Page images
PDF
EPUB

in his behalf; and on condition of their complying with his wishes, offered to protect and support their Church. This proposal, however, was unanimously rejected; and therefore the same convention of estates, which conveyed the Crown to William and Mary, abolished Episcopacy, and substituted Presbytery as the established form of Church Government in Scotland: and thus things have remained to the present day. It is not necessary for me in this place to go through a very minute detail of the sufferings of the Clergy of that Church for exactly one century: but I must, in a life of Mr. Stevens, who took so active a part in her behalf, and who lived to see her emerging from the obscurity in which she had so long groaned, from an adherence to the literal sense of the apostolical precept of submission to the supreme power, take some notice of the leading points respecting it. It may also be of use to those who have not paid that attention to the nature and constitution of the Christian Church, as unconnected with the State, which ought to be known by all well informed Members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of Great Britain or Ireland.

The consequence of what was done by the Convention of Estates, and an Act of the Scottish Parliament which followed it, was, that fourteen Bishops, including the two Archbishops of St. Andrew's and Glasgow, and about 900 Clergy, having refused to submit to the new Government, were obliged to relinquish their charge, in which Presbyterian Ministers were generally placed. Notwithstanding this total overthrow of Episcopacy, and the very severe penal laws, which passed against the Clergy, on account of their real or supposed disaffection, which gained much countenance from their refusing to take the oaths, (and thence the name of Non-jurors) or to pray for the King by name in the forms of divine worship, they

almost all continued to officiate privately to such as were disposed to attend upon their ministrations. The Bishops, though they had lost their dignities, revenues, seats in Parliament, and all temporal power, preserved their spiritual power in the Church, which is inherent in the nature of their office, taking care, as often as vacancies happened in the College of Bishops, to preserve the succession by new and regular consecrations. But as the necessities of their now small body, as a Church, did not require the continuance of so large a number of the Episcopal Order, they have allowed the Episcopal College to sink to about six in number, and there are about sixty Clergymen of their communion besides in Scotland. But although many of the old members of this Church, from their notions of indefeasible hereditary right, did not feel themselves at liberty to renounce their allegiance to that family, to which some of them had sworn allegiance; many of her Clergy did not suppose their religion had any thing to do with politics; nor did they take upon them to give an opinion upon the question between the House of Stewart and the family of our present gracious Sovereign. But it is due to them to say, that no set of men could have behaved with more resignation under such afflicting circumstances: they took no part, fomented no disturbances in the rebellion of 1715, nor in that of 1745, although the then reigning powers thought it necessary at that time to pass most severe laws against them; but they continued in the quiet, decent, and peaceable exercise of their spiritual functions, in the miserably restrained manner, in which they were permitted by the penal laws to exercise them. It was with heart-felt joy, therefore, that the heads of this Church, upon the death of the only person who continued his claim, in opposition to the reigning family, in April 1788, found themselves at liberty to call upon the Clergy

and Laity, over whom they were placed, to acknowledge their attachment to the present government of the kingdom, as vested in the person of his Majesty King George the Third; and to direct that public prayers for the King by name should be authoritatively introduced, and afterwards continued in the religious assemblies of that Church. Their determination was, according to a letter from one of the Secretaries of State, approved by his Majesty, in the most gracious and condescending manner and the Bishops received assurances from some of the great Officers of State, that the step they had lately taken was highly commended; and that there was little doubt that the Clergy and people of that communion would now be relieved from the penal statutes, under which they had been so long labouring. Accordingly three of the Bishops, Skinner, Abernethy Drummond, and Strachan, set out for London, and arrived in April 1789, just at the time, when the whole British nation were overwhelmed with the deepest sense of gratitude to Almighty God for the recovery of our beloved Sovereign from the severe illness with which he had been afflicted. Upon such an occasion no doubt was entertained that relief would be readily grantedand a Bill was accordingly brought in and passed the House of Commons unanimously, Mr. Secretary Dundas (afterwards Lord Viscount Melville) most generously declaring in his place, that though he was of an old Presbyterian family, yet his office, and frequent residence in Scotland, had given him an opportunity of knowing much of the Episcopalians: that he did not believe a more valuable body of men existed; and that as they had lived in a state of poverty and distress for one hundred years, from a conscientious, though mistaken, adherence to what they conceived to be their duty, if they now felt themselves warranted in transferring their allegiance and duty to our present

King and his illustrious house, he would pledge himself that his Majesty would not have more loyal subjects in the kingdom. But though matters went on thus smoothly in the Commons' House of Parliament, yet the Bill met with a different fate in the House of Lords; for Lord Chancellor Thurlow, who was never supposed to be a very deep theologian, nor particularly well versed in ecclesiastical history, stated some objections to the Bill; and on the 26th of June moved that it should be read that day three months, which of course disposed of the Bill for that Session.

It was upon this occasion, that the three Scotch Bishops were introduced to the Rev. Dr. Gaskin *, Mr. Stevens, and James Allan Park, Esq. (now one of his Majesty's Counsel +) who from that time forth became a voluntary Committee for managing in England the Affairs of the Scotch Episcopal Church. Of the other two gentlemen it is not necessary that I should at present speak; but all who had an opportunity of knowing what Mr. Stevens did, as the writer of this Memoir had, know with what zeal, ability, and perseverance, he laboured in the cause he believed, as all true Churchmen believe, the Scotch Episcopal Church to be a pure primitive part of the Church Christian, in doctrine, discipline, and worship, maintaining the tenets of the Establishment in England. It will hardly be believed, however, that notwithstanding all this, the zealous labours of Mr. Stevens and the rest of the Committee, the activity of the most excellent Bishop Skinner, who came a second time to London upon the occasion, the cordial co-operation of the Bishops in this country, and the able

* Now Prebendary of Ely.

+ Since the former editions of this work, become the Honourable Sir James Allan Park, one of the Judges of his Majesty's Court of Common Pleas.

speech of the then Bishop of St. David's (Horsley), combating all Lord Chancellor Thurlow's arguments upon the validity of the Scottish Orders, it was not till the 11th of June, 1792, that Mr. Stevens, and his brethren of the London Committee, had the satisfaction of hearing the Royal Assent given to the Bill, which enabled the Members of our Sister Church again to assemble for the purpose of public worship, without fear of molestation or imprisonment. Mr. Stevens's general opinion was that notions respecting the Church were very fallacious; and that people did not suf ficiently distinguish between the Church connected with, and not connected with, the State. Thus in a letter of the 1st of May, 1797, to Bishop Skinner, he

says:

"I observe what you say of Mr. Jones's Sermons on the Church. Perhaps, from your situation, you are more upon your guard, and more correct in your language than you would otherwise possibly think necessary. Mr. Jones certainly thinks as you do on the subject, and when he speaks of Christians in the Church, and out of the Church, it is only in compliance with the customary way of speaking, calling all who profess to believe in Christ indiscriminately, Christians. Making establishment necessary to the existence of the Church, us many are apt to do, is a grievous mistake; but to be sure it is a convenient appendage; and there is no harm in Kings being nursing fathers, if they will nurse it properly."

He seems in this letter to have accorded fully with the very learned Bishop Horsley, who in a more detailed manner in the House of Lords, in answer to the Lord Chancellor Thurlow, states the point thus:

« PreviousContinue »