of the king's supremacy, in all causes and over all persons, ecclesiastical as well as civil: Mr. Whitefield will not, I suppose, deny that he has sworn the oath of supremacy, nor alledge that he has not vomited that spiritual poison." But, secondly, even if Mr. Whitefield were a minister of Christ, still, says Mr. Gib, he has no warrant to minister or preach here;. it is ridiculous and unwarrantable for a minister to come from one church and preach in another church, without either a mission from the church officers whence he comes, or admission by the church officers, or a due call by the church members, whither he comes." This is amusing enough, and a high strain of churchmanship indeed, from such a quarter-the more especially, considering that Whitefield had actually been only twelve months before invited to Scotland by the heads of the writer's own party. In a subsequent passage, the Scottish dissenter argues, somewhat ingeniously, that Whitefield's week-day services were an evident violation of the Fourth Commandment—of which he contends the introductory clause, “Six days shalt thou labor and do all thy work," is as much a part as the remainder, in which the seventh day is set apart for the worship of God. To carry public religion at least beyond the bounds thus set for it, he conceives can proceed from nothing but a temptation of Satan, aiming thereby at disgusting men with all religion. Mr. Gib's sermon was followed up by an act of the Associate Presbytery, appointing a day of fasting and humiliation on account of the present awful symptoms of the Lord's anger with this church and land, in sending them a strong delusion, that they should believe a lie,' and leaving them "to give such an open discovery of their apostasy from him in the fond reception that Mr. George Whitefield has met with, notwithstand

rupt clergy and judicatories, who are carrying on a course of defection, worming out a faithful ministry from the land, and the power of religion with it... But if, besides, you could find freedom to company with us, to preach with us and for us, and to accept of our advices in your work while in this country, it might contribute much to weaken the enemy's hand, and to strengthen ours in the work of the Lord, when the strength of the battle is against us." All this was dextrous enough; and so was the concluding paragraph of the epistle: "I am truly sorry for the Wesleyans-to see them so far left to themselves. I have seen your letter to them, and praise the Lord on your behalf, who enables you to stand up so valiantly for the truth, and with so much light and energy. 991 But the result was altogether different from what was anticipated. Whitefield, before he made his appearance, frankly told his friends of the Secession that, as to their grand question of church government, he intended to be "quite neuter ;" and that he “came simply to preach the gospel, and not to enter into any particular connection whatever." When he arrived he had a meeting with the Associate Presbytery, which left no favorable impression on either side; and, in the end, Whitefield fell rather into the hands of some of the clergy of the establishment. This issue of the matter was precipitated by the breaking out of an extraordinary moral epidemic, famous to this day in Scotland under the name of the Outpouring at Cambuslang, a furious fever of fanaticism which took possession of the people of that place, a small village in the neighborhood of Glasgow, soon after some of them had heard Whitefield preach in that city, and which was encouraged and hailed as a miraculous manifestation of the favor of Heaven by the clergyman of the parish-by whom, however, it was attributed quite as much to his own preaching as to that of White-ing it is notoriously known that he is a priest of the field. The Cambuslang work" was at its height church of England, who hath sworn the oath of suin February and March, 1742, and when Whitfield premacy, and abjured the Solemn League and Covreturned to Scotland in the beginning of June that enant!" Whitefield, on the other hand, declared year, he was immediately assailed by his late friends it as his deliberate opinion that the Associate Presof the Associate Presbytery, both from the pulpit bytery were building a Babel, which he believed and the press, with a storm of the most passionate would soon tumble down about their ears. Scotreprobation. One zealous minister in particular, a land was also afterward repeatedly visited and in Rev. Adam Gib, first preached against him, and then great part traversed by Wesley; his first journey published his sermon, with a preface and an appen- was made in 1751, and he returned again in 1753, dix, in which he attempted to prove, by an elaborate in 1757, and several times in subsequent years. demonstration, that the apostle of Methodism, in- But, although a great sensation was produced at the stead of being a minister of Christ, was, in fact, one moment by his preaching, as well as by that of of the false Christs of whom we are forewarned by Whitefield, the Methodism of neither the one nor the evangelist-in other words, that he was a mere the other ever made any considerable progress in impostor and emissary of the devil. In making out that part of the island. In so far, in truth, as this proposition, the reverend gentleman calls all Methodism was a system of religious belief or feelsorts of arguments to his aid. Mr. Whitefield, he ing, it was either the same thing that was already contends in the first place, could be no minister of preached in Scotland by the popular section of the Christ, inasmuch as his assumption of that charac- established clergy and in all the dissenting churches; ter rested upon his ordination in the English epis- or it was so directly opposed to the old Presbyterian copal church, the most untenable form of church spirit and doctrines, that it never could take any exgovernment ever set up or proposed; but we must tensive possession of the popular mind. As a sysnot overlook," he adds, "the strength that is added tem of what is called Evangelism, it was not needto our argument by the English church and churched; as a system of Latitudinarianism in regard to officers, their subjection unto and acknowledgment church government and various other matters, it was abhorrent to the most deep-rooted of the na

1 Fraser's Life of E. Erskine, p. 427

| mended that the members of all his congregations should receive the sacrament thrice a-year, as the law required, from their parish clergyman-nay, hơ seems almost to have thought that it was their duty

tional prejudices and habits. In Ireland, at least in the more Protestant parts of the country, Methodism has been much more prosperous. It was first carried thither in 1747, by a Wesleyan preacher of the name of Williams, and the new field thus open-to hear service once every Sunday at their parish ed was soon after visited both by John Wesley him self and by his brother Charles. For a time, indeed, while the missionaries confined their operations, as they did at first, to the three southern counties, considerable opposition was encountered, not only from the Roman Catholic priests and the mobs whom they were believed to instigate, but also from the high-church feeling of Protestants of the upper classes in August, 1749, the grand jury of the county of Cork actually presented Charles Wesley and nine of his fellow-preachers as persons of ill fame, vagabonds, and common disturbers of his maj- | esty's peace, and prayed that they might be transported; nor, on the whole, was any great inroad made by the new sect upon the domains either of the Roman Catholic or of the established church. But when they at last found their way to Ulster, where the common puritanical spirit of Protestant dissent had long been extensively prevalent, they received a very cordial reception; and there were soon many congregations of both kinds of Methodists formed in that part of Ireland.

We have spoken of the Methodists as a sect; but, at least during the present period, they can scarcely be properly said to have assumed that character. Both Wesley and Whitefield continued to regard themselves as ministers of the church of England, in which they had been ordained, to the end of their days; and Wesley, at least, seems to the last to have held to the principle that all the people ought to be in communion with the establishment, whether they saw good to limit their attendance to the ministra tions of the established clergy or no. He recom

churches, as well as at their meeting-houses at another hour, and on week-days. At first, indeed, he would not allow his own preachers either to administer the sacrament or to perform the office of baptism, though, after a time, he deemed it expedient to give way in that matter to the general feeling of his followers. Whitefield, perhaps, did not carry his notion of the rights of the establishment quite so high, nor does he appear to have thought it of any great importance how those to whom he preached might be circumstanced in regard to the mere outward framework of a church; but this very indifference withheld him from sympathizing with dissent as such. Methodism, therefore, so long as its founders lived, was, or at any rate professed to be, rather an extension of the established church than a hostile or rival institution—a cultivation of the waste lands and commons lying scattered and hitherto neglected within her territory, rather than an abstraction of any part of her ancient and rightful possessions. No doubt all this while there were many elements in the new power thus called into action as essentially adverse to the interests of the establishment as any system of open dissent that was ever preached. On the whole, the position of Methodism in this respect was exceedingly anomalous. The whole phenomenon bore a considerable resemblance to the appearance, in the early part of the thirteenth century, of the Mendicant Friars; who, both in the field and manner of their ministrations, and in the peculiar character of the relation in which they stood to the church and to the rest of the clergy, may be styled the Methodists of that time.

HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION, GOVERNMENT, AND LAWS.

W

ITH the period forth from other quarters than the throne. We have at which we are seen the power of the king, with some fluctuations, now arrived com- on the whole upon the decline down to the wars of mences a totally the Roses. We have seen it revive, on the terminanew era in our tion of these wars, in the person of Henry VII., while constitutional his- that of the nobility was almost crushed. We have tory. Henceforth seen this monarchical power, on the whole, upon we shall meet the increase through the reign of Henry VIII., and, perhaps, we may add, of Elizabeth, though the Reformation had given it a blow which was acting with silent but vast effect in undermining it. We have seen the attempts of Charles I. to render this power well defined and fixed terminate in his defeat, dethronement, and violent death; we have seen a bold and sagacious man, born in no higher station than that of a private gentleman, fill the seat and wield

with no more attempts on the part of the English monarchs to render themselves absolute. Attempts of such a nature, if such there shall be, are to be looked for hence

the scepter of a long line of kings; we have seen | broken-did what no positive statutes or improvethe representatives of that line restored to their ancestral throne; and, finally, we have seen them driven from it forever by, to use the words of Mr. Hallam, "the triumph of those principles which, in the language of the present day, are denominated liberal or constitutional, over those of absolute monarchy, or of monarchy not effectually controlled by stated boundaries." 991 Henceforth it is strictly correct to call our monarchy a monarchy strictly and definitely limited by law. It had, indeed, theoretically been limited by law long before; but it was found to be one thing to place a law on the statuteroll, and another to put it in force. But now, besides the change of circumstances in the relative power of the king and the middle classes of society, the line of succession was broken; and, although a descendant of the old family was placed on the throne, it was not the descendant next in succession. Consequently, any claim to title on the score of hereditary right was rendered about as invalid as if a total stranger had been placed on the throne. This completely swept away the whole of that large mass of mischiefs having their source in

"The right divine of kings to govern wrong." So that, without very much, if at all, altering the form of the government, its spirit was essentially changed.

ments, no concessions, however large and sweeping, made by the legitimate prince-what, in short, nothing else could do-" it cut up by the roots," to borrow the appropriate language of Mr. Hallam, "all that theory of indefeasible right, of paramount prerogative, which had put the crown in continual opposition to the people. A contention had now subsisted for five hundred years, but particularly during the last four reigns, against the aggressions of arbitrary power. The sovereigns of this country had never patiently endured the control of parliament; nor was it natural for them to do so, while the two Houses of Parliament appeared historically, and in legal language, to derive their existence as well as privileges from the crown itself. They had at their side the pliant lawyers, who held the prerogative to be uncontrollable by statutes-a doctrine of itself destructive to any scheme of reconciliation and compromise between a king and his subjects: they had the churchmen, whose casuistry denied that the most intolerable tyranny could excuse resistance to a lawful government. These two propositions could not obtain general acceptation without rendering all national liberty precarious. It has been always reckoned among the most difficult problems in the practical science of government to combine an hereditary monarchy with security of freedom, so that The terms in which the English and Scottish con- neither the ambition of kings shall undermine the ventions respectively had declared the vacancy of the people's rights, nor the jealousy of the people overthrone have already been detailed. As has also turn the throne. England had already experience been observed, the Scotch term "forfaulted" was in of both these mischiefs. And there seemed no some sense more correct than the "abdication" or prospect before her, but either their alternate redesertion" put forward by the English convention; currence, or a final submission to absolute power, and yet, as Mr. Hallam has remarked, even forfeit- unless by one great effort she could put the monure would not bear out, by strict analogy of law, archy forever beneath the law, and reduce it to an the exclusion of an heir, whose right was not liable integrant portion instead of the primary source and to be set aside at the ancestor's pleasure. Upon the principle of the constitution. She must reverse the whole, perhaps, to declare abdication and vacancy favored maxim-A Deo rex, a rege lex—and make of the throne was the best course, as best agreeing the crown itself appear the creature of the law. with the resort by the convention to the leading idea But our ancient monarchy, strong in a possession of for which, in the view of reason, all governments are seven centuries, and in those high and paramount constituted the good, namely, of the governed, and prerogatives which the consenting testimony of lawnot of the governing, and to the casting away every yers and the submission of parliaments had recogthing like an acknowledgment of a system of law nized-a monarchy from which the House of Comwhich they had seen converted into instruments of mons and every existing peer, though not, perhaps, oppression in the hands of a tyrant. Whatever, too, the aristocratic order itself, derived its participation may be the opinion respecting the philosophical ac-in the legislature, could not be bent to the republican curacy of an "original contract between the king and people," embodied in the resolution of the Lords, there is no doubt that it aided the other idea (which, whatever name it might get, whether abdication or desertion, was undoubtedly well understood to mean forfeiture in a large sense) in breaking that mighty spell which had enthralled for so many centuries the minds not only of the English nation, but of nearly all mankind. This breaking, then, of the line of succession in this solemn manner-accompanied, that is to say, by these solemn and deliberate declarations of the grounds on which it was 1 Const. Hist., vol. ii., p. 139.

2 See ante, pp. 3, 8.

* The assertion of an "original contract," though, in fact, a mere legal fiction, after all but amounts to this: that, in the eye of reason, government must exist under an implied obligation to act for the good of the governed.

theories which have been, not very successfully, attempted in some modern codes of constitution. It could not be held, without breaking up all the foundations of our polity, that the monarchy emanated from the parliament, or even from the people. But, by the Revolution and by the Act of Settlement, the rights of the actual monarch, of the reigning family, were made to emanate from the parliament and the people. In technical language, in the grave and respectful theory of our constitution, the crown is still the fountain from which law and justice spring forth. Its prerogatives are in the main the same as under the Tudors and the Stuarts; but the right of the House of Brunswick to exercise them can only be deduced from the convention of 1688."1

1 Const. Hist. of England, vol. iii., p. 125 (8vo. edit.).

The great advantage, therefore, of the Revolu- | The Declaration adds, "And they do claim, de. tion, Mr. Hallam conceives to consist" in that which was reckoned its reproach by many and its misfortune by more, that it broke the line of succession." We now proceed to examine somewhat in detail some of the leading legal enactments, which were the produce of this new state of things.

The Declaration of Rights was presented to the Prince of Orange by the Marquis of Halifax, as speaker of the Lords, in the presence of both Houses, on the 13th of February, 1689. This declaration was some months afterward confirmed by a regular act of the legislature, the statute 1 W. & M. sess. 2, c. 2, entitled, "An Act declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and settling the succession of the Crown," commonly called "The Bill of Rights" which, as it forms the basis of the present fabric of our constitution, it will be necessary to explain somewhat minutely.

It begins by reciting in full the Declaration of Rights, which, after an enumeration of the illegal and arbitrary acts committed by the late king, proceeds to state that, upon his abdication of the government, the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, assembled pursuant to letters written by the Prince of Orange, did, as their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties," declare

mand, and insist upon all and singular the premises, as their undoubted rights and liberties" and then proceeds to state the resolution of the said assembled Lords and Commons, "That William and Mary, Prince and Princess of Orange, be and be declared King and Queen of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them the said prince and princess during their lives, and the life of the survivor of them; and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in, and executed by, the said Prince of Orange, in the names of the said prince and princess, during their joint lives; and, after their deceases, the said crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess; and, for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark, and the heirs of her body; and, for default of such issue, to the heirs of the body of the said Prince of Orange."

Then come the new Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, in the following words:

I, A B, do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God."

66

I, A B, do swear, that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the pope, or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."

The act then goes on to recite, that thereupon their said majesties did accept the said crown and royal dignity, according to the resolution and order of the said Lords and Commons, contained in the said declaration. These recitals being concluded, the bill thus proceeds:

1. That the pretended power of suspending of laws or the execution of laws, by regal authority, without the consent of parliament, is illegal. 2. That the pretended power of dispensing with laws, or the execution of laws, by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal. 3. That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious. 4. That levying money for or to the use of the crown, by pretense of prerogative, without grant of parliament, for longer time, or in other manner, than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal. 5. That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king; and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal. 6. That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom, in time of peace, unless it be with consent of parliament, is against law. 7. That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law. 8. That election of members of parliament ought to be free. 9. That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in parliament ought not to be im-ity of parliament, do pray that it may be declared peached or questioned in any court or place out of parliament. 10. That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 11. That jurors ought to be duly empanneled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders. 12. That all grants and promises of fines and forfeiture of particular persons, before conviction, are illegal and void. 13. And that, for the redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening, and preserving of the laws, parliaments ought to be held frequently."

Now, in pursuance of the premises, the said Lords, spiritual and temporal, and Commons, in parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said Declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by author

and enacted, that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said Declaration are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed, as they are expressed in the said Declaration; and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come. And the said Lords, spiritual aud temporal, and Commons, seriously considering