General Assembly. Likewise as the bands of the Scottish Church were strong, and her beauty was bright, no error was so much as named, the people were not only sound in the faith, but innocently ignorant of unsound doctrine; no scandalous person could live, no scandal could be concerted in all Scotland; so strict a correspondence there was betwixt ministers and congregations. The General Assembly seemed to be a priest with Urim and Thummim, and there were not one hundred persons in all Scotland, to oppose their conclusions; all submitted, all learned, all prayed, most part were really godly, or at least counterfeited themselves Jews. Then was Scotland a heap of wheat, set about with lilies uniform, as a palace of silver beautifully proportioned, and this seems to me to have been Scotland's high noon.

On this, however, some modern Presbyterians venture to cast a doubt:

"Unless," says Dr. Lee, in his lectures, "I were to believe that the whole of the records of the Church courts that I have examined were fabrications, I must really look upon Kirkton's description, as being something very extravagant-I would almost say a romance.'

Audi alteram partem.

Another contemporary author, a careful observer of what was going on, and whose opinions, so far as they have any definite character at all, were favourable to the cause of the covenant, thus writes in the year 1651. 'Under heaven there was not greater falsehood, oppression, division, hatred, pride, malice and envy, than was at this time, and divers and sundry years before, ever since the subscribing of the covenant, every man seeking himself his own ends, even under a cloak of piety, which did cover much knavery.'"-Vol. III. p. 161.

No wonder that hypocrisy flourished under such a system, and no wonder that the people saw with satisfaction, an English soldier, Lieut.-Col. Cotterel, in 1653, dismiss without resistance the General Assembly, in much the like fashion that Cromwell dismissed the English Parliament.

"Only sixteen years had elapsed since the influence of a single foreign prelate in the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland was resented as an infringement of national independence, and held to be a sufficient justification of civil war. Now, without a blow being struck in its defence, almost without a word of remonstrance, at the bidding of an English soldier, the General Assembly, once so popular, was ignominiously suppressed. The great body of the Scottish nation beheld this event with satisfaction or with indifference many of the persons that were favourable to the existing ecclesiastical system disliked the ministers who ruled in its courts, and who set up a worse tyranny than they had ever complained of in the hierarchy."-Ib. p. 159.

1 Kirkton's Hist., p. 49, quoted by Grub, vol. iii. p. 160.
* Nicoll's Diary, p. 59.

We are not surprised to learn that the restoration of Charles II. was hailed as a deliverance. Scotland, even Presbyterian Scotland, loved her ancient line of kings. The Parliament, by rescinding all acts passed during the usurpation, sanctioned the restoration of the Church. Soon after the sees were all filled up. How far this was

actually a popular measure it is difficult now to ascertain with accuracy; of one thing we may feel pretty well assured, that in the country north of the Tay, where the Covenant never had been popular, the change was welcomed, while in Galloway and the west it was much disliked. There was, however, throughout the length and breadth of this land one body of men who were discontented, and who did not hesitate to make others so too-the Nonconformist ministers; of these it is supposed that there were three hundred and fifty, rather more than one third of the whole body of ministers. Thus, even amongst the ministers, the majority was not satisfied with Presbyterian discipline. Upon the whole the re-establishment of the Church was effected without difficulty; and had the king been content with a moderate supremacy, and not claimed such absolute power over the Church, the probabilities are that the number of Nonconformists would have been fewer still; it was upon this point, and that of keeping the 29th of May, that so many dissented.

During the reign of Charles II., from 1660 to 1685, the Church was gradually living down opposition; the rebellions in the west had been quelled, though not without unnecessary cruelty; but on the accession of James a great change took place; for the first time dissent from the established Church was sanctioned by authority.

"In February, 1687, a royal proclamation was issued, which set forth that his majesty, in virtue of his sovereign authority and absolute power, which all his subjects were bound to obey without reserve, gave permission to the moderate Presbyterians to meet at their private houses, and hear all such ministers as were willing to accept the indulgence thus offered; to the Quakers, to meet in any place appointed for their worship; the Roman Catholics, to celebrate their religious services in houses or chapels. But field conventicles, among Presbyterians, were prohibited as before. All the penal laws and political disabilities, imposed on Roman Catholics, were also suspended; and all laws and tests, by which any of the king's subjects were incapacitated from holding place or office, were dispensed with, an oath being appointed in lieu thereof, by which they were to swear that his majesty was the rightful king and supreme governor of his realms, and over all persons therein, and that it was unlawful for subjects, on any pretence whatever, to rise in arms against him."-Vol. III. 286. p.

Most of the Presbyterian ministers declined to take advantage of this indulgence, so another was issued which gave even fuller tole

ration this they accepted. The banished preachers returned and renewed their functions with only two exceptions; they further proceeded to thank the king for his indulgence. Had this toleration been sanctioned by Parliament instead of being the mere act of the royal prerogative, it would have been, Mr. Grub thinks, a great national blessing. We are by no means sure of this; we believe, on the contrary, that it would have been only the signal for new encroachments on the part of the Presbyterians. They held toleration, pur et simple, in abhorrence, as a betrayal of the cause of CHRIST, and they would only have now their toleration as a stepping-stone to gaining their former ascendancy. Had the two last kings allowed Scotland to be governed, in civil matters by the Parliament, and in ecclesiastical by Synods; had the Bishops been elected by the clergy, and free discussion allowed in the synods; we believe the Church of Scotland, as well as that of England, would have stood the shock of the revolution of 1688. As it was the Bishops to a man, and many of the clergy, considered themselves bound by their oath to support the person of James VII. and his direct heirs; the Church was made to stand or fall on the event of the success or failure of one man. That setting up of the prerogative royal, which Charles II. had intended to strengthen and establish the Church, was really the cause of its overthrow, through the misconduct of his successor; while the toleration, which should have consolidated his power, helped also to the overthrow of the Church. The events that followed are well known. Bishop Rose went to London to try to arrange matters, but what could he do with the clog of the oath of allegiance hanging round his neck? He had an interview with the Prince of Orange, being introduced by the Bishop of London.

"William, leaving the persons with whom he was conversing, advanced a few steps to meet him, and began the conversation. My lord,' he said, are you going to Scotland?' The Bishop answered, Yes, sir, if you have any commands for me.' The Prince replied, 'I hope you will be kind to me, and follow the example of England.' The Bishop was somewhat perplexed, but answered, Sir, I will serve you so far as law, reason, or conscience, shall allow me.' The Prince immediately turned away without speaking another word."-Vol. III. p. 297.

The doom of the Scotch Church as an establishment was sealed. (To be continued.)

321

THE COURT OF ARCHES AND "ESSAYS AND

REVIEWS."

THE long expected judgment of Dr. Lushington in this important case was delivered within so short a time of our going to press, that we are unable to examine it so fully as we should wish. We must, therefore, content ourselves with some hurried comments on its more salient points.

The first thing that must strike those who remember Dr. Lushington's previous decisions on Church questions is the ostentatious fair play and laboured leniency which he extends to Dr. Williams and Mr. Wilson. It is not in Dr. Lushington to set forth any elevated view of his office; but it is, at all events, a relief to miss in his present judgment that discreditable transformation of the judge into the advocate, which made his judgment on the ritual of S. Barnabas', Pimlico, the laughingstock of the legal profession, and a disgrace to British justice. It is something to find the ally of Mr. Westerton and the champion of Puritan neglect giving utterance to the following sentence:

"I will not be tempted in the trial of any accusation against a clergyman to resort to Scripture as the standard by which the doctrine shall be measured; and I may, with perfect truth, add that, were such a task imposed upon me, the want of theological knowledge would inca pacitate me from adequately discharging it."

Very few will doubt that Dr. Lushington may, " with perfect truth," make a public confession of his want of theological learning, and while admiring his prudence in declining to display that lack, where there certainly was some excuse, his friends will regret that the y σeauTóv did not descend on him ere he was tempted by Messrs. Westerton and Beal to leave for his successors, a singular proof of his incompetency to deal with theological or liturgical questions. ""Tis never too late to mend," however, and the judge of the Court of Arches has at last discovered the truth of the old adage, which advises all men to keep within the limits of their own special calling.

An evident wish pervades the whole judgment to please all parties, except the Catholic. The infidel views of the Essayists, are very tenderly dealt with, except where they come in collision with any cherished dogma of Calvinism, and then, mostly, the article of accusation is admitted. There are, for instance, passages in Dr. Williams's Essay, which contravene the received doctrine of CHRIST's propitiation, and the Calvinistic doctrine of Justification by faith. Under each of these heads, therefore, "the article

must be admitted." But when Dr. Williams denies scornfully and explicitly, the doctrines of the Real Presence, and of Baptismal Regeneration, the article of accusation in each case, "must be rejected."

We cannot accept the doctrine laid down in the following extract from the Judgment:

"In all cases of doctrine, the Court will look, first, to the Articles, then to the Book of Common Prayer. The Articles are the primary matter for consideration, because their special object was to prevent diversities of religious doctrines. The Liturgy was not framed with any such object, but for devotional purposes; or, to use the expression of the Statute of Elizabeth, to establish an uniform order of Common Prayer, and of the Administration of the Sacraments, Rites, and Ceremonies of the Church of England. Hence a Court having to try a charge of false doctrine based upon the Liturgy must exercise the greatest vigilance to see that the part of the Liturgy quoted is of a strictly dogmatical character, and does not consist of merely devotional expressions."

The XXXIX. Articles are what they are termed in the Prayer Book, "Articles of Religion," not of faith. This is not a distinction without a difference. It is a distinction which has ever been maintained by the chief Divines of the Church of England, and by none more emphatically than by the moderate and learned Bramhall. Every proposition in the Articles is not, and does not profess to be de fide.

It is not an article of faith, for example, to hold that "they are not to be heard, which feign that the old Fathers did look only for temporary promises," else Bishop Warburton, and some divines even of a more orthodox school, merited excommunication. And surely one may deny, without being a heretic, that "General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of princes." Again, the XXXVth Article affirms that the two Books of Homilies "contain a godly and wholesome doctrine, and necessary for these times ;" and yet we have seen a most orthodox and excellent Churchman shake his head very gravely at the "wholesome doctrine" of the homily which advises people to eat fish on fast days, in order to mortify the flesh? nay, but to encourage the fisheries. Besides, articles of faith are not "necessary for these times" simply, but for all times. In fact, any one who will take the trouble to read the Thirty-nine Articles carefully, will see at once that they were never intended to be accepted as dogmas of faith, but merely as a broad basis of belief, on which divergent lines of thought might meet. To exalt them into authoritative symbols, is to misread their meaning and to ignore their history.

Dr. Lushington sets himself to answer at some length the