Church, is not known, nor perhaps can it now be ascertained how long he had secretly been attached to the Church in which he had been brought up, but it does not appear that he professed a change of religion till 1651, when he and Clarendon were in Spain. He was a zealous adherent to the king's cause: and it was to his persuasions that it was owing that the king sent them as his ambassadors; Cottington hoped to turn the influence of Spanish Catholics to some good account in the negociation then going on with the Irish Catholics. They did not however reach Madrid till October, before which time, the expedition to England to gain his crown by the help of his Irish subjects had been given up by the young king as hopeless. Neither was their mission of much avail in any respect; the Spanish court recognized them as the ambassadors of the Prince of Wales, and never addressed them as ambassadors of the King of England; and the untoward event of the murder of Ascham the parliamentary ambassador, which took place in May, while they were at Madrid, and in which one of their servants had taken an active part rendered their position most uncomfortable. When the embassy was concluded, Hyde left Spain in March, 1651, but Cottington, who was now seventy-five years of age, probably felt that he could no longer be of service to his royal master, and may have wished to end his days in a country where he could profess his faith unmolested. Accordingly, he retired to Valladolid, and died there in 1653, after living nearly two years entirely in a private capacity. The account of the murder of Ascham is given in a private letter from Cottington and Hyde, to Mr. Secretary Long, a copy of which exists in the Bodleian library, the contents of which have been printed in Lister's Life of Clarendon. But the letter, which professes to be a joint production, was probably written by Hyde, and not by Lord Cottington. Several other joint letters may be found in the State Papers, and a few written by himself.

The following to the king contains his graceful retreat from public business.

"The Lord Cottington to His Majesty.

"May it please your Majesty,-Of the success of this embassage, as also of the inclination and disposition of this King and State towards you, Mr. Chancellor will sufficiently inform your Majesty; so as in this I shall not need to trouble you with any large relation.

"My great age and infirmities, together with the sharpness of the weather, do withhold me from accompanying Mr. Chancellor in so very long a journey at this time. And therefore to preserve myself and my health the best I may, to employ both it and my life in your Majesty's service, I have resolved to stay by the way in a town called Valladolid, and there to expect your Majesty's

commandments, which (GOD willing,) shall be punctually obeyed. For seeing I shall not be permitted to repair into your presence, the place of my abode and attendance for your commandments, is of little consideration; and so I am enforced to make a choice of some place where I may best lie sheltered, and where a loaf of bread is best cheap; for such is my wretched condition: yet seeing I am brought unto it for my loyalty to your father and yourself, instead of grieve I cannot but glory in it.

GOD ALMIGHTY preserve your royal person, and give you all happiness as desireth

"Your Majesty's most humble and obedient servant, "Madrid, 1st March, 1651. Cottington."

We shall conclude this paper with a letter from Hammond to Sheldon, which is concerned with a different subject. We are unable to explain the meaning of the sequestration alluded to in this, and the preceding letter to Dr. Steward, but the coincidence is important, as it verifies the dates of both documents. The rest of the letter will be illustrated in our next, in which we shall print some others on the same subject.

[Harl. 13.]

"Dear Sir,-Since my last, I am by Dr. Ma[plet] desired to assign the autumn for the young Lord's return, though he himself means not to return with him. By this I believe the present artifice is of wearying out the tutor, and to make it necessary to recal him by the addition of that to all the other importunities. Mr. Cary also writes earnestly to me, to send a letter to the Dr. which, (in case he cannot persuade him to the contrary,) may promise him this liberty, and inclines me to this by assuring me, that nothing but this can stay him so long, and if it be denied, his coming without money and attendants will bring great hazards with it, and sign him his absolute release from all power of any of us over him for the future. To each of these I have written some general answer, but deferred to grant positively till I hear from you. I confess, though I conceive this no way to continue our power to his good, yet from Dr. Ma[plet's] weariness of him, I begin also to be weary of wrestling with him to so little purpose. When he comes home he may sojourn with his grandmother, and by his uncle's help, look into his estate, and see better accounts made than we yet can. And perhaps he that hath profited so little under restraint, may do better, or not so ill without it. Tell me by your next what I shall do. La[dy] Sa [vile] is gone to London. Your advice, and Dr. Sand[erson's] with which Dr. St[eward] agrees, I shall take, and heartily wish I could have the revisals of the whole work, but cannot imagine how to compass it, therefore must be content with those other friends that can be entreated to under

take that pains. The Bishops of Ely and Sarum have done so, to some part others, two or three to all. Tell me anything that may be done, and it certainly shall. I know not (though Dr. St [eward] also writes to me,) of the taking of that sequ[estration]. My service to Mr. Ashb [urnham]. The Latin book is almost done, and will be left with your nephew for you and Dr. S[anderson.] "May 6, [1651.] I am yours, "For Dr. Sheldon. [Henry Hammond.] "Sir John] P[akington] is returned safe. His La[dy] on a course of steel. All remember you. Your Sergeant Lee casually here had his part in Sir John's confinement, but is now freed also."

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

1. An Address read at the Meeting of the Special Synod of the United Diocese of S. Andrew's, Dunkeld and Dunblane, Thursday, March 27th, 1849.

2. A Letter to the Right Rev. W. Skinner, D.D., Bishop of Aberdeen and Primus, respecting the Further Prosecution of the Question of Passive Communion. By the Rev. CHARLES WORDSWORTH, M.A., Warden of Trinity College.

THE two tracts, the titles of which we have printed, have reference to a very grave and important question. We call it a question, because it has been made matter of question; though in itself it is one about which, among persons who can in any true sense be called Churchpeople, there could be no doubt at all. The question then is, "Whether a person has a right to communicate in our Church, provided only he profess himself a member of the same." To see the bearing of this inquiry, it may be necessary to state that persons who do not believe that there is any essential difference between the Church and bodies of separatists, who claim that sacred name, and who habitually attend the meetings of schismatics, do occasionally present themselves as recipients of the Holy Sacrament among our congregations. A lady whose conduct occasioned the present consideration of the subject, not only did so present herself, but maintained that she could not rightfully be prevented from receiving with us, and not only so, but that her position was agreeable to the practice and the doctrine of the Church of England. This alleged doctrine is called that of Passive Communion, inasmuch as it makes the Church a passive recipient of all who offer themselves for communion: the opposite doctrine, that the Church can take an active part in discriminating among communi

cants, is that of Non-Passive Communion.

The occurrence which we have said gave rise to this question, occurred in Bishop Luscombe's Church, at Paris; and the statement being made among foreign Catholics, especially those of the Russian Church, that such was the doctrine of the Churches of Scotland and England, led to

an appeal from an English deacon (who was ministering there at the time,) to the Scottish Church, as that from whom Bishop Luscombe had received his consecration, for the decision of the question. That the practice of our Church should be alleged as encouraging such a doctrine is not strange. The number of communicants, and among them, of strangers, in our town Churches, affords an easy access to the Holy Communion to persons who are not really of us, and who only in a sense of their own can be called members of our Church. Possibly too, clergymen may be found who would intentionally and knowingly allow habitual attendants at dissenting meetings to communicate. Such certainly was the line of the late minister of S. John, Bedford Row. The fact of such things taking place may be a scandal, but it is by no means peculiar to the British Churches. The Catholic Churches abroad are exposed to the same impositions: for strangers come to their communions as to ours, and we know that some years ago members of the English Church, who had not been received into the communion of the Church of Rome, and would therefore be regarded by them as heretics, were admitted to partake of the Holy Sacrament in France, of course without being known. The general laxity however, of our practice gives some colour to the assertion that such is the allowed and recognized view of our Church; and for the decision of this point the appeal was made. That is to say, this was the primary question in an appeal which extends to several hundred pages. On the receipt of the appeal the Bishop of Aberdeen, the Primus of the Scottish Church, submitted the subject to a Synod of his Diocese, specially convened to consider the question" the question," as it is expressed," of Passive or NonPassive Communion." The Synod was held on the 27th of last March, and presided over by the Dean in the absence of the Bishop. The Warden of Trinity College, Glenalmond, then proposed the following resolutions in an address, for the most part previously written, and afterwards printed by order of the Synod ::

I." Resolved by the Synod, that this appeal has legitimately arisen, and is properly made to the Scottish Church, and to this Synod in particular." II.-"Resolved that we, the members of this Diocesan Synod, for ourselves, for our own branch of the Church, and for the branches also with which we are in Communion, do solemnly disavow and repudiate the position that no person can rightfully be prevented from taking the Communion in our Churches, provided only he profess himself to be a member of the same."

III.-"That the thanks of the Synod be given to Mr. Palmer for the stand which he has made in defence of our Communion."

IV." Resolved, that the present Synod recommends this appeal to the consideration of the other Synods of the Church, with a view to the more general assertion of the foregoing, or other similar resolutions, and to the adoption of any further step which, upon fuller deliberation, may be deemed necessary or desirable."

The address is directed principally to two points; (1) to show that our Church does claim a right, wherever scandal is created by open wrong conduct, to exclude the party from communion. This was affirmed by the passing of the Resolutions which were adopted by the Synod. (2) To maintain that she does not claim more than this; viz., that she does not require, (as had been alleged,) with respect to secret

sins, any confession previous to admission to communion. This point was not embodied in a resolution, nor was any synodical decision made respecting it, as indeed it only occurred incidentally.

We may express these points in Mr. Wordsworth's own words.

"Of course, our proper business in this matter (at least so I conceive it), is simply to consider, and to declare what our Church really is, or at all events, what she professes and desires herself to be, according to the true Catholic view of her system and principles, and not what we ourselves individually, according to our own fancies and prejudices, might wish her to become."

"First, then, it is, I think, a clear and undeniable principle of our Church, that she has no intention of interfering with the private conscience, in any case where there is no public scandal, farther than by exhortation."

"On the other hand, it is, I think, a second principle of our Church, no less clear and undeniable than the former, that wherever scandal is created, as it must be wherever "evil living," of whatever kind, is open and notorious, then the Church does claim for every minister and every congregation the right, and does recognize the duty, as devolving upon them, one and all, to reject the offender till full assurance has been given of his true repentance, which is to be shown by satisfaction to herself, so far as may be, and by amendment of the offence for which exclusion was required."

The first of these points,-viz., the right of exclusion-is plain from the rubrics prefixed to the Communion Office, and the Twentieth Canon of the Scottish Church, by which "all strangers who cannot state and prove, if required,' that they are communicants in that Church are ipso facto excommunicate until they have ceased to be strangers ;" and the canons against schismatics would also place those who habitually or on principle attend the meetings of Dissenters, or hold it indifferent whether they communicate with Dissenters or with the Church, among the class of excommunicates. This branch of the subject is very ably followed out by Mr. Wordsworth in his letter to Bishop Skinner, the second of the two pamphlets, the titles of which we have printed, in which he clearly shows that such attendance at the religious meetings of separatists does come under the class of actions which exclude from communion with the Church. We conceive that no doubt could exist with respect to the original design of the rubric requiring notice of intended communion to be given on the previous day, nor that attendance at certain places of worship would then have been considered to exclude, if the Presbyterian practice and the Presbyterian complaints against admitting suspected Romanists to communion, which were so much heard of in the days of Queen Elizabeth, were kept in mind. With respect to the second of the two points maintained by Mr. Wordsworth, that our Church does not require confession previous to communion, we need say little, as the subject has been so recently treated in our pages but we think it well to suggest that there is a wide difference between not enforcing previous confession on every communicant, and the not holding that confession is ordinarily necessary, supposing due knowledge in the parties, for the remission of deadly sin a Church may hold the latter doctrine and leave it to the conscience of each individual, when duly instructed, warned and exhorted by his pastor, to decide whether he is under the guilt of such sins as need confession and it may be well to consider whether this is not the true mode by which to explain the changes made at the Reformation.

:

: