CHAPTER X.
A. D. 1688–1792.
aving followed the history of the English Nonjurors, from the year 1688, to the time of their extinction as an organized body, it is necessary, in order to complete the subject, to submit a sketch of the proceedings in Scotland, with respect to the Episcopalians, during the period comprehended in the preceding chapters. While some only, in England, who adhered to Episcopacy, refused the Oath of Allegiance, in Scotland the greater number of the Episcopalians became Nonjurors. Nor were their sufferings, under the domination of Presbytery, less than those of their brethren in England. They would have been satisfied, like their brethren in this country, with the establishment of a Regency, in the person of the Prince of Orange: but they could not consent to set aside King James, and swear allegiance to a new Sovereign.
The Scottish Bishops were informed of the Prince's intended invasion in October, 1688: and, in consequence, they prepared an address to King James. As soon as they heard that the Prince had actually arrived in England, they deputed two of their body to proceed to London, with a renewed tender of their duty to King James, and also for the purpose of consulting the English Bishops. For this mission the Bishops of Edinburgh and Orkney, Dr. Rose and Dr. Bruce, were selected by their brethren: but the latter Prelate falling ill, the former proceeded to London alone.
An interesting detail of his proceedings was given by Bishop Rose in a letter to Campbell, in the year 1713. Campbell, who had associated himself with Hickes, was anxious to obtain an account of the proceedings in 1688, and as Bishop Rose was then living, he applied to that Prelate by letter.
At the time of Rose's arrival in London, the persecution of the Clergy by the rabble had commenced. The Bishop, therefore, requested the Bishop of London to beseech the Prince of Orange to interpose; but nothing was attempted: and when an application was made to Burnet, he replied, that he did not meddle with Scotch affairs. How Burnet, who meddled with all matters that suited his purpose, could make such an assertion, it is not easy to conceive. The Bishop was requested by Compton and the Viscount Tarbat to address the Prince on the subject: but it was admitted, that it would be necessary to compliment him on his coming to deliver the country from Popery and slavery. This he could not do, as he had received no such instructions. The Bishop continued in London until the vote of Abdication had passed, when he began to think of returning to Scotland. The Bishop of London, even at that time, before William was seated on the throne, designated him as the King, and was anxious to induce Rose to wait upon him, on behalf of the suffering Episcopal Clergy in Scotland: but he replied, that, as the Prince had been already addressed by several of the nobility, as well as by the sufferers themselves, it would be useless for him to make the attempt. He? however, consented to go to the Prince, if the Bishop of London considered it desirable. Accordingly the Bishop of Edinburgh and Sir George Makenzie attended, at Whitehall, where they were met by Compton. The Prince declined to see more than two at one time, lest the Presbyterians should be offended. From the Bishop of London's remark, we may infer the state of feeling at the time. "My Lord, you see that the King, having thrown himself upon the water, must keep himself a swimming with one hand. The Presbyterians have joined him closely, and offer to support him, and therefore he cannot cast them off, unless he could see how otherwise he could be served. And now 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 while there he was made 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 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."
The Bishop expressed his thanks for the offer; but he added, that such a Revolution was not expected, and that consequently, having no instructions, he could only give his private opinion, which was, that the Bishops of Scotland would not consent to make the Prince their Sovereign. Compton replied, that the King must be excused "for standing by the Presbyterians." The Bishop did not speak to the Prince that day: but on the following morning he was admitted into his presence. "He came," says the Bishop, "three or four steps forward from his company, and prevented me by saying, my Lord, are you 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 so far as law, reason, or 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." The Bishop believes that the Prince would have cast off the Presbyterians, since they had committed themselves too far to return to King James. Duke Hamilton "told us, a day or two before the sitting down of the Convention, that he had it in special charge from King William that nothing should be done to the prejudice of Episcopacy in Scotland, in case the Bishops could by any means be brought to befriend his interest, and prayed us most pathetically for our own sake to follow the example of the Church of England."[1]
There can be no doubt that William would have patronized Episcopacy in Scotland, as well as in England, if he could have succeeded with the Bishops. It is clear, therefore, that the Bishops and Clergy of Scotland acted conscientiously, like their brethren in England. They had everything to gain by compliance with William: and nothing whatever to lose; but they had courage to hold to their principles, regardless of consequences.[2] We cannot indeed suppose that William had any preference for Episcopacy. He only considered his own interests in the matter: and knowing, that the Presbyterians were committed, he would have been ready to have made a compromise in favour of the Episcopal Church.
The Presbyterians began to act with the Prince, as soon as he came to London: and in consequence of the refusal of the Bishops to give him their support, Presbytery was received into favour. From Bishop Rose's Letter, it will be seen, that the persecutions commenced as soon as, if not before, William landed. The rabble began an attack upon the Clergy, which they were permitted to continue without interruption by any of the authorities. "On Christmas Day," says an able writer, by no means favourable to Episcopacy, "the Episcopal Clergy were dragged from their pulpits or altars; they were conducted through their parishes in mock procession; stript of their gowns, and expelled by force, or were permitted peaceably to depart, on a solemn assurance never to return. Two hundred Clergymen of the Episcopal persuasion were thus ejected; and as the same violence prevailed for some weeks through the rest of Scotland, the Revolution was almost equally complete in the Church and in the state." This is the admission of a writer, who even applauds the Cameronians for abstaining "from a massacre of the established Clergy."[3] Such admissions, therefore, may be regarded as confirmatory of the statements of the friends of the Clergy. These however were only the beginning of sorrows. After the abolition of the Church of Scotland, as an established Church, the Clergy were doomed to suffer from two quarters, from the rabble, and from the Presbyterians.
As William supported Presbytery in Scotland, because the Episcopalians refused to recognize him as their Sovereign, the Presbyterians have no room for boasting that their system was adopted in preference to Episcopacy. It certainly was not chosen on account of its purity, as they choose to imagine or to assert, but because King William found them more ready to render him their support, than the Bishops and Clergy. Whether the refusal of the latter was a blot upon their memory, posterity will decide. At all events, they were honest in their course, for it led to the loss of all their worldly goods. The Bishop of Edinburgh's reply was frank and open. He had not expected any such Revolution, and he had the courage to say so. Perceiving that the Bishops and Clergy would not support him, the King threw himself into the arms of the Presbyterians.
Not a few Presbyterian writers pretend, that the bulk of the nation were Presbyterians. This assertion, however, is contrary to the fact. Candid persons even on the Presbyterian side of the question admit, that Scotland was almost equally divided between the friends of Prelacy and Presbytery; the lower and middle classes adhering to the latter, the nobles and gentry to the former.[4] Carstairs used his influence with the King, alleging two special reasons in favour of Presbytery—First, that the Presbyterians were generally Whigs: Secondly, that the settlement of Presbytery in Scotland would shew the Dissenters in England what they might expect, when the King should be able.[5] Carstairs introduced the Presbyterian ministers to the Prince in London, assuring him that they were devoted to his service. They had gone to London at the suggestion of that gentleman, who cunningly arranged most of the Scottish affairs of this period. But though anxious for Presbytery himself, he admits, that the King would have given his sanction to Episcopacy: and that he consented to abolish it with difficulty.[6]
It is unnecessary to detail in this work the proceedings of the Scottish Convention, which issued in a tender of the crown to William and Mary, since my object is to give an account of the sufferers for conscience sake, who were deprived, as in England, of their preferments, for not taking the Oath to the new Sovereigns. It will, therefore, be sufficient to state, that the Presbyterian Church government was set up by Act of Parliament in 1690: and the ancient platform was cast down. Justice, however, must be done to William's character. He was anxious to tolerate such Episcopal Clergymen as were prepared to retain their stations, under the new order of things, provided they did not disturb his government: and in this respect, his conduct presents a bright contrast to that of the Presbyterians, who acted with all their former intolerance. Even Carstairs appears to have been afraid of the very men whom he had assisted to bring into power in the Church.[7]
When the Convention met, the Bishops as usual took their seats. The proceedings were opened with Prayer by one of the Prelates; and, as the Book of Common Prayer was not used in Scotland, the officiating Bishop was left to his own discretion.[8] The house, therefore, made a particular order, that "the Bishops in their Prayers should not mention or insinuate anything against their acts or proceedings." On the day on which the throne was declared vacant, "when all the business of the day was over, one of the Bishops offered to say Prayers according to custom. Upon which it was moved, that King James, being then no longer King of Scotland, that the Bishop should be admonished to pray for him at his peril. Which the Bishop observing, to avoid the incurring a penalty, very discreetly said only the Lord's Prayer: and so the house adjourned.[9]"
All the Clergy, who refused to take the Oath of Allegiance to the new Sovereigns, were removed from their Parishes; and "from their refusal, they soon acquired the appellation of Nonjurors."[10] Mr. Laing even makes Presbytery the condition, on which William was admitted to the throne, thereby insinuating, that the people of Scotland would not have received him on any other terms. Yet, had the Bishops yielded to the King's wishes, the government would have been settled on such conditions as would have prevented Presbytery from being established. "As Presbytery was the condition on which he was admitted to the throne, an Act was passed to abolish prelacy and pre-eminence in Ecclesiastical Office."[11] Undoubtedly William was placed in circumstances of difficulty.[12] By favouring the Episcopal Clergy, he immediately gave offence to the Presbyterians. The mistake, however, in Scotland, as well as in England, was the imposition of the Oath upon the Clergy, who were in possession of benefices. It would have been sufficient for the safety of the government to have enjoined the Oath in all new appointments; but this wise and moderate course did not suit the views of either the Scottish, or the English advisers of King William: and hence the sad and lamentable schisms and divisions in both countries.
Such Episcopal Clergymen as took the Oath of Allegiance, and acknowledged Presbytery as the only legal establishment, were allowed by the State to retain their churches, and also to be admitted, with the Presbyterian Clergy, to a share in the Ecclesiastical government. To assent to Presbytery, as established by law, did not involve any opinion respecting its Scriptural or primitive character, which no Episcopalian could possibly admit. Besides, as no form of Prayer was imposed by the Presbyterians, the Clergy could proceed in the management of public worship, nearly in the same manner as previous to the Revolution. Accordingly a considerable number of the Episcopal Clergy complied, and continued in their respective Parishes.
But though King William was anxious to comprehend, within the establishment, as many of the Clergy as possible, the Presbyterians were by no means pleased with their compliance: consequently all kinds of expedients were adopted, in order to get rid of such Clergymen as were known to favour Episcopacy. Nor was the King much in favour with the more rigid of the Presbyterian party, in consequence of his notions of a comprehension, and a toleration. The means resorted to for the purpose of removing the Clergy may now be specified.
It has been mentioned already, that the rabble commenced the work of persecution, as soon as the news of the arrival of the Prince of Orange reached Scotland. Some notices of the harsh treatment, which the Clergy received, may be submitted to the reader as evidences of the persecuting character of Presbytery: and it will be seen, that hostility to Episcopacy was so wrought into the very nature of the Presbyterians, that they could not tolerate a man, who considered Bishops as the only lawful governors of the Church of Christ.
In a contemporary publication the sufferers are divided into four classes, as follows:
"First those persecuted by the mobility before the 13th day of April 1689, and not noticed by the estates, but totally neglected, as deserts, and left without the Protection of the Government. 2. Those who complied, and were persecuted by the rabble: or those, who after they complied, were deprived by the council, because they did it not on the individual day appointed, when the proclamation came not to their hands against the time required, nor could they have the opportunity of observing it sooner, than when they obeyed it. 3. Those who were deprived by the council for non-compliance, there being not so much as twenty-four hours given some of them to advise in so weighty an affair. 4. Those who are now deposed by the Holy Inquisition of the Presbyterian Assembly."[13]
More than three hundred Clergymen were thrust out of their houses and their parishes by the rabble, and then deprived of their possessions for no crime whatever, but solely on account of their views of Church government, and because they were obnoxious to the Presbyterians, to whom the mob was subject. The Presbyterians did not interpose to check the rabble, or to restrain their excesses: and Gilbert Rule, the great defender of the Kirk in that day, actually admits the charge. "If few did it," says this author, that is, preach against such unchristian conduct, "it was because they, who were the actors in that scene, little regarded the preaching of the sober Presbyterians." Sage sarcastically remarks: "it might be of use to inquire what kind of scene he took it to be? Whether tragical or comical? or both? Tragical to the Prelatists, and comical to the Presbyterians? It was worth inquiring likewise, whom he meant by sober Presbyterian preachers? If there are any such in the nation? How many?" Rule had said, that the ministers had publicly spoken against the practices of the rabble, "both before they were acted for preventing them, and after, for reproving them and preventing the like;" from which Sage infers, that the rabbling of the Clergy was not by accident, but a devised scheme; that the Presbyterians were aware of the plan, though they did not concur with the mob. He assures us also, that some, to his own knowledge, admitted, that "it was the surest way to have the curates once dispossessed."[14]
The very attempts of the Defenders of the Presbyterians prove the truth of the Charges: and the anxiety of some of their writers to palliate or explain away the conduct of the rabble, with the tacit admissions of others, may be regarded as evidence of the substantial accuracy of the statements of the sufferings of the Episcopal Clergy. "A great part of the ministers of the nation, legally and ecclesiastically settled in their churches, were, without being accused, convicted or judged for any fault, turned out with their wives and infants in the winter season, from their houses, offices, and livings, in a most unworthy and reproachful manner by insolent rabbles, against which the Presbyterian ministers did never remonstrate, nor has there been to this day any kind of redress of a barbarity so unbecoming a Christian nation."[15]
But in addition to this treatment from the mob, they were subjected to oppressions from the Presbyterians, who were anxious to remove all the Episcopal Clergy. In the first General Assembly after the Revolution, it was attempted to exclude all persons from being present, except the friends of Presbytery. "If any of the Episcopal party were discovered, there was a cry presently, Conformists are here: and the officers were sent to thrust them out."[16] Some few of the friends to the ancient order of Church government, however, obtained admission to all their meetings, and from them the particulars respecting the proceedings of this assembly have been derived. When it was demanded, why there should be so much anxiety to remove the Episcopal Clergy, it was answered; "that there was less prejudice both to Church and people, by the want of preaching, than by the preaching of men of Episcopal principles and persuasions." One of their preachers boldly declared in a sermon before the Parliament, "that it was better that the temple of the Lord did lie sometimes unbuilt and unrepaired, than be reared up by Gibeonites and Samaritans." In short, the chief business consisted of hearing libels and citations against Episcopal Ministers.[17] The process was not very dissimilar to that, which had been adopted under the reign of Presbytery in England. In both cases the Clergy were not only removed from their parishes, but the most iniquitous means were resorted to, for the purpose of injuring their reputation.
Though Episcopacy was abolished, "it was not so easy to settle Presbytery." This is the admission of Tindal, who says, "if they had followed the pattern set them in the year 1638, all the Clergy in a parity were to assume the government of the Church: but those being Episcopal, they did not think it safe to put the power of the Church in such hands. It was therefore pretended, that such of the Presbyterian ministers as had been turned out in the year 1662, ought to be considered as the only sound part of the Church. And of these there happened to be then threescore alive. The government of the Church was therefore lodged with them: and they were impowered to take to their assistance, and to a share in the Church government, such as they should think fit." He then alludes to some furious men who had been secretly ordained by the Presbyterians, and who "were presently taken in. This was like to prove a fatal error at their first setting out. The old men, who by reason of their age or their experience of former mistakes, were disposed to more moderate counsels; but the taking in of such a number of violent men, put it out of their power to pursue them." These men, he remarks, were full of rage against such of the Episcopal Clergy "as had escaped the rage of the former year. Accusations were raised; but these were only thrown out to defame them: and when they looked for proof, it was in a way more becoming Inquisitors than Judges: so apt are all parties in their hours of power, to fall into these very excesses of which they did formerly make such tragical complaints."[18] These are the admissions of a man who was favourable to their claims.
No Liturgy was used in Scotland between the Restoration and the Revolution, though Episcopacy was the government established by law; but each Clergyman conducted public worship according to his own method. One gentleman was, therefore, charged in this Assembly with having said, on an occasion when some person had expressed his fears of the English Liturgy, "God send us no worse." He told the Assembly that he was indeed sorry, if any such expression had dropped from him, "because he was sensible it was too mean for so great and so glorious a Church as that of England." Another Clergyman was charged with having circulated superstitious and erroneous books, among which were The Whole Duty of Man and Scougall's Catechism. At the opening of the Assembly, the Preacher drew a parallel between Presbytery and the cleansing of the Temple of the Buyers and Sellers: and at one of their sessions the presiding minister, after recognizing Christ as Supreme Head of the Church, added in his Prayer; "Thou knowest, O Lord, that when we own any other it is only for decency's sake." On another occasion, the minister who officiated, after praying for moderation, added, "O Lord, to be free it would be better to make a clean house." At some of their special meetings for Prayer, eight or ten individuals prayed in succession, which, coupled with their actions in removing so many exemplary Clergymen, led some persons to observe that they were practising what our Lord condemns in the Sixth Chapter of St. Matthew, and others, that they were imitating the Popish Masses.
This account of the Assembly is confirmed by the admissions of writers, who usually speak favourably of the Presbyterians. "The truth was, that the Presbyterians, by their violence, and other absurd practices, were rendering both odious and contemptible. They had formed a General Assembly at the end of the former year, in which they very much exposed themselves by the violence of their conduct. Little learning or prudence appeared among them: poor preaching, and wretched haranguing: partialities to one another, and violence and injustice to those who differed from them, appeared in all their meetings. And these so much sunk their reputation, that they were weaning the nation most effectually from all fondness to their government.[19]"
It is singular that in Scotland at this time, as was the case in England after the year 1640, the most iniquitous courses were pursued, by the Presbyterians, against the Clergy, under the garb of sanctity and purity.[20]
Besides citations and libels, the Assembly had also to consider the appeals of some of the Clergy, whom they wished to remove. At these they were exceedingly puzzled. "The Assembly was just so puzzled with the appeals of the Episcopal Clergy, as their ancestors the Pharisees were with the question about John's baptism: for on the one side, they feared the court, who desired and required them to be moderate: but on the other hand it was against their interest to condemn the proceedings of the Presbyteries."[21] One Clergyman was asked, whether he acknowledged the civil government, and whether he would submit to that of the Church? and on answering in the affirmative, he was asked " if he repented of his compliance with Episcopacy?" To this question, he replied, "if it was a sin, he would repent of it." The moderator observed, that he doubted on the subject: and the poor man was prohibited from preaching.[22]
In the year 1693, it was ordered, that, beside the Oath of Allegiance, the Clergy and all official persons, should sign an assurance, in which William and Mary were recognized as lawful and rightful Sovereigns, or King and Queen De Jure, as well as De Facto. To this assurance many of the Presbyterians had a most decided objection, viewing it as involving a question which they could not decide. Endeavours were not wanting, though at first without success, to procure a dispensation in favour of the Presbyterians. A despatch was made up for Scotland, ordering that the Assurance should be imposed in all cases; but Carstairs, who resided in the court, and was high in favour with the king, ventured to keep back this particular document. When Carstairs acquainted his Majesty with what he had done, the King manifested some degree of anger; but in a short time he yielded to the representations of the Scotchman, and the Assurance was dispensed with in favour of the Presbyterians. It appears that some even of the Presbyterians could not take the Oath of Allegiance to William, on the ground that the terms of the Oath to King James were so strong, that they could not transfer their allegiance to another family: consequently the Oath of Assurance was much more unpalatable. It has indeed been supposed, that the Presbyterians would have excited a rebellion, if Carstairs had not interposed.[23] Thus the Presbyterians were indulged in their scruples, while the Assurance was pressed upon the Episcopal Clergy, some of whom, however, complied, submitting to Presbytery as a legal establishment, and hoping to be permitted to exercise their ministry quietly.
But the compliance of any of the Episcopalians was exceedingly distasteful to the Presbyterians, who contended that the Clergy who submitted would only acknowledge the De Facto title, until they were in a capacity to raise a rebellion. Though some Presbyterians pleaded for the De Jure title, while others opposed it, yet the Episcopal Clergy were persecuted by both parties. Notwithstanding the fact that many Presbyterians were so averse to the Assurance, a writer of that party infers the disaffection of the Episcopal Clergy from "their behaviour now, seeing they universally refuse the Assurance, though many of them formerly had sworn allegiance, which is in plain English no other than a granting of the premises, and a denying the conclusion: or according to the example of a certain gentleman in England, granting the abdication, and denying the vacancy."[24] Hence, what was a crime in an Episcopalian, was deemed a virtue in a Presbyterian.
The Presbyterians were greatly annoyed with the submission of some of the Clergy to Presbytery, as the legal establishment, charging them with subscribing "The Confession of Faith as that of the nation, but not their own." The charge was perfectly true; and the Clergy were quite consistent in their course, which was also in accordance with the views of the Government, who only called upon them to submit to Presbytery, as the legal establishment. King William was therefore compelled to interpose to check the Presbyterians.[25] Had a disclaimer of Episcopacy been required, not one Episcopal Clergyman would have remained within the establishment. William wished to embrace all, while the Presbyterians were anxious to exclude all. "He disobliged the Presbyterians (the only party on whom he could rely in Scotland) to gratify," says the writer just quoted, "the Prelatists, in forbearing to punish those who had forfeited their lives by overturning the constitution of government in the late reigns: nay, and that which was more, advanced some of them to the highest places of power and trust, while he turned out Presbyterians who ventured all for him, and were steadfast to him. He disobliged the Presbyterians by ordering the General Assembly to admit the Episcopal Clergy on such terms as the Parliament have thought fit to refuse, and then by dissolving them for their declining it."[26] Thus is it avowed, that the Presbyterians would have had execution done upon persons, who merely administered the law in the two previous reigns: and King William is reproached for not executing their cruel demands. What then could the poor Clergy expect from such men! Had they been left to the tender mercies of their enemies, their case would have been sad indeed.
This author gives a list of the Clergy, who had been deprived up to the period of his writing. First, we have a considerable number deprived by the Committee of Estates, in the month of May, 1689, for not reading the Proclamation enjoined by the State: and this the author considers a crime of sufficient magnitude to justify deprivation. Secondly, he gives another list of Clergymen "turned out afterwards by the Council." These are numbered, and their alleged offences are specified. The perusal of it revives the recollection of White's Infamous Centurie in 1643, when the same custom of blackening the characters of the Clergy, in order to ejection, was adopted. The crimes alleged were not praying for the King and Queen by name: not reading the various Proclamations:[27] encouraging the disaffected: not obeying the Thanksgiving: having been appointed by the Bishops: leaving the Church when the papers were read by others. Such were the charges. If the Clergy did not appear, they were deprived on the ground of their own confession, their absence being regarded as an acknowledgment of guilt. Thus this unscrupulous writer, who gives an account of each individual, writes against the names of some who did not appear, "Absent, and holden as confest. Deprived"[28] This second list contains the names of one hundred and eighty-four Clergymen, besides the twenty names in the preceding list: and all of them were deprived in the summer of 1689. These acts were perpetrated at the commencement of the Revolution: and, as considerable numbers actually submitted to the Government, the Presbyterians themselves prove most incontestably, as I have already shewn, that their Church was set up, not because it was the best and purest system, or because the majority wished it; but because, on political grounds, it suited King William's interests. They cannot boast, therefore, that Presbytery was established for its own sake; but they must admit that William would have sanctioned Episcopacy in the Church, if the Bishops and Clergy could have sanctioned the change in the government of the State. Such was the origin of the Presbyterian establishment in 1689, though its advocates affect to believe, that it was owing to the express voice and wish of the nation. It originated only in what may be termed the accidental circumstance of the refusal, on the part of the Bishops and Clergy, to take the Oath of Allegiance to King William and Queen Mary.
De Foe laboured, in his day, to defend the Presbyterians in their crusades against the Episcopal Clergy: but his very admissions prove all the charges which he attempts to refute. "The first, respects the conduct of the people, when they took up arms in a tumultuous manner at the beginning of the Revolution. The next respects the judicial proceedings against the Episcopal party since." The people, he says, first attacked the Church, because the Church had been the aggressor previously: and he thinks that less violence was committed than could have been expected. But, says he, the utmost violence was no more than "an over hasty turning the said Episcopal ministers out of the Parsonage houses, which it was their opinion were unlawfully possessed." He cannot ascertain that any were killed! now surely on such principles any outrages or crimes may be justified. He even adduces the conduct of the rabble as "a great testimony of the moderation of the Presbyterians in Scotland."[29] The deprivations by the State he justifies as a matter of course: but he forgets that Presbytery was set up, merely because the Bishops and Clergy could not renounce their allegiance to King James.[30]
The Act of Comprehension, which must be regarded as the act of his Majesty and his advisers, and not that of the Presbyterians, except so far as it was sanctioned unwillingly by as many of that body as had seats in Parliament, is actually adduced as a specimen of Presbyterian moderation. By this Act, which was passed in July 1695, all Episcopal clergymen, who had not been deprived, neither had yet qualified themselves, were allowed until September in that year to come in and take the Oath of Allegiance, and to subscribe the Assurance.[31]
By the Comprehension, they were permitted to retain their benefices, though not to have any share in the government of the Church: but as the Oath and the Assurance were imposed as conditions, few only accepted of the terms. It is said by Presbyterians that they were dissuaded from compliance by certain noblemen.[32] Some, however, complied
afterwards. Thus Sir James Ogilvie mentions one hundred and sixteen in 1695, in his letter to Carstairs. In the same year, Mr. David Blair proposes to have an assembly to check the intemperance of the young ministers, Carstairs being afraid of calling one.[33] The clergy thus comprehended were called Protected ministers: and as they had no share in the government of the Church, it was also understood, that they should not be subjected to the Church judicatories. Yet the Presbyterians attempted to bring them under their Church courts. Thus the Lord Advocate, writing to Carstairs in 1699, mentions two cases in which clergymen had been charged with crimes, and cited before the Presbytery. He condemns the Presbyterians: and it appears, that their purpose was defeated. The Lord Advocate observes, "I wrote to the Presbytery, that, though it were not provided in the Act of Parliament, that the Protected should be exempted; yet the Parliament, on the other hand, did expressly wave the making them subject to Presbyteries, and other Church judicatories; but provided, that upon their application, the Church might assume them or not; and therefore it was by my advice, that the Presbytery should look upon them as persons without, and pass from the judgment and censure they had pronounced by letting it fall to the ground."[34] So that the Presbytery actually censured them; but the Government interposed to prevent the execution of the sentence. Such was the state of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland during the reign of King William.
On the accession of Queen Anne, the Clergy expected some relief: but for some time they were subjected to disappointment, in consequence of the active opposition of the Presbyterians, who never failed to represent them, if they scrupled the Oaths, as ready to enter into a rebellion, or, if they took the Oaths, as still disaffected to the Government. The Queen, however, in 1702, addressed a Letter to the Privy Council, in which she expressed her wish, that the Episcopal Clergy should be permitted the free exercise of public worship: for she knew well, that hostility to Episcopacy was the cause of the hatred entertained by the Presbyterians. The Episcopal Clergy, therefore, presented an address to her Majesty, in which, after expressing their satisfaction at having a Queen of their ancient race of Kings, they beseech her to give liberty to those parishes, whose inhabitants were chiefly Episcopalians, to select ministers of their own principles. The next year another address was presented, in which they mention the sufferings of the Clergy in 1688 and 1689, and subsequent years. The Queen returned them a very kind and gracious answer.[35]
The Convention Parliament, which had been convened at the commencement of the Revolution, and by whom the crown had been conferred on William and Mary, had continued ever since: for the Presbyterians were afraid to hazard their establishment by a new election. As that Parliament had set up Presbytery, the party were anxious to continue it, lest a new one should favour Episcopacy. This circumstance affords a singular proof, that the country in general did not, as the act of 1690 declared, view Episcopacy as a grievance. A new Parliament was now, therefore, summoned; and an Act of Toleration was proposed, at which the Presbyterians became greatly alarmed. In an address to the Lord High Commissioner, the General Assembly say, "they are bold in the Lord, and in the name of the Church of God to attest his Grace, and the most honourable estates, that no such motion of any legal Toleration, to those of the prelatical principles might be entertained by the Parliament." To tolerate "those of that way" said these meek and humble ministers of the Gospel, "would be to establish iniquity by a law:" and so artfully did the Kirk manage matters, that the act for a Toleration was dropped for this
Session.[36] The time was not fully arrived, and the friends of the Clergy permitted the Bill to be laid aside. The bare proposal filled the Presbyterians with alarm. "They published several books against it, and were the aggressors in the paper war that then commenced upon that subject. Mr. George Meldrum, a chief man amongst them, and moderator of their General Assembly, preached his sermon against Toleration before her Majesty's High Commissioner."[37]
Meldrum had been an Episcopalian; but in consequence of some offence he joined the Presbyterians in 1687, and now wished to persecute his old friends. Sage's Work, consisting of several Letters, originated in Meldrum's Sermon. In the close of his Preface he says: "I cannot think but that all good men, and true sons of the Church of England, are sensibly affected with the calamities of their sister Church of Scotland; and it must move their pity to see her in the dust, for no other reason, but because she is Episcopal, and consequently Apostolical."
The intolerable tyranny exercised at this time, by the Presbyterians in Scotland, may be illustrated by the case of Mr. James Grame. This gentleman was a complying Episcopal clergyman at Dumfermline. Not only did he comply, but he was even a defender of the Revolution: yet because he believed Episcopacy to be of Apostolic institution, he was persecuted by the Presbyterians.
Mr. Grame was summoned to appear before the Provincial Synod of Fyfe, in the year 1701: when it was alleged that he had reflected on the covenant, and that he had asserted that Christ died for all men. For these alleged crimes, he was actually deposed from the ministry by the Presbyterian Church court. This is only one, among many, of the tyrannical acts of the party at the period now under review.[38]
Though the proposed toleration was not carried, and the state of the Episcopal Clergy was not much improved, yet they had the satisfaction of knowing, that the Queen wished to relieve them from the tyranny of the Presbyterians. The Union of England and Scotland took place, according to the Act, on the 1st of May, 1707: but the Episcopal Clergy were not affected by that important measure, which was carried as a matter of policy, though some of the Presbyterians represented it as an apostacy. The opponents to that measure considered, that they were pledged, by the covenant, to urge perpetual war against Prelacy: whereas, the union would connect them with a country, whose Church was Episcopal, and which they feared might swallow up their own beloved Presbytery. Those Presbyterians who consented were regarded, by their more zealous brethren, as Apostates from the faith of their fathers, as Erastians, or as persons indifferent alike to all forms and all systems. Many preached against it, and others prayed against it: still the measure was carried.[39] The first Parliament of Great Britain was opened on the 23rd of October, 1707.
At this period the Episcopalians were in no way diminished in numbers, though official posts could only be filled by Presbyterians; and they had nothing to hold out to proselytes, except a prospect of persecution by the Kirk. Previous to the Union, and during the progress of the proceedings which led to it, some of the adherents of the Pretender were engaged in a scheme for an invasion. Ker, a Presbyterian, who was acquainted with many of the Jacobites, was employed by the Government as a spy. This gentleman has left us various notices of the Episcopalians in The Memoirs of His Life, which were published in 1726. His evidence on the subject may be depended upon, because, as a Presbyterian, he was necessarily opposed to Episcopacy. He states the Episcopal party to have been then "near one half of the nation."[40] So little were the Presbyterians indebted, either to their numbers, or their principles, for the ascendancy of their system.
But many of the Presbyterians, like some of the English Whigs at the same period, were secret favourers of the Pretender's claims, though, only a few years before, they had denounced the Episcopal Clergy because they could not take the Oaths. Especially was this the case subsequent to the Union: so that, in consequence of their dislike to that measure, they were even ready to restore the son of James II. This is a singular circumstance: but abundant evidence of the fact is furnished by Ker, by Hooke, and by Lockhart. They agreed to support the Pretender on condition, that he never consented to the Union, and that he supported the Protestant religion. Could they have set the Pretender on the throne, on these conditions, they would have done so, in consequence of their hostility to the Union.[41]
The Union occupied the Presbyterians so completely at this period, that their attention was for a time drawn off from the Episcopal Clergy: but when the feeling, which that measure created, had subsided, they did not overlook a body of men, whose principles they so much disliked.[42] A case occurred in the year 1709, which excited all their ancient hatred, and which may be regarded as one of the grossest instances of intolerance recorded in the annals of bigotry. Mr. Greenshields, whose father had been rabbled out of his Church at the Revolution, was ordained by one of the Scottish Prelates: and after serving a curacy in Ireland, he ventured to return to Scotland. Having opened a meeting house in Edinburgh, he commenced the use of the English Liturgy, which had not yet been adopted in the Episcopal congregations.
By the Act of Comprehension, the Episcopal Clergy were protected and exempt from the Church courts, provided they took the Oaths and the Assurance. Greenshields had complied according to law, and also prayed for her Majesty: consequently, the Presbyterian Church courts had no authority in such a case, since he was specially exempted from their jurisdiction.[43]
De Foe published his History of the Union, while Greenshields's case was before the public. Had he waited until the decision of the House of Lords had been awarded, it is not unlikely, that he would have expressed himself in terms somewhat different. His conduct, however, in this matter, proves him to have been dishonest and unprincipled as a writer of history, whatever may have been the case with him in other matters. While the cause was pending, this unscrupulous writer insinuated, that the matter was devised by the Nonjurors, to bring "the people to prosecute and attack them." He says, that the Government and magistrates were so lenient, that they would not persecute the Nonjurors, though they even prayed for the Pretender, and that, therefore, another expedient was devised, "which they are assured the Scots will not bear: and this was erecting the Common Prayer or English Liturgy in Scotland." He proceeds: "the people that made this attempt, behoved to get somebody to do it: that, however Jacobite he might be in principle, was yet Latitudinarian enough in conscience, that he could swallow all the Oaths. The design being concerted, they found a tool: a poor curate of 15 lib. a year in Ireland, but born in Scotland, comes over to Edinburgh to mend his commons: and having taken the Oaths, he falls in with this party, who finding him a person of prostituted morals, a large stock in the face, and ready, if well paid, to do their work, they promise him fourscore pounds a year, and accordingly begin a subscription for it." He asserts, that the plea that it was used to accommodate the English strangers was not true. "The people," says he, "as every body knew they would, immediately took fire at the thing, but not doing him the honour to rabble him, which seemed to be what his party expected, they complained to the magistrates."[44]
The case was taken up by some of Greenshields's friends, or rather the friends of the Church in London, who, in the Preface to the published account, express a hope, that it may issue in putting the Scottish Episcopalians in possession of those blessings, which were enjoyed by all the rest of the nation. In that account it was stated that they only wished for liberty to worship God in that way which their consciences dictated.[45]
From this account, and also from De Foe, we learn, that the General Assembly interposed. Some of the people of Edinburgh petitioned the Commission of the Assembly on the subject, in which they stated, that the English service "was very grievous and offensive" to them, and would prove "of dangerous consequence to the Church if not speedily remedied." Like the Presbyterians of a former age, the Petitioners pretend, that the Clergy, who preached in the Meeting Houses, were not only "unsound in their judgments; but scandalous and immoral in their lives and practices." The Commission of Assembly soon passed an Act, in which it was alleged, that the Union was infringed by the use of "set forms, rites, and ceremonies:" and that such innovations were dangerous to their Church, and contrary to their confession, which declares, "that nothing is to be admitted in the worship of God, but what is prescribed in the Holy Scriptures." Yet how many things are practised in Presbyterian worship, which are not prescribed in the Sacred Volume. They then prohibited all such innovations! They were of course at liberty to prescribe anything in their own Churches; but it is difficult to understand how they could exercise jurisdiction over those, who did not belong to their Communion. The case was, therefore, referred to the Kirk judicatories. Thus a law was made, and then Greenshields was brought under its operation.
In consequence of this Act of Assembly, the Kirk Session presented Greenshields to the Presbytery, by whom he was examined respecting his orders; for it seems that, having the case of England before their eyes, they were anxious to avoid the question of the Liturgy: or rather wished to punish him on other grounds. They therefore deposed him from the exercise of the ministry: and on his refusal to recognize their authority, they requested the magistrates to execute their sentence. At the call of the Presbytery, the magistrates, as he did not cease to officiate, committed him to the Tolbooth, in which prison he was lying when the case was published in London. Some few years before, the Presbyterians wrote and preached in favour of liberty of conscience, but now it was denied to a man who used the English Liturgy. He had taken the Oaths to her Majesty: and yet he was punished.
During the same year a Reply to the case of Greenshields was published in London, in which it was attempted to justify the Presbytery in their proceedings. Like De Foe, the writer pretends that the individual was not imprisoned for reading the Liturgy: but for exercising his ministry without authority. He would not however have been disturbed but for the Liturgy. The author deprecates the depriving of the Church of Scotland of the power to call any preachers to account, whether Episcopalians or Presbyterians: adding, that this power was once possessed and ought to be continued. To prove the moderation of Presbytery, he subjoins a list of Episcopal Clergymen, who, at that time, occupied Churches and Manses. This privilege, however, was granted by the Parliament, not by the Scottish Church, which used all its exertions to prevent any such indulgence. "To show how little cause the Episcopal party in Scotland have to complain of the Presbyterians there for want of moderation, 'tis thought fit to add the following list, wherein those marked N. J. are Nonjurors, who don't pray for the Queen." There are one hundred and twelve names in the list, of which ten only are marked as Nonjurors. Then it is added, "besides a great many others, that preach in meeting houses, where some pray for the Pretender: others, who do not refuse to pray for the Queen: and some pray only for their Sovereign, without naming any body, but mean the Pretender."[46]
No one doubts that many Episcopal Clergymen retained their benefices: but no merit can be pleaded for the Scottish Church on this ground, since the permission was granted by the State, against her wishes. This writer, therefore, unwittingly adds his testimony to the fact, that Presbytery was not set up because the majority wished it, but as an act of political expediency.[47]
So inveterate was the hatred of the Presbyterians to the English Liturgy, that they would not allow its use, in the case of English regiments stationed in Scotland. Mr. Chamberlayne, writing to Carstairs, himself an advocate for the use of the Liturgy, where-ever it was wished, remarks: "The inclosed account of the great severity of your Church against chaplains of English regiments, for reading the Liturgy to their own people only, is so like the Inquisition, that it must needs raise an indignation in the minds of all good Christians." An English officer, writing from Edinburgh, says: "Though our chaplain was here, yet he was not suffered to preach: which is what we were never denied in the most rigid Roman Catholic countries."[48] Carstairs was a man of too much sense and moderation to fall in with the rigid Presbyterians. These cases disprove the assertion, in the pamphlet against Greenshields, that he was not imprisoned for reading the Liturgy. Alluding to the violence of some of the Presbyterians, the writer of the Life of Carstairs says, "he felt this in a variety of instances, during the course of those prosecutions which were carried on by his more rigid brethren, in different corners of Scotland, against some of the Episcopal Clergy, who, by virtue of the powers entrusted with Presbyteries, were, upon the most frivolous pretexts, turned out of their livings. But he felt it most of all in the case of Greenshields. Having in vain attempted to dissuade his brethren and the civil magistrate from so impolitic a step as that of stating themselves in downright opposition to the Church of England, at the bar of the House of Peers, he ventured to prognosticate that their severity in that instance would only open a door for other encroachments." He adds: "Accordingly it is well known that it was the proceedings in the affair of Greenshields which laid the foundation, as it afforded the fairest pretext for the Act of Toleration, and the Act restoring patronages, which in the circumstances of the country at that time were considered as preludes to the restoration of prelacy and the Pretender."[49]
Yet De Foe laboured to prove that the refusal to permit the English Liturgy to be used was not an act of persecution. The House of Lords had not given their decision, at the period of his writing: or perhaps, as a professed advocate of liberty of conscience, he might not have adopted such an unreasonable course. He asserted that the attempt to introduce the Liturgy was "a political design to carry on a party interest among us in England, and embroil, if possible, the people of Scotland with the Government." Then he says: "After all, the Church of England have no reason to take it ill that the Scots do not make use of the Common Prayer, any more than the Scots have to take it ill, that the Church of England do not make use of the Presbyterian discipline." And again: "if any have reason, therefore, to take ill any thing from the other, the Church of Scotland has the first offence given her, by this attempt of invading her uniformity."[50]
It appears difficult to comprehend the author's views of Toleration: for while he pleaded for the most perfect liberty of worship in England, he opposed the use of the Liturgy in Scotland. His disingenuousness, not to say dishonesty, is obvious in the preceding extracts. It was never attempted to force the Liturgy upon the Church of Scotland. All that was required was the liberty to use the Book of Common Prayer in Episcopal congregations. His parallel between the Liturgy and the Presbyterian discipline is unsustained: for any congregations, in England, separating from the Church, were at liberty to adopt the Presbyterian discipline, or any form which might suit their inclinations. The Episcopalians only required the same liberty in Scotland, without wishing to interfere with the national establishment: but this reasonable request was denied by the Presbyterians.
The matter was viewed very differently in the House of Lords. Writing to Wake, then Bishop of Lincoln, Bishop Nicolson says: "We believe that the Presbyterian Discipline, and Confession of Faith, are there established by law: and that the treaty of Union hath confirmed both those: but we know of no Act of Uniformity which ratifies their peculiar way of worship. If the extemporary prayers of the Presbyterians are current on this side of the Tweed, why should not the Episcopal set forms be likewise received on the other." He then alludes to the objection, that it would inflame the Scots, and asks: "And what if it should? We, who live nearest them, have no astonishing apprehensions of the consequences of any heats that can happen on such an occasion. It would look somewhat oddly, that a moderator of a Northern Presbytery should have the liberty of worshipping God in his own way at Lincoln or Carlisle, and that you and I should be debarred the like indulgence at Edinburgh or Glasgow."[51] The subject was noticed by Swift in the Examiner. "It is somewhat extraordinary," says he, "to see our Whigs and Fanatics keep such a stir about the sacred Act of Toleration, while their brethren will not allow a connivance in so near a neighbourhood: especially if what the gentleman insists on in his letter be true, that nine parts in ten of the nobility and gentry, and two in three of the commons are Episcopal: of which one argument he offereth is the present choice of their representatives in both Houses, though opposed to the utmost by the preachings, threatenings, and anathemas of the Kirk. If these be the principles of the High-Kirk, God preserve at least the southern parts from their tyranny." Greenshields was liberated by the decision of the House.
Greenshields's persecution was the fore-runner of that toleration, which at last became established in Scotland as in England. It led the friends of the Clergy to see that they were not safe under the Act of Comprehension. Though they were protected and exempted from the Church Courts, yet the Presbyteries were constantly claiming authority, and anxious to execute it. The case of Greenshields, therefore, brought the matter to an issue: for the English Parliament perceived, that the Clergy in Scotland were still at the mercy of the Presbyterians. Two measures were accordingly proposed in Parliament, the one an Act of Toleration: the other an Act for restoring Patronage to those who had formerly enjoyed it. Both measures were triumphantly carried through Parliament: though both were vehemently opposed by the Presbyterians. They could not tolerate the Liturgy. The Kirk therefore presented a petition against the measure, in which they deprecated the evils that would ensue. By the Toleration Act the Episcopal Clergy, who took the Oaths were permitted to use the English Liturgy without molestation. In the House of Commons the minority against the Bill only amounted to seventeen.[52] It was specially enacted that no pain or forfeiture should be incurred "by reason of any excommunication by the Church Judicatory in Scotland." Thus were the Presbyterians deprived of that tyrannical power, which, notwithstanding Acts of Parliament, they had frequently exercised.[53] The Bill, though in favour of the Book of Common Prayer, was opposed by Burnet. It was carried in 1712.
From this period until the year 1716, the Episcopalians enjoyed the liberty of public worship. The toleration also removed the odium, under which the Scottish Kirk had been placed: and the Act for restoring patronage to the men of property, gave them an interest in the established Church, which they did not previously feel. Though, therefore, both measures were opposed by the Presbyterians, yet both tended to advance the interests of the Kirk.[54] Still many mourned over the loss of that spiritual tyranny which they had formerly exercised. Another Act was passed, which provided for the discontinuance of the sittings of the Courts of Law at Christmas, as in England: and this also gave great offence to the Presbyterians. The benefits of the changes have been abundantly reaped by the Church of Scotland: but the rigid Presbyterians conceived that their Church was shorn of its chief glory–the power to persecute others. Accordingly one of her Advocates, alluding to the three Acts, thus closes his very partial and onesided history. Speaking of what he calls the "Church's Grievances," he says: "The Acts are particularly,
1. The Act for restoring Patronages.
2. The Act for Tolerating Episcopal Ministers.
3. The Act for the Yule Vacancy: that is, for keeping Christmas.
"If these three are obtained, the Church will then be restored to her full lustre and authority, and it's hoped will never more have any occasion to complain of being oppressed."[55] So these Acts, reasonable as they were, and beneficial as they have proved to be, were viewed as acts of oppression towards the Church of Scotland. Even De Foe, acute as he was in most matters, was in this totally blinded by his strong prejudices.
The author of the Life of Carstairs, writing in the year 1774, was fully sensible of the advantages which had accrued from the proceedings of this period. "The experience of sixty years has at last evinced, what it was impossible for human sagacity then to discover, that the Act of Toleration and the Act restoring Patronages, which were considered by the friends of the Church of Scotland as fatal to her interests, and which were probably intended as the preludes to greater changes, have proved the source of her greatest security. Upon the one hand, the Act of Toleration, by taking the weapon of offence out of the hands of the Presbyterians, removed the chief ground of those resentments which the friends of Prelacy entertained against them, and, in a few years, almost annihilated Episcopacy in Scotland. Upon the other hand, the Act restoring Patronages, by restoring the nobility and gentlemen of property to their wonted influence in the settlement of the Clergy, reconciled numbers of them to the established Church, who had conceived the most viozlent prejudices against that mode of election, and against the Presbyterian Clergy, who were settled upon it. It is likewise an incontestable fact, that from the date of these two Acts, the Church of Scotland has enjoyed a state of tranquillity to which she was an utter stranger before.[56]
An unfavourable picture of the Episcopal Clergy is given to Archbishop Wake, in 1710, by Nicolson, Bishop of Carlisle, who states, that the greatest number of the Episcopalians were under the Bishop of Edinburgh, "who is entirely in the interest of the Pretender;" that he would not permit his Clergy to pray for the Queen, so that the prayers, when they were used, "were mangled and curtailed." He affirms that these men were as great enemies to Greenshields, as the Assembly itself, adding, "they dread the ruin of their own party upon the prevalency of our Common Prayer." According to Nicolson, there were one hundred and thirteen Episcopal Clergymen in possession of parishes, whereof eleven only were Nonjurors. He mentions also the singular circumstance, that the number of the old covenanted Presbyterians was four times as great, "who, (though they never pray for the Queen, nor have ever taken the Oath of Allegiance to her) are overlooked, and winked at, by the General Assembly."[57] Bishop Nicolson, residing on the borders of Scotland, appears to have taken considerable interest in the affairs of the Episcopalians in that country, though it must be admitted that his judgment of their proceedings was unjust. It can scarcely be conceived, that any of the Clergy were enemies to Greenshields, on account of the English Liturgy.[58]
After the Toleration Act in 1712, the English Liturgy was extensively used by the Episcopalians in Scotland. The Church, says a writer, who well knew the circumstances, "was put in a much better condition than at any time since the Revolution: Meeting Houses were set up in several towns and villages, where both pastors and people manifested the greatest forwardness for embracing the English Liturgy, and it was brought into several parish Churches. Prayer Books were sent from England to supply the wants of the people. All this was in a great measure owing to the generous charity of many pious and well disposed persons of all ranks, of the Church of England, particularly of the famous University of Oxford, at whose charges and charitable contributions, without any brief to further it, above nineteen thousand Common Prayer Books, and other devotional edifying books relating to it, were remitted from London in the space of two years."[59] The Presbyterians were annoyed and perplexed: they called the Prayer Book the English mass: they designated it idolatrous and superstitious, alleging even that the Scottish Episcopacy was tolerable in comparison, because there was no Liturgy: but still they could not prevent its introduction.
The Clergy were quiet and peaceable. "They have it for a principle not to disturb the peace of the kingdom they belong to:" and "though some of them could not comply with all the tests required by the Government, yet there cannot one instance be given of any Clergyman's being prosecuted for tumultuous, seditious, and treasonable speeches and practices."[60] However the Presbyterians were anxious to commence a persecution against the Episcopal Clergy under the plea of sedition and treason: though Episcopacy and the Liturgy were the causes. Those who refused to take the Oaths were subjected to certain penalties; but still, by the Act of Toleration, no person was permitted to interrupt their worship; nor were the Presbyteries permitted to interfere. The Queen and her Government well knew that the Nonjurors were peaceable men: and therefore the Oaths were not exacted from them, though they were required by the Act. This was a wise policy, and well would it have been if the same course had been pursued from the beginning. But this state of things was soon changed. The Queen died in 1714: the Whigs were restored to office: the laws against Papists and Nonjurors were ordered to be enforced: and the most lamentable consequences ensued. Had Queen Anne's pacific course been followed, the Rebellion of 1715 might not have taken place.
The Rebellion, however, was made the pretence for putting the laws in force against those who, though they had not taken the Oaths required by the Toleration Act, were yet living quietly and peaceably, without any wish to disturb the Government. The Liturgy, as we have seen, was generally used: and against this form of sound words the ire of the Presbyterians was now stirred up. Wherever the Government troops came, the Episcopal congregations were broken up and dispersed. At Aberdeen, the Liturgy had been used more than four years: but the congregations were scattered. An English gentleman, well affected to the Government, assembled some of the people; but he was not permitted to read the Liturgy, though protected by the Act of Toleration. All the Chapels and houses where the Liturgy had been used were immediately closed: the Clergy were shamefully used: and the people were prevented from assembling for public worship. Nor did the Presbyterians rest content with closing the Chapels; but even the Clergy, who had retained their Churches according to law, were imprisoned only because they were Episcopalians. For several years, therefore, the Clergy were subjected to persecutions of various kinds.[61]
The Episcopal Clergy of Aberdeen indeed rendered themselves obnoxious by addressing the Pretender: but no other address was presented from any of the Clergy. They commence: "We, your Majesty's most faithful and dutiful subjects, &c." The citizens of Aberdeen also copied the example of the Clergy.[62] After the Rebellion was crushed, many of the prisoners were confined at Carlisle. The Bishop was, as he states, frequently importuned by the friends of some of the unhappy men. Writing to Wake, he says: "Among the rest the Bishop of Edinburgh warmly recommends to my counsel, direction, and favour a son of his, who is one of our guests. He gives broad hints that his child suffers for righteousness sake." Nicolson remarks, that he had told the Bishop, whom he calls "A mischievous Prelate," that he would no more interfere in behalf of his son, than he would for his own in similar circumstances. The son of another Bishop was also implicated. Archbishop Wake procured a memorial in his favour: and the Bishop of Carlisle was anxious for his safety, as well as for that of the son of the Bishop of Edinburgh, remarking that both "were as duly trained up to revolt against King George by their respective parents, as ever Moss-trooper's children were bred to stealing." He wished to save them on the ground of their education, throwing the blame upon their parents. The judges, he says, were directed to be indulgent to sons, who were led by their fathers: "which I think brings them as fairly within this rule as if the two prelates had galloped before them into the battle."[63]
The crimes alleged against the Clergy were "Praying for the Pretender, keeping fasts and thanksgivings, and not praying for King George in express terms."[64] These charges were never proved; hut in any case the Presbyteries had no jurisdiction in such matters. The fact, that they were permitted to tyrannize, shews the miserable state of things at this time in Scotland. The Clergy pleaded "that they are not at all subject to the jurisdiction of any of the Presbyterian judicatures: not being of their communion." In proof of this they refer to the Toleration Act.[65] The charge of keeping fasts and thanksgivings rested on nothing more than the fact, that some of the Clergy observed the particular days appointed by the Church, on which occasions they preached against the errors of Rome, without any allusion to the Pretender.[66] On such grounds did the Presbyterians interfere: though they had no jurisdiction. It is argued in the Appeal, "'Tis against all reason that they should be subject to their jurisdiction, either as to their practice or opinion, doctrine or discipline, worship or sacraments. For their being permitted, tolerated, and protected, would be of no manner of use to them in that case. It is easy to imagine, if the Presbyterians were judges, what doctrine they would deem erroneous, what devotion they would look upon as superstitious, what worship they would censure as idolatrous, and what ordination they would esteem unlawful. For the appellants stand already condemned in all these matters by the acts of general assemblies. And are those to be the appellants' judges." They proceed: "They need not seek a repeal of the Toleration Act in Scotland, which is so grievous to them: if they may put what glosses they please upon it: if they can censure, depose, and incapacitate those who are entitled to the benefit thereof."[67] The appellants argued that offences against the State were only cognizable by the State. This point was settled by the law: yet, in persecuting the Episcopal Clergy, the Presbyterians were permitted to violate the principles of law and of equity. Thus it is clear, not only that the Act securing Episcopal Clergymen in their benefices was violated, under the pretence of treason, after the Rebellion; but also that the benefit of the Toleration Act was not for a long period extended to Episcopalians in Scotland, who were not permitted to use the Liturgy in private.
In 1719 an Act was passed "For making more effectual the laws appointing the Oaths:" but as several years had elapsed since the Rebellion, there was some relaxation in the persecutions, to which the Clergy had been subjected. By this Act an Episcopal Minister, performing divine service without taking the Oaths, was subjected to imprisonment; but the Government had grown wiser, and it was not rigorously enforced: so that from a few years after this period until 1746 the Episcopal Church enjoyed much prosperity.[68]
But we must now turn to the divisions, which began to exist soon after this period among the Clergy themselves respecting the usages. We have seen, that the Scottish Bishops were divided in opinion, when Collier and Spinkes consulted them on the subject; but no decision was given on the question which had so agitated the Anglican Nonjurors. And though the section, adhering to Collier and Brett, adopted the New Communion Office; yet no such measure seems to have been contemplated for some years in Scotland. On the contrary, it is a well established fact, that the English Liturgy, in all its parts, was generally used in Scotland, without any hesitation, for several years subsequent to the disputes in England. For some time the Clergy had to contend with the Presbyterians, in favour of the English Liturgy.[69] The old slander was revived, that the Prayer Book was the Mass Book in English: and one fanatical Preacher ventured to assert that the devils, who had previously been chained up, had broke loose since the introduction of the English Service Book.[70] The Citizen of Aberdeen, however, after a general defence of the Liturgy against the cavils of the Presbyterians, admits his preference for the First Communion Office: from which we may infer, that he and others, who used the English Book, were inclined to the Usages, though they did not deem them matters of so much importance, as to break the unity of the Church in consequence. Skinner says, that the Scottish Office was not introduced at first on account of the scarcity of the Book of 1637, and the impossibility of procuring a reprint. He argues, therefore, that necessity led to the use of the English Form: but that, though introduced, yet the Clergy were not pledged to its adoption in all particulars, being at liberty to adopt any authorized form, or any one sanctioned by the Bishops.[71] For some time the matter was allowed to sleep: but, after the death of the older Bishops, the question was revived. In the year 1712, the Earl of Winton reprinted the Scottish Liturgy of 1637: yet it was used only in his own chapel at Tranent, and even then against the remonstrances of the Bishop of Edinburgh.[72] As long as Bishop Rose survived, the use of the English Service alone was encouraged. He died in 1720: and then the disputes were revived. In 1723 a sort of defence of the Scottish Communion Office was published. This service was nearly similar, in the points respecting the Usages, to the First Communion Office of King Edward. The author enters into some particulars respecting its history: from which it appears, that, after the reprint by the Earl of Win ton, the Bishop, at length, consented to its use in his Lordship's Chapel. The various points of difference between it and the English Office are pointed out: and the writer claims for it a nearer affinity to the Ancient Liturgies and the primitive practice.[73]
The differences of opinion among the Bishops were considerable. Lockhart, writing to the Pretender in 1722, alludes to the divisions among the English Nonjurors, and calls the breach a "prejudice and discredit to the whole party." "Of those," says he, "who sett up for alterations, two of our Scots Bishops, Campbell and Gatherer, made a considerable figure at London, where they have resided many years; and Falconer favoured them in Scotland. There have been several meetings of the Bishops, and all but Falconer and Gatherer are against all alterations or innovations. They think what is desired not so essential, as to be laid in the balance with the misconstructions their enemies will put upon them." He states, that the Bishops opposed to the Usages wished to know the opinion of the Pretender's trustees, who advised him on Scottish and English affairs. He also mentions that he attended a meeting, at which both parties endeavoured to justify themselves by the practice of the Fathers and the primitive ages. Lockhart recommended an agreement among themselves: stating, that he was instructed by the Pretender to give them that advice, and that they should not move until his pleasure were known. Falconer, it seems, yielded to the other Bishops; but, says Lockhart, Gadderer advanced his "usages, as he termed them, in the Northern Countries," against the advice of the Bishops and the Prince's trustees. It seems, from Lockhart's Letter of May 21, 1723, that the Bishops even thought of suspending Gadderer. He adds, that their enemies alleged, that the
Episcopal Clergy were advancing towards Rome, and that the Pretender's cause was thereby prejudiced. Other divisions also are mentioned by Lockhart. Archibald Campbell being elected Bishop of Aberdeen, the Bishops would not confirm him in his post, unless he pledged himself not to introduce the Usages. He, however, chose to consider himself as duly appointed, and sent Gadderer with a commission to act in his name.[74] At length Gadderer submitted, perceiving that the Bishops were determined to act. He defended the practices: but the Bishops viewed them as matters of indifference, which were not to be introduced, especially as they supplied their enemies with arguments to their prejudice.[75]
Thus the Scottish Clergy were as much divided in opinion respecting the Usages as the English. In the year 1728 a sensible Tract was published against their introduction. The author contends, that they are not of sufficient importance to justify the warmth of their advocates. He alludes to the unanimity which prevailed before the agitation of this question: and then enters upon an examination of the various points, which, though brief, is very comprehensive. He goes over the same ground as Campbell; but he concludes, that the Reformers acted wisely in rejecting the Usages.[76]
In consequence of the disputes, the Bishops assembled and agreed, that the use of the Scottish Office should be permitted to those who wished it: and they expressed their hope, that as the two offices were substantially the same, all disturbance might be prevented.[77] The calm, however, did not long continue; for the communion became broken into parties respecting the Usages and the appointment of Bishops. In 1731 a concordate was arranged, by which they agreed, "That we shall only make use of the Scottish or English Liturgies in the public divine service, nor shall we disturb the peace of the Church, by introducing into the public worship any of the ancient usages, concerning which there has been lately a difference amongst us, and that we shall censure any of our Clergy that shall act otherwise." They agreed also, that no one should be appointed a Bishop but with the consent of the majority of the other Bishops: that on the demise of a Bishop, the Presbyters should not elect another without a mandate from the Primus, acting with the consent of his brethren: and that the Primus, whose duty it should be to assemble and preside over the meetings of the Clergy, should be chosen by a majority. By the ancient Usages, they meant Immersion in Baptism, Chrism in Confirmation, and Anointing the Sick, with some other practices, which were not retained in the Scottish Book. In general by the Usages were understood the four practices, which have been so frequently noticed: but these were retained in the Scottish Office, which by this concordate was allowed. In this agreement, therefore, the additional ceremonies are comprehended in the term usages. Thus by the Concordate both offices were placed upon the same footing.[78] Both were to be used at the option of the Clergy: but neither party was to introduce usages not contained in and enjoined by these offices. It seems, however, that some of the Clergy violated the compact, which led to the publication of Bishop Smith's Letter in 1744, in defence of the English Office.
It appears, that the Pretender was usually consulted in the appointment of the Scottish Bishops, of which various instances are related by Lockhart. Some contended, that the election by the Clergy was sufficient: while others argued, that the consent of the King, meaning the Son of James II. and the college of Bishops was necessary. This dispute continued several years: and Lockhart designates those who opposed the college, as factious Bishops, because they paid no respect to the King and their brethren.[79] We find, that on some occasions, the Pretender named the persons; but of course they had been previously suggested to him by his friends in Scotland. They looked forward to his restoration: and though they took no steps to effect it, they still wished to keep up the succession, in what was deemed the regular way.[80] In 1726 the Pretender addressed a letter to the College of Bishops, in which, alluding to the infirmities of the Bishop of Edinburgh, he says, "I have found it necessary, by this letter, to desire and direct, that Bishop Cant, and failing of him by decease, or his being rendered incapable by infirmities, that Bishop Duncan should reside at Edinburgh and preside amongst you, and take care of the affairs of the Church in my capital of Scotland, and diocese thereof, until I be able to determine myself in the choice of a person duly qualified and agreeable to my people, to be settled in a post of such consequence."[81] In another letter the Prince recommends Gillan for consecration: and in another he says: "When there shall be any vacancies in the College of Bishops, or when you shall think proper that others be added to your number, you give into my Trustees a list of such persons as you may think every way qualified for discharging the office of a Bishop in the Church, which my Trustees are to send to me, with their opinion upon it, that thereby I may be the better enabled to give the proper and necessary directions in that respect. And further, it is my will and pleasure, that no Bishop amongst you shall be appointed to have the care and inspection of any particular district, without my previous authority, and that when you think an appointment necessary, that you give me your opinion in writing to my Trustees, to be transmitted to me as above."[82]
Apart from the divisions amongst the Bishops and Clergy, the Nonjuring Church of Scotland was in a flourishing condition for several years previous to the troubles of 1745, and 1746.[83] It is remarked by Bishop Russell, that "the Scottish Bishops for twenty years after being umpires became parties," in the disputes concerning the usages.[84] Campbell resigned his post in Scotland in consequence of these practices, and resided in London. His work on "The Middle State," is written on principles involved in the usages.[85] We have seen, too, that other divisions existed respecting the appointment of Bishops. Still the Church was in a flourishing state when the Rebellion broke out. The Nonjurors, however, were not the only party from whose ranks the supporters of the Rebellion were drawn. Many who had taken the Oaths were also implicated: and many Presbyterians, as well as Nonjurors, enrolled themselves under the Pretender's standard.[86] Skinner observes, that whether their Church "was blameable or not, she was soon involved in the dismal consequences of it." Meeting-houses were burnt down by the soldiers in the villages; and in the towns they were shut up or demolished. The Clergy were obliged to live in concealment, being suspected. The laws were suspended for three months, and a military government established. An Act also was passed, by which every Episcopal Clergyman, exercising his functions without taking the Oaths, was subjected to imprisonment for the first offence, and for the second, to transportation. Every assemblage of five persons was deemed by the Act an Episcopal Meeting.[87] Hitherto the laity had escaped: but in 1746 all persons frequenting such illegal meetings were commanded to give information, under a penalty of fine and imprisonment. In 1748, the Act was revised, when it was enacted, that none but English or Irish Letters of Orders should be deemed sufficient to qualify any minister for the exercise of his Office in Scotland. The injustice of this clause was so obvious, that it was opposed by all the English Bishops. Still it was carried. The Clergy could not perform divine service in any place except their own houses. For a time, therefore, the Clergy could only act in the most private manner; but at length the Government began to relax in their vigilance, knowing that the Episcopalians were quiet and peaceable, though they did not take the Oaths. The Bishops, however, took care to continue the succession, appointing others as vacancies occurred.[88]
Such was the state of things until the accession of George III. in 1760. From this time the Church of Scotland began to revive, a prospect of better days appearing. Ever since 1746 the members had only met privately: but now they ventured to make an attempt for an extension of privileges.[89] In 1765
the Communion Office was revised, the differences on the usages having long since ceased. The work was undertaken by the Bishops, and brought into its present state. From this period, it has been the practice to use the English Liturgy, with the exception of the Communion Office. As the Scottish Episcopalians generally preferred the Office of King Edward's First Book, or that of the Book of 1637, they framed their service after the model contained in these two Books, rather than after that which is adopted by the Church of England. In all other respects the uniformity between the two Churches is complete. Some persons have charged the Scottish Office with Popery: but better judges than any of those, who have, within the last few years, deserted the Communion of the Church of Scotland, have pronounced it a truly sound and primitive Form. Bishop Horsley in 1806, a man whom no one can charge with Popery, writes thus respecting the Scottish Office: "with respect to the comparative merits of the two offices for England and Scotland, I have no scruple in declaring to you, that I think the Scotch Office more conformable to the primitive models, and in my private judgment more edifying than that which we now use: insomuch, that were I at liberty to follow my own private judgment, I would myself use the Scotch Office in preference. The alterations which were made in the communion service, as it stood in the first Book of Edward VI. to humour the Calvinists, were, in my opinion, much for the worse: nevertheless, I think our present office is very good."[90] This testimony is more than sufficient to counterbalance the assertions of certain persons in the present day, who have scarcely examined the subject, or, if they do examine it, are incompetent, from the strong influence of prejudice, to form a correct opinion.[91]
But though, after the accession of George III. their condition was improved, no legislative interference was yet brought to bear upon their case. The laws still remained in force. But in 1784 the Episcopal Clergy in America applied to the Scottish Prelates to consecrate one of their number a Bishop. Dr. Seabury, the Clergyman selected by the American Church, had applied to the Anglican Bishops; but, in consequence of a difficulty respecting the Oaths, he was advised to seek consecration in Scotland. The Scottish Bishops, anxious to proceed in such a manner as not to offend the Government, consulted Archbishop Moore, who assured them, that the act would really be appreciated in England. Accordingly the consecration took place: and the Scottish Bishops were the instruments of preserving Episcopacy in the United States.[92]
Four years later, in 1788, Charles Edward Stuart, the Pretender, the grandson of James II. died without issue. This, as it related to the Scottish Church, was an important event, since it removed the only obstacle to the full recognition of the English Sovereign. On the 24th of April, the Bishops met at Aberdeen, and, with the concurrence of the Clergy, resolved to submit to the Government as vested in the person of George III. On the 18th day of May, the Clergy, in all their congregations, gave public notice, that on the following Sunday, the name of King George would be introduced in the Public Liturgy.[93]
The following notice was agreed upon by the Scottish Bishops, and published in the Chapels.
Intimation to the Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Church in Scotland.
"The Protestant Bishops in Scotland, having met at Aberdeen, on the 24th of April, 1788, to take into their serious consideration the state of the Church under their inspection, did, upon mature deliberation with their Clergy, unanimously agree to comply with and submit to the present Government of this kingdom as vested in the person of his Majesty King George III. They also resolve to testify this compliance, by uniformly praying for him by name in their public worship, in hopes of removing all suspicion of disaffection, and of obtaining relief from those penal laws, under which this Church has so long suffered. At the same time, they think it their duty to declare, that this resolution proceeds from principles purely Ecclesiastical: and that they are moved to it by the justest and most satisfying reasons, in discharge of that high trust devolved upon them in their Episcopal character: and to promote, as far as they can, the peace and prosperity of that portion of the Christian Church committed to their charge.
"For obtaining of this desirable end, they therefore appoint their Clergy to make public notification to their congregations upon the 18th day of May next, that upon the following Lord's day, nominal Prayers for the King are to be authoritatively introduced, and afterwards to continue in the religious assemblies of this Episcopal Church: and they beg leave to recommend, as to their Clergy, whose obedience they expect, so likewise to all good Christian people, under their Episcopal care, and do earnestly intreat and exhort them, in the bowels of Jesus Christ, that they will all cordially receive this determination of their Spiritual Fathers."
This Document was subscribed by
- Robert Kilgour, Bishop and Primus.
- John Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen.
- Andrew Macfarlane, Bishop of Ross and Moray.
- William Abernethy Drummond, Bishop of Edinburgh.
- John Strachan, Bishop of Brechin.[94]
At this time, therefore, the Church of Scotland ceased to be a Nonjuring Church. It is a remarkable circumstance, that the Pretender should have died just one hundred years after the Revolution; and that the Nonjuring schism should have lasted just a century.[95]
My narrative might here be closed, since the Scottish Bishops and Clergy were no longer Nonjurors: but as several years elapsed before they were put in possession of the rights and privileges of all other British subjects, I shall subjoin a few notices of this primitive Church, until the penal enactments were removed by legislative interposition. At this time they were not molested in their worship, because the Government would not permit any such violation of the principles of justice: but still the penal laws of 1746 and 1748 remained unrepealed.
The determination of the Bishops was approved and commended by his Majesty, King George III.: and a communication to that effect was made by one of the Secretaries of State. The King expressed his satisfaction at the proof of their attachment, which they had given. The Bishops were also assured, that the penal statutes would be repealed. In 1789, three of the Bishops proceeded to London, just at the time of the King's recovery from a severe illness. A Bill for their relief was brought into the Commons, and passed without any opposition. Mr. Dundas, afterwards Lord Mellville, though a Presbyterian, bore his most unqualified testimony in favour of the Scottish Episcopalians: stating, that as they had submitted to poverty and distress for one hundred years, from a conscientious, though mistaken,
adherence to what they conceived to be their duty, they would now, since they could transfer their allegiance to the Sovereign, become some of the most faithful subjects of his Majesty. In the Lords, however, the Bill was opposed by Thurlow, the Lord Chancellor.
As the chief men among the Presbyterians were friendly to the measure, it seemed strange, that it should meet with opposition from English Churchmen.[96] An account of the whole proceedings was left in MS. by Bishop Skinner, which was afterwards published by his son in the Annals of Scottish Episcopacy. The Bishops, in an address to the Archbishop of Canterbury, stated, that the penal laws were only intended to repress the political disaffection ascribed to the Clergy and lay-members of the Episcopal Church, and they only asked to be placed on the same footing, as to toleration, with English Dissenters. They expressed their approval of the English Liturgy: and added, that, though they used generally the Scottish Office, the Clergy had a discretionary power to adopt either, and that some actually did use the English Form. The Archbishop, Horsley, Bishop of St. David's, and indeed most of the Anglican Prelates, maintained a friendly intercourse with their Scottish brethren, during their stay in London. A case was drawn up, in which the penal laws were enumerated, and the compliance with the acts in praying for the King and Royal Family was specified.[97] The Bishops also addressed Thurlow, having been apprised of his dislike of the measure before Parliament. In a second letter to his Lordship, they confess the political scruples, which had so long prevented them from testifying their allegiance to the Government; but they add, that as soon as the cause of their disaffection was removed, they recognized his Majesty's authority. Thurlow had alluded to the Oath of Abjuration, which, as being retrospective, they admitted they could not take, without involving themselves in perjury, since no person could take it, who had ever recognized the rights which it disclaimed. In July, the Bishops returned to Scotland; Thurlow's opposition was successful: and the bill was lost.[98]
The next year, Lord Gardenston, one of the Scotch judges, and a Presbyterian, addressed Lord Thurlow on the subject. "Though bred a Presbyterian," he says, "I have ever revered the order and decency of the Episcopal Church. In doctrine they are soundly protestant. Their principles in regard to Government are now reformed, and not less loyal than ours." This was unsolicited and unsuspected testimony; still it was deemed desirable to delay the prosecution of the measure for the present. In the mean time the Case of the Episcopal Clergy was reprinted and circulated. The subject was again submitted to Parliament in 1791, when Thurlow said, that he should not oppose the principle, but that he wished to make some observations on the Bill. He unhesitatingly, however, condemned the Statutes of Queen Anne and George II. as unnecessarily severe, though he was still anxious for some restrictions. The Bishop of St. David's spoke strongly in favour of the measure: and in reply to Thurlow's notion, that Clergy of English Ordination might meet the case, he expressed himself in language, which some persons in the present day would do well to consider. "The credit of Episcopacy will never be advanced by the scheme of supplying the Episcopalian congregations in Scotland with Pastors of our ordination: and for this reason, that it would be an imperfect crippled Episcopacy that would be thus upheld in Scotland. When a Clergyman ordained by one of us settles as a pastor of a congregation in Scotland, he is out of the reach of our authority. We have no authority there: we can have no authority there: the legislature can give us no authority there. The attempt to introduce any thing of an authorized Political Episcopacy in Scotland would be a direct infringement of the Union. As to the notion, that Clergymen should be originally ordained by us to the ministry in Scotland, the thing would be contrary to all rule and order. No Bishop, who knows what he does, ordains without a title, and a title must be a nomination to something in the diocese of the Bishop that ordains. An appointment to an Episcopal congregation in Scotland is no more a title to me, or any Bishop of the Irish Bench, than an appointment to a Church in Mesopotamia."[99]
Lord Thurlow was content, with subscription to the xxxix Articles, on the part of the Scottish Clergy, as a test of their principles. This was agreed to on the part of the Bishops: and a Bill for the relief of the Scottish Episcopalians received the Royal assent on the 15th of June, 1792. This Bill repealed the clauses of the Acts of Queen Anne, George I. and George II. by which any penalties were imposed. It then provides, that the Clergy should take the usual Oaths, subscribe a declaration of assent to the xxxix Articles, and pray for the King and Royal Family, as directed in the Liturgy of the Church of England. By the same Bill, however, it was enacted, that no clergyman should be permitted to officiate in England, except he had been ordained by some Bishop of the Church of England or Ireland.[100] This restriction is now removed, and any Scottish Clergyman is permitted to officiate in England, under a License from the Archbishops or Bishops in their respective dioceses. In 1804 it was agreed that the xxxix Articles should be adopted as the standard of the religious principles of the Church of Scotland: so that, from this time all candidates for Holy Orders were required to make the same subscription as in England.[101] All the right-minded clergymen of English ordination, who had been officiating in Scotland, gave in their adhesion to the Scottish Bishops. The plea of necessity no longer existed: and they were glad to give evidence of the soundness of their principles as Churchmen. Some clergymen there were, who, like the present schismatics in Scotland, continued in a state of separation: but their refusal arose, not from the love, but from the dislike of Episcopacy, since they could scarcely be deemed Episcopalians, when they were under no subjection to Bishops. The use of a portion of the Liturgy does not constitute a man or congregation Episcopalian: otherwise the Wesleyan methodists and Lady Huntingdon's party are such. Horsley expressed his opinion pointedly and strongly to a gentleman, who published a pamphlet in favour of the separation, which he sent to the Bishop: and his remarks are applicable to the state of things in some parts of Scotland at present. The Bishop says, "It has long been my opinion, and very well known, I believe, to be my opinion, that the laity in Scotland of the Episcopal persuasion, if they understand the genuine principles of Episcopacy which they profess, ought, in the present state of things, to resort to the ministry of their indigenous pastors. And the clergymen, of English or of Irish Ordination, exercising their functions in Scotland without uniting with the Scottish Bishops, are, in my judgment, doing nothing better than keeping alive a schism."[102]
Little more remains for me to add on the subject of the Scottish Church. During a long time the Church of Scotland had no Liturgy, for that of 1637 was never generally adopted. Nor was the English service introduced, until the reign of Queen Anne: and even then its use was left to the discretion of the Clergy. The disputes respecting the usages have been detailed, as well as the particulars relative to the English and Scottish Offices for the Holy Communion. For many years, the Office framed after the model of King Edward's First Book of Common Prayer, and the Book of 1637, was used indifferently with the Anglican Form: but occasionally objections were raised against the former, by persons in England. This was especially the case during the debates in Parliament, respecting the removal of the penal laws. The objection, however, was most unreasonable. "The Episcopal Church in Scotland having adopted the same articles of religion with the united Church of England and Ireland, one would have thought, that even the suspicion of a difference, in the principles of the two Churches, would have been for ever laid to sleep. But, no! the Scottish Communion Office is adduced as an instance of a difference even now subsisting."[103] The writer challenges any one to produce a passage which does not accord with the standard of faith in the purest ages. "Here is nothing introduced without unexceptionable warrant: nothing of late beginning: here is no application to saints or angels: no worshipping of images: no praying of the dead out of purgatory: here is no adoration of the consecrated elements, nothing that supposed a corporal presence, either by way of Transubstantiation, Consubstantiation, or of Infusion! In short, here is nothing set down as contended for, or as practised, but what is strictly scriptural and strictly Primitive."[104] The Church of Scotland, though agreeing in principles and doctrines with the Anglican Church, was at perfect liberty, according to our xxxivth Article, to deviate from us in rites and ceremonies, without being exposed to the charge of dissenting from us in principle.
In other respects, the Scottish Clergy adhered for a long time to the English Liturgy, except in some slight rubrical injunctions; but even this variation was found to be inconvenient, since different Clergymen adopted a different practice. The evil was forcibly pointed out by Bishop Gleig in a letter to Bishop Skinner in 1816. "As every man in my diocese," says he, "varied the form according to his own judgment and caprice, I found that I could not officiate for some of my own Clergy, without either shewing the people that he and I think differently of our forms of prayer, or taking a lesson from him how to read before going in the morning into the chapel."[105] The year after this letter was written, the Scottish Bishops and Clergy met in Synod, when they drew up a body of Canons for the regulation of their Church. In one of them the Scottish Communion Office is considered as the authorized service: but permission is granted to use the Anglican Form in all congregations where it had previously been adopted. By another Canon it was decided, that no alterations or insertions should be permitted in the Daily Service, and that a strict adherence to the English Liturgy should be enforced upon all the Clergy. This decision was made known to the Archbishops and Bishops of the united Church of England and Ireland.[106] At the present time, therefore, the Articles, and the Liturgy of the Church of England, with the exception of the Communion Office, are adopted in Scotland: so that no difference exists between the two Churches.
It must then be a source of deep regret to all, who are anxious to promote the unity of the Church of Christ, that some persons in Scotland and England should endeavour to introduce discord, in consequence of the simple fact, that the Scottish Communion Office agrees rather with the First Book of King Edward, than with the Form now used in the Anglican Church. That these individuals can desire the peace and prosperity of the Church we cannot by any means believe: since their conduct contradicts any professions which they may make. Disturbers of the peace of the Church will always be found within her communion: and it would be strange if the Church of Scotland should escape. These gentlemen certainly do not agree with the excellent Bishop Home, who thought so well of the Church of Scotland and her primitive Episcopacy, that he expressed it as his opinion, that were the great Apostle of the Gentiles on Earth, he would probably unite himself to the Scottish Episcopalians, in preference to any other body, and "as most like to the people he had been used to."[107] To me it appears very evident, that the persons, whether in Scotland or in England, who are against a union with the Scottish Church, are either profoundly ignorant of the principles of Episcopacy, or in reality hostile to Episcopal government in the Church. Supposing the latter alternative to be correct, it would be far more consistent to unite with the Presbyterian Establishment in Scotland.
It is utterly impossible for a man, who really maintains the doctrine and discipline of the Church of England, to act as those gentlemen have done who have withdrawn from their allegiance to the Scottish Bishops. They are quite as much seceders from the Church of England, as if they had set up separate congregations in this country. The pretence of being subject to English Bishops is paltry and evasive, because no English Prelate can exercise any jurisdiction in Scotland, while no man can be an Episcopalian, whatever may be his profession, who is not subject in his ministrations to some Bishop. "No maxim," says Bishop Sandford, "is more undisputed among Episcopalians, than this, that without connexion 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."[108] 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."[109] 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 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.[110] It would be far more consistent to acknowledge themselves to be separatists, or even to become Presbyterians, since their principle of acting for themselves, without regard to a Bishop, is Presbyterian rather than Episcopal.
It should be mentioned, that the introduction of English Clergymen into Scotland, to act independently of the Scottish Bishops, arose from a state of things, which does not now exist. There were necessarily some English Episcopalians in that country: some also who held official posts: and they thought, that they could not safely or consistently attend the ministrations of the Nonjuring Clergy. To meet their case, certain Clergymen were sent from England. But as the cause no longer exists for such an irregularity, the practice ought to cease. Such Clergymen in Scotland, as refuse to submit to the Bishops, are in reality the same as the Preachers among the Independents in England, some of whom adopt the English Liturgy.
The reader will perceive, that a great many events are crowded together in this chapter. It could not be otherwise, as a sketch of the Scottish Church was necessary to complete my plan; and a larger space could not be devoted to the subject. I hope, however, that the sketch, brief as it is, will be found to embrace all the particulars connected with the Scottish Episcopalians as Nonjurors: and I trust, that the perusal of it may not be without instruction. Unless
I am greatly mistaken, I have proved, that many circumstances combined together to favour the setting up of Presbytery at the Revolution, and that the vote of the Convention, that Episcopacy was contrary to the inclinations of the people, was directly the reverse of the truth. It has been seen, that the Convention, which consisted of a small number of Presbyterians, the Episcopal party having either refused to act, or been driven away by the mob, was continued many years, the ruling party being fearful of trusting to another election. Even as late as the year 1701, a Challenge was put forth by Bishop Sage in the following words. "If the objection be the inclinations of the people, and that they will not have it otherwise, the Episcopal party, there, desire that this may be put to the test, by letting the immediate sense of the nation be known in a free election of their representatives in Parliament, which they have not had since this revolution. And though many and pressing instances have been made for a free election in that country, as has been granted to England, yet can it not be obtained. The Presbyterian party have interest to render all these attempts ineffectual. Well knowing, at least fearing, that a free Parliament there would shew the inclinations of the people to be far otherwise than they have represented them."[111] Whatever was the cause, the fact is indisputable, that the Convention Parliament was continued for many years: nor can there be much room to doubt, that their fears of the people prevented the Presbyterian rulers from resorting to a new election.
- ↑ This letter was, I believe, first printed in 1746 in "A Collection of Letters concerning the Separation of the Church of England into two Communions." It was also printed by Bishop Keith in 1755. Keith's Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, by Russell, p. 65—72.
- ↑ Keith's Historical Catalogue. App. 494, 5. This is admitted by Laing, who quotes Keith and Burnet as his authorities. His words are remarkable: "William, indifferent to forms of worship if toleration were established, would have concurred in preserving Episcopacy, if the Episcopal party had contributed to his support." vol. iv. 214. Tindal also makes the same admission. "The Prince answered, he would do all he could to preserve them, granting a full toleration to the Presbyterians. But this was, in case they concurred in the new settlement of the Kingdom." He adds, that the Bishops and others "declaring in a body with so much zeal, in opposition to the new settlement, it was not possible for King William to preserve Episcopacy there." Vol. i. 72, 73.
- ↑ Laing's History of Scotland, iv. 194. It seems, that a rumour was designedly circulated that some Irish Papists had landed, as a signal to the rabble to attack the Clergy, who were treated with the greatest violence. Somers Tracts, xv. 133—136.
- ↑ Dalrymple's Memoirs, i. 418. It was truly remarked by the author of the Life of Kettlewell: "Episcopacy was abolished, and Presbytery established upon the inclinations of the people, though not a third part at that time were Presbyterian, and some say not a fourth." Life, 124.
- ↑ Dalrymple, i, 551.
- ↑ Carstairs's Life, &c. pp. 36—44. Birch admits, that "the true reason of the destruction of Episcopacy there, after the Revolution, is to be attributed to the conduct of the Bishops themselves, both previous and subsequent to it." He adds, that it was not possible for King William to preserve Episcopacy. Birch's Life of Tillotson, 308, 309.
- ↑ Carstairs, 44—50. Hallam, iii. 442, 443.
- ↑ Tindal says the Bishop of Edinburgh, and that "he prayed for the safety and restoration of King James." vol. i. 64.
- ↑ History of the Late Revolution in Scotland, London, 1690. pp. 92 100. There was much management required to mould the Convention into a proper state. It is remarkable, that in 1687, when King James published his Declaration of Indulgence, very few of the gentry took advantage of it to forsake their parish Churches. For several years, in the North of Scotland, after the Revolution, the people refused to admit the Presbyterian Ministers, and set the General Assembly at defiance. Yet the Convention voted that Episcopacy was contrary to the inclinations of the people. The truth is, the Episcopalians refused to sit in the Convention, or, after attending once, declined to attend further: while some were driven away by the mob, which was with the Presbyterians. When the vote, therefore, was carried, not more than a third of the members were present: consequently, the Presbyterians were able to carry any vote they pleased. Even Tindal, partial as he generally is, gives an honest account of this matter. "But the Bishops, and those who adhered to them having left the Convention, the Presbyterians had a majority of voices to carry every thing as they pleased, how unreasonable soever, and upon this the abolishing of Episcopacy was made a necessary article of the New Settlement." vol. i. 72.
- ↑ Laing's History, iv. 211.
- ↑ Ibid. iv. 214.
- ↑ Ibid. iv. 233.
- ↑ A Late Letter concerning the Sufferings of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland. 4to. London 1691, p. 20. Tindal's admissions are fully confirmatory of this account. He admits that Lord Melvill deemed it his interest to secure the Presbyterians, "which he found no method so effectual to do as by abandoning- the ministers of the Episcopal persuasion to their fury." To accomplish his object Melvill set up the Earl of Crawford to act as the head of his party, who "received and encouraged all the complaints that were made against the Episcopal ministers." The Convention had ordered a proclamation to be read in the churches, which did not reach the Clergy till the Sunday morning, and in some cases not till the next day: yet, "complaints were brought to the Council of all those, who had not read nor obeyed the proclamation; and they were in a summary way deprived. Those who did not read the proclamation on the day appointed had no favour, though they did it afterwards: and upon any word that fell from them, either in their extemporary prayers or sermons, that shewed disaffection to the Government, they were also deprived." Vol. i. 105.
- ↑ The Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, as it hath been lately established in the Kingdom of Scotland, Examined and Disproved, by the History, Records, and Public Transactions of our Nation. Together with a Preface: wherein the Vindicator of the Kirk is freely put in mind of his habitual infirmities. 8vo. London, 1695. Preface. Two works by this Author cannot be too highly praised. The Principles of the Cyprianic Age, with regard to Episcopal Power and Jurisdiction: asserted and recommended from the genuine Writings of St. Cyprian himself, and his Contemporaries. By which it is made evident that the Vindicator of the Kirk of Scotland is obliged, by his own concessions, to acknowledge that he and his associates are Schismaticks. In a Letter to a Friend. By J. S. 4to. London, 1695. A Vindication of a Discourse, entitled the Principles, &c. Being a Reply to Gilbert Rule's Cyprianic Bishop Examined and found not to be a Diocesan, &c. 4to. London, 1701.
- ↑ Case of the Episcopal Clergy, p. 11 .
- ↑ An Historical Relation of the late Presbyterian General Assembly held at Edinburgh from Oct. 16 to Nov. 13, in the year 1690, in a Letter from a Person in Edinburgh to his Friend in London. London, 1691. P. i.
- ↑ An Historical Relation, &c. p. 9.
- ↑ Tindal, i. 124.
- ↑ Tindal, i. 182.
- ↑ Historical Relation, &c. pp. 11, 12, 18, 23, 35, 36. "To annoyances incessant, and almost inconceivable, was added the moral martyrdom of calumnies the most gross, that the people might believe the Clergy to be as their enemies designed them, Scandalous Ministers." Bishop Walker's Charge, &c. 8vo. Edinburgh, 1833, p. 35.
- ↑ Ibid. 39.
- ↑ Ibid. 42, 43.
- ↑ Carstairs, 52—63. Russell's Keith, 497, 504. Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, ii. 376, 377. There was apparently some truth in the following- sarcastic remark: "Carstairs, a Super-Presbyterian, that is, a Cameronian Preacher, attends King William's person, both at home and abroad, like a jewel in his ear: we make a shew in the Chapel, but he exercises the office of Confessor in the Closet. His advice is taken in all the Spiritual promotions of our Church: and we feel the effects of it very sensibly." Querela Temporum, p. 16.
- ↑ The Scots Episcopal Innocence: or the Juggling of that Party with the late King, his present Majesty, the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland demonstrated. Together with a Catalogue of the Scots Episcopal Clergy, turned out for their Disloyalty, and other Enormities since the Revolution. And a Postscript, with Reflections on a late malicious Pamphlet, entitled The Spirit of Malice and Slander. Particularly addressed to Dr. Monroe, and his journeymen Mr. Simon Wild, Mr. Andrew Johnston, &c., near Thieving Lane, Westminster, by Will. Laik, London, 4to. 1694, p. 7.
- ↑ Birch's Life of Tillotson, 310, 311, 312. "This was a strain of moderation that the Presbyterians were not easily brought to. A subscription that owned Presbytery to be the only legal government of that Church, without owning any divine right in it, was far below their usual pretensions. And this act vested the King with an authority very like that which they used to condemn as Erastianism." Tindal, p. 246.
- ↑ Scots Episcopal Innocence, pp. 9, 10.
- ↑ It has been already proved that some of the Clergy never heard of the Proclamations, until the period fixed for reading them had elapsed. See "A Representation of the Church in North Britain, as to Episcopacy and Liturgy, and of the Sufferings of the orthodox and regular Clergy, from the enemies to both, 8vo. London, 1718." P. 16.
- ↑ It should be mentioned that the Churches, from which the Clergy had been expelled by the rabble, were declared vacant, "from the date of the rabbling." Representation, &c. p. 16. Somers' Tracts, xv. 133, 136. The causes to which the abolition of Episcopacy must be attributed, have been already stated: but it remains to be mentioned that many difficulties were experienced in planting Presbyterian ministers in many parishes, the people being Episcopalians. The Convention abolished patronage, or the difficulties would have been still greater, since almost all the gentry, to whom the advowsons belonged, would have refused to present Presbyterians. But the dominant parties were exceedingly inconsistent with their own principles: for finding that the people were opposed to them, they placed the calling of ministers in the hands of the Presbytery, and not in the parishes, though they had pretended a jure Divino for popular suffrage.
- ↑ Memoirs of the Church of Scotland, 8vo. London, p. 312, 313, 314. An Account of the Parliament of Scotland in 1703. 8vo. p. 77.
- ↑ No Scottish publisher could be induced to undertake the publication of Sage's Fundamental Charter of Presbytery, in consequence of the apprehension of persecution: and the work was actually printed in London in the year 1695. This circumstance proves that the Presbyterian authorities ruled with an iron hand in Scotland. They would have no discussions, even imitating on this, as on many other occasions, the conduct of the Church of Rome. Keith, 520.
- ↑ They were to continue in their benefices "under the King's protection without being subject to the power of Presbytery. This was carried with some address before the Presbyterians were aware of the consequences of it: for it was plainly that which they called Erastianism. By a zealous and dexterous management about seventy of the best of them were brought to take the Oaths." Tindal, i. 286. "It appears by this Act," says a Presbyterian, "that some of them had been about six years in possession of their benefices, without taking the Oaths to the King and Queen, though there were express laws for dispossessing such as refused the said Oaths: and about three hundred and fifteen were turned out in 1689 and 1690 by the Committee of Estates and the Privy Council, as may be seen by the Journals." Account of Parliament, 82. The outed Clergy, as they were termed, or the Nonjurors, were not permitted to baptize, or to solemnize marriages.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 88.
- ↑ Castairs, 263, 264. Laing, iv. 259.
- ↑ Carstairs, 495, 496. It may be remarked, that until this Act of Comprehension passed, the Clergy were constantly harassed by the Presbyterian Church courts. By the Act of 1695, therefore, their condition was bettered, inasmuch as they were protected from the Church courts, provided they took the Oaths. Some "embraced their peace on these conditions, and qualified themselves on terms of law." See Representation of Church, &c. p. 17.
- ↑ Life of Queen Anne, vol. i. 153, 181. Tindal, with his usual partiality asserts, that the address to the Queen was procured by indirect means; yet he does not give one particle of evidence in proof of his assertion. In fact, it was altogether false. Tindal, iv. 595. Many of the Clergy never complied so far as to take the Oaths, though they were not more attached to the exiled Prince, than some of those who took them. The latter complied with the existing Government, and intended to live quietly: but their inclinations were in favour of King James and his Son. A the Presbyterians found it very difficult to supply the churches, a considerable number of Episcopal clergymen were permitted to retain their benefices without taking the Oaths. Keith, by Russell, p. 502. See also Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, 54. I have a copy of this Address, printed on a single page, the reverse being blank. It is one of the original copies, which were printed for circulation among the friends of the Clergy. On this copy is the following memorandum in, I believe, the handwriting of Brett. "This address was presented by Dr. Skeen and Dr. Scott, who were introduced by ye D. of Queensbury and ye Viscount of Tarbat, March 1703."
- ↑ Life of Queen Anne, vol. i. 183, 185, 186. Account of the Parliament of 1703, pp. 38–42. Tindal, iv. 599.
- ↑ Sage's Reasonableness of a Toleration enquired into, purely on Church Principles. London, 8vo. 1705. Preface. This is a very learned and able work, as indeed are all the productions of Sage. See the Petition to the Parliament against the proposed Toleration in Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, p. 65. See also the Somers' Tracts for specimens of Presbyterian hostility to a Toleration, vol. xii. 490-1.
- ↑ The Famous Tryal of the late Reverend and Learned Mr. James Grame, Episcopal Minister of Dumfermline: formerly Professor of Humanity at St. Andrew's, before the several Courts of Church Judicature in Scotland; who was, amongst other things, arraigned by the Commissioners for the Kirk Session at Dumfermline, condemned, and at last deposed by the Provincial Synod of Fyfe, on the 20th of June, 1701, for having advanced and maintained two of the great and capital truths of the Christian religion, viz. 1. That Christ died for all those that profess the Gospel; 2. That he hath purchased pardon and salvation for them, upon condition that they believe in him and repent of their sins. Being a true and impartial narrative of the Presbyterian proceedings against Mr. Grame: together with his Defences at large. The whole writ by the defendant soon after he was deposed, and now first published for the information of such as are strangers to the doctrines and tenets of Presbyterians. London, 8vo. 1719.
- ↑ Somerville, 213. The rigid Presbyterians objected to receive laws from a Parliament where Bishops sat as members. They looked upon such a thing as contrary to the covenant. Ker's Memoirs, p. 29. One of the Preachers of the Cameronians stated publicly, that the Queen had forfeited her right to the crown, by imposing the union on the country. Ibid. p. 53.
- ↑ Ker's Memoirs, p. 16. At this time none of the Episcopal Clergy were legally tolerated except those who held Parish Churches under the Comprehension Act: but in consequence of the Queen's countenance and support, the worship of others in private houses was connived at. Keith, by Russell, 506.
- ↑ Ker's Memoirs, pp. 28-9. Hooke's Secret History of Negotiations in Scotland in 1707, pp. 11, 31, 43–47. Lockhart Papers, i. 302–308.
- ↑ The writer of the Life of Carstairs says of the Union, "The Union of the kingdoms, though attended with other happy consequences, gave a fatal blow to the importance of the Church of Scotland in the eye of Government: and the General Assembly was no longer formidable to administration, as it had been from the Revolution down to this period." Surely this was a happy result. Carstairs, 78.
- ↑ Lockhart Papers, i. 345–348, 520–528. In 1703, a riot took place at Glasgow in consequence of the English Service. Mr. Burges, who had taken the Oaths, attempted to conduct the Service according to the Liturgy, upon which the mob broke into the meeting, and, but for the interference of the magistrates, would have proceeded to acts of violence against the congregation. Somerville, 468. In two years, twenty thousand copies of the Book of Common Prayer were circulated in Scotland, notwithstanding the attempts of the Presbyterians to suppress it, as the English Mass. Somers' Tracts, xii. 490, 491.
- ↑ De Foe's History of the Union of Great Britain. Fol. Edinburgh, 1709. Preface, pp. xix. xx.
- ↑ The True State of the Case of the Reverend Mr. Greenshields, now Prisoner in the Tolbooth in Edinburgh, for reading the Common Prayer in an Episcopal congregation there: though qualified by taking the Oaths, and praying for the Queen and the Princess Sophia, with copies of several Original Papers relating to his accusation, defence, imprisonment and appeal to the Lords of the Session, and since to the House of Lords. London, 8vo. 1710.
- ↑ Remarks on a Pamphlet entitled A True State of the Case of the Revd. Mr. Greenshields, &c. The notorious Falsehoods contained in it laid open; and the Proceedings against him in Scotland vindicated. With the Answers of the Magistrates of Edinburgh to his Bill of Suspension, &c. And a List of the Episcopal Ministers, who enjoy Churches and benefices in Scotland, without being obliged to conformity. 4to. London. 1710.
- ↑ In some parts of Scotland the majority of the people avowed themselves Episcopalians, when the penal laws were removed, a circumstance quite in the teeth of the assertions so commonly made, that the population was altogether Presbyterian.
- ↑ The hostility to the Liturgy was quite as strong as in the days of Charles the First, when Janet Geddes threw the stool at the Dean of Edinburgh. There was still the same desire to dictate to, or to interfere with, England. "They pray publickly for the conversion of England from their superstition and idolatry, meaning our Episcopacy and Liturgy: and hope once more to send their covenant for a text to us. Would we had their zeal, or they our truth." Sage's Vindication. Preface.
- ↑ Carstairs, 79, 776, 782, 783.
- ↑ De Foe's History of the Union. Preface xxviii. xxix. xxx.
- ↑ Nicolson's Epistolary Correspondence, ii. 398, 399. Greenshields remained in prison until liberated by the decision of the House of Lords. Somerville, 469. Somerville remarks, "Though this sentence was agreeable to every principle of liberality and justice, yet it gave great offence to the Clergy and members of the establishment." Ibid. That the English Dissenters agreed with the Presbyterians is clear from their writers. They demanded a toleration for themselves: but denied it to others. Thus says one: "Three famous Incendiaries, Sacheverell in England, Higgins in Ireland, and Greenshields in Scotland, are punished only with preferments." Bennet's Memorial, 398.
- ↑ Somerville, 469, 470. Tindal, ii. 243.
- ↑ Life of Queen Anne, ii. 508–512. Swift's Four Last Years, &c. 226–230. Boyer's Life of Queen Anne, 543. There is great truth in the remark; "the severest penalties ever inflicted in a Protestant country met with most submission," from the Episcopal Clergy of Scotland. Keith, by Russell. Life, p. xxiii.
- ↑ Swift's Works, Scott's Ed. vol. v. 141.
- ↑ De Foe's Memoirs of the Church of Scotland. Appendix.
- ↑ Carstairs, 85.
- ↑ Ellis's Letters, First Series, i. 359.
- ↑ Archbishop Sharp formed a much more correct opinion on the sufferings of the Episcopal Clergy. When the Bishop of Edinburgh wrote to him on the subject, the Archbishop sent a letter directly to the Queen. He also "spoke earnestly to her Majesty about the Episcopal Clergy. He told her Majesty of the Judge Advocate's circular letter for shutting up all the Episcopal Meeting Houses; in which letter he said he had orders from the Queen, under her hand and seal, to do this. The Queen said it was not so." This was before Greenshields's case occurred: and for some time, the Clergy were permitted to enjoy a little peace. The Archbishop also induced the Queen to make a grant of money to several of the Scottish Bishops. Life of Archbishop Sharp, i. 393–398.
- ↑ Representation of the State of the Church in North Britain, p. 19.
- ↑ Representation, &c. 21. Russell's Keith, 507. Russell's History of Church in Scotland, ii. 390, 391.
- ↑ Representation of the State of the Church in North Britain, 25, 30.
- ↑ Life of Argyle, 237, 240.
- ↑ Ellis's Letters, First Series, iii. 367–8, 395–6.
- ↑ The Appeal of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland to the Lords in Parliament. Wherein the proceedings of the Presbyterian judicatures against Episcopal Ministers are proved to be contrary to the laws of the land, to express Acts of Parliament, to common Equity, and to former Precedents in the like Cases. 8vo. 1718. p. 29.
- ↑ The Appeal, &c. 38.
- ↑ Ibid. 104.
- ↑ Ibid. 45.
- ↑ Keith, by Russell, 509. In 1718 a collection was made in England for the suffering Clergy after an application attested by Campbell and Gadderer. In a note to the Case of the Church of Scotland, we have the following melancholy proof of Presbyterian violence. "There are at present about an hundred and twenty Priests of the Church of Scotland, whose melancholy circumstances cry loudly, and plead more powerfully than can be expressed by words: and since the suppression of the chapels and meeting houses for the Service of the Liturgy, and some other desolating emergencies, the number of individual sufferers is growing daily greater, and God only seeth the end thereof: whose blessed will be done." Somers' Tracts, xii. 492.
- ↑ See as a specimen: "An Apology for the Use of the English Liturgy and Worship against the Cavils and Exceptions of the Presbyterians in North Britain, &c. &c. By a Citizen of Aberdeen. 8vo. London 1718."
- ↑ Ibid. p. 1, 2.
- ↑ Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, ii. 627.
- ↑ A Defence of the Communion Office of the Church of England, proving that there is neither reason nor authority for laying it aside. In a Letter, to a Friend. Preface xix. This letter was written by George Smith, one of the Nonjuring Bishops in England who agreed with Spinkes: but it was published in Edinburgh in 1744, with a Preface by another hand. The Preface contains an account of the Scottish and English Liturgies.
- ↑ An Enquiry in the Decent and Beautiful Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper, for the Use of the Church of Scotland, and that conform to the Text of Sacred Scripture, and of Ancient and Modern Authors, in opposition to all Popish Superstitions. By a Gentleman of the Church of Scotland, 8vo. 1723.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 98–104.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 123–130.
- ↑ The Antiquated Usages, which have made so great a noise amongst us, briefly examined, and found insufficient to justify the zealous endeavours of some persons to introduce them. Together with a humble and affectionate Address to all the Episcopal Communion in Scotland, to demean themselves agreeably to the melancholy condition of this afflicted Church. By One who hath her peace and welfare much at heart. Edinburgh, printed in the year 1728.
- ↑ Skinner, ii. 633, 634. A Defence of the Communion Office, &c. Preface xx.
- ↑ Skinner, ii. 647. Defence of the Communion Office. Preface.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 35–42, 237, 238, 323–330, 333–336.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 77–81, 271, 272.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 289.
- ↑ Lockhart, ii. 310, 311. In a little time the Bishops were appointed by the Clergy and Bishops without consulting the Pretender. Thus in 1790, Skinner remarks that the charge of being recommended by the Pretender applied only to the Bishops of a distant period, and not to the present, who had no connexion with him relative to the obtaining or exercising their Episcopal functions. The practice of applying to the exiled family prevailed only during a few years. Skinner's Annals of Scottish Episcopacy, pp. 191, 192.
- ↑ Keith, 509–512.
- ↑ Keith, Preface, xxviii.
- ↑ Keith, 530, 531, 532.
- ↑ Skinner, ii. 662. I have already refuted the assertion that the people in 1688 were generally Presbyterians: but it may be added, that there were, in 1740, after all the sufferings to which they had been exposed, three hundred Episcopal Clergymen, in Scotland, with large and respectable congregations. This fact is cited by Bishop Walker, as a proof that the Episcopal Church could not have been so contrary to the inclinations of the people, as was represented. The Bishop remarks, that if Episcopal principles had not obtained a firm hold on the affections of the people, they could not have survived the restrictions imposed in 1716. Bishop Walker's Charge, pp. 36, 37.
- ↑ Skinner, ii. 663–665. It is a curious fact, that, notwithstanding the hostility of the Presbyterians to the English Liturgy, several editions of the Book of Common Prayer were printed at Edinburgh by the King's Printer. They must have been used by the Episcopal congregations: but it is remarkable that the Presbyterian authorities did not interpose. The books are scarce, yet I have no less than four copies, all different editions, printed between the years 1719 and 1761,–one by Watson, 1719, another by the same, 1720, one by Basket, 1727, and another by Watkins, 1761. They are small editions, and beautifully printed.
- ↑ Skinner, ii. 670, 671. The trials to which the Clergy were exposed are detailed with much minuteness in the Life of Skinner, the author of the Ecclesiastical History. "The writer of this memoir," says his biographer, "has often heard him tell, that on coming home one evening, from performing an occasional office in the way of his duty, he found his house in the possession of a military party: some of them guarding the door with fixed bayonets, and others searching the several apartments, even the bedchamber where Mrs. Skinner was lying in of her fifth child. No lenity was to be looked for from such unfeeling visitors, who pillaged the house of every thing they could carry with them, hardly leaving a change of linen to father, mother, or child in the family. The chapel with all the furniture was destroyed, and for several years the congregation could find no place to meet in for public worship but the Clergyman's house." Life of Skinner, p. ix. Prefixed to his Theological Works. He was subsequently imprisoned for officiating as a clergyman to more than four persons besides his own family. Life, xi. xii. Bishop Russell states, that many clergymen officiated sixteen times on the same Sunday, in order to keep within the terms of the law. Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, ii. 405. It seems that the Clergy went from house to house to visit their people and perform the service of the Church. Chambers's History of the Rebellion, 295, 298. Chambers also mentions instances of suffering. On one occasion a clergyman was obliged to baptize a child under a tree to avoid discovery, vol. ii. 339, 40. The circumstance is recorded in the Register of the Episcopal Chapel of Muthill in Perthshire. It is under the date of the 20th of March 1750. N. B. " With such excessive severity were the penal laws executed at this time, that Andrew Moir, having neglected to keep his appointment with me at my own house this morning, and following me to Lord Rollo's house of Duncrub, we could not take the child into a house, but I was obliged to go under the cover of the trees in one of Lord Rollo's parks to prevent our being discovered, and baptize the child there." Bishop Walker's Charge, &c. p. 38.
- ↑ Had the Oath of Abjuration been repealed on the accession of George III. no Jacobite would have existed. Keith, by Russell, 513.
- ↑ Skinner's Office for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, according to the Use of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. 8vo. Aberdeen. 1807, p. 157.
- ↑ The gracious intentions of his Majesty were not agreeable to some fanatical Clergymen of the English Church. Accordingly, in 1767, Norman Sieveright, an English clergyman, published a sort of Caution against the Scottish Church. This gentleman was located in Scotland, and appears to have acted on principles similar to those by which Sir William Dunbar and Mr. Drummond are at present influenced. He called himself the minister of an Episcopal congregation at Brechin: but Skinner asks, "What is an Episcopal congregation? The old notion, (whether right or wrong) was a congregation under a Bishop. If so, tell us, what Bishop your Brechin congregation is under: and who authorized this Episcopal congregation." Sieveright's attempt exposed him to the contempt of sensible men. Skinner's Life, xxi.–xxvii.
- ↑ Skinner's Ecc. Hist. ii. 683–687. Keith, 513–16.
- ↑ Skinner's History, ii. 688, 689. Every Clergyman complied except the Rev. James Brown, of Montrose. Skinner's Annals, 78.
- ↑ Gents. Mag lviii. 401.
- ↑ It seems that Brown afterwards formed a party, who complained of what the Bishops had done. Brown, moreover, made an attempt to continue the succession through himself. He went to Bishop Rose, then in a state of imbecility, and, it is said, caused him to perform the office of consecration. When the aged Prelate was questioned on the subject, he replied in the simplicity of childhood, "My sister may have done it, but not I." The disaffected were removed in a few years by death; and the disaffection ceased. Skinner's Annals, 83.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, pp. 94, 176.
- ↑ Ibid. pp. 95, 99, 109.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, pp. 114, 122.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, pp. 210, 211.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, pp. 220, 229.
- ↑ Ibid. pp. 349, 358,361.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, p. 391.
- ↑ The Office for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion, according to the use of the Church of Scotland, &c. By the Rev. John Skinner, A.M. 8vo. Aberdeen 1807.
- ↑ Skinner's Preface, p. 7.
- ↑ Skinner's Annals, p. 491.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 516, 517.
- ↑ Jones's Life of Bishop Home, p. 151.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ "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 Church of England, as the plea for their non-union with the Church of Scotland, not only, so far as they are concerned, annihilates Ecclesiastical government, but directly militates at the same time against the essence of Ecclesiastical unity." A Layman's account of his Faith and Practice, as a member of the Episcopal Church in Scotland, published with the approbation of the Bishops of that Church. 12mo. Edinburgh, p. 177.
- ↑ Sage's Vindication of a Discourse entitled the Principles of the Cyprianic Age, &c. 4to. London, 1701, preface.