Archbishop of Canterbury, with whom he had offered to communicate. Dr. George Abbot, the successor of Bancroft, and the predecessor of Laud, then occupied the metropolitical see. He refused to admit Huntley to communion, because, said he, "it is contrary to the canons that one excommunicated by the Church should, without their consent who had so sentenced him, be absolved in another." The Bishop of Caithness, however, being in town, and expressing his readiness to assent to the act, in the name of the Church of Scotland, it was no longer delayed. The sentence of absolution, as used by the Archbishop on the occasion, is curious, and so confirmatory of the position which it is now desired to maintain, that it may be inserted here at length. "Whereas the purpose and intendment of the whole Church of Christ is to win men unto God, and frame their souls for heaven, and that there is such an agreement and correspondency betwixt the Churches of Scotland and England, that what the bishops and pastors in the one, without any earthly or worldly respect, shall accomplish to satisfy the christian and charitable end and desire of the other, cannot be distasteful to either. I, therefore, finding your earnest entreaty to be loosed from the bond of excommunication wherewith you stand bound in the Church of Scotland, and well considering the reason and cause of that censure, as also considering your desire on this present day to communicate here with us, for the better effecting of this work of participation of the Holy Sacrament of Christ our Saviour, His blessed Body and Blood, do absolve you from the said excommunication, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost; and beseech the Almighty God, that you may be so directed by the Holy Spirit, that you may continue in the truth of His Gospel unto your life's end, and then be made partaker of His everlasting kingdom." As might be anticipated, the accounts of this proceeding created no small alarm in Scotland, from the appearance of usurpation on the part of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which it bore. But the personal communications, both from the king and from the archbishop, to the Primate of Scotland, with which it was followed up, soon dispelled all fears. The full authority and the absolute independence of the Scottish Church were acknowledged in the broadest and strongest terms. It may be interesting to mention some of the expressions which were used for this purpose. First, by the king:-" The absolution given to Huntley in England necessarily implied an acknowledgment of the authority of the Church of Scotland; whereas, if the Archbishop of Canterbury had received him to the Holy Communion, and not first absolved him, being excommunicated by the Church of Scotland, the contempt and neglect had been greater."-" For these reasons, and especially because all was done with a due acknowledgment and reservation of the power and independent authority of the Church of Scotland, which the Archbishop of Canterbury had, by his own hand, testified; it was his pleasure that upon the Marquis his return, a full form of absolution should be given him, or a ratification made of that which was done in England, so as neither the Archbishop of Canterbury his doing should be disapproved as unlawful, nor the same so approved as it might seem that the Church of Scotland was inferior, in any sort, to that of England, and that the archbishop's letter, written to that effect, should be put on record, and kept as a perpetual monument for ages to come." Secondly, by Archbishop Abbot:-" Because I understand that a general assembly is shortly to be held at Aberdeen, I cannot but esteem it an office of brotherly love to yield you an account of that great action which lately befel us here with the Marquis of Huntley."-" For, first, what was to be performed might be adventured upon, as we esteemed, out of a brotherly correspondence and unity of affection, and not of any authority; for we well know, that as the kingdom of Scotland is a free and absolute monarchy, so the Church of Scotland is entire in itself, and independent upon any other Church."—" It pleased God, the night before the celebration of the Sacrament, to send in our brother the Bishop of Caithness, with whom I, taking counsel, his lordship resolved me that it was my best way to absolve the Marquis, and assured me that it would be well taken by the bishops and pastors of the Church of Scotland." "I have done it with the best discretion I could, which, I doubt not, but all our brethren, with you, will take as proceeding from my desire to serve God, and his Majesty, and the whole Church of Scotland." With these explanations the Church was satisfied; nevertheless, it was deemed necessary that the marquis should acknowledge his offence before the General Assembly, and, promising obedience to the admonitions of the Church, continuance in the profession of the faith, and the education of his children in the same, he was solemnly absolved according to the form used in the Church of Scotland. These facts have been noted thus at length, not because they are altogether free from exception, which indeed may fairly be taken to much of the proceedings, on the part of both Abbot and the king. The injunctions of the one, in a matter so purely spiritual, and the hasty proceedings of the other, on the simple advice of an individual prelate, who does not appear to have been originally the excommunicating party, seem, unquestionably, inconsistent with the Primitive and Catholic principles of Church communion and discipline. But their value in one sense is not diminished by this: they furnish a strong testimony to the footing upon which the Churches of England and Scotland regarded each other; and when it is remembered that at this time the episcopal succession was fully enjoyed by the latter, the benefit of the witness can only be claimed on the true Catholic ground. It deserves, moreover, to be remarked that on the former occasion of Huntley's excommunication, the absence of re-episcopal authority in the country might have very well furnished a plea for his resistance, just as, according to the statement of the king, the delay in his reconciliation was caused by his scruples about the presence of our Lord in the blessed Eucharist. What was the form in use for the administration of the Holy Communion at this particular time in Scotland, cannot with certainty be affirmed. It would seem, however, as far at least as Huntly's experience could prove it, that it was one differing in a very solemn and momentous point from that used in England. It is most probable that there was no one form in general use, and that in Huntly's case some mode of administration had been offered to him which he found it impossible to reconcile with his sincere belief of our Lord's presence in the consecrated elements. But it is certain that he had no scruples about the English service, (probably James' First Book) and his reconciliation to the Scottish Church, through the medium of it, at a period when her external constitution, according to the Apostolic model, was recovered, is a striking circumstance, and sufficient to warrant the conclusion that her communion with the Church of England was no less cordial than complete. The reign of Charles, disastrous from the first, and tragical at the last, was yet fraught with important events, which served to draw these cords of union closer than before. The Church in England and in Scotland became one in the common suffering which was now in store for all adherents to the Ancient Faith. Conscientious scruples on specific matters of faith and practice which might confine themselves to single branches of the Church, were no longer the only impediments to unity and godly concord; much as such scruples, when sincere, demand respect, they were never from the beginning so honest on the side of the Puritan party as to deserve the sympathy which they claimed. During the reigns of Elizabeth and the early period of the first James, their real professions were less unreserved, and, therefore, the divisions and separations which they occasioned, painful and distressing as they were, left some hope of a future remedy. The examples of Brown and Cartwright, who were both reconciled to their Holy Mother, and died penitents within her fold, were at least encouraging. But now, their outward aspect had assumed a more real and undisguised character, and, encouraged by the untoward position of civil affairs, which their own increasing influence and strength had conspired to bring about, they avowedly declared themselves the enemies, not of the Church's imperfections, but of the Church herself. The Puritans in England, and the Presbyterians in Scotland, whatever their differences, were but one and the same party in the eye of the Church; they had one and the same object,—to pull down her strongholds, and as for that they had now combined themselves together, so the common defence which the Faithful on both sides the Tweed, were constrained to make, became naturally, for them, a powerful bond of union and love. The alleged scandal to which the rebelling party were anxious to attribute all the evils which followed, was the introduction of the Scottish Liturgy. Whatever faults may have attended the manner of this introduction, (and it is not here meant that they are altogether defensible,) it is quite clear the Liturgy itself was a measure for which the country had been duly prepared. Twentyone years had elapsed since its first proposal, and for the whole of that period the English service-book had been duly used in the royal and collegiate chapels. Besides, the Scottish Liturgy was a grievance which the English Puritans were not called upon to bear; the adoption of it, therefore, as a common ground of union with their northern brethren can only be explained by the real fact, that all liturgies were equally grievous, all true branches of God's Church equally offensive, all wholesome authority and primitive godly discipline equally irksome, to men who were resolved at every hazard to gain their own rebellious ends. It has been said Quotics vis fallere plebem, Finge Deum, and so it was with the malcontents of this period. Their political aims were first in consideration, and religious pretexts were adopted to conceal them, because the temper of the times favoured the scheme. The civil policy of Charles and his father was, no doubt, in very many respects, faulty; but on the worst supposition of its character, no justification can be raised in defence of the rebellion against God, in which discontent resulted. In Scotland the nobles, whose personal interests suffered by the revocation* of lands, baronies, &c. belonging to abbacies and priories, which Charles had wisely ordered for the benefit of the clergy, were too glad of the Liturgy outcry, which most opportunely occurred to them as a pretext for agitation. people," says Heylin, "being fooled into the opinion that both their christian and civil liberty was in no small danger, because capable of any impression which the presbyterian faction could imprint upon them." Indeed, there can be no reasonable ground to doubt that the same sad results would have sooner or later occurred, though no Scottish Liturgy had ever been prepared. The Spalding assures us that a clandestine bond was drawn up and subscribed secretly between the malcontents, or rather malignants, of Scotland and England; that the object of this Heylin's Life of Laud, p. 348. * See Collier, vol. ii. p. 756. bond was, that the two nations should assist each other to root out the bishops, and bring both kingdoms under one reformed religion. And, although Clarendon speaks of no such bond he expressly mentions libels circulated through Scotland against the bishops, and a seditious correspondence carried on, before the introduction of the Liturgy, between the malcontents of England and Scotland. "It had been the practice," an eye witness testifies," of the presbyterian ministers, for some time past, to keep a fast on the first Sunday of every quarter; and, to lie under the shelter of the law, they took the precaution not to give any notice of these humiliations. On these days they used to declaim against episcopacy; and, to drive this doctrine deeper into their audience, part of their prayer was for relief against this grievance, and for a blessing upon all good means which Providence should suggest for that end." This circumstance proves that, before the Liturgy ever made its appearance, the overthrow of the Church, because it was the Church, was premeditated. "Conceived" prayers, as the sole vehicle of devotion, were no part of the Reformation,-not even of Knox's scheme. It was not till the sacred ordinance of Prayer became a channel of sedition, and the instrument for inflaming rebellion, that the manifold advantages of extemporaneous devotion were perceived and appreciated. The English service-book,-the forced loans promoted by the clergy, the feoffees of impropriations, the Arminian question,-the Sabbatarian controversy,-the Book of Sports, were all subjects of scandal to the tender consciences of the Puritans and Presbyterians, no less prominent than the much abused Scottish Liturgy, and yet no more than if it were the real sources of complaint. In fact, as the martyr king himself confesses, "the government of this Church and state, fixed by so many laws and long customs, would not run into their new moulds till they had first melted it in the fire of a civil war, by the advantages of which they resolved, if they prevailed, to make myself and all my subjects fall down and worship the images they should form and set up."§ The truth of this statement might be proved by an induction of examples, were this the place or the occasion for such a compilation; reference is simply made to it here because it enhances the reality of that bond of sympathy which at this time united the English and the Scottish branches of Christ's Catholic Church. The sacred deposit of which they were, in common, the guardians, was in danger. The private and personal privileges of each were as nothing; Guthry's Memoirs, p. 8. Collier, ii. p. 755. + Knox continued himself to prefer and use a liturgical form of devotion up to his death. See Bannatyne's Journal, p. 331. Heylin's Laud, p. 348. Collier, ii. 754. Short History of the English Church, cxiii. |