and had his reward.' Whether the words of his majesty are to be viewed in the light of a compliment or not, certain it is that the recognition of Christian heroism after its career on earth is over, is but a poor return for previous neglect.

A special providence seems to have watched over the progress of the revolution in Scotland, as well as over its earlier stages in Holland and in England. That the interest felt in the Prince of Orange should have been even stronger in Scotland than in England, might have been reasonably inferred from the particular intimacy kept up for so many years betwixt his Highness and the principal of the Scottish refugees in Holland. The constant correspondence also between those refugees and the friends of liberty and religion in their native land, formed an excellent preparation for a cordial reception of William when he came on his great errand of freedom to both. And yet, when he did come, a dark cloud began to gather, betokening a storm. While in England there seemed to be only two parties on the field, the adherents of James and those of his son-in-law; the friends of Scotland's covenanted cause were sadly divided amongst themselves, and heart-burnings and mutual jealousies were the consequence. The old regime also had a host of friends, not only composed of all the bishops and episcopal clergy, but made up too of a large proportion of the wealth and landed influence of the country. On the arrival of the prince in England, all those who could afford the expense flocked to London to welcome him, or to ingratiate themselves in his favour, or to act as circumstances might direct. Among this mixed mass, the number of genuine adherents to the true cause of liberty and presbyterianism was not very great, and there was great fear lest the true interests of the country and the church should suffer in their hands. In the meantime, however, the warm-hearted friends of Presbyterianism who remained at home, were busily employed in paving the way for a constitutional movement, in order to the settling of the kingdom, and the concerns of the church; and when the nobles and barons who had repaired to London received from William an order to summon a convention of states in Edinburgh, the intelligence was soon conveyed to the adherents of the presbyterian cause; it flew like lightning through the whole land, and it found every where an agency less or more active, and prepared to carry it on with promptness. The quickness of the movement took the opposite interest by surprise, so that when the adherents of the old dynasty came down from London to consult what was best to be done, they very soon saw that the vast majority of delegates to the convention must be of the Presbyterian interest. Still the party of James was strong; and although their favourite, the Marquis of Athole, was not chosen president of the convention, the majority

against him was not very great, and the Duke of Hamilton, who carried the election in his place, was by no means a staunch friend of the covenanters. In these circumstances, and with the wellknown wishes of William to establish an uniformity of church government in both parts of the kingdom, the interests of Presbyterianism and of liberty were still in jeopardy. In this state of things an overruling Providence interposed to prevent apprehended evils. The question of the settlement of the church was, by a tacit consent of parties, put off till the more general matters of public policy were arranged, and thus any divisions which might have arisen among the friends of presbyterianism were prevented, and when they broke out afterwards, the arrangements for a settlement on presbyterian principles were so far completed as to lessen the danger of an overturn. The party of James, in the meantime, though strong and united, wanted boldness of decision, and, with the advice of Dundee, took the most unaccountable step of resolving to secede from the convention. James had granted a commission to three of their number, of whom Dundee was one, to call a convention of his own at Stirling, in opposition to the meeting at Edinburgh; and to Stirling did these malcontents repair, that they might follow out the wishes of their master. A more fatal error they could not have fallen into, and bitterly did they repent it. The idea of another national convention was ludicrous. There was neither material for it in the land, nor was there any spirit among the malcontents to call it together, or to animate it with courage and energy when met. The field was therefore left free to the protestant and presbyterian adherents, and the opening thus presented to them by a merciful Providence they promptly and effectively improved.

Still, the party of James, though defeated in council by their own infatuation, was strong out of doors. The castle of Edinburgh long held out for the ex-king, under the governorship of his staunch adherent the Duke of Gordon; and an arrangement appears to have been made betwixt him and Dundee, to the effect that while the one held out against the convention at Edinburgh, the other would attempt a diversion in favour of James in the north. Both parts of the plan were carried into execution, and the fears of the best friends of Scotland's freedom, were for a period distancing their hopes. But the experience and bravery of such men as Mackay, were in this juncture brought to bear in favour of the great cause; and the very delays which were occasioned by the quick marching and counter-marching of Dundee, on the one hand, and by the soldier-like tact of his opponent, on the other, in effectually keeping him in check, proved indirectly the safeguard of the cause. The battle of Killicrankie, indeed, was

an unfortunate affair; but then it extinguished the hopes of the party in the death of their leader; while the noble stand which the brave Cleland of Drumclog, and his sturdy Cameronians, made soon after at Dunkeld, saved the liberties of Scotland.*

We took favourable notice of Mr Mackay's valuable Life of the great general, at its first appearance, and we are extremely happy to see a new and cheap edition of the work. If at any time the history of events connected with the revolution is worthy of attention from every Scotch Presbyterian, there are times when the claims of such an era as the 1688, swell in magnitude. One of these times is the present. The difficulties in which the Church of Scotland is placed, have had their origin, not in any change in her views regarding the revolution settlement, but in a sturdy and enlightened adherence to the terms of that settlement, as opposed to the changes which in 1711 were superinduced upon it by a faithless administration. So jealous were our fathers of any attempt to change that settlement, that in 1707, the very proposal of an union between the kingdoms was not so much as entertained, until a provision by law for the permanent security of the church, as now settled, had been again made. Accordingly in the union act itself, is inserted this previous act of security, and declared expressly to be a fundamental and essential condition of the said treaty of union in all time coming.' The terms of this act of security, as incorporated with the treaty of union, are singularly strong, and admirably illustrative of the jealousy of a high-minded people for the preservation of their rights. In the first place, there is a proviso that the commissioners for the treaty (of union) should not treat of or concerning any alteration of the worship, discipline, and government of the church of this kingdom, as now by law established.' Now, be it observed, that in 1690, the act of 1592 was re-enacted, with only one alteration, and that was in the clause regarding patronage; and we think this single fact a complete answer to all those half-and-half presbyterians of 1842, who persist in maintaining that the question of patronage was not held by our fathers as involved in the revolution settlement. To our mind, it was not only involved in it, but was the main thing for whose entireness this very proviso in the union act was devised.

Mr Aikman, in his History, vol. v. has given the only full account we have seen of the battle of Dunkeld-a brilliant action, which our ordinary annalists have strangely overlooked. Indeed, it is to Mr Aikman we are indebted for the very best account of the whole transactions before, at, and after the revolution of 1688. Every Scotsman should read it, and protestant presbyterians of Scotland should be thankful that they have found at last, one historian who has done them justice. It is not creditable that such a man should be neglected. We wish him much success in his present well-timed publication, the Annals of the Persecution."

64

In the second place, the act goes on to say, that her Majesty (Queen Anne) doth hereby, with consent and advice of the said estates of parliament, establish and confirm the said true protestant religion, and the worship, discipline, and government of this church, to continue without any alteration to the people of this land, in all succeeding generations; and then reference is specially made, not only to the fifth act of William and Mary, 'ratifying the Confession of Faith, and settling presbyterian government,' but to the haill other acts of parliament relating thereto, in prosecution of the declaration of the estates of the kingdom containing the claim of right.' Can any thing be more comprehensive than this? And what right has any man to say that the act of 19th July 1690, abolishing patronage, has not as good a place among these haill other acts, as the act ratifying presbyterianism,' five weeks before? In the third place, the act goes on to state, that the government of the church as thus settled, shall remain and continue unalterable, and the said presbyterian government shall be the only government of the church within the kingdom of Scotland.' Now, so far from there being a doubt as to the place which the question of patronage held in the settlement of church government, it is well known, and will not be denied, that after presbyterianism itself had been agreed to, there was no other point, save patronage, about which there remained any room for division, or on which there was any doubt. William wished to retain patronage, and the Duke of Hamilton produced in the first revolution parliament, a scheme of settlement to that effect. On finding it would not go down, it was withdrawn, and after some delays, and a good deal of discussion pro and con, the plan of July 1690 was finally agreed to. In the fourth place, the act further declares, that none of the subjects of this kingdom shall be liable to, but all and every one of them for ever free of, any oath, test, or subscription, within this kingdom, contrary to, or inconsistent with the foresaid true protestant religion, and presbyterian church government, worship, and discipline as above established; and that the same within the bounds of this church and kingdom shall never be imposed upon, or required of them in any sort.' What comes then of all the clamour about the vows or oaths of the Church of Scotland to obey the law of the land,' as settled by the judges, not upon the constitution of 1690 at all, but upon a later usurped enactment, and one which essentially made alterations' on what was, by solemn treaty, declared to be unalterable,' and in passing which, moreover, the church had no concern; yea, was not consulted! We do not deny the existence of a compact' betwixt the church and the state; but then we decline being held bound by what is not, and never was, in the compact. In the fifth place,

6

the union treaty as incorporated by the act of security, provides, that after the decease of her present majesty (Queen Anne) the sovereign succeeding to her in the royal government of the kingdom of Great Britain, shall, in all time coming, at his or her accession to the crown, swear and subscribe, that they shall inviolably maintain and preserve the foresaid settlement of the true Protestant religion, with the government, worship, discipline, rights, and privileges of this church, as above established by the laws of this kingdom.' We ask fearlessly, To what constitution of the Church of Scotland did Queen Victoria swear this solemn oath? Was it to the constitution of 1690 as changed in 1711? AssuredTo that changed' and perverted constitution she never swore; neither has any of her royal ancestors sworn; and never will a king or queen of Great Britain swear to it. The patronage act of Queen Anne was brought in by the enemies of the Hanover family and of the protestant succession; and it would be strange indeed if a prince of the house of Hanover were to be found solemnly subscribing it. And is the Church of Scotland bound on the pain of fine and imprisonment to implement the terms of an act to which our sovereign cannot, and will not swear? Finally, as if to make assurance doubly sure, the act concludes thus: And it is hereby statute and ordained that this act of parliament, with the establishment therein contained, shall be held and observed in all time coming, as a fundamental and essential condition of any treaty or union to be concluded between the two kingdoms, without any alteration thereof, or derogation thereto, in any sort, for ever." Can any clearer proof be found of the extreme jealousy of our ancestors to preserve entire all the privileges secured to them at the union? and have not events in history proved the reasonableness of the jealousy?

It is mortifying to think that the General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland did for so long a period, in the face of their own protest against the imposition of the patronage act, practically homologate the nefarious deed. Nay, it must to our successors appear one of the mysteries of human character, that, up till the Assembly of 1842, no decided step against patronage had been taken by the church since her protest was consigned to oblivion in 1784. We now stand upon high vantage ground; for we stand on constitutional principle. It remains for the church to follow up the advantage she has gained, and to prove herself really in earnest,-not by intrusting her sacred rights any longer to committees composed of incompatible materials, but by bold remonstrance with the legislature of England against the iniquity of first altering our constitution without our consent, and then attempting to punish us because we will not homologate a constitution