presumed that religion was, in many cases, the pretext rather than the cause of those armed tumults, which repeatedly called forth the severity of the Government, and thereby so grievously implicated the character of the Established Episcopal Church.

But the period was now at hand when that Church was to be deprived of the legal, support which had proved of so little avail to it. The abdication of James, and the accession of his son-in-law to the throne, introduced a new order of things in the spiritual concerns of Scotland; and at length terminated a long series of confusion and dispute, by transferring the sanction of Parliament to the Presbyterian polity.

It has been generally asserted that King William would have preferred Episcopacy to Presbyterianism, as the form of the Scottish Church, could he have prevailed upon the Northern Prelates to transfer their allegiance from his father-in-law to himself. But this they would not consent to do. Their views of kingly right, and of the oath which they had taken to the abdicated monarch, would not permit them to acknowledge the Prince of Orange as the Sovereign of Great Britain; and, assuredly, whatever we may think of their worldly wis dom, we cannot refuse to them the praise of honesty, and of sincere disinterestedness.

There is a letter extant, written by Dr. Rose, Bishop of Edinburgh, who happened to be in London at the period in question, and addressed to the Honourable Archibald Campbell, also one of the Bishops of the Scottish Church, giving an account of his reception at Court, and of the overtures which were made to him on the part of the new King. It is much too long to be inserted here; and as it is to be found entire in Keith's Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, we shall satisfy ourselves with an abstract of the main facts.

The principal object which Rose had in view, was to induce the Bishop of London to intercede with the King in behalf of the Episcopalians in Scotland, who were already subjected to every species of persecution. "Upon my applying to the Bishop of London to introduce me, his Lordship asked me whether I had any thing to say to the King, for so was the style in England then. I replied, that I had nothing to say, save that I was going for Scotland, being a Member of the Convention; for I understood that without waiting on the Prince, that being the most common Scottish style, I could not have a pass. His Lordship asked me again, saying, Seeing the Clergy have been and are so barbarously routed by the Presbyterians, will you not speak to the King to put a stop to that, and in favour of your own Clergy?' My reply was, that the Prince had been often applied to on this matter

6

by several of the nobility, and also addressed by the sufferers themselves, and yet all to no purpose; wherefore I could have no hopes that my intercessions would be of any avail; but, if his Lordship thought otherwise, I would not decline to make them.'

6

The Letter goes on to say, that the Bishop of London urged the measure of a deputation from the Scottish Episcopal nobility and gentry, to wait upon the new King, in behalf of their Clergy; and that the Bishop of Edinburgh and Sir George Mackenzie agreed to the proposal, on condition that his Majesty's permission were obtained, and a day appointed for the interview. "Whereupon," continues Dr. Rose, "the Bishop leaving us in a room of Whitehall, near adjoining to the place where the Prince was, staid about half an hour from us; and upon his return told us that the King would not allow us to come to him in a body, lest that might give jealousy and umbrage to the Presbyterians; neither would he permit them, for the same reason, to come to him in numbers; and that he would not allow above two or three of either party at a time to speak to him on Church matters. Then the Bishop of London, directing his discourse to me, said, My Lord, you see that the King, having thrown himself upon the water, must keep himself swimming with one hand. The Presbyterians have joined him closely, and offered to support him; and therefore he cannot cast them off, unless he could see how otherwise he can be served. And the King bids me tell you, that he now knows the state of Scotland much better than he did when he was in Holland; for there he was made to believe that Scotland generally all over was Presbyterian, but now he sees that the great body of the nobility and gentry are for Episcopacy, and it is the trading and inferior sort that are for Presbytery: wherefore he bids me tell you, that if you will undertake to serve him to the purpose that he is served here in England, he will take you by the hand, support the Church and Order, and throw off the Presbyterians.' My answer to this was, My Lord, I cannot but thank the Prince for his frankness and offer; but withal I must tell your Lordship that when I came from Scotland, neither my brethren nor I apprehended any such revolution as I have seen now in England, and therefore I neither was nor could be instructed by them what answer to make to the Prince's offer; and therefore what I say is not in their name, but only my private opinion, which is, that I think they will not serve the Prince as he is served here in England, that is, as I take it, to make him their king, nor to give their suffrage for his being King; and though, as to this matter, I say nothing in their name, and as from them, yet I for myself must say, that rather than do so, I will abandon all the interest that either I have or may expect to have in Britain. Upon this, the Bishop commended my openness and ingenuity, and said he believed it was so ; for,' says he, all the time you have been here, neither have you waited upon the King, nor have any of your brethren, the Scots Bishops, made any address to him; so the King must be excused for standing by the Presbyterians. Immediately upon this, the Prince, going somewhere abroad, comes through the room, and Sir George Mackenzie takes leave of him in very few words. I applied to the

can

Bishop, and said, My Lord, there is now no further place for applying in our Church matters, and this opportunity of taking leave of the Prince is lost, wherefore I beg that your Lordship would introduce me for that effect, if you can, next day, about ten or eleven o'clock in the forenoon. This his Lordship promised, and performed. And upon my being admitted into the Prince's presence, he came three or four steps forward from his company, and prevented me by saying, My Lord, you are going for Scotland?' My reply was, Yes, Sir, if you have any commands for me. Then he said, I hope you will be kind to me, and follow the example of England.' Wherefore, being somewhat difficulted how to make a mannerly and discreet answer, without entangling myself, I readily replied, Sir, I will serve you as far as law, reason, and conscience, will allow me. How this answer pleased I cannot well tell, but it seems the limitations and conditions of it were not acceptable; for instantly the Prince, without saying any more, turned away from me, and went back to his company."

In the same letter Bishop Rose informs his correspondent that King William made still another attempt to gain over the Scottish Prelates. "After my coming down here," says he, " my Lord St. Andrews and I taking occasion to wait on Duke Hamilton, his Grace told us a day or two before the sitting down of the Convention, that he had in special charge from King William that nothing should be done to the prejudice of Episcopacy in Scotland, in case the Bishops could be brought by any means to befriend his interest; and prayed us most pathetically for our own sake to follow the example of the Church of England. To which my Lord St. Andrews replied, that both by natural allegiance, the laws, and the most solemn oaths, we were engaged in the King's interest; and that we were by God's grace to stand by it in the face of all dangers, and to the greatest losses."

In the measures contemplated by William, in reference to the Church of Scotland, it is not to be imagined that his final determination was at all influenced by a regard to theological principle, or that he preferred the one form of Ecclesiastical Government to the other on any other ground, besides that of his political interest. But it is on this very ground that he had the strongest motives for deciding in favour of Episcopacy, could he have induced a majority of the Bishops to transfer to him and his Queen the allegiance which they had sworn to King James; because the Presbyterians had already so completely committed themselves in regard to the abdicated Sovereign, that William could be under no apprehension that they would ever conspire to set him on the throne; and therefore could he have gained the other party, he would have found his cause in Scotland resting on a more solid basis perhaps than it was at the same period in either England or Ireland. These considerations, it will be admitted, afford some degree of credibility to the traditions which are still current among Episcopal authorities in Scotland, relative to the deliberations of the new Government, on the subject of an Ecclesiastical settlement in that country.

If there be any truth in the statements now made, it is clear that the Scottish Bishops sacrificed their Church as well as their own personal