Church; many hold the affirmative not improbably; but as that point is not yet determined, so if it shall be concluded I will give my life in defence of it; and to call it unlawful I will not, though I should save my life by saying it." Though treated with kindness, and urged to retract these abominable tenets, he remained invincibly obstinate, and was condemned and executed as a traitor.

Archbishop Gladstanes died in May, 1615, and Archbishop Spottiswoode was transferred to St. Andrew's and the Primacy. The next year a curious question of privilege arose between the Scotch Church and the Archbishop of Canterbury (Abbott). The Earl of Huntley was still under sentence of excommunication and had been committed to Edinburgh Castle. He was at length allowed to go to London, received with much favour by James, and committed to the Archbishop for further instruction. He professed his readiness to embrace the reformed faith, was absolved by the Archbishop, and admitted to the Communion. This excited the utmost indignation on the part of the Scotch prelates, and they sent a formal remonstrance to the king. He wrote in reply a long letter of explanation; and the Primate wrote a shorter one, disclaiming all idea of trespassing on the authority or independence of their Church. He also stated that the absolution had been given by the advice and with the consent of the Bishop of Caithness, whom he regarded as their representative in this matter. The explanations proved satisfactory, and harmony was restored. It was agreed that the Earl, on his return to Scotland, should submit himself to the General Assembly, stipulate to bring up his children in the reformed faith, and to continue himself in it, and receive absolution according to the form of the Scotch Church.

A General Assembly met in August, and he was absolved accordingly. Another Confession of Faith was adopted, said to be moderate in its character; children were to be confirmed by the Bishop, and a Catechism was ordered to be compiled for their better instruction. A committee was appointed to frame a Liturgy for Divine service. The Holy Communion was ordered to be administered four times a year in cities and towns, and twice a year in the rural parishes. A book of

Canons was also directed to be drawn up, from the records of Assembly, and where these were defective, from the Ancient Canons and Ecclesiastical Convocations. An order was passed for the more diligent administration of Infant Baptism; and also for the keeping of parochial registers. We see from this that the most diligent efforts were made to emerge from the disorders excited by Melville, and from the confusion created by Knox. But James was much displeased that some other judicious recommendations of his had not been acted upon and sanctioned by the Assembly, and he censured it severely. We shall find them presently in the Five Articles of Perth.

The king, "with a salmon-like instinct," to use his own phrase, visited Scotland in 1617, and was accompanied by Bishop Andrews, Dr. Laud, and other dignitaries. The English service was said in the Chapel Royal, and the Holy Com. munion was administered to the recipients kneeling. Some of the Scotch clergy at first proved restive, preferring the indecent and irreverent mode to which they had been accustomed, but the opposition was short lived. A Parliament was held in June, and several acts relating to the Church were passed. One regulated the order for the election of Archbishops and Bishops to vacant Dioceses, and required the Chapter to choose the nominee of the King; another authorized the restitution of the Chapters to the Estates formerly held by them; a third was concerning the plantation of churches and the salaries of incumbents; and a fourth related to the providing all things necessary for the administration of the Sacrament, as lavers, cups, table-cloths, &c.

James was bent on the further melioration of the Church's discipline and mode of worship, and more than ever desirous to assimilate them to those of England. Accustomed for many years to her noble Liturgy and decent ceremonies, he felt more strongly the contrast presented on this visit. He had acquired more lofty ideas of the royal prerogative, and wished to effect the reforms needed by his own sole mandate. This, however, the Bishops and Councillors saw would be attended with many difficulties, and they prevailed upon him, though with much reluctance, to consent to the calling of the Assembly. It met at Aberdeen in November, 1617. After much discussion, two

of the proposed articles were adopted-one relating to the administration of the Eucharist in private, and the other providing for the more reverent administration of the Lord's Supper. The other points were deferred. The king was much angered at this result, which was just what he expected; and did not make sufficient allowance for the difficulties with which the friends of good order and primitive usage had to contend. He desired the Archbishop, by deputy at St. Andrew's, and personally at Edinburgh, to celebrate Divine service and preach on Christmas Day, and cause the same to be observed by all parish incumbents in those cities, under penalty of the withdrawal of their stipends if they refused. This latter threat reached a vulnerable spot, and they entreated the Archbishop to preach, and also obtain time for them to consider the matter, without loss of pay. The Archbishop goodnaturedly obtained this indulgence for them, and performed the duty as required.

In January, 1618, a proclamation was issued enjoining the solemn observance of Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday. Accordingly Good Friday was observed in the Capital; and sermons were preached in all the churches. On Easter Day the Communion was administered to the receivers kneeling, by several of the Bishops, in those churches which were considered as cathedrals.

The General Assembly again met at Perth in August. The king's letter was presented by Dr. Young, the Dean of Westminster, a Scotsman by birth. It spoke in severe terms of the conduct of the last meeting, and gave some plain warnings as to the consequences of rejecting the Articles at this time. A Privy Conference, consisting of the Bishops, a number of nobles and gentlemen, and thirty-seven doctors and ministers, was appointed to consider the Articles proposed. After long reasonings, first in the Conference and afterwards in the Assembly, they were adopted on the third day by a large majority. They enjoined: 1. Kneeling at the Holy Communion; 2. Administration of the same to sick and dying persons in their houses, in extreme necessity; 3. Administration of Baptism under similar circumstances; 4. The confirmation of young persons by the Bishop of the Diocese; 5. The observ

ance of our LORD's "Birth, Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension, and the sending down of the HOLY GHOST." These Articles were ordered to be read and enforced in all the parish churches in the kingdom, and proclamations were published in all the large towns. Yet in many places factious ministers refused compliance, and induced their ignorant followers to desert their parish churches and seek those where these very proper rules were violated. They were told that the Five Points condemned by the synod of Dort were these identical Articles, and they gulped down the fable with a verdant simplicity which is truly diverting.

Parliament met in June, 1621, and ratified the Five Articles as their first act. When the royal assent was given, which was done at the close of the session by the king, or his commissioner, touching the statute with the royal sceptre, a storm which had been long threatening burst forth, and three flashes of lightning were followed by as many peals of thunder, and then a deluge of rain ensued. The ultra-Presbyterians interpreted this rare and wonderful phenomenon to be a testimony of the Divine displeasure; and Churchmen answered the fools according to their folly by referring to the giving forth of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai amid lightnings and thunderings.

Having thus successfully accomplished the grand objects for which he had long contended, the establishment and pacification of the Scottish Church, James died in March, 1625, in the 59th year of his age. With all his defects, personal, moral, and intellectual, and they were undeniably great, he possessed many good qualities, much learning, ability, and sagacity, and an ardent zeal in the cause of primitive truth and Apostolic order. We have witnessed the good results of his energy and labour, and for them his memory should be revered by every faithful member of the Reformed Catholic Church.

(A.)* The Holy Eucharist a Comfort to the Penitent. Sermon before the University in the Cathedral Church of Christ, in Oxford, 1843, by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D.

(B.) The Doctrine of the Real Presence, as contained in the Fathers, from the Death of St. John the Evangelist to the Fourth General Council, Vindicated in Notes on a Sermon, "The Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist," preached in 1853, before the University of Oxford. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY, D.D. (C.) The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, the doctrine of the English Church, with a Vindication of the Reception by the Wicked and of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ truly present. By the Rev. E. B. PUSEY,

D.D. 1857.

(D.) The Doctrine of the Real Presence, as set forth in the work of Divines and others in the English Church since the Reformation. 1855. (Anonymous, but attributed to DR. PUSEY.)

[All the above works are imported and kept on hand by Mr. Dana, Bookseller and Publisher, 381 Broadway, New York.

THE name and position of Dr. Pusey are so well known, that no apology is required for introducing to the public, or any portion of them, an outline of his views on so important an ordinance of the Church as the LORD's Supper. To the full understanding of the case now in litigation in the English Ecclesiastical Courts, it is necessary to know what is the doctrine which is alternately urged and repudiated by the two great parties in the Church of England. It is our intention to place before the reader the views of Dr. Pusey as those of one who occupies the foremost position on the one side, and is the most prominent in the eye both of friends and foes. We shall do this as far as possible in his own language, and from the stand-point, not of the partisan, but of the reviewer. Besides the wish to do strict justice to every man in the representation of his opinions to others, we are led to refrain from anything like a controversial treatment of the question by the recollection, that the subject of these remarks is now lying dangerously ill of a malady which has necessitated his entire abandonment of his usual duties, and is considered by his medical advisers as

• For convenience of reference, the works will be distinguished by the letters A, B, C, D.