of which they sprang. At the same time, I would not be understood to imply that nothing was gained to the cause of religion and godliness during that period of the restored Stuart dynasty, the thirty years which elapsed between 1660 and the Revolution of 1690. It is true the disastrous policy of assimilation was again attempted. And nothing could be more offensive than some of the measures adopted by the civil power to carry out that policy-nothing more monstrous than the claims of ecclesiastical supremacy advanced on the part of the Crown,—as, for example, in the so-called "Assertory Act" of 1669. But on the part of the spiritual power, as such, and in regard to the details of purely spiritual administration -notwithstanding the misrepresentation to the contrary which has too commonly prevailed-it may be safely asserted there was, for the most part, great forbearance. The lessons of the past had not been altogether thrown away upon our forefathers of that period. The Diocesan Synods, held at Dunblane during Leighton's episcopate (1662-72), and continued down to the Revolution by his two successors, Ramsay (1673-84) and Douglas (1684-88), afford ample proof that there is nothing in Episcopacy, when properly administered, with a due regard to the rights of the two other orders of the ministry, and of the laity, to prevent the introduction and the working of the same synodical element which the champions of Presbytery have been wont to insist upon and to claim as a peculiar recommendation of their own system. (19) We do not indeed find the presence of the laity in those Dunblane synods; and this was a defect. But we have found and seen it since in many of the Anglican Colonial Churches; in the entire system of North American Episcopacy; (20) in our own communion, though as yet in less perfect measure; and even to some extent, which we may hope will go on increasing, in the Established Church of England. Nor can I omit to mention at least one redeeming point in the character and administration even of King Charles II.,-that it was he who not only appointed the saintly Robert Leighton to his bishopric of Dunblane in this country, and the saintly Thomas Ken to his bishopric of Bath and Wells in England, but who also showed, on more than one occasion, in the case of both, that he entertained a just appreciation of their respective merits. And here with the names of Leighton and Ken upon my lips-I think it expedient to pause for the present, reserving the remainder of this Discourse to be delivered (if it shall please God) on the evening of Sunday next. |