My books
My booksCartLists
All 345 genres
Free

History of Civilization in England, Vol. 3 of 3

Text
Author:
0
Reviews
iOSAndroidWindows Phone
Where should the link to the app be sent?
Do not close this window until you have entered the code on your mobile device
RetryLink sent
Read online

At the request of the copyright holder, this book is not available to be downloaded as a file.

However, you can read it in our mobile apps (even offline) and online on the LitRes website

Mark as finished
Font:Smaller АаLarger Aa

The truth is, that every institution, whether political or religious, represents, in its actual working, the form and pressure of the age. It may be very old; it may bear a venerated name; it may aim at the highest objects: but whoever carefully studies its history, will find that, in practice, it is successively modified by successive generations, and that, instead of controlling society, it is controlled by it. When the Protestant Reformation was effected, the Scotch were excessively ignorant, and, therefore, in spite of the Reformation, they remained excessively superstitious. How long that ignorance continued, and what its results were, we shall presently see; but before entering into that inquiry, it will be advisable to trace the immediate consequences of the Reformation itself, in connexion with the powerful class by whose authority it was established.

The nobles, having overthrown the Church, and stripped it of a large part of its wealth, thought that they were to reap the benefit of their own labour. They had slain the enemy, and they wished to divide the spoil.194 But this did not suit the views of the Protestant preachers. In their opinion, it was impious to secularize ecclesiastical property, and turn it aside to profane purposes. They held, that it was right, indeed, for the lords to plunder the Church; but they took for granted that the proceeds of the robbery were to enrich themselves. They were the godly men; and it was the business of the ruling classes to endow them with benefices, from which the old and idolatrous clergy were to be expelled.195

In accordance with these opinions, Knox and his colleagues, in August 1560, presented a petition to Parliament, calling on the nobles to restore the Church property which they had seized, and to have it properly applied to the support of the new ministers.196 To this request, those powerful chiefs did not even vouchsafe a reply.197 They were content with matters as they actually stood, and were, therefore, unwilling to disturb the existing arrangement. They had fought the fight; they had gained the victory, and shared the spoil. It was not to be supposed that they would peaceably relinquish what they had won with infinite difficulty. Nor was it likely that, after being engaged in an arduous struggle with the Church for a hundred and fifty years, and having at length conquered their inveterate enemy, they should forego the fruits of their triumph for the sake of a few preachers, whom they had but recently called to their aid; low-born and obscure men, who should rather deem it an honour that they were permitted to associate with their superiors in a common enterprise, but were not to presume on that circumstance, nor to suppose that they, who only entered the field at the eleventh hour, were to share the booty on anything approaching to terms of equality.198

But the aristocracy of Scotland little knew the men with whom they had to deal. Still less, did they understand the character of their own age. They did not see that, in the state of society in which they lived, superstition was inevitable, and that, therefore, the spiritual classes, though depressed for a moment, were sure speedily to rise again. The nobles had overturned the Church; but the principles on which Church authority is based, remained intact. All that was done, was to change the name and the form. A new hierarchy was quickly organized, which succeeded the old one in the affections of the people. Indeed, it did more. For, the Protestant clergy, neglected by the nobles, and unendowed by the state, had only a miserable pittance whereupon to live, and they necessarily threw themselves into the arms of the people, where alone they could find support and sympathy.199 Hence, a closer and more intimate union than would otherwise have been possible. Hence, too, as we shall presently see, the Presbyterian clergy, smarting under the injustice with which they were treated, displayed that hatred of the upper classes, and that peculiar detestation of monarchical government, which they showed whenever they dared. In their pulpits, in their presbyteries, and in their General Assemblies, they encouraged a democratic and insubordinate tone, which eventually produced the happiest results, by keeping alive, at a critical moment, the spirit of liberty; but which, for that very reason, made the higher ranks rue the day, when, by their ill-timed and selfish parsimony, they roused the wrath of so powerful and implacable a class.

The withdrawal of the French troops, in 1560, had left the nobles in possession of the government;200 and it was for them to decide to what extent the Reformed clergy should be endowed. The first petition, presented by Knox and his brethren, was passed over in contemptuous silence. But the ministers were not so easily put aside. Their next step was, to present to the Privy Council what is known as the First Book of Discipline, in which they again urged their request.201 To the tenets contained in this book, the council had no objection; but they refused to ratify it, because, by doing so, they would have sanctioned the principle that the new church had a right to the revenues of the old one.202 A certain share, indeed, they were willing to concede. What the share should be, was a matter of serious dispute, and caused the greatest ill-will between the two parties. At length, the nobles broke silence, and, in December 1561, they declared that the Reformed clergy should only receive one-sixth of the property of the Church; the remaining five-sixths being divided between the government and the Catholic priesthood.203 The meaning of this was easily understood, since the Catholics were now entirely dependent on the government, and the government was, in fact, the nobles themselves, who were, at that period, the monopolizers of political power.

 

Such being the case, it naturally happened, that, when the arrangement was made known, the preachers were greatly moved. They saw how unfavourable it was to their own interests, and, therefore, they held that it was unfavourable to the interests of religion. Hence, in their opinion, it was contrived by the devil, whose purposes it was calculated to serve.204 For, now, they who travailed in the vineyard of the Lord, were to be discouraged, and were to suffer, in order that what rightly belonged to them might be devoured by idle bellies.205 The nobles might benefit for a time, but the vengeance of God was swift, and would most assuredly overtake them.206 From the beginning to the end, it was nothing but spoliation. In a really Christian land, the patrimony of the Church would be left untouched.207 But, in Scotland, alas! Satan had prevailed,208 and Christian charity had waxen cold.209 In Scotland, property, which should be regarded as sacred, had been broken up and divided; and the division was of the worst kind, since, by it, said Knox, two-thirds are given to the devil, and the other third is shared between God and the devil. It was as if Joseph, when governor of Egypt, had refused food to his brethren, and sent them back to their families with empty sacks.210 Or, as another preacher suggested, the Church was now, like the Maccabees of old, being oppressed, sometimes by the Assyrians, and sometimes by the Egyptians.211

 

But neither persuasions nor threats212 produced any effect on the obdurate minds of the Scotch nobles. Indeed, their hearts, instead of being softened, became harder. Even the small stipends, which were allotted to the Protestant clergy, were not regularly paid, but were mostly employed for other purposes.213 When the ministers complained, they were laughed at, and insulted, by the nobles, who, having gained their own ends, thought that they could dispense with their former allies.214 The Earl of Morton, whose ability, as well as connexions, made him the most powerful man in Scotland, was especially virulent against them; and two of the preachers, who offended him, he put to death, under circumstances of great cruelty.215 The nobles, regarding him as their chief, elected him Regent in 1572;216 and, being now possessed of supreme power, he employed it against the Church. He seized upon all the benefices which became vacant, and retained their profits in his own hands.217 His hatred of the preachers passed all bounds. He publicly declared, that there would be neither peace nor order in the country, until some of them were hung.218 He refused to sanction the General Assemblies by his presence; he wished to do away with their privileges, and even with their name; and with such determination did he pursue his measures, that, in the opinion of the historian of the Scotch Kirk, nothing but the special interference of the Deity could have maintained its existing polity.219

The rupture between Church and State was now complete. It remained to be seen, which was the stronger side. Every year, the clergy became more democratic; and, after the death of Knox, in 1572, they ventured upon a course which even he would hardly have recommended, and which, during the earlier period of the Reformation, would have been impracticable.220 But, by this time, they had secured the support of the people; and the treatment they were receiving from the government, and from the nobles, embittered their minds, and drove them into desperate counsels. While their plans were yet immature, and while the future was looming darkly before them, a new man arose, who was well qualified to be their chief, and who at once stepped into the place which the death of Knox left vacant. This was Andrew Melville, who, by his great ability, his boldness of character, and his fertility of resource, was admirably suited to be the leader of the Scottish Church in that arduous struggle in which it was about to embark.221

In 1574, Melville, having completed his education abroad, arrived in Scotland.222 He quickly rallied round him the choicest spirits in the Church; and, under his auspices, a struggle began with the civil power, which continued, with many fluctuations, until it culminated, sixty years later, in open rebellion against Charles I. To narrate all the details of the contest, would be inconsistent with the plan of this Introduction; and, notwithstanding the extreme interest of the events which now ensued, the greater part of them must be omitted; but I will endeavour to indicate the general march, and to put the reader in possession of such facts as are most characteristic of the age in which they occurred.

Melville had not been in Scotland many months, before he began his opposition, at first by secret intrigues, afterwards with open and avowed hostility.223 In the time of Knox, episcopacy had been recognized as part of the Protestant Church, and had received the sanction of the leading Reformers.224 But that institution did not harmonize with the democratic spirit which was now growing up. The difference of ranks between the bishops and the inferior clergy was unpleasant, and the ministers determined to put an end to it.225 In 1575, one of them, named John Dury, was instigated, by Melville, to bring the subject before the General Assembly at Edinburgh.226 After he had spoken, Melville also expressed himself against episcopacy; but, not being yet sure of the temper of the audience, his first proceedings were somewhat cautious. Such hesitation was, however, hardly necessary; for, owing to the schism between the Church and the upper classes, the ministers were becoming the eager enemies of those maxims of obedience, and of subordination, which they would have upheld, had the higher ranks been on their side. As it was, the clergy were only favoured by the people; they, therefore, sought to organize a system of equality, and were ripe for the bold measures proposed by Melville and his followers. This was clearly shown, by the rapidity of the subsequent movement. In 1575, the first attack was made in the General Assembly at Edinburgh. In April 1578, another General Assembly resolved, that, for the future, bishops should be called by their own names, and not by their titles.227 The same body also declared, that no see should be filled up, until the next Assembly.228 Two months afterwards, it was announced that this arrangement was to be perpetual, and that no new bishop should ever be made.229 And, in 1580, the Assembly of the Church at Dundee, pulling the whole fabric to the ground, unanimously resolved that the office of bishop was a mere human invention; that it was unlawful; that it must be immediately done away with; and that every bishop should at once resign his office, or be excommunicated if he refuse to do so.230

The minister and the people had now done their work, and, so far as they were concerned, had done it well.231 But the same circumstances which made them desire equality, made the upper classes desire inequality.232 A collision, therefore, was inevitable, and was hastened by this bold proceeding of the Church. Indeed, the preachers, supported by the people, rather courted a contest, than avoided it. They used the most inflammatory language against episcopacy; and, shortly before abolishing it, they completed, and presented to Parliament, the Second Book of Discipline, in which they flatly contradicted what they had asserted in their First Book of Discipline.233 For this, they are often taunted with inconsistency.234 But the charge is unjust. They were perfectly consistent; and they merely changed their maxims, that they might preserve their principles. Like every corporation, which has ever existed, whether spiritual or temporal, their supreme and paramount principle was to maintain their own power. Whether or not this is a good principle, is another matter; but all history proves that it is an universal one. And when the leaders of the Scotch Church found that it was at stake, and that the question at issue was, who should possess authority, they, with perfect consistency, abandoned opinions that they had formerly held, because they now perceived that those opinions were unfavourable to their existence as an independent body.

When the First Book of Discipline appeared, in 1560, the government was in the hands of the nobles, who had just fought on the side of the Protestant preachers, and were ready to fight again on their side. When the Second Book of Discipline appeared, in 1578, the government was still held by the nobles; but those ambitious men had now thrown off the mask, and, having effected their purpose in destroying the old hierarchy, had actually turned round, and attacked the new one. The circumstances having changed, the Church changed with them; but in the change there was nothing inconsistent. On the contrary, it would have been the height of inconsistency for the ministers to have retained their former notions of obedience and of subordination; and it was perfectly natural that, at this crisis, they should advocate the democratic idea of equality, just as before they had advanced the aristocratic idea of inequality.

Hence it was, that, in their First Book of Discipline, they established a regularly ascending hierarchy, according to which the general clergy owed obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, to whom the name of superintendents was given.235 But, in the Second Book of Discipline, every vestige of this was swept away; and it was laid down in the broadest terms, that all the preachers being fellow-labourers, all were equal in power; that none had authority over others; and that, to claim such authority, or to assert preëminence, was a contrivance of man, not to be permitted in a divinely constituted Church.236

The government, as may be supposed, took a very different view. Such doctrines were deemed, by the upper classes, to be anti-social, and to be subversive of all order.237 So far from sanctioning them, they resolved, if possible, to overthrow them; and, the year after the General Assembly had abolished episcopacy, it was determined that, upon that very point, a trial of strength should be made between the two parties.

In 1581, Robert Montgomery was appointed archbishop of Glasgow. The ministers who composed the chapter of Glasgow refused to elect him; whereupon the Privy Council declared that the King, by virtue of his prerogative, had the right of nomination.238 All was now confusion and uproar. The General Assembly forbad the archbishop to enter Glasgow.239 He refused to obey their order, and threw himself upon the support of the Duke of Lennox, who had obtained the appointment for him, and to whom he, in return, had surrendered nearly all the revenues of the see, reserving for himself only a small stipend.240 This was a custom which had grown up within the last few years, and was one of many contrivances by which the nobles plundered the Church of her property.241

This, however, was not the question now at issue.242 The point to be decided was one, not of revenue, but of power. For the clergy knew full well, that if they established their power, the revenue would quickly follow. They, therefore, adopted the most energetic proceedings. In April 1582, the General Assembly met at St. Andrews, and appointed Melville as Moderator.243 The government, fearing the worst, ordered the members, on pain of rebellion, to take no steps respecting the archbishopric.244 But the representatives of the Church were undaunted. They summoned Montgomery before them; they ratified the sentence by which he had been suspended from the ministry; and they declared that he had incurred the penalties of despotism and of excommunication.245

A sentence of excommunication was, in those days, so ruinous, that Montgomery was struck with terror at the prospect before him. To avoid the consequences, he appeared before the Assembly, and solemnly promised that he would make no further attempt to possess himself of the archbishopric.246 By doing this, he probably saved his life; for the people, siding with their clergy, were ripe for mischief, and were determined, at all hazards, to maintain what they considered to be the rights of the Church, in opposition to the encroachments of the State.

The government, on the other hand, was equally resolute.247 The Privy Council called several of the ministers before them; and Dury, one of the most active, they banished from Edinburgh.248 Measures still more violent were about to be taken, when they were interrupted by one of those singular events which not unfrequently occurred in Scotland, and which strikingly evince the inherent weakness of the Crown, notwithstanding the inordinate pretensions it commonly assumed.

This was the Raid of Ruthven, which happened in 1582, and in consequence of which the person of James VI. was held in durance for ten months.249 The clergy, true to the policy which now governed them, loudly approved of the captivity of the king, and pronounced it to be a godly act.250 Dury, who had been driven from his pulpit, was brought back to the capital in triumph;251 and the General Assembly, meeting at Edinburgh, ordered that the imprisonment of James should be justified by every minister to his own congregation.252

In 1583, the king recovered his liberty, and the struggle became more deadly than ever; the passions of both parties being exasperated by the injuries each had inflicted on the other. The Ruthven conspiracy, having been declared treason, as it undoubtedly was, Dury preached in its favour, and openly defended it; and although, under the influence of momentary fear, he afterwards withdrew what he had said,253 it was evident, from other circumstances, that his feelings were shared by his brethren.254 A number of them being summoned before the king for their seditious language, bad him take heed what he was about, and reminded him that no occupant of the throne had ever prospered after the ministers had begun to threaten him.255 Melville, who exercised immense influence over both clergy and people, bearded the king to his face, refused to account for what he had delivered in the pulpit, and told James that he perverted the laws both of God and of man.256 Simpson likened him to Cain, and warned him to beware of the wrath of God.257 Indeed, the spirit now displayed by the Church was so implacable, that it seemed to delight in venting itself in the most repulsive manner. In 1585, a clergyman, named Gibson, in a sermon which he preached in Edinburgh, denounced against the king the curse of Jeroboam, that he should die childless, and that his race should end with him.258 The year after this happened, James, finding that Elizabeth was evidently determined to take his mother's life, bethought him of what was valued in that age as an unfailing resource, and desired the clergy to offer up prayers on behalf of Mary. This, they almost unanimously refused.259 And not only did they abstain from supplication themselves, but they resolved that no one else should do what they had declined. The archbishop of Saint Andrews being about to officiate before the king, they induced a certain John Cowper to station himself in the pulpit beforehand, so as to exclude the prelate. Nor was it until the captain of the guard threatened to pull Cowper from the place he had usurped, that the service could go on, and the king be allowed to hear his own mother prayed for, in this sad crisis of her fate, when it was still uncertain whether she would be publicly executed, or whether, as was more generally believed, she would be secretly poisoned.260

In 1594, John Ross stated in the pulpit, that the advisers of the king were all traitors, and that the king himself was likewise a traitor. He was also a rebel and a reprobate. That such should be the case, was not surprising, considering the parentage of James. For, his mother was a Guise, and a persecutor of the saints. He avoided open persecution, and spoke them fair; but his deeds did not correspond to his words; and, so great was his dissimulation, that he was the most arrant hypocrite then living in Scotland.261

In 1596, David Black, one of the most influential of the Protestant ministers, delivered a sermon, which made much noise. He said, in his discourse, that all kings were children of the devil; but that in Scotland the head of the court was Satan himself. The members of the council, he added, were cormorants, and the lords of the session miscreants. The nobility had degenerated: they were godless; they were dissemblers; they were the enemies of the Church. As to the queen of England, she was nothing but an atheist. And as to the queen of Scotland, all he would say was, that they might pray for her if they list, and because it was the fashion to do so; but that there was no reason for it, inasmuch as no good would ever come from her to them.262

For preaching this sermon, Black was summoned by the privy-council. He refused to attend, because it was for a spiritual tribunal, and not for a temporal one, to take notice of what was uttered in the pulpit. The Church, to be sure, he would obey; but, having received his message from God, he was bound to deliver it, and it would be a dereliction of duty, if he were to allow the civil power to judge such matters.263 The king, greatly enraged, ordered Black to be cast into prison; and it is difficult to see what other course was open to him; though it was certain that neither this, nor any measure he could adopt, would tame the indomitable spirit of the Scotch Church.264

In December the same year, the Church proclaimed a fast; and Welsh preached in Edinburgh a sermon, with the view of rousing the people against their rulers. The king, he told his audience, had formerly been possessed by a devil, and that devil being put out, seven worse ones had come in its place. It was, therefore, evident that James was demented, and it became lawful to take the sword of justice from his hands; just as it would be lawful for servants or children to seize the head of their family, if it had pleased heaven to afflict him with madness. In such case, the preacher observed, it would be right to lay hold of the madman, and to tie him hand and foot, that he might do no further harm.265

The hatred felt by the clergy was at this period so bitter, and the democratic spirit in them so strong,266 that they seemed unable to restrain themselves; and Andrew Melville, in an audience with the king, in 1596, proceeded to personal insults, and, seizing him by the sleeve, called him God's silly vassal.267 The large amount of truth contained in this bitter taunt, increased its pungency. But the ministers did not always confine themselves to words.268 Their participation in the Ruthven conspiracy is unquestionable; and it is probable that they were privy to the last great peril to which James was exposed, before he escaped from that turbulent land, which he was believed to govern. Certain it is, that the Earl of Gowrie, who, in 1600, entrapped the king into his castle in order to murder him, was the hope and the mainstay of the Presbyterian clergy, and was intimately associated with their ambitious schemes.269 Such, indeed, was their infatuation on behalf of the assassin, that, when his conspiracy was defeated, and he himself slain, several of the ministers propagated a report that Gowrie had fallen a victim to the royal perfidy, and that, in point of fact, the only plot which ever existed was one concocted by the king, with fatal art, against his mild and innocent host.270

An absurdity of this sort271 was easily believed in an ignorant, and, therefore, a credulous, age. That the clergy should have propagated it, and that in this, as in many other cases, they should have laboured with malignant industry to defame the character of their prince,272 will astonish no one who knows how quickly the wrath of the Church can be roused, and how ready the spiritual classes always are to cover, even with the foulest calumny, those who stand in their way. The evidence which has been collected, proves that the Presbyterian ministers carried their violence against the constituted authorities of the state, to an indecent, if not to a criminal, length; and we cannot absolve them from the charge of being a restless and unscrupulous body, greedy after power, and grossly intolerant of whatever opposed their own views. Still, the real cause of their conduct was, the spirit of their age, and the peculiarities of their position. None of us can be sure that, if we were placed exactly as they were placed, we should have acted differently. Now, indeed, we cannot read of their proceedings, as they are recorded in their own Assemblies, and by the historians of their own Church, without an uneasy feeling of dislike, I had almost said of disgust, at finding ourselves in presence of so much of superstition, of chicanery, of low, sordid arts, and yet, withal, of arrogant and unbridled insolence. The truth, however, is, that in Scotland, the age was evil, and the evil rose to the surface. The times were out of joint, and it was hard to set them right. The long prevalence of anarchy, of ignorance, of poverty, of force, of fraud, of domestic tumult, and of foreign invasion, had reduced Scotland to a state which is scarcely possible for us to realize. Hereafter, I shall give some evidence of the effect which this produced on the national character, and of the serious mischief which it wrought. In the mean time, we should, in fairness to the Scotch clergy, admit that the condition of their country affords the best explanation of their conduct. Everything around them was low and coarse; the habits of men, in their daily life, were violent, brutal, and utterly regardless of common decency; and, as a natural consequence, the standard of human actions was so depressed, that upright and well-meaning persons did not shrink from doing what to us, in our advanced state of society, seems incredible. Let us, then, not be too rash in this matter. Let us not be too forward in censuring the leading actors in that great crisis through which Scotland passed, during the latter half of the sixteenth century. Much they did, which excites our strongest aversion. But one thing they achieved, which should make us honour their memory, and repute them benefactors of their species. At a most hazardous moment, they kept alive the spirit of national liberty.273 What the nobles and the crown had put in peril, that did the clergy save. By their care, the dying spark was kindled into a blaze. When the light grew dim, and flickered on the altar, their hands trimmed the lamp, and fed the sacred flame. This is their real glory, and on this they may well repose. They were the guardians of Scotch freedom, and they stood to their post. Where danger was, they were foremost. By their sermons, by their conduct, both public and private, by the proceedings of their Assemblies, by their bold and frequent attacks upon persons, without regard to their rank, nay, even by the very insolence with which they treated their superiors, they stirred up the minds of men, woke them from their lethargy, formed them to habits of discussion, and excited that inquisitive and democratic spirit, which is the only effectual guarantee the people can ever possess against the tyranny of those who are set over them. This was the work of the Scotch clergy; and all hail to them who did it. It was they who taught their countrymen to scrutinize, with a fearless eye, the policy of their rulers. It was they who pointed the finger of scorn at kings and nobles, and laid bare the hollowness of their pretensions. They ridiculed their claims, and jeered at their mysteries. They tore the veil, and exposed the tricks of the scene which lay behind. The great ones of the earth, they covered with contempt; and those who were above them, they cast down. Herein, they did a deed which should compensate for all their offences, even were their offences ten times as great. By discountenancing that pernicious and degrading respect which men are too apt to pay to those whom accident, and not merit, has raised above them, they facilitated the growth of a proud and sturdy independence, which was sure to do good service at a time of need. And that time came quicker than any one had expected. Within a very few years, James became master of the resources of England, and attempted, by their aid, to subvert the liberties of Scotland. The shameful enterprise, which he began, was continued by his cruel and superstitious son. How their attempts failed; how Charles I., in the effort, shipwrecked his fortune, and provoked a rebellion, which brought to the scaffold that great criminal, who dared to conspire against the people, and who, as the common enemy and oppressor of all, was at length visited with the just punishment of his sins, is known to every reader of our history. It is also well known, that, in conducting the struggle, the English were greatly indebted to the Scotch, who had, moreover, the merit of being the first to lift their hand against the tyrant. What, however, is less known, but is undoubtedly true, is, that both nations owe a debt they can never repay to those bold men who, during the latter part of the sixteenth century, disseminated, from their pulpits and Assemblies, sentiments which the people cherished in their hearts, and which, at a fitting moment, they reproduced, to the dismay, and eventually to the destruction, of those who threatened their liberties.

194. As Robertson says, in his measured, and somewhat feeble, style, ‘Among the Scottish nobility, some hated the persons, and others coveted the wealth, of the dignified clergy; and by abolishing that order of men, the former indulged their resentment, and the latter hoped to gratify their avarice.’ History of Scotland, book iii. p. 116, in Robertson's Works, edit. 1831. The contemporary narrative, in A Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 269, sounds much more vigorous to my ear. ‘In all this tyme’ (1559), ‘all kirkmennis goodis and geir wer spoulzeit and reft fra thame, in euerie place quhair the samyne culd be apprehendit; for euerie man for the maist pairt that culd get any thing pertenyng to any kirkmen, thocht the same as wele won geir.’
195. ‘Knox never dreamed that the revenues of the Church were to be secularized; but that he and his colleagues were simply to remove the old incumbents, and then take possession of their benefices.’ Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 106. ‘The ecclesiastical revenues, which they never contemplated for a moment were to be seized by the Protestant nobility.’ Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, p. 233.
196. Compare Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. pp. 89–92, with M'Crie's Life of Knox, p. 179. Of this document, M'Crie says, ‘There can be no doubt that it received the sanction, if it was not the composition, of the Reformer.’ … ‘It called upon them’ (the nobles) ‘to restore the patrimony of the Church, of which they had unjustly possessed themselves.’
197. ‘Making no answer to the last point.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 327. ‘Without taking any notice.’ Keith's Affairs of Church and State, vol. i. p. 321.
198. ‘They viewed the Protestant preachers as low-born individuals, not far raised above the condition of mechanics or tradesmen, without influence, authority, or importance.’ Lawson's Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, p. 251. ‘None were more unmercifull to the poore ministers than they that had the greatest share of the kirk rents.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 42.
199. In 1561, ‘Notwithstanding the full establishment of the Reformation, the Protestant ministers were in a state of extreme poverty, and dependent upon the precarious assistance of their flocks.’ Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. v. p. 207. Compare a letter, written by Knox, in 1566, ‘on the extreame povertie wherein our ministers are brought.’ Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 542.
200. ‘The limited authority which the Crown had hitherto possessed, was almost entirely annihilated, and the aristocratical power, which always predominated in the Scottish Government (?), became supreme and incontrollable.’ Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, 1834, vol. i. p. 223.
201. See the First Book of Discipline, reprinted in A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, part i., second edition, Edinburgh, 1837. They summed up their requests in one comprehensive passage (p. 119), that ‘the haill rentis of the Kirk abusit in Papistrie sal be referrit againe to the Kirk.’ In another part (p. 106), they frankly admit that, ‘we doubt not but some of our petitions shall appeare strange unto you at the first sight.’
202. ‘The form of polity recommended in the First Book of Discipline never obtained the proper sanction of the State, chiefly in consequence of the avarice of the nobility and gentry, who were desirous of securing to themselves the revenues of the Church.’ Miscellany of the Wodrow Society, p. 324. See also Argyll's Presbytery Examined, p. 26. Many of the nobles, however, did sign it (Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 129); but, says Spottiswoode (History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 373), ‘Most of those that subscribed, getting into their hands the possessions of the Church, could never be induced to part therewith, and turned greater enemies in that point of church patrimony than were the papists, or any other whatsoever.’
203. M'Crie's Life of Knox, p. 204. Knox's History of the Reformation, vol ii. pp. 298–301, 307–309. Buchanan's Rerum Scoticarum Historia, lib. xvii. p. 500. The nominal arrangement, which was contrived with considerable art, was, that one-third of the church revenues should be divided into two parts; one part for the government, and another part for the preachers. The remaining two-thirds were gravely assigned to the Catholic priesthood, who, at that very moment, were liable, by Act of Parliament, to the penalty of death, if they performed the rites of their religion. Men, whose lives were in the hands of the government, were not likely to quarrel with the government about money matters; and the result was, that nearly every thing fell into the possession of the nobles.
204. ‘The Ministeris, evin in the begynnyng, in publict Sermonis opponed thame selves to suche corruptioun, for thei foir saw the purpose of the Devill.’ Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 310.
205. ‘For it seemeth altogether unreasonable that idle belleis sail devoure and consume the patrimonie of the Kirk, whill the faithfull travellers in the Lord's vineyarde suffer extreme povertie, and the needie members of Christ's bodie are altogether neglected.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. ii. pp. 484, 485. This was in 1569; and, in 1571, the celebrated Ferguson, in one of his sermons, declared that the holders of church property, most of whom were the nobility, were ‘ruffians.’ See an extract from his sermon, in Chalmers' History of Dunfermline, p. 309, Edinburgh, 1844. ‘For this day Christ is spuilzeit amang us, quhil yt quhilk aucht to mantene the Ministerie of the Kirk and the pure, is geuin to prophane men, flattereris in court, ruffianes, and hyrelingis.’
206. In September 1571, John Row ‘preiched, wha in plane pulpet pronounced to the lordis, for thair covetusnes, and becaus they wold not grant the just petitiones of the Kirk, Godis heastie vengeance to fall upon them; and said, moreover, “I cair not, my lordis, your displeasour; for I speik my conscience befoir God, wha will not suffer sic wickitnes and contempt vnpunished.”’ Bannatyne's Journal, edit. Edinburgh, 1806, p. 257.
207. In 1576, the General Assembly declared, that their right to ‘the patrimonie of the Kirk’ was ‘ex jure divino.’ Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 360, Edinburgh, 1839, 4to. More than a hundred years later, a Scotch divine evinces how deeply the members of his profession felt this spoliation of the Church, by going out of his way to mention it. See Jacob's Vow, by Dr. John Cockburn, Edinburgh, 1696, pp. 422, 423, 425. But this is nothing in comparison to a recent writer, the Reverend Mr. Lyon, who deliberately asserts that, because these and similar acts occurred in the reign of Mary, therefore the queen came to a violent end; such being the just punishment of sacrilege. ‘The practice’ (of saying masses for the dead) ‘ceased, of course, at the Reformation; and the money was transferred by Queen Mary to the civil authorities of the town. This was, undoubtedly, an act of sacrilege; for, though sacrificial masses for the dead was an error, yet the guardians of the money so bequeathed, were under an obligation to apply it to a sacred purpose. This, and other sacrilegious acts on the part of Mary, of a still more decided and extensive character, have been justly considered as the cause of all the calamities which subsequently befell her.’ History of St. Andrews, by the Rev. C. J. Lyon, M.A., Presbyter of the Episcopal Church, St. Andrews, Edinburgh, 1843, vol. i. p. 54. Elsewhere (vol. ii. p. 400) the same divine mentions, that the usual punishment for sacrilege is a failure of male issue. ‘The following examples, selected from the diocese of St. Andrews, according to its boundaries before the Reformation, will corroborate the general doctrine contended for throughout this work, that sacrilege has ever been punished in the present life, and chiefly by the failure of male issue.’ The italics are in the text. See also vol. i. p. 118. For the sake of the future historian of public opinion, it may be well to observe, that the work containing these sentiments is not a reprint of an older book, but was published for the first time in 1843, having apparently been just written.
208. ‘The General Assemblie of the Kirk of Scotland, convenit at Edinburgh the 25 of December 1566, to the Nobilitie of this Realme that professes the Lord Jesus with them, and hes renouncit that Roman Antichryst, desyre constancie in faith, and the spirit of righteous judgement. Seeing that Sathan, be all our negligence, Right Honourable, hes so farre prevailit within this Realme within these late dayes, that we doe stand in extream danger, not only to lose our temporall possessions, but also to be depryvit of the glorious Evangell,’ &c. Keith's Church and State, vol. iii. pp. 154, 155.
209. In 1566, in their piteous communication to the English bishops and clergy, they said ‘The days are ill; iniquitie abounds; Christian charity, alas, is waxen cold.’ Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 87, Edinburgh, 1839, 4to.
210. ‘I see twa partis freely gevin to the Devill, and the thrid maun be devided betwix God and the Devill: Weill, bear witnes to me, that this day I say it, or it be long the Devill shall have three partis of the thrid; and judge you then what Goddis portioun shallbe.’ … ‘Who wold have thought, that when Joseph reulled Egypt, that his brethren should have travailled for vittallis, and have returned with empty seckis unto thair families? Men wold rather have thought that Pharao's pose, treasure, and garnallis should have bene diminished, or that the houshold of Jacob should stand in danger to sterve for hungar.’ Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. pp. 310, 311.
211. In May 1571, ‘This Sonday, Mr. Craig teiched the 130 Psalme; and, in his sermond, he compared the steat of the Kirk of God in this tovne vnto the steat of the Maccabeis; wha were oppressed sumtymes by the Assyrianis and sumtymes by the Egiptianis.’ Bannatyne's Journal, p. 150.
212. The first instance I have observed of any thing like menace, is in 1567, when ‘the Assembly of the Church being convened at Edinburgh,’ admonished all persons ‘as well noblemen as barons, and those of the other Estates, to meet and give their personal appearance at Edinburgh on the 20th of July, for giving their advice, counsel, and concurrence in matters then to be proponed; especially for purging the realm of popery, the establishing of the policy of the Church, and restoring the patrimony thereof to the just possessors. Assuring those that should happen to absent themselves at the time, due and lawful advertisement being made, that they should be reputed hinderers of the good work intended, and as dissimulate professors be esteemed unworthy of the fellowship of Christ's flock.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 64. This evidently alludes to the possibility of excommunicating those who would not surrender to the Protestant preachers, the property stolen from the Catholic Church; and, in 1570, we find another step taken in the same direction. Under that year, the following passage occurs in Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 181. ‘Q. If those that withold the duty of the Kirk, wherethrough Ministers want their stipends, may be excommunicate? A. All things beand done that the civill ordour requyres of them that withhaldis the duetie of the Kirk, quherby Ministers wants their stipends; the Kirk may proceed to excommunication, for their contempt.’
213. In 1526, ‘the poore ministers, exhorters, and readers, compleaned at church assembleis, that neither were they able to live upon the stipends allowed, nor gett payment of that small portioun which was allowed.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. ii. p. 172. Compare Acts of the General Assemblies, 1839, 4to, vol. i. p. 53; ‘To requyre payment to ministers of there stipends for the tyme by past, according to the promise made.’ This was in December 1564. In December 1565, the General Assembly said (p. 71), ‘that wher oft and divers tymes promise hes bein made to us, that our saids brethren, travelers and preachers in the Kirk of God, sould not be defraudit of their appointit stipends, neither zet in any wayes sould be molestit in their functioun; zet nottheless universallie they want ther stipends appointit for diverse tymes by past.’ On the state of things in 1566, see ‘The Supplication of the Ministers to the Queen,’ in Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 529. See also, in the Miscellany of the Spalding Club, vol. iv. pp. 92–101, Aberdeen, 1849, 4to, a letter written by John Erskine in December 1571, especially p. 97; ‘the gretest of the nobilitie haifing gretest rentis in possessione, and plaicet of God in maist hie honouris, ceasis nocht, maist wiolentlie blindit with awarice, to spoilye and draw to thame selfis the possessiones of the Kirk.’
214. ‘The ministers were called proud knaves, and receaved manie injurious words from the lords, speciallie from Morton, who ruled all. He said, he sould lay their pride, and putt order to them.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. pp. 137, 138. This was in 1571.
215. Chambers' Annals of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 79, 80.
216. ‘The nobilitie wnderwrittin convenit in Edinburgh, and chesit and electit James erle of Mortoun regent.’ A Diurnal of Occurrents, p. 320.
217. In 1573, ‘when any benefeces of Kirk vaikit, he keapit the proffet of thair rents sa lang in his awin hand, till he was urgit be the Kirk to mak donatioun tharof, and that was not gevin but proffeit for all that.’ The Historie and Life of King James the Sext, edit. Edinburgh, 1825, 4to, p. 147. Even in 1570, when Lennox was regent, ‘the Earle of Mortoun was the chiefe manager of every thing under him;’ and was ‘master of the church rents,’ and made ‘gifts of them to the nobility.’ Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. part i. pp. 27, 126, Glasgow, 1834, 4to.
218. ‘During all these Assembleis and earnest endeavoures of the brethrein, the regent was often required to give his presence to the Assemblie, and further the caus of God. He not onlie refused, but threatned some of the most zealous with hanging, alledging, that otherwise there could be no peace nor order in the countrie.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. pp. 393, 394. ‘Uses grait thretning against the maist zelus breithring, schoring to hang of thame, utherwayes ther could be na peace nor ordour in the countrey.’ The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill, edited by R. Pitcairn, Edinburgh, 1842, pp. 59, 60.
219. ‘He mislyked the Generall Assembleis, and would have had the name changed, that he might take away the force and priviledge thereof; and no questioun he had stayed the work of policie that was presentlie in hands, if God had not stirred up a factioun against him.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 396. See also The Autobiography of James Melvill, p. 61.
220. ‘During the two years following the death of Knox, each day was ripening the more determined opposition of the Church. The breach between the clergy with the great body of the people, and the government or higher nobility, was widening rapidly.’ Argyll's Presbytery Examined, p. 70.
221. ‘Next to her Reformer, who, under God, emancipated her from the degrading shackles of papal superstition and tyranny, I know no individual from whom Scotland has received such important services, or to whom she continues to owe so deep a debt of national respect and gratitude, as Andrew Melville.’ M'Crie's Life of Andrew Melville, vol. ii. p. 473, Edinburgh, 1819. His nephew, himself a considerable person, says, ‘Scotland receavit never a graitter benefit at the hands of God nor this man.’ The Autobiography of James Melvill, p. 38.
222. He left Scotland in 1564, at the age of nineteen, and returned ‘in the beginning of July 1574, after an absence of ten years from his native country.’ M'Crie's Life of Andrew Melville, vol. i. pp. 17, 57. See also Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk of Scotland, edit. Wodrow Society, p. 34; and Howie's Biographia Scoticana, p. 111, Glasgow, 1781.
223. He appears to have first set to work in November 1574. See Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 261, London, 1848.
224. ‘The compilers of the Book of Discipline’ (i. e. the First Book, in 1560) ‘were distinguished by prelatical principles to the end of their days.’ … ‘That Knox himself was no enemy to prelacy, considered as an ancient and apostolical institution, is rendered clear by his “Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of Christ's Gospel.”’ Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, 1834, vol. i. p. 240. ‘The associates of Knox, it is obvious, were not Presbyterians, and had no intention of setting up a system of parity among the ministers of their new establishment.’ p. 243. See also p. 332. Even in 1572, the year of Knox's death, I find it stated that ‘the whole Diocie of Sanct Andrews is decerned be the Assembly to pertain to the Bishop of the same.’ Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 264, 4to. 1839. The Scotch Presbyterians have dealt very unfairly with this part of the history of their Church.
225. Some little time after this, David Fergusson, who died in 1598, and was minister at Dunfermline, said very frankly to James VI., ‘Yes, Sir, ye may have Bishops here, but ye must remember to make us all equall; make us all Bishops, els will ye never content us.’ Row's History of the Kirk of Scotland from 1558 to 1637, edit. Wodrow Society, p. 418. Compare Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iv. p. 214: in 1584 ‘these monstruous titles of superioritie.’ In 1586, ‘that tyrannicall supremacie of bishops and archbishops over ministers.’ p. 604.
226. ‘He stirred up John Dury, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, in an Assembly which was then convened, to propound a question touching the lawfulness of the episcopal function, and the authority of chapters in their election. He himself, as though he had not been acquainted with the motion, after he had commended the speaker's zeal, and seconded the purpose with a long discourse of the flourishing estate of the church of Geneva, and the opinions of Calvin and Theodore Beza concerning church government, came to affirm, “That none ought to be esteemed office-bearers in the Church whose titles were not found in the book of God. And, for the title of bishops, albeit the same was found in Scripture, yet was it not to be taken in the sense that the common sort did conceive, there being no superiority allowed by Christ amongst ministers,”’ &c. Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 200. See also Acts of the General Assemblies, vol. i. p. 331, where it appears that six bishops were present on this memorable occasion. The question raised was, ‘Whither if the Bischops, as they are now in the Kirk of Scotland, hes thair function of the word of God or not, or if the Chapiter appointit for creating of them aucht to be tollerated in this reformed Kirk.’ p. 340.
227. ‘It was ordained, That Bischops and all vthers bearand Ecclesiasticall functioun, be callit bethair awin names, or Brethren, in tyme comeing.’ Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 404.
228. ‘Therfor the Kirk hes concludit, That no Bischops salbe electit or made heirafter, befor the nixt Generall Assemblie.’ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 408.
229. ‘Anent the Act made in the last Assemblie, the 28 of Aprile 1578, concerning the electioun of Bischops, suspendit quhill this present Assemblie, and the farther ordour reservit thereto: The General Assemblie, all in ane voyce, hes concludit, That the said act salbe extendit for all tymes to come, ay and quhill the corruptioun of the Estate of Bischops be alluterlie tane away.’ Ibid. vol. ii. p. 413.
230. ‘Forsameikle as the office of a Bischop, as it is now vsit, and commounly takin within this realme, hes no sure warrand, auctoritie, nor good ground out of the (Book and) Scriptures of God; but is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of (men's) invention, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God: The haill Assemblie of the Kirk, in ane voyce, after libertie givin to all men to reason in the matter, none opponing themselves in defending the said pretendit office, Finds and declares the samein pretendit office, vseit and termeit, as is above said, vnlaufull in the selfe, as haveand neither fundament, ground nor warrant within the word of God: and ordaines, that all sick persons as bruiks, or sall bruik heirafter the said office, salbe chargeit simpliciter to demitt, quyt and leave of the samein, as ane office quhervnto they are not callit be God; and siclyke to desist and cease from all preaching, ministration of the sacraments, or vsing any way the office of pastors, quhill they receive de novo admission from the Generall Assemblie, vnder the paine of excommunicatioun to be denuncit agains them; quherin if they be found dissobedient, or contraveine this act in any point, the sentence of excommunicatioun, after dew admonitions, to be execute agains them.’ Acts of the General Assemblies, vol. ii. p. 453.
231. As Calderwood triumphantly says, ‘the office of bishops was damned.’ History of the Kirk, vol. iii. p. 469. ‘Their whole estat, both the spirituall and civill part, was damned.’ p. 526. James Melville (Autobiography, p. 52) says that, in consequence of this achievement, his uncle Andrew ‘gatt the nam of επισκομαστιξ, Episcoporum exactor, the flinger out of Bischopes.’
232. Tytler (History of Scotland, vol. vi. p. 302) observes that, while ‘the great body of the burghers, and middle and lower classes of the people,’ were Presbyterians, ‘a large proportion of the nobility supported episcopacy.’ Instead of ‘a large proportion,’ he would not have been far wrong, if he had said ‘all.’ Indeed, ‘Melville himself says the whole peerage was against him.’ Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 269. Forbes ascribes the aristocratic movement against presbytery to ‘godles atheists,’ who insisted ‘that there could be nothing so contrair to the nature of a monarchie,’ &c., ‘than that paritie of authoritie in pastours.’ Forbes, Certaine Records touching the Estate of the Kirk, p. 349, edit. Wodrow Society. See also p. 355. ‘That Democratie (as they called it) whilk allwayes behoved to be full of sedition and troubble to ane Aristocratie, and so in end to a Monarchie.’ The reader will observe this important change in the attitude of classes in Scotland. Formerly, the clergy had been the allies of the crown against the nobles. Now, the nobles allied themselves with the crown against the clergy. The clergy, in self-defence, had to ally themselves with the people.
233. On the difference between the two productions, there are some remarks worth looking at, in Argyll's Presbytery Examined, 1848, pp. 38–43. But this writer, though much freer from prejudice than most Presbyterian authors, is unwilling to admit how completely the Second Book of Discipline contradicts the First.
234. By the Scotch episcopalians.
235. See the First Book of Discipline, reprinted in the first volume of A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, 2d edit., Edinburgh, 1837. The superintendents were ‘to set, order, and appoint ministers,’ p. 61; and it would seem (p. 88) that no minister could be deposed without the consent of his superintendent; but this could hardly be intended to interfere with the supreme authority of the General Assembly. See also the summary, p. 114, where it is said of the superintendents, that ‘in thair visitatioun thei sal not onlie preiche, but als examine the doctrine, life, diligence, and behavior of the ministeris, reideris, elderis, and deaconis.’ According to Spottiswoode (History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 167), ‘the superintendents held their office during life, and their power was episcopal; for they did elect and ordain ministers, they presided in synods, and directed all church censures, neither was any excommunication pronounced without their warrant.’ See further, on their authority, Knox's History of the Reformation, vol. ii. p. 161. ‘That punyschment suld be appointed for suche as dissobeyid or contemned the superintendentes in thair functioun.’ This was in 1561; and, in 1562, ‘It was ordained, that if ministers be disobedient to superintendents in anything belonging to edification, they must be subject to correction.’ Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk, vol. i. p. 14. Compare p. 131: ‘sick things as superintendents may and aught decyde in their synodall conventiouns.’
236. ‘For albeit the Kirk of God be rewlit and governit be Jesus Christ, who is the onlie King, hie Priest, and Heid thereof, yit he useis the ministry of men, as the most necessar middis for this purpose.’ … ‘And to take away all occasion of tyrannie, he willis that they sould rewl with mutuall consent of brether and equality of power, every one according to thair functiones.’ Second Book of Discipline, in A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. pp. 126, 127. ‘As to Bischops, if the name επισκοπος be properly taken, they ar all ane with the ministers, as befoir was declairit. For it is not a name of superioritie and lordschip, bot of office and watching.’ p. 142. To understand the full meaning of this, it should be mentioned, that the superintendents, established by the Kirk in 1560, not unfrequently assumed the title of ‘Lordship,’ as an ornament to the extensive powers conferred upon them. See, for instance, the notes to Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. part ii. p. 461. But, in the Second Book of Discipline, in 1578, the superintendents are, if I rightly remember, not even once named.
237. Just as in England, we find that the upper classes are mostly Episcopalians; their minds being influenced, often unconsciously, by the, to them, pleasing spectacle of an inequality of rank, which is conventional, and does not depend upon ability. On the other hand, the strength of the Dissenters lies among the middle and lower classes, where energy and intellect are held in higher respect, and where a contempt naturally arises for a system, which, at the mere will of the sovereign or minister of the day, concedes titles and wealth to persons whom nature did not intend for greatness, but who, to the surprise of their contemporaries, have greatness thrust upon them. On this difference of opinion in Scotland, corresponding to the difference of social position, see the remarks on the seventeenth century, in Hume's Commentaries on the Law of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 544, Edinburgh, 1797, 4to.
238. Record of Privy Council, in M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 267. ‘The brethrein of Glasgow were charged, under paine of horning, to admitt Mr. Robert Montgomrie.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. p. 596.
239. ‘Charges the said Mr. Robert to continue in the ministrie of the Kirk of Striveling,’ &c. Acts of the General Assemblies, vol. ii. p. 547. This was in October 1581; the Record of the Privy Council was in April 1582. Moysie, who was a contemporary, says that, in March 1581, 2, not only the dean and chapter, but all the clergy (the ‘haill ministrie’) declared from the pulpit that Montgomery's appointment ‘had the warrand of the deuill and not of the word of God, bot wes damnit thairby.’ Moysie's Memoirs, Edinburgh, 1830, 4to, p. 36.
240. ‘The title whereof the said duke had procured to him, that he, having the name of bishop, and eight hundred merks money for his living and sustentatioun, the whole rents, and other duteis of the said benefice, might come to the duke's utilitie and behove.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iv. p. 111. See also p. 401.
241. Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk, pp. 24, 25. Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. p. 302. Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers, vol. i. part i. p. 206. Lyon's History of St. Andrews, vol. i. p. 379. Gibson's History of Glasgow, p. 59. Hume's History of the House of Douglas, vol. ii. pp. 216, 217. Chalmers' Caledonia, vol. iii. p. 624.
242. ‘But the Church passing this point’ (i. e. the simony) ‘made quarrel to him for accepting the bishopric.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 282.
243. Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk, vol. ii. p. 548.
244. ‘A messenger-at-arms entered the house, and charged the moderator and members of the assembly, on the pain of rebellion, to desist from the process.’ M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 268.
245. ‘The Assemblie and brether present, after voteing in the said matter, depryvit the said Mr. Robert from all functioun of the Ministrie in the Kirk of God, dureing the will of the Kirk of God; and farther, descernit the fearefull sentence of excommunicatioun to be pronuncit against him in the face of the haill Assemblie, be the voyce and mouth of the Moderatour present; to the effect, that, his proud flesh being cast into the hands of Satan, he may be win againe, if it be possible, to God; and the said sentence (to) be intimat be every particular minister, at his awin particular kirk, solemnelie in the first sermoun to be made be them, after thair returning.’ Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk, vol. ii. p. 562.
246. Ibid., vol. ii. p. 565. Calderwood (History of the Kirk, vol. iii. p. 604) says, ‘After long reluctatioun, at lenth he condescended.’
247. M'Crie (Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 274) says, ‘In all these contendings, the ministers had no countenance or support from any of the nobility.’ It would have been strange if they had, seeing that the whole movement was essentially democratic.
248. Melville's Autobiography, p. 129. Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. p. 620. M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 270.
249. He was seized in August 1582, and was let loose again in June 1583. Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vi. pp. 321, 360. It is a pity that this valuable, and really able, work should be so superficial in regard to the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland. Mr. Tytler appears not to have studied at all the proceedings of the presbyteries, or even of the General Assemblies; neither does he display any acquaintance with the theological literature of his country. And yet, from the year 1560 to about 1700, these sources disclose more of the genuine history of the Scotch people than all other sources put together.
250. ‘The pulpit resounded with applauses of the godly deed.’ Arnot's History of Edinburgh, p. 37.
251. ‘As he is comming from Leith to Edinburgh, upon Tuisday the 4th of September, there mett him at the Gallow Greene two hundreth men of the inhabitants of Edinburgh. Their number still increased, till he came within the Neather Bow. There they beganne to sing the 124 Psalme, “Now may Israel say,” &c, and sang in foure parts, knowne to the most part of the people. They came up the street till they came to the Great Kirk, singing thus all the way, to the number of two thowsand. They were muche moved themselves, and so were all the beholders. The duke was astonished, and more affrayed at that sight than at anie thing that ever he had seene before in Scotland, and rave his beard for anger.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. iii. pp. 646, 647.
252. Acts of the General Assemblies, vol. ii. pp. 595, 596. This was ordered by the General Assembly which met at Edinburgh on the 9th of October 1582, p. 585. See also Watson's Historicall Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland, p. 192, ‘requiring the ministers in all their churches to commend it unto the people.’
253. Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 308.
254. James, after his escape, ‘convocat all his peaceabill Prelatis and Nobles, and thair he notefeit unto thayme the greif that he consavit of his unlaughfull detentioun the yeir bygayne, and tharefore desyrit thame to acknawlege the same; and thay be thair generall voittis decernit the rayd of Ruthven to be manifest treasoun. The Ministers on the uther part, perswadit the people that it was a godly fact, and that whasoever wald not allow thareof in his hart, was not worthie to be estemit a Christien.’ The Historie of King James the Sext, p. 202, published by the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1825, 4to.
255. ‘Disregard not our threatening; for there was never one yet in this realm, in the place where your grace is, who prospered after the ministers began to threaten him.’ Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vi. p. 364. See also, in Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. v. pp. 540, 541, a letter from one of the clergy in Fife, addressed to the king, in 1597. ‘And now, Sir, lett me be free with you in writting other men's reports, and that of the wisest politicians. They say, our bygane historeis report, and experience teacheth, that raro et fere nunquam has a king and a prince continued long together in this realme; for Filius ante diem patrios inquirit in annos. And they say, Sir, farther, that whatsoever they were of your Majestie's predecessors in governement that oppouned themselves directlie or indirectlie to God's ordinance in his Kirk, it has beene their wracke and subversioun in the end. I might herein be more particular; but I leave it to your Majestie's owne grave and modest consideratioun, for it concerneth you most neere.’
256. ‘Saying, “He perverted the laws both of God and man.”’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 309. Also Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vi. p. 371.
257. ‘Mr. Patrick Simson, preaching before the king upon Gen. iv. 9, “The Lord said to Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother?” said to the king, before the congregation, “Sir, I assure you, in God's name, the Lord will ask at you where is the Earl of Moray, your brother?” The king replyed, before all the congregation, “Mr. Patrik, my chalmer doore wes never steeked upon you: ye might have told me anything ye thought in secret.” He replyed, “Sir, the scandall is publict.”’ Row's History of the Kirk, p. 144. ‘Having occasion, anno 1593, to preach before the king, he publicly exhorted him to beware that he drew not the wrath of God upon himself in patronizing a manifest breach of divine laws.’ Howie's Biographia Scoticana, p. 120.
258. ‘Saying, “That Captain James, with his lady Jesabel, and William Stewart (meaning the colonel), were taken to be the persecutors of the Church; but that now it was seen to be the king himself, against whom he denounced the curse that fell on Jeroboam – that he would die childless, and be the last of his race.”’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 335.
259. ‘The king, perceiving by all these letters, that the death of his mother was determined, called back his ambassadors, and at home gave order to the ministers to remember her in their public prayers, which they denied to do.’ … ‘Upon their denial, charges were directed to command all bishops, ministers, and other office-bearers in the Church to make mention of her distress in their public prayers, and commend her to God in the form appointed. But of all the number only Mr. David Lindsay at Leith and the king's own ministers gave obedience.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church, vol. ii. pp. 355, 356. ‘They, with only one exception, refused to comply.’ Russell's History of the Church in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 23. Compare Watson's Historicall Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland, p. 208; and Historie of James the Sext, p. 225.
260. ‘They stirred up Mr. John Cowper, a young man not entered as yet in the function, to take the pulpit before the time, and exclude the bishop. The king coming at the hour appointed, and seeing him in the place, called to him from his seat, and said, “Mr. John, that place is destined for another; yet since you are there, if you will obey the charge that is given, and remember my mother in your prayers, you shall go on.” He replying, “that he would do as the Spirit of God should direct him,” was commanded to leave the place: and making as though he would stay, the captain of the guard went to pull him out; whereupon he burst forth in these speeches: “This day shall be a witness against the king in the great day of the Lord:” and then denouncing a wo to the inhabitants of Edinburgh, he went down, and the bishop of St. Andrews entering the pulpit did perform the duty required.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 356. ‘The Kingis Majestie, to testifie his earnest and naturall affection to his mother, causit pray for hir oppinly efter him selff; quhairvpone arrose a great dissensioun betuix sum of the ministrie and his Majestie, namely the ministrie of Edinburgh. Quhairvpone the king appoynted Patrik, archbischop of St. Androis to teache, bot he wes preuented be Mr. John Covpar minister, quho come befoir and filled the pulpit. And as the said Mr. John wes beginnand the prayer, the Kingis Majestie commandit him to stay: so as Mr. John raschit michtely vpone the pulpit, saying, “This day sail bear witnes aganis yow in the day of the lord: woe be to ye Edinburgh, for the last of xi plaiges salbe the worst.”’ Moysie's Memoirs, p. 59.
261. See The Historie of King James the Sext, pp. 316–318, from ‘a just copie of his sermon’ supplied by Ross himself. ‘His text was upon the 6 chapter of the Prophet Jeremias, verse 28. “Brethren, we have manie, and almaist innumerable enormiteis in this cuntrie to be lamentit, as the misgovernement of our king be sinistrous counsall of sum particular men. They ar all rebellious traitors, evin the king the maist singular person, and particularlie everie estait of the land.” … “Our king in sindrie poyntis hes bene rebellious aganis the Majestie of God.” … “To this howre, we gat never gude of the Guysien blude, for Queyne Marie his mother was an oppin persecutor of the sanctis of God, and althoght the king be not an oppin persecutor, we have had many of his fayre wordis, wharein he is myghtie aneugh, bot for his gude deiddis, I commend me to thayme.” … “Admit, that our king be a Christien king, yit but amen dement, he is a reprobat king. Of all the men in this nation, the king himself is the maist fynest, and maist dissembling hypocreit.”’ A very short notice of this sermon is given by Calderwood (History of the Kirk, vol. v. p. 299), who probably had not seen the original notes.
262. The accusation, which was fully proved, was, that ‘he had publictlie sayd in pulpit, that the papist erles wes come home be the kingis knavledge and consent, quhairin his Hienes treacherie wes detectit; that all kingis war deuilis and come of deuilis; that the deuill wes the head of the court and in the court; that he pray it for the Queine of Scotland for the faschione, because he saw na appearance of guid in hir tyme,’ Moysie's Memoirs, p. 128. ‘Having been heard to affirm, that the popish lords had returned into the country by the king's permission, and that thereby the king had discovered the “treacherous hypocrisy of his heart” that “all kings were the devil's bairns, and that the devil was in the court, and the guiders of it.” He was proved to have used in his prayer these indecent words, when speaking of the queen, “We must pray for her for fashion's sake; but we might as well not, for she will never do us any good,” He called the queen of England an atheist, and the Lords of Session bribers; and said that the nobility at large “were degenerate, godless, dissemblers, and enemies to the church.”’ Grierson's History of Saint Andrews, p. 30, Cupar, 1838. Among the charges against him were, ‘Fourthly, that he had called the queen of England an atheist. Fifthly, that he had discussed a suspension granted by the lords of session in pulpit, and called them miscreants and bribers. Sixthly, that, speaking of the nobility, he said they were “degenerated, godless, dissemblers, and enemies to the church.” Likewise, speaking of the council, that he had called them “holiglasses, cormorants, and men of no religion.”’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church, vol. iii. p. 21.
263. See the original papers on ‘The Declinatour of the King and Counsel's Judicatour in Maters Spirituall, namelie in Preaching of the Word,’ in Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. v. pp. 457–459, 475–480. Tytler (History of Scotland, vol. vii. pp. 326–332) has given extracts from them, and made some remarks on their obvious tendency. See also on the Declinature of Jurisdiction claimed by the Scotch Church, Hallam's Constitutional History, 4th edit. 1842, vol. ii. p. 461; and Mackenzie's Laws and Customs of Scotland in Matters Criminal, Edinburgh, 1699, folio, pp. 181, 182.
264. M'Crie, in his Life of Melville, vol. ii. pp. 70 seq., has given an account of the punishment of Black, but, as usual, conceals the provocation; or, at least, softens it down until it hardly becomes a provocation. According to him, ‘David Black had been served with a summons to answer before the privy council for certain expressions used by him in his sermons.’ Certain expressions, indeed! But why name the penalty, and suppress the offence? This learned writer knew perfectly well what Black had done, and yet all the information bestowed on the reader is a note at p. 72, containing a mutilated extract from Spottiswoode.
265. ‘Saying, “He was possessed with a devil; that one devil being put out, seven worse were entered in place; and that the subjects might lawfully rise, and take the sword out of his hand:” which he confirmed by the example of a father that falling into a frenzy, might be taken by the children and servants of the family, and tied hand and foot from doing violence.’ Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. iii. p. 34. See also Arnot's History of Edinburgh, pp. 46, 47.
266. This did not escape the attention of the English government; and Elizabeth, who was remarkably well informed respecting Scotch affairs, wrote to James, in 1590, a warning, which was hardly necessary, but which must have added to his fears. ‘And lest fayre semblance, that easely may begile, do not brede your ignorance of suche persons as ether pretend religion or dissemble deuotion, let me warne you that ther is risen, bothe in your realme and myne, a secte of perilous consequence, suche as wold have no kings but a presbitrye, and take our place while the inioy our privilege, with a shade of Godes word, wiche none is juged to folow right without by ther censure the be so demed. Yea, looke we wel unto them.’ Letters of Elizabeth and James VI., edited by John Bruce, Camden Society, 1849, 4to, p. 63.
267. The Reverend James Melville, who was present at the scene, describes it with exuberant delight. ‘To the quhilk, I beginning to reply, in my maner, Mr. Andro doucht nocht abyd it, bot brak af upon the king in sa zealus, powerfull, and unresistable a maner, that whowbeit the king used his authoritie in maist crabbit and colerik maner, yit Mr. Andro bure him down, and outtered the Commission as from the mightie God, calling the king bot “God's sillie vassall:” and taking him be the sleive,’ &c. Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill, p. 370. See also Shields' Hind let loose, 1687, p. 52; and M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. ii. p. 66.
268. In 1593, 4, some of them formed a plot to seize him. See the evidence from the State-paper Office, in Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vii. p. 249, edit. Edinburgh, 1845.
269. ‘He was the darling hope of the Presbyterian party.’ Ibid., vol. vii. p. 410.
270. ‘Gowry's conspiracy was by them charged on the king, as a contrivance of his to get rid of that earl.’ Burnet's History of his own Time, edit. Oxford, 1823, vol. i. p. 31. See also Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vii. pp. 439, 440; and on the diffusion of ‘this absurd hallucination,’ see The Spottiswoode Miscellany, vol. ii. p. 320, Edinburgh, 1845.
271. See a good note in Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 179, Edinburgh, 1833, 4to. Compare Lawson's Book of Perth, Edinburgh, 1847, p. xxxix.
272. Their language, and their general bearing, so enraged James, as to extort from him a passionate declaration, in 1592, that ‘it would not be weill till noblemen and gentlemen gott licence to breake ministers' heads.’ Calderwood's History of the Kirk, vol. v. p. 148.
273. ‘At the period of which we speak’ (about the year 1584) ‘the pulpit was, in fact, the only organ by which public opinion was, or could be, expressed; and the ecclesiastical courts were the only assemblies in the nation which possessed anything that was entitled to the name of liberty or independence. Parliament had its business prepared to its hand, and laid before it in the shape of acts which required only its assent. Discussion and freedom of speech were unknown in its meetings. The courts of justice were dependent on the will of the sovereign, and frequently had their proceedings regulated, and their decisions dictated, by letters or messages from the throne. It was the preachers who first taught the people to express an opinion on the conduct of their rulers; and the assemblies of the Church set the earliest example of a regular and firm opposition to the arbitrary and unconstitutional measures of the court.’ M'Crie's Life of Melville, vol. i. p. 302.