pose is a violation of obedience, which no reasoning can justify, and which must expose every thoughtless procrastinator who is guilty of it to most hazardous consequences. If any of us be in this position, let us abandon it instantly. In some other places, however, an opposite error prevails, that of partaking of the Lord's Supper too early in life. Though this often proceeds from strong feelings of piety, yet the mind and affections generally are in such an unsubdued and unconfirmed state, that various evil consequences often result from it, and much of the good which the rite, when intelligently and properly observed, is calculated to produce, is never experienced. God may, and often does, impart to persons of tender years, views more clear and extensive, and feelings more correct and heavenly, than he gives to many others even in extreme old age. Hence many are fitter for this rite at sixteen, than hundreds of those who profess to follow Christ are at sixty years of age. The aged sinner, having neglected his opportunities, and still doing nothing to obtain that fitness of which he confesses he is destitute, is left by God to reap the fruits of his carelessness, and therefore abides in his unfitness, however old he may be. On the other hand, the diligent, humble, and prayerful inquirer, who has been watered with the early dews of heaven's grace, and has set his heart to know and do the will of Christ, has often such an understanding and sense of holy things as surpass his years, and stamp the character of fitness on him at a time when ordinary disciples are only beginning their Christian studies. Such examples of juvenile piety, in some measure resemble that of our blessed Saviour, whose questions and answers, when he was but twelve years of age, astonished the Jewish doctors. In this way, it still happens, occasionally, that "out of the mouth of babes and of sucklings" Christ has perfected praise. But such instances are rare. Much study, and many religious exercises are, in the ordinary process of moral training to which we are subjected, necessary to bring the understanding, the will, the heart, and the outward manner of life, into a proper state of fitness for this rite. By neglecting these preparatives, many young persons who claim to be admitted to the Lord's table, are most inadequately furnished with the religious knowledge, affections, and conduct required of them; and how often, from some unbecoming cause or other, are they allowed to partake of it, when they should only be preparing for it. Having been thus admitted, at first, with deficient attainments, they too frequently continue deficient through all the following stages of their spiritual course. Having been tried by a low standard of fitness when the door was opened to them, they never learn to walk by another. This is one of the numerous evils arising out of premature communion, which shows that, at the same time that all undue delay should be avoided, we should cautiously guard against approaching the Lord's table too soon. Both errors are sinful, and liable to be followed by many dangerous consequences. The proper time, then, to begin the observance of this rite is, not when we have reached a certain number of years in our journey through life, which may be deemed most becoming in the part of the country where we live, but when, after earnest prayer, and much study and wrestling with our own hearts, we have sufficient evidence that we have obtained the requisite fitness. 2. All who are fit for this ordinance should observe it as often as possible. There are many believers so beset by unavoidable circumstances, that to sit down at the Lord's table with his people is not in their power. Some have had their lot cast in Heathen lands, or in Mahometan countries, where they can find no brother in the faith with whom they can refresh their souls, by this or any other Christian observance. Others are so situated among Infidels, Socinians, Papists, and other corrupt sects, and are exposed to persecutions so violent, that they cannot keep this ordinance without encountering difficulties and dangers too formidable to be overcome by the measure of fortitude they possess. Others, too, whose "lines have fallen in" places where religious advantages most abound, are often prevented from communicating by disease, accidents, and various combinations of things over which they have no control. But there are many who are not hedged about in any of these ways, and who are yet very unfrequent and very irregular in their attendance on this ordinance. All those, too, who communicate both frequently and regularly, are not equally frequent in doing so; one great cause of which is the general nature of the terms in which it is commanded. No particular time is specified. It is only said, "This do, in remembrance of me," which leaves it to be determined by circumstances, how often, and at what times, we ought to "do this." The general rule observed, therefore, is, that the officebearers, in each congregation and parish, appoint such times as their knowledge of those for whom they act leads them to consider most convenient for the greatest number of those interested in the appointment. Hence, amongst us, the practice varies very widely in different places. In country districts, where the people are dispersed over such a space, and engaged in such occupations as make it difficult to effect arrangements for frequent celebrations, which would be suitable, it is generally observed only annually as the passover was. In cities and towns, where congregations can be more easily assembled, it is kept half-yearly, and, in some instances, quarterly. But though the practice, in respect of time, be not the same in every congregation and parish, our Church requires that, in every one, this ordinance be "administered once at least" each year, and even, when practicable, approves of the observance of it "through the several months of the year," hereby leaving the divine command in all its latitude. Though the command, however, is so expressed as to allow this diversity of practice, yet as the design of it was to keep up the remembrance of Christ, frequency is evidently implied; and the expressions "as oft as ye do it," applied to it by Paul, add force to this idea. As a commemorative rite, it cannot be too frequently celebrated, to keep in our minds the most important evert that ever took place in this world, and that on which our happiness, and the salvation of our race depends. Besides, if we be truly grateful to him, we must long for frequent opportunities to honour him in this rite, and study not, as many do, how seldom, but how often we can do so. It is a bad sign of our love to the Saviour, if we be not desirous to avail ourselves of every communion-season in our power, and do not even "hunger and thirst after' more frequent seasons than we have, to commemorate his love to us. him be very ardent, it must prompt us to wish that we could do so each day we live. On some minds its frequency has a hardening effect; this has been pleaded by the disaffected as a reason for long intervals between communion seasons. But if such persons make it "the savour of death" to themselves, this is no reason why others should not use it oftener, on whom it produces a better effect. From all these views of it, the propriety and duty of observing the rite as often as possible, must be evident. If our love to THE SCOTTISH CHRISTIAN HERALD, CONDUCTED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF MINISTERS AND MEMBERS OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH. CONTENTS. 1.-King James VI. of Scotland and his Bishops. By the 5.-A Discourse. By the Rev. James Begg, A. M., Minister 7.-Biographical Sketch. The Rev. George Whitefield, A.M. 317 ib. KING JAMES VI. OF SCOTLAND AND HIS BISHOPS. BY THE REV. THOMAS M'CRIE, EDINBURGH. THE time was now come when James was to being passion, declaring that presbytery agreed as delivered from all further interruptions to his de- well with monarchy as God and the Devil. " "Then," signs, through the inconvenient and uncourtly firm- said he, "Jack and Tom, and Will and Dick, ness of the Scottish ministers. In March 1603, shall meet, and at their pleasures censure me and he succeeded to the throne of England, on the my council, and all our proceedings. Then Will death of Elizabeth, and was received by his new shall stand up and say, It must be thus: Then subjects with every demonstration of loyalty and Dick shall reply, and say, Nay marry, but we will respect. He was not long seated on the English have it thus. And, therefore, here I must once throne, when a conference was held at Hampton reiterate my former speech, Le Roy s'avisera, Court to hear the complaints of the Puritans, as (the king will look after it.) Stay, I pray you, those good men were called who scrupled to con- for one seven years before you demand that of form to the ceremonies, and sought a reformation me; and if you then find me pursy and fat, and of the Church of England. On this occasion, my wind-pipes stuffed, I will perhaps hearken to surrounded with his deans, bishops, and arch- you: For let that government be once up, I am bishops, who poured into his ears the incense of sure I shall be kept in breath; then we shall all flattery, and looked up to him as an oracle of of us have work enough, both our hands full. wisdom, James, like King Solomon, to whom he But, Dr Reynolds, till you find that I grow lazy, was fond of being compared, appeared in all his let that alone." * Then, putting his hand to his glory, giving his judgment on every question as hat, "My lords the bishops," said his majesty, it occurred, and displaying before the astonished "I may thank you that these men plead for my prelates, who kneeled every time they addressed supremacy: they think they can't make their party him, his polemical powers and theological learn- good against you, but by appealing unto it. ing. Contrasting his present honours with the if once you are out, and they in place, I know what scenes from which he had just escaped in his na- would become of my supremacy; for no bishop, tive country, he began by congratulating himself, no king, as I said before." Then rising from his that, "by the blessing of Providence, he was chair, he concluded with, "If this be all they have brought into the promised land, where religion to say, I'll make them conform, or I'll harry them was professed in its purity; where he sat among out of this land, or else do worse." grave, learned, and reverend men; and that now he was not, as formerly, a king without state and honour, nor in a place where order was banished, and beardless boys would brave him to his face." * After long conferences, during which the king gave the most extraordinary exhibition of his learning, drollery, and profaneness, he was completely thrown off his guard, by having caught the sound of the word presbytery, which Dr Reynolds, a representative of the Puritans, had unfortunately employed. Thinking that he aimed at a "Scotch Presbytery," James got into a tower* Dr Barlow's Summary of Hampton Court Conference, p. 4. No. 20. MAY 18, 1839.-14d.] The English lords and prelates were so filled with admiration at the quickness of apprehension and dexterity in controversy shown by the king, that, as Dr Barlow informs us, "one of them said, his majesty spoke by the instinct of the Spirit of God; and the Lord Chancellor, as he went out, said to the Dean of Chester, I have often heard that Rex est mixta persona cum sacerdote, (that a king is partly a priest,) but I never saw the truth thereof till this day."† In these circumstances, buoyed up with flattery *Collier, Eccl. Hist. 681. ↑ Dr Barlow's Summary of the Conference, 82, 84. by his English bishops, and placed beyond the reach of the faithful admonitions of the Scottish clergy, we need not wonder to find James prosecuting, with redoubled ardour, his scheme of reducing the Church of Scotland to the model of England. The bishops being now set up, his next object was to procure something like an acknowledgment of them by the Church, to effect which it was necessary to destroy every vestige of freedom in the constitution of her Assemblies. Hearing that an Assembly was to be held at Aberdeen in July 1605, a letter was sent to Straiton of Laurieston, the King's Commissioner, empowering him to dissolve the meeting, just because it had not been called by his majesty. The brethren present resolved to constitute before reading the communication; and John Forbes, minister of Alford, was chosen moderator. While they were reading the king's letter, a messenger-at-arms arrived, and in the king's name commanded them to dissolve on pain of rebellion. The Assembly agreed to dissolve, provided it were done in a regular way, by his majesty's commissioner naming a day and place for the next meeting. This the commissioner refused to do; the object of the king being to prorogue the Assembly without naming another day, reserving to himself the right of calling it or not at his sovereign pleasure. The moderator accordingly, at the request of his brethren, appointed the Assembly to meet at the same place on the last Tuesday of September, and dissolved the meeting. Such is a short account of the Assembly at Aberdeen, which brought so many of the faithful ministers into trouble. Their conduct on this occasion was marked equally by respect to the royal authority and fidelity to the great Head of the Church; and it deserves the warmest approbation of every friend of religion and civil liberty. No sooner, however, was his majesty informed of their proceedings, than he transmitted orders to his privy council to proceed against the ministers as guilty of high treason. Fourteen of them having defended their conduct, were committed to various prisons; and six of the principal ministers, who were obnoxious for their fidelity, were selected for prosecution. Their names, which deserve to be recorded, were, Mr John Forbes, the moderator; Mr John Welsh, minister at Ayr; Mr Andrew Duncan at Crail; Mr Robert Dury at Anstruther; Mr John Sharp at Kilmany; and Mr Alexander Strachan at Creigh. majesty, in our names, this history out of the book of Joshua." He then related the account of the league between the Israelites and the Gibeonites, and the manner in which God avenged the violation of that covenant many years afterwards on Saul and his house.* "Now, my lord, warn the king, that if such a high judgment fell upon Saul and his house for destroying them that deceived Israel, and only because of the oath of God which passed between them, what judgment will fall on his majesty, his posterity, and the whole land, if he and ye violate the great oath ye have all made to God, to stand to His truth, and to maintain the discipline of His Kirk according to your powers." Then reading over to them the last sentence of the National Covenant, he added, "So take this to heart, as ye will be answerable to God in that dreadful day of judgment, to which we appeal, if ye wrongously condemn us." But what avail innocence and eloquence against the arts of corruption and the influence of terror! The Earl of Dunbar had been sent down for the express purpose of securing the condemnation of the ministers; the jury were packed, and a verdict was at last obtained, at midnight, finding, by a majority of three, the prisoners guilty of high treason. On hearing the verdict, the ministers embraced each other, and gave God thanks for having supported them during the trial. On arriving at Edinburgh, they were met by their wives, who were awaiting with much anxiety the result of the trial. On being told that they had been convicted by so few votes of the crime of treason, "they joyfullie," says Row, "and with masculine minds, thanked the Lord Jesus, who had given them that strength and courage to stand to their Master's cause, saying, They are evil intreated, as their Master was before them, judged, and condemned under silence of night." It was thought that they might be set at liberty after a little confinement; but orders came down from London in November 1606, to banish them out of his majesty's dominions. They were accordingly brought from the Castle of Blackness to Leith, and the ship being ready, and many of their friends having attended to see them embark, “they fell down upon their knees on the shore," says our historian, "and prayed two several times, verie ferventlie, moving all the multitude about them to tears in abundance; and after they had sung the twenty-third psalm, joyfullie taking leave of their friends and acquaintances, they passed to the ship. and after encountering a storm, were safely transported and landed in France." At three o'clock in the morning, in the depth of winter, and through roads almost impassable, these six worthies were summoned to stand trial for high Previously to this, it was thought expedient to treason before the Court of Justiciary at Linlith- remove Andrew Melville and a few of the more gow, where they were met by a number of their zealous brethren out of the way. They were sumbrethren, who had come to countenance them dur-moned to London, on the pretext of a consultaing their trial. The prisoners made an eloquent defence. The concluding speech of Forbes, the moderator, is remarkably impressive. "My lord," said he, addressing the Earl of Dunbar, when he saw they were about to pass judgment, "I adjure you before the living God, that you report to his tion with the king, and they were not long there when they were prohibited from returning to Scotland. Melville, on account of a Latin epigram, which he wrote for his own amusement, containing some satirical reflections on the English service,' Josh. ix. 3-19. 2 Sam. xxi. 1, 2, was committed to the Tower of London; and, after a confinement of four years, was banished to France. Meanwhile the king, intent on bringing his favourite project to a conclusion, went a step farther, and proposed that the bishops should be appointed constant moderators (ad vitam aut culpam) in Presbyteries, Synods, and General Assemblies. This new aggression on the liberties of the Church, the object of which was clearly seen through, met with fresh opposition from the Church courts, and gave rise to many unseemly and disgraceful scenes. As an illustration, we may describe the scene that took place at Perth, at the opening of the Synod there, where Mr William Row of Strathmiglo, a bold and zealous champion of Presbytery, presided as moderator. The king had sent Lord Scoon, a man of violent temper and intemperate habits, to force them to accept a constant moderator. Scoon sent notice to Mr Row that if, in his preaching, he uttered ought against constant moderators, he should cause ten or twelve of his guards to discharge their pieces in his face; and when he attended the sermon he stood up in a menacing posture to outbrave the preacher. But Mr Row, no way dismayed, knowing what vices Scoon was most addicted to, and particularly that he was a notorious glutton, drew his picture so much to the life in the beginning of his discourse, that Scoon, seeing all eyes directed towards him, was glad to sit down, and cover his face. After which Mr Row proceeded to prove that no constant moderator ought to be suffered in the Church; but being aware that Scoon understood neither Latin nor Greek, he wisely avoided naming the constant moderator in English, giving him the learned name of proestos ad vitam. Sermon being ended, Scoon said to some of his attendants, "You see how I charmed the preacher from meddling with the constant moderator; but I wonder what man it was he spoke so much against by the name of proestos ad vitam." On being told it was Greek and Latin for constant moderator, he was so exasperated that when Row proceeded to constitute the Synod, in the name of the Lord Jesus, he burst out into the most horrid imprecations, and overturned the table at which the moderator stood. He then attempted to snatch the Synod roll out of the moderator's hand, but Row, who was a man of great bodily strength, kept off Scoon with the one hand, and holding the roll in the other, called out the names of the members, who chose a moderator for themselves.* The Commissioner, finding this of no avail, excluded them from the church and locked the doors upon them, so that they were obliged to hold the Assembly in the church-yard, amidst the tears of the people, who deeply sympathized with their ministers under the disgrace thus put on a Court of Christ. It is needless to dwell on the other steps by which James succeeded in accomplishing his ob * Livingstone's Characteristics, art. W. Row. Row MS. Hist. P. 150. ject. Suffice it to observe at present, that, at length, in an Assembly held at Glasgow in 1610, by dint of bribery and intimidation, he obtained the consent of the Church to receive the bishops as moderators of Diocesan Synods, and to confer on them the power of excommunicating and absolving offenders, of ordaining and deposing ministers, and visiting all the churches within their respective dioceses. It would be absurd to consider this convention a free and lawful General Assembly. Royal missives were sent to the Presbyteries nominating the individuals whom they should choose as their representatives, and whom the bishops had previously selected as most likely to favour their designs; and the Earl of Dunbar, the king's Commissioner, was furnished with instructions to spare no expense, and scruple at no means for securing that every thing should be done according to the royal pleasure. The bribery practised at this Assembly was shamefully notorious. Golden coins, called angels, were so plentifully distributed among the ministers, that it was called, by way of derision, the angelical Assembly. Sir James Balfour tells us that the Earl expended "forty thousand merks to facilitate the matter and obtain their suffrages." This was a trifle, however, when compared with the other expenses which it cost the king to establish Prelacy. Mr Row may have somewhat exaggerated the sum, but he states in his MS. history, that "in buying the benefices of the bishops out of the hands of the noblemen who had them, in buying votes at Assemblies, in defraying all their other charges, such as coming to and living at court prelat-like, &c., the king did employ, (by the confession of such as were best acquaint with, and were actors, in these businesses,) above the sum of three hundred thousand pounds sterlin money; a hudge thing indeed," he adds, "but sin lying heavie on the throne, crying aloud for wrath on him and his posterities, is infinitely sadder than three hundred thousand pounds sterlin." The pretext under which this disgraceful bribery was practised, was that of defraying the expenses of the poor ministers who had come from a distance. "But," says Row, "the contrare was well knowne; for both some neare Glasgow, who voted the king's way got the wages of Balaam, and some gracious ministers in the north, who voted negative, got no gold at all." Those who were mean enough to accept of these bribes, (and some of them were so low as fifty merks, about two pound, sixteen shillings and sixpence, sterling, while another, who was too late, got only nine pound, eighteen shillings, Scots, just sixteen shillings and sixpence, sterling,) returned home in disgrace, self-condemned and taunted by their brethren for having sold the liberties of the Church, which they had taken them solemnly pledged to defend before their departure. Altogether, it must be owned, this Assembly is a blot on the escutcheon of the Church of Scotland. It is true, that it was neither legal in its constitution nor free in its deliberations, and on this account it was, with ether Assemblies held at this period, declared null and void by the famous Assembly of Glasgow in 1638; it is true, that many of the faithful ministers protested against it at the time. But still, it is lamentable to think that so many ministers could be collected out of the parishes of Scotland, weak enough to yield to the threats, or base enough to take the bribes, of a despotic and domineering government, bent on overturning the liberties of the Church. It was well for the bishops that the bolder spirits who had opposed their encroachments were out of the way, that the flower of the ministry had been banished out of Scotland. For, as Archbishop Gladstanes acknowledged, in a letter to the king announcing their success at Glasgow, "had Andrew Melville been in the country, they had never been able to get that turn accomplished." Blinded and misled as this miserable convention was, they had no idea of sanctioning the doctrine of the divine right of Episcopacy; they conceived that the form of Presbyteries would be still kept up, with the bishops as moderators. No sooner, however, had the bishops gained their object at Glasgow, than three of them set off to London, and having received Episcopal ordination from the English prelates, they returned to consecrate the rest, without consulting Presbytery, Synod, or Assembly. It thus appeared that they considered themselves quite independent of the Church of Scotland, and conceived they had a right to govern their brethren, in virtue of the powers communicated to them by the bishops of another Church with which she had no connection. In short, they now alleged that they had received new light on the subject of Church government, and had discovered Episcopacy to be more agreeable to Scripture and antiquity than Presbytery. With such sentiments they soon began to exercise the jurisdiction with which they supposed themselves invested. At the meeting of the Synod of Fife, Gladstanes, Archbishop of St. Andrews, took the chair. It had been previously arranged by the ministers that, after protesting against this usurpation, they should march out in due order, leaving the bishop alone in possession of the chair. Mr John Malcolm, minister of Perth, as being the oldest member, was selected as the fittest person to take the lead in this proceeding. Before entering on business, Malcolm rose up, and begged to ask by what authority, and on what grounds, the order of our Kirk, established in so many famous General Assemblies, and ratified by the king's acts, was altered, which, said he, "we cannot see but with grief of heart, seeing we acknowledge it to be the only true form of government of Christ's Kirk." "I am astonished," said the bishop in a high passion, "to hear such an aged man utter such foolish talk. Can you be ignorant, Sir, of what was done by the General Assembly in Glasgow ?" Other members, how ever, coming forward in his support, Gladstanes became calmer. "It's a strange thing, brethren," he said, "that ye are so troubled about such an indifferent matter. What matter who be moderator, provided nothing be done but to all your contentment." "Ye pretend the Word," said they, "but ye let us see no warrand; we know nothing ye seek but gain and preferment in this course." Upon this the bishop, starting up, exclaimed with vehemence, "God never let me see God's face, nor be a partaker of his kingdom, if I should take this office upon me, and were not persuaded I had the warrand of the Word!" The rest of the members looked to Malcolm, expecting him to walk out, as had been concerted; but as Row observes, he was "a man who had not a brow for that bargain," and he was prevailed upon to remain by his colleague, Mr William Cooper, who stood up and said, "Brethren, I beseech you remember that these things are not so essential points, as to rent the bowels of the Kirk for them. Are these things such as to cast your ministry in hazard for them? What joy can ye have for your suffering, when ye suffer for a matter so indifferent as, Who shall be moderator? Who shall have the imposition of hands? Wherefore serves it, to fill the people's ears with contentious doctrine concerning the government of the Kirk? Were it not much better to preach sincerely, and wait on and see what the Lord will work in these matters?" The bishop, we may easily conceive, highly applauded this speech; he declared that no honest man would be of another opinion; and such was the influence it had, coming as it did from one who was highly respected among his brethren for his piety and prudence, that they carried their opposition no further. This is the first time in the history of the Scottish Church that we have met with any thing resembling the sentiments now generally known by the term latitudinarian; and it is strongly suspicious that, on this occasion, these loose principles should have been employed with success to cajole good men into a surrender of their privileges, and into the adoption of a scheme which, in their judgment and their conscience, they condemned. The same strain of reasoning which Cooper employed, with sincerity perhaps, on the present occasion, has too often since furnished a pretext for introducing the most extensive changes into a religious profession, and overthrowing the liberties of the Christian Church. If Episcopacy were indeed a matter of such indifference, why plead for it "the warrand of the Word," and why involve a whole Church in disorder by attempting to intrude it on a reluctant people, who were perfectly well pleased with the government which they enjoyed? But, in fact, nothing can be properly called a matter of indifference that affects the honour of the great King and Head of the Church: and we can conceive nothing more impertinent or disgusting than the cant of liberality when assumed by men who, in the act of robbing the Church of her dearest privileges, pretend to whine over the contentions which are the fruits of their own selfish policy. |