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."[1]
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
- ↑ De Foe's History of the Union. Preface xxviii. xxix. xxx.
