Chapter II (3)

[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.

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]

[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
y^t 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.

But neither persuasions nor threats[212] 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]

[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.

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]

[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.

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.

[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.

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]

[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.

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.

[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 [Greek:
episkopomastix], _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.

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]

[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 [Greek: episkopos] 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.

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.

[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.

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]

[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.

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]

[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.

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.

[246] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 565. Calderwood (_History of the Kirk_,
vol. iii. p. 604) says, 'After long reluctatioun, at lenth he
condescended.'

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.

[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.

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]

[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.'

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]

[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.

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]

[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.