Chapter II (4)

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]

[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.

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]

[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.

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]

[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.

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]

[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.

An absurdity of this sort[271] 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.

[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.