CHAPTER LXV.

Persecution of the Scottish Episcopalians by the Presbyterians-Act of Toleration — Abjuration Oath-Law of Patronage-Pensions given to the Highland Chiefs to preserve their attachment to the Jacobite interest-Preparations of the Whigs to secure the succession of the House of Hanover— Quarrel between Oxford and Bolingbroke-Death of Queen Anne.

[Retrospect-1714.]

THE Presbyterians of Scotland had been placed by the Revolution in exclusive possession of the Church government of that kingdom. But a considerable proportion of the country, particularly in the more northern shires, remained attached to the Episcopal establishment and its forms of worship. These, however, were objects of enmity and fear to the Church of Scotland, whose representatives and adherents exerted themselves to suppress, by every means in their power, the exercise of the Episcopal mode of worship, forgetful of the complaints which they themselves had so justly made concerning the violation of the liberty of conscience during the reigns of Charles II. and James II. We must here remark, that the Episcopal Church of Scotland had, in its ancient and triumphant state,

could suspect the Church of Scotland of the least tendency towards Jacobitism, and that it was an usurpation of the State over the Church, to impose by statute law an oath on the ministers of the Church, whom, in religious matters, they considered as bound only by the Acts of their General Assembly. Notwithstanding their angry remonstrances, the Oath of Abjuration was imposed on them by the same act which decreed the tolerance of the Episcopal form of worship on a similar condition.

The greater number of the Presbyterian ministers did at length take the oath, but many continued to be recusants, and suffered nothing in consequence, as the Government overlooked their non-compliance. There can be little doubt that this clause, which seems otherwise a useless tampering with the rooted opinions of the Presbyte rians, was intended for a double purpose. First, it was likely to create a schism in the Scottish Church, between those who might take, and those who might refuse the oath, which, as dividing the opinions, was likely to diminish the authority, and affect the respectability, of a body zealous for the Protestant succession. Secondly, it was foreseen that the great majority of the Episcopal clergy in Scotland avowedly attached to the exiled family, would not take the Oath of Abjuration, and were likely on that account to be interrupted by the Presbyterians of the country where they exercised their functions. But if a number of the Presbyterian clergy themselves were rendered liable to the same charge for the same omission, and only in

men using the Church of England service, as should be disposed to take the Oath of Abjuration, renouncing all adherence to the cause of James II. or his descendant, the existing Pretender. This toleration gave great offence to the Presbyterian clergy, since it was taking out of their hands a means, as they alleged, of enforcing uniformity of worship, which, they pretended, had been insured to them at the Revolution. Every allowance is justly to be made for jealousies and apprehensions, which severe persecution had taught the ministers of the Scottish Church to entertain; but impartial history shows us how dangerous a matter it is to intrust the judicatures of any church with the power of tyrannizing over the consciences of those who have adopted different forms of worship, and how wise as well as just it is to restrict their authority to the regulation of their own establishment.

The Presbyterian Church was still more offended by the introduction of a clause into this Act of Toleration, obliging the members of their own church, as well as dissenters from their mode of worship, to take the Oath of Abjuration. This clause has been inserted into the Act as it passed the House of Commons, on the motion of the Tories, who alleged that the ministers of the Kirk of Scotland ought to give the same security for their fidelity to the Queen and Protestant succession, which was to be exacted from the Episcopalians. The Scottish Presbyterians complained bitterly of this application of the Oath of Abjuration to themselves. They contended that it was unnecessary, as no one

could suspect the Church of Scotland of the least tendency towards Jacobitism, and that it was an usurpation of the State over the Church, to impose by statute law an oath on the ministers of the Church, whom, in religious matters, they considered as bound only by the Acts of their General Assembly. Notwithstanding their angry remonstrances, the Oath of Abjuration was imposed on them by the same act which decreed the tolerance of the Episcopal form of worship on a similar condition.

The greater number of the Presbyterian ministers did at length take the oath, but many continued to be recusants, and suffered nothing in consequence, as the Government overlooked their non-compliance. There can be little doubt that this clause, which seems otherwise a useless tampering with the rooted opinions of the Presbyterians, was intended for a double purpose. First, it was likely to create a schism in the Scottish Church, between those who might take, and those who might refuse the oath, which, as dividing the opinions, was likely to diminish the authority, and affect the respectability, of a body zealous for the Protestant succession. Secondly, it was foreseen that the great majority of the Episcopal clergy in Scotland avowedly attached to the exiled family, would not take the Oath of Abjuration, and were likely on that account to be interrupted by the Presbyterians of the country where they exercised their functions. But if a number of the Presbyterian clergy themselves were rendered liable to the same charge for the same omission, and only in

debted for their impunity to the connivance of the Government, it was not likely they would disturb others upon grounds which might be objected to themselves. The expedient was successful; for though it was said that only one Episcopal minister in Scotland, Mr Cockburn of Glasgow, took the Oath of Abjuration, yet no prosecutions followed their recusancy, because a large portion of the ministers of the Kirk would have been liable to vexation on the same account.

Another act of the same session of Parliament, which restored to patrons, as they were called, the right of presenting clergymen to vacant churches in Scotland, seemed calculated, and was probably designed, to render the churchmen more dependent on the aristocracy, and to separate them in some degree from their congregations, who could not be supposed to be equally attached to, or influenced by a minister who held his living by the gift of a great man, as by one who was chosen by their own free voice. Each mode of election is subject to its own particular disadvantages. The necessity imposed on the clergyman who is desirous of preferment, of suiting his style of preaching to the popular taste, together with the indecent heats and intrigues which attend popular elections, are serious objections to permitting the flock to have the choice of their shepherd. At the same time, the right of patronage is apt to be abused in particular instances, where persons of loose morals, slender abilities, or depraved doctrine, may be imposed, by the fiat of an unconscientious individual.