Chapter III (1)

CONDITION OF SCOTLAND DURING THE SEVENTEENTH AND EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES.

Scarcely had James mounted the throne of England, when he began seriously, and on a large scale, to attempt to subjugate the Scotch Church, which, as he clearly saw, was the principal obstacle that stood between him and despotic power. While he was merely King of Scotland, he made several efforts, which were constantly baffled; but now that he wielded the vast resources of England, the victory seemed easy.[274] As early as 1584, he had gained a temporary triumph, by forcing many of the clergy to recognize episcopacy.[275] But that institution was so repugnant to their levelling and democratic principles, that nothing could overcome their abhorrence of it;[276] and, completely overawing the king, they compelled him to give way, and to retrace his steps. The result was, that, in 1592, an Act of Parliament was passed, which subverted the authority of the bishops, and established Presbyterianism; a scheme based on the idea of equality, and, therefore, suited to the wants of the Scotch Church.[277]

[274] Lord Dartmouth says (Note in _Burnet's History of his own Time_,
vol. i. p. 15): 'The Earl of Seafield told me that King James
frequently declared that he never looked upon himself to be more
than King of Scotland in name, till he came to be King of England;
but now, he said, one kingdom would help him to govern the other,
or he had studied kingcraft to very little purpose from his cradle
to that time.' Compare _Burnet's Memoirs of the Dukes of
Hamilton_, Oxford, 1852, p. 36. 'No sooner was he happily settled
on the throne of England, but he went more roundly to work.'

[275] Compare _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vi. p. 430, with
_Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 303, § 20;
also the Act (p. 293, § 4), likewise in 1584, limiting the power
of the General Assemblies. James, who flattered himself that he
had now settled everything, signalized his triumph by personally
abusing the clergy; 'calling them lownes, smaicks, seditious
knaves, and so furth.' See a letter, dated 2nd of January 1585-6,
in _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 438, Edinburgh, 1844.

[276] 'Bishops were alwayes looked at with a frown.' _Kirkton's History
of the Church of Scotland_, p. 129.

[277] See this remarkable statute, in _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 541, 2. As some of the historians of the
Scotch Church have greatly misrepresented it, I will quote that
part which expressly repeals the Act of 1584, in favour of the
bishops. 'Item oure said souerane lord and estaittis of Parliament
foirsaid, abrogatis cass and anullis the xx act of the same
pliam[=e]t haldin at Edinburgh the said zeir 1584 zeiris granting
c[=o]missioun to bishoppis and vtheris iuges constitute in
ecclesiastical causs To ressaue his hienes presentatioun to
benefices, To gif collatioun thairvpoun and to put ordo^r in all
causs ecclesiasticall qlk his Maiestie and estaittis foirsaid
declairis to be expyrit in the self and to be null in tyme cuming
and of nane availl force nor effect.'

To this statute, James had assented with the greatest reluctance.[278] Indeed, his feeling respecting it was so strong, that he determined, on the first opportunity, to procure its repeal, even if he used force to effect his purpose. The course he adopted, was characteristic both of the man and of the age. In December 1596, one of those popular tumults arose in Edinburgh, which are natural in barbarous times, and which, under ordinary circumstances, would have been quelled, and nothing more thought of it.[279] But James availed himself of this, to strike what he deemed a decisive blow. His plan was nothing less than to turn into the capital of his own monarchy, large bodies of armed and licensed banditti, who, by threatening to plunder the city, should oblige the clergy and their flocks to agree to whatever terms he chose to dictate. This magnanimous scheme was well worthy of the mind of James, and it was strictly executed. From the north, he summoned the Highland nobles, and from the south, the border barons, who were to be accompanied by their fierce retainers,--men who lived by pillage, and whose delight it was to imbrue their hands in blood. At the express command of James, these ferocious brigands, on the 1st of January 1597, appeared in the streets of Edinburgh, gloating over the prospect before them, and ready, when their sovereign gave the word, to sack the capital, and raze it to the ground.[280] Resistance was hopeless. Whatever the king demanded, was conceded; and James supposed that the time was now come, in which he could firmly establish the authority of the bishops, and, by their aid, control the clergy, and break their refractory spirit.[281]

[278] 'The King repented after that he had agreed unto it.' _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk_, vol. v. p. 162. But this gives a faint idea
of his real feelings. It is perhaps hardly necessary to adduce
evidence of the opinions entertained on this point, by a prince,
one of whose favourite sayings was, 'No Bishop, no King.' The
reader will, however, find, in the _Clarendon State Papers_ (vol.
ii. p. 260 Oxford, 1773, folio), a letter from Charles I., which
is worth looking at, because it frankly avows that James, in
loving episcopacy and hating presbyterianism, was actuated rather
by political motives than by religious ones. Charles writes: 'The
prudentiall part of any consideration will never be found opposit
to the conscientious, nay heere, they go hand in hand; for
(according to lawyers lodgique) show me any president where ever
Presbiteriall government and Regall was together, without
perpetuall rebellions. _Which was the cause that necessitated the
King, my Father, to change that governement in Scotland._' Compare
what is said by a Scotch Presbyterian of the seventeenth century,
in _Biographies edited for the Wodrow Society_ by the Rev. W. K.
Tweedie, Edinburgh, 1845, vol. i. p. 13. 'The reason why King
James was so violent for bishops was neither their divine
institution (which he denied they had), nor yet the profit the
Church should reap by them (for he knew well both the men and
their communications), but merely because he believed they were
useful instruments to turn a limited monarchy into absolute
dominion, and subjects into slaves, the design in the world he
minded most.'

[279] 'Had it not been laid hold of by designing politicians as a handle
for accomplishing their measures, it would not now have been known
that such an event had ever occurred.' _M'Crie's Life of
Melville_, vol. ii. p. 85. 'Harmless as this uproar was, it
afforded the court a pretext for carrying into execution its
designs against the liberties and government of the Church.'
p. 89.

[280] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 342-345.
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v. pp. 514, 515, 530,
531.

[281] 'Intimidated by these menaces, and distressed at the loss of the
courts of justice, they came to the resolution of making surrender
of their political and religious liberties to the king.' _M'Crie's
Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 92. This is said of the magistrates
of Edinburgh. Among other threats, one was, the 'razing and
ploughing of Edinburgh, and sowing it with salt.' _Wodrow's Life
of Bruce_, p. 48, prefixed to _Bruce's Sermons_, edited by the
Rev. William Cunningham, Edinburgh, 1843. On this occasion,
Elizabeth wrote a letter to James, which is printed in _Letters of
Queen Elizabeth and James VI._, 1849, 4to, pp. 120, 121.

In this undertaking, three years were consumed. To insure its success, the king, supported by the nobles, relied, not only on force, but also on an artifice, which now seems to have been employed for the first time. This was, to pack the General Assemblies, by inundating them with clergymen drawn from the north of Scotland, where, the old clannish and aristocratic spirit being supreme, the democratic spirit, found in the south, was unknown. Hitherto, these northern ministers had rarely attended at the great meetings of the Church; but James, in 1597, sent Sir Patrick Murray on a special mission to them, urging them to be present, in order that they might vote on his side.[282] They, being a very ignorant body, knowing little or nothing of the questions really at issue, and being, moreover, accustomed to a state of society in which men, notwithstanding their lawlessness, paid the most servile obedience to their immediate superiors, were easily worked upon, and induced to do what they were bid. By their help, the crown and the nobles so strengthened their party in the General Assembly, as to obtain in many instances a majority; and innovations were gradually introduced, calculated to destroy the democratic character of the Scotch Church.[283]

[282] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 100. Scot (_Apologetical
Narration of the State of the Kirk_, p. 88) says, 'Sir Patrick
Murray, the diligent apostle of the North, made their acquaintance
with the King.' Also, _The Autobiography and Diary of James
Melville_, p. 403.

[283] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 350, 359. But by far
the best account of the influence of these northern clergy will be
found in _M'Crie's Life of Melville_ (vol. ii. pp. 100-105, 109,
131, 152), drawn, in several instances, from manuscript
authorities. Compare _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v.
p. 625.

In 1597, the movement began. From then, until 1600, successive Assemblies sanctioned different changes, all of which were marked by that aristocratic tendency which seemed about to carry everything before it. In 1600, the General Assembly met at Montrose; and government determined on making a final effort to compel the Church to establish an episcopal polity. Andrew Melville, by far the most influential man in the Church, and the leader of the democratic party, had been elected, as usual, a member of the Assembly; but the king, arbitrarily interposing, refused to allow him to take his seat.[284] Still, neither by threats, nor by force, nor by promises, could the court carry their point. All that they obtained was, that certain ecclesiastics should be allowed to sit in parliament; but it was ordered that such persons should every year lay their commissions at the feet of the General Assembly, and render an account of their conduct. The Assembly was to have the power of deposing them; and, to keep them in greater subjection, they were forbidden to call themselves bishops, but were to be content with the inferior title of Commissioners of the Church.[285]

[284] This is related by his nephew, James Melville. 'Mr. Andro Melvill
come to the Assembly, by Commissoune of his Presbytrie, but wes
commandit to keip his ludgeing; quho, being callit to the King in
private, and demandit, Quhy he wes so trublesume as to come to the
Assembly being dischairgit? He answerit, He had a calling in the
Kirk of God, and of Jesus Chryst, the King of kings, quhilk he
behovit to dischairge at all occasiounes, being orderlie callit
thairto, as he wes at this tyme; and that for feir of a grytter
punischment then could any earthly King inflict.' _The
Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill_, p. 542.

[285] As, owing to the passions of the rival classes, every step of this
part of Scotch history is the subject of angry controversy, and as
even Mr. Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 360) asserts
that 'the final establishment of Episcopacy' took place at the
Assembly of Montrose, in 1600. I subjoin a few extracts from the
enactments of that Assembly, in order that the reader may judge
for himself, and may test the accuracy of what I have stated in
the text. 'Concerning the maner of choosing of him that sall have
vote in Parliament in name of the Kirk: It is condiscendit vpon,
that _he sall first be recommendit be the Kirk to his Majestie_;
and that the Kirk sall nominat sixe for every place that sall have
neid to be filled, of quhom his Majestie sall choose ane, of quhom
he best lykes; and his Majestie promises, obleises, and binds
himselfe to choose no vther but ane of that number: And in cace
his Majestie refuses the haill vpon ane just reason of ane
insufficiency, and of greater sufficiencie of vthers that are not
recommendit, the Kirk sall make ane new recommendatioun of men
according to the first number, of the quhilk, ane salbe chosin be
his Majestie without any farther refuisall or new nominatioun; and
he that salbe chosin be his Majestie, salbe admittit be the
Synods.' _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland_,
vol. iii. p. 954. 'As to the cautions to keip him, that sall have
vote in Parliament, from corruptiouns: They be these following:
1. _That he presume not, at any tyme, to propone at Parliament,
Counsell or Conventioun, in name of the Kirk, any thing without
expresse warrand and directioun from the Kirk_, and sick things as
he sall answer (for) to be for the weill of the Kirk, vnder the
paine of depositioun from his office.' ... 2. 'He sall be bound at
every Generall Assemblie, to give ane accompt anent the discharge
of his commissioun sen the Assemblie gangand befor; _and sall
submitt himselfe to thair censure, and stand at thair
determinatioun quhatsumever, without appellatioun; and sall seik
and obtain ratificatioun of his doings at the said Assemblie,
vnder the paine of infamie and excommunicatioun_.' ... 6. 'In the
administration of discipline, collatioun of benefices,
visitatioun, and all vther points of ecclesiasticall government,
he sall neither vsurpe nor acclaime to himselfe _any power or
jurisdictioun farther than any vther of the rest of his breither_,
unlesse he be imployit be his breither, vnder the paine of
deprivatioun.' p. 955. 'Anent his name that for the Kirk sall
(have) vote in Parliament: It is advyseit, be vniforme consent of
the haill brether, that he salbe callit Commissioner of such a
place.' p. 956. 'Therfor the Generall Assemblie having reasonit at
length the said questioun, tuiching the continuance of him that
sall have vote in Parliament, after votting of the same, finds and
decernes, that _he sall annuatim give count of his commission
obtainit from the Assemblie, and lay downe the samein at thair
feitt_, to be continuit or alterit therfra be his Maiestie and the
Assemblie, as the Assemblie, with consent of his Maiestie, sall
think most expedient for the weill of the Kirk.' p. 959.

After sustaining this repulse, James seems to have been disheartened; as he made no further effort, though he still laboured underhand at the restoration of episcopacy.[286] If he had persevered, it might have cost him his crown. For, his resources were few; he was extremely poor;[287] and recent events had shown that the clergy were stronger than he had supposed. When he thought himself most sure of success, they had subjected him to a mortifying defeat; and this was the more remarkable, as it was entirely their own work; they being by this time so completely separated from the nobles, that they could not rely upon even a single member of that powerful body.

[286] 'While James remained in Scotland, the scheme of introducing
episcopacy, though never lost sight of, was cautiously
prosecuted.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. p. 178.

[287] James, during the whole of his reign, was chiefly dependent on the
money which Elizabeth gave him, and which she dealt out rather
niggardly. Such were his necessities, that he was forced to pawn
his plate, and, even then, he was often unable to defray his
ordinary household expenses. See _Tytler's History of Scotland_,
vol. vi. pp. 265, 266, 272, vol. vii. pp. 158, 378-380.
_Miscellany of the Spalding Club_, vol. ii. pp. xlv. 114.
_Gregory's History of the Western Highlands_, pp. 241, 277. See
also a clamorous begging-letter from James to Elizabeth, written
in 1591, in _Letters of Queen Elizabeth and James VI._, 1849, 4to,
pp. 68, 69. In 1593, she apologizes for sending him only a small
sum: 'The small token you shall receave from me I desire yt may
serve to make you remember the tyme and my many weighty affaires,
wich makes it les than else I would, and I dowt nothing but when
you heare all, yow will beare with this.' p. 84. A letter from
James Hudson, written about the year 1591, states that 'both the
king's table and queen's had like to have been unserved by want;
and that the king had nothing he accounted certain to come into
his purse, but what he had from the Queen of England.' _Ridpath's
Border History_, p. 465, Berwick, 1848, 4to.

While affairs were in this state, and while the liberties of Scotland, of which the Church was the guardian, were trembling in the balance, Elizabeth died, and the King of Scotland became also King of England. James at once determined to employ the resources of his new kingdom to curb his old one. In 1604, that is, only the year after his accession to the English throne, he aimed a deadly blow at the Scotch Church, by attacking the independence of their Assemblies; and, by his own authority, he prorogued the General Assembly of Aberdeen.[288] In 1605, he again prorogued it; and, to make his intentions clear, he, this time, refused to fix a day for its future meeting.[289] Hereupon, some of the ministers, deputed by presbyteries, took upon themselves to convene it, which they had an undoubted right to do, as the act of the king was manifestly illegal. On the day appointed, they met in the session-house of Aberdeen. They were ordered to disperse. Having, as they conceived, by the mere fact of assembling, sufficiently asserted their privileges, they obeyed. But James, now backed by the power of England, resolved that they should feel the change of his position, and, therefore, of theirs. In consequence of orders which he sent from London, fourteen of the clergy were committed to prison.[290] Six of them, who denied the authority of the privy-council, were indicted for high treason. They were at once put upon their trial. They were convicted. And sentence of death was only deferred, that the pleasure of the king might first be taken, as to whether he would not be satisfied with some punishment that fell short of sacrificing the lives of these unhappy men.[291]

[288] _Laing's History of Scotland_, edit. 1819, vol. iii. p. 28.
_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vi. pp. 264, 323.
_Bower's History of the University of Edinburgh_, vol. i. p. 175,
Edinburgh, 1817. _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_,
p. 88.

[289] 'Adde thereunto, that the letter of the commissioner and last
moderator, conteaned no certane tyme nor day whereto the said
Assemblie sould be prorogued; so that it imported a casting loose
and deserting, yea, and tyning of the possessioun of our
Assemblie; than the which what could be more dangerous to the
libertie and freedom of the Kirk of Jesus Christ, at suche a tyme,
namelie of the treatie of the Unioun, when all the estates of the
realme, and everie particular are zealous and carefull of their
rights and possessiouns?' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_,
vol. vi. pp. 309, 310.

[290] See a list of them in _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vi.
p. 347, where the fourteen names are preserved with pious care.

[291] _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_, vol. ii. pp. 494-502.
_Forbes' Certaine Records touching the Estate of the Kirk_, edit.
Wodrow Society, Edinburgh, 1846, pp. 463-496. 'Delayed the giving
forth of the sentence of condemnation till the King's mind were
further knowne.' See also _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol.
vi. pp. 434, 449. When they were found guilty, 'the peiple said,
"Certainely this wes a worke of darknes, to mak Chrystis faithfull
Ministeres tratouris to the King! God grant he be niver in greater
dangeris nor off sic traitouris."' _Melvill's Autobiography and
Diary_, p. 626.

Their lives, indeed, were spared; but they were subjected to a close imprisonment, and then condemned to perpetual exile.[292] In other parts of the country, similar measures were adopted. Nearly all over Scotland, numbers of the clergy were either imprisoned or forced to fly.[293] Terror and proscription were universal. Such was the panic, that it was generally believed that nothing could prevent the permanent establishment of despotism, unless there were some immediate and providential interference on behalf of the Church and the people.[294]

[292] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 207, 208. _Pitcairn's
Criminal Trials_, vol. ii. p. 504. In connexion with these
transactions, a letter is preserved in the Winwood Papers, which
is much too curious to be passed over in silence. It is addressed
by the Earl of Salisbury to Sir Charles Cornwallis, and is dated
12th September 1605. Salisbury, who was then at the head of
affairs, writes, 'True it is that his Majestie seeking to _adorne
that kingdome of Scotland with Prelates as they are in England_,
some of the Ministers have spurned against it; and althouge his
Majestie had ever warranted their calling of General Assemblies
upon no other condition, then that they should make him
acquainted, receive his warrant, and a commissioner for his
Majestie resident in their councells, yet have they (followed with
some poor plebecall numbers) presumed to hold their General
Assemblies in some parte of the Realme contrarie to his
commandement. Whereupon his Majestie hath shewed himself
displeased, and cyted divers of them before his councell,' &c.
_Memorials of Affairs of State, from the Papers of Sir Ralph
Winwood_, London, 1725, folio, vol. ii. p. 132. And yet the man
who could write such nonsense as this, and who could only see, in
the great democratic movement of the Scotch mind, a disinclination
to the _adornment_ of episcopacy, was deemed one of the most
eminent statesmen of his time, and his reputation has survived
him. If great statesmen discern so little of what is before them
and around them, we are tempted to inquire, how much confidence
ought to be placed in the opinions of those average statesmen by
whom countries are ruled. For my own part, I can only say, that I
have had occasion to read many thousand letters written by
diplomatists and politicians, and I have hardly ever found an
instance of one of them who understood the spirit and tendency of
the age in which he lived.

[293] 'Ministers in all parts of the country were thrown into prison, or
declared rebels, and forced to abscond.' _M'Crie's Life of
Melville_, vol. ii. p. 250. Liberty of speech was so completely
suppressed, that, in 1605, when the most zealous and intelligent
clergy were banished, 'a strait command' (was) 'gevin to
magistrats, and uther officiers of burrowis, that in cace any
preacher sould speik opinlie aganis that baneisment, or for
defence or mentenence of that assemblie, or pray publiklie for
ther saiftie, that they sould be noted and manifested to the
secret counsell, and corrected for their fault.' _The Historie of
King James the Sext_, p. 380.

[294] See an eloquent and touching passage, in _Calderwood's History of
the Kirk_, vol. vi. pp. 696, 697.

Nor can it be denied that there were plausible grounds for these apprehensions. The people had no friends except among the clergy, and the ablest of the clergy were either in prison or in exile.[295] To deprive the Church entirely of her leaders, James, in 1606, summoned to London, Melville and seven of his colleagues, under pretence of needing their advice.[296] Having got possession of their persons, he detained them in England.[297] They were forbidden to return to Scotland; and Melville, who was most feared, was committed to custody. He was then imprisoned in the Tower, where he remained four years, and from which he was only liberated on condition of living abroad, and abandoning altogether his native country.[298] The seven ministers who had accompanied him to London were also imprisoned; but, being considered less dangerous than their leader, they, after a time, were allowed to return home. The nephew of Melville was, however, ordered not to travel more than two miles from Newcastle; and his six companions were confined in different parts of Scotland.[299]

[295] 'The godliest, wisest, learnedest, and most zealous men of the
ministrie in Scotland, were either banished, warded, or detained
in Ingland, of purpose that they might not be a lett to the grand
designe in hand.' _Row's History of the Kirk_, p. 238.

[296] _Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk_, pp. 164,
165. Compare _The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill_,
pp. 642-645.

[297] 'Quhen we wer gone out of the Palice a lytle way towards
Kingstoune, Mr. Alexander Hay sendis back for us, and withall, in
the Uttir Court, reidis to us a chairge from the King not to
returne to Scotland, nor to com neire the King, Quein, nor Prince
their Courtis, without a speciall calling for and licence.'
_Melvill's Autobiography_, p. 661.

[298] _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 246, 252, 260, 337-339,
403, 407-411, 414. This truly great and fearless man died in
exile, in 1622. p. 458.

[299] _Melvill's Autobiography and Diary_, p. 709. _Scot's Apologetical
Narration_, p. 194. _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 252,
253, 267, 268.

Everything now seemed ripe for the destruction of those ideas of equality of which, in Scotland, the Church was the sole representative. In 1610, a General Assembly was held at Glasgow; and, as the members of it were nominated by the crown,[300] whatever the government wished was conceded. By their vote, episcopacy was established, and the authority of the bishops over the ministers was fully recognized.[301] A little earlier, but in the same year, two courts of High Commission were erected, one at Saint Andrews, and one at Glasgow. To them, all ecclesiastical courts were subordinate. They were armed with such immense power, that they could cite any one they pleased before them, could examine him respecting his religious opinions, could have him excommunicated, and could fine or imprison him, just as they thought proper.[302] Finally, and to complete the humiliation of Scotland, the establishment of episcopacy was not considered complete, until an act was performed, which nothing but its being very ignominious, could have saved from being ridiculed as an idle and childish farce. The archbishop of Glasgow, the bishop of Brechin, and the bishop of Galloway, had to travel all the way to London, in order that they might be touched by some English bishops. Incredible as it may appear, it was actually supposed that there was no power in Scotland sufficiently spiritual to turn a Scotchman into a prelate. Therefore it was, that the archbishop of Glasgow and his companions performed what was then an arduous journey to a strange and distant capital, for the sake of receiving some hidden virtue, which, on their return home, they might communicate to their brethren. To the grief and astonishment of their country, these unworthy priests, abandoning the traditions of their native land, and forgetting the proud spirit which animated their fathers, consented to abjure their own independence, to humble themselves before the English Church, and to submit to mummeries, which, in their hearts, they must have despised, but which were now inflicted upon them by their ancient and inveterate foes.[303]

[300] 'Royal missives were sent to the presbyteries, nominating the
individuals whom they should chuse as their representatives to
it.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 387, 388. On the
character of its members, compare _Wodrow's History of the
Sufferings of the Church of Scotland_, edit. Glasgow, 1838, vol.
i. p. 256. _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, pp.
320, 321. _Crookshank's Church of Scotland_, Edinburgh, 1812, vol.
i. p. 28; and _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vii.
pp. 97, 98.

[301] _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk_, vol. iii. pp. 1096,
1097. The Assembly even forbad the democratic notion of equality
to be advocated. See p. 1101. 'Because it is vncivill that laws
and constitutiouns, either Civill or Ecclesiasticall, being anes
establischit and in force, by publick and opin consent, sould be
controllit and callit in questioun by any person: therfor, it is
statute by vniforme consent of this haill Assemblie, that none of
the Ministrie either in pulpitt in his preaching, or in the
publick exercise, speake and reason against the acts of this
present Assemblie, nor dissobey the same, vnder the paine of
deprivatioun, being tryit and convict thereof; and _speciallie,
that the questioun of equalitie and inequalitie in the Kirk, be
not treattit in pulpitt vnder the said paine_.'

[302] Mr. Russell (_History of the Church in Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 88),
misled, probably, by a passage in _Spottiswoode's History of the
Church_, vol. iii. p. 210, says, 'A Court of High Commission was
instituted.' But it is certain that there were two such courts;
one for the diocese of Saint Andrews, and one for that of Glasgow.
See the 'commissioun givin under the great seale to the two
archbishops,' dated 15th of February 1610, in _Calderwood's
History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. pp. 57-62. See also p. 210. They
were not united till December 1615. See _Scot's Apologetical
Narration of the State of the Kirk_, pp. 218, 239; and
_Crookshank's History of the Sufferings of the Church of
Scotland_, vol. i. p. 28. By the royal commission, these despotic
tribunals were authorized (_Calderwood_, vol. vii. p. 59) 'to call
before them at suche tymes and places as they salle thinke meete,
anie person or persons dwelling and remaining within their
provinces respective above writtin of St. Andrews or Glasgow, or
within anie dioceis of the same, being offenders ather in life or
religioun, whom they hold anie way to be scandalous, and that they
take tryell of the same; and if they find them guiltie and
impenitent, refusing to acknowledge their offence, they sall give
command to the preacher of that parish where they dwell, to
proceed with sentence of excommunication against them; which, if
it be protracted, and their command by that minister be not
presentlie obeyed, they sall conveene anie suche minister before
them, and proceed in censuring of him for his disobedience, ather
by suspensioun, deprivatioun, or wairding, according as in their
discretioun they sall hold his obstinacie and refuse of their
directioun to have deserved. And further, to fyne at their
discretiouns, imprisoun, or warde anie suche persoun, who being
convicted before them, they sall find upon tryell to have deserved
anie suche punishment.' Hereupon, Calderwood justly remarks, p.
62: 'This commissioun and executioun thereof, as it exalted the
aspyring bishops farre above any prelat that ever was in Scotland,
so it putt the king in possessioun of that which he had long tyme
hunted for; to witt, of the royall prerogative, and absolute power
to use the bodeis and goods of the subjects at pleasure, without
forme or processe of the commoun law, even then when the Lower
Hous in England was compleaning in their parliament upon the
injurie therof. So our bishops were fitt instruments to overthrow
the liberteis both of the Kirk and countrie.'

[303] See _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 93, and
_Kirkton's History_, p. 15. Kirkton indignantly says, that James
'perswaded a few unworthy men to perjure themselves, and after
their episcopall consecration by the English bishops in England,
to exercise that odious office in Scotland against their own oath
and the consciences of their brethren.' Compare the contemptuous
notice, in _Row's History of the Kirk_, p. 283, on the 'anoynting
of oyle and other ceremonies,' and on 'the foolish guyses in it.'
Indeed, on this subject, every Scotch writer who cared for the
liberty of his country, expressed himself either with contempt or
indignation.

We may easily imagine what would be the future conduct of men, who, merely for their own aggrandizement, and to please their prince, could thus renounce the cherished independence of the Scotch Church. They who crouch to those who are above them always trample on those who are below them. Directly they returned to Scotland, they communicated the consecration they had received in England to their fellow-bishops,[304] who were of the like mould to themselves, in so far as all of them aided James in his attempt to subjugate the liberties of their native country. Being now properly ordained, their spiritual life was complete; it remained for them to secure the happiness of their temporal life. This they did, by gradually monopolizing all authority, and treating with unsparing severity those who opposed them. The fall triumph of the bishops was reserved for the reign of Charles I., when a number of them obtained seats in the privy-council, where they behaved with such overbearing insolence, that even Clarendon, notwithstanding his notorious partiality for their order, censures their conduct.[305] In the time, however, of James I., they carried nearly everything before them.[306] They deprived the towns of their privileges, and forced them to receive magistrates of their own choosing.[307] They accumulated wealth, and made an ostentatious display of it; which was the more disgraceful, as the country was miserably poor, and their fellow-subjects were starving around them.[308] The Lords of the Articles, without whose sanction no measure could be presented to parliament, had been hitherto elected by laymen; but the bishops now effected a change, by virtue of which the right of nomination devolved on themselves.[309] Having thus gained possession of the legislature, they obtained the enactment of fresh penalties against their countrymen. Great numbers of the clergy they suspended; others they deprived of their benefices; others they imprisoned. The city of Edinburgh, being opposed to the rites and ceremonies lately introduced, and being, like the rest of the country, hostile to episcopacy, the bishops fell on it also, displaced several of its magistrates, seized some of the principal citizens, and threatened to deprive it of the courts of justice, and of the honour of being the seat of government.[310]

[304] Calderwood, with ill-suppressed bitterness, says, 'efter the same
maner that they were consecrated themselfs, _als neere as they
could imitate_.' _History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 152. Compare
_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. i. part i. p. 293. 'The Bishops
ordeaned in England keeped as near the manner taken with
themselves there as they could.'

[305] 'Some of them, by want of temper, or want of breeding, did not
behave themselves with that decency in their debates, towards the
greatest men of the kingdom, as in discretion they ought to have
done, and as the others reasonably expected from them.'
_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion_, edit. Oxford, 1843, p. 35.
In 1633, 'nine of them were privy councillors;' and 'their pride
was cried out upon as unsupportable.' _Burnet's Memoirs of the
Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 38. Sir John Scot imputes to them
'insolence, pride, and avarice.' _Scot's Staggering State of the
Scots Statesmen_, Edinburgh, 1754, p. 41. See also _Spalding's
History of the Troubles_, vol. i. pp. 46, 47, Edinburgh,
1828, 4to.

[306] So early as 1613, a letter from James Inglish (preserved in
_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. ii. part i. p. 110, Glasgow, 1845,
4to) complains that 'the libertys of the Lord's Kirk are greatly
abridged by the pride of Bishops, and their power daily increases
over her.' Civil rights were equally set at nought by the bishops;
and, among other enactments which they obtained, one was, 'that no
man should be permitted to practise or profess any physic, unless
he had first satisfied the bishop of the diocese touching his
religion.' _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_,
vol. iii. p. 236. This at once gave them the control of the whole
medical profession.

[307] 'Not satisfied with ruling the church-courts, they claimed an
extensive civil authority within their dioceses. The burghs were
deprived of their privileges, and forced to receive such
magistrates as their episcopal superiors, in concert with the
court, were pleased to nominate.' ... 'Archbishop Gladstanes, in a
letter to the King, June the 9th 1611, says: "It was your pleasure
and direction, that I sould be possessed with the like privileges
in the electione of the magistrats there (in St. Andrews), as my
lord of Glasgow is endued with in that his city. Sir, whereas they
are troublesome, I will be answerable to your Majesty and Counsell
for them, after that I be possessed of my right." Ms. in Bibl.
Jurid. Edin. M. 6, 9. n^o. 72.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_,
vol. ii. p. 422.

[308] And their prodigality was equal to their rapacity. When Archbishop
Gladstanes died, in 1615, it was ascertained that,
'notwithstanding of the great rent of his bishoprick, he died in
the debt of twentie thowsand pounds.' _Calderwood's History of the
Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 197. See also p. 303. Also the case of the
Bishop of Galloway, who died in 1619, and of whom Calderwood says
(_History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. p. 350), 'It is thought, that if
just calculation were made of the commoditie extorted by him
through his diocie, by advice of his two covetous counsellours,
Andro Couper, his brother, and Johne Grilmour, wrytter in
Edinburgh, for his use and theirs, by racting of rents, getting of
grassoumes, setting of tacks, of teithes, and other like meanes,
wold surmount the soume of an hundreth thousand merks, or, in the
opinion of others, almost the double; so that manie within that
diocie, and the annexed prelacies, sall hardlie recover their
estates in their time.' Compare _Stevenson's History of the
Church_, pp. 212, 392.

[309] On this change, which was completed in 1621, see _Laing's History
of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 88; _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_,
vol. vii. p. 490; and _Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i.
p. 486, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841.

[310] _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. vii. pp. 472-474, 507,
509, 511, 517-520, 530-543, 549-553, 566, 567, 614, 621. _Laing's
History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 90, 91. Laing, very unjustly,
accuses the bishops of being so merciful as to disapprove of some
of these transactions. But whoever has read much of the Scotch
literature of the seventeenth century, will cheerfully exonerate
the bishops from a charge, which they would themselves have
repelled, and to which they are nowise amenable.

In the midst of all this, and while things seemed to be at their worst, a great reaction was preparing. And the explanation of the reaction is to be found in that vast and pregnant principle, on which I have often insisted, but which our common historians are unable to understand; namely, that a bad government, bad laws, or laws badly administered, are, indeed, extremely injurious at the time, but can produce no permanent mischief; in other words, they may harm a country, but can never ruin it. As long as the people are sound, there is life, and while there is life, there will be reaction. In such case, tyranny provokes rebellion, and despotism causes freedom. But if the people are unsound, all hope is gone, and the nation perishes. In both instances, government is, in the long run, inoperative, and is nowise responsible for the ultimate result. The ruling classes have, for the moment, immense power, which they invariably abuse, except when they are restrained, either by fear, or by shame. The people may inspire them with fear; public opinion may inspire them with shame. But whether or not that shall happen, depends on the spirit of the people, and on the state of opinion. These two circumstances are themselves governed by a long chain of antecedents, stretching back to a period, always very distant, and sometimes so remote as to baffle observation. When the evidence is sufficiently abundant, those antecedents may be generalized; and their generalization conducts us to certain large and powerful causes, on which the whole movement depends. In short periods, the operation of these causes is imperceptible, but in long periods, it is conspicuous and supreme; it colours the national character; it controls the great sweep and average of affairs. In Scotland, as I have already shown, general causes made the people love their clergy, and made the clergy love liberty. As long as these two facts coëxisted, the destiny of the nation was safe. It might be injured, insulted, and trampled upon. It might be harmed in various ways; but the greater the harm, the surer the remedy, because the higher the spirit of the country would be roused. All that was needed was, a little more time, and a little more provocation. We, who, standing at a distance, can contemplate these matters from an elevation, and see how events pressed on and thickened, cannot mistake the regularity of their sequence. Notwithstanding the apparent confusion, all was orderly and methodical. To us, the scheme is revealed. There is the fabric, and it is of one hue, and one make. The pattern is plainly marked, and fortunately it was worked into a texture, whose mighty web was not to be broken, either by the arts, or the violence, of designing men.

It was, therefore, of no avail that tyranny did her utmost. It was of no avail that the throne was occupied by a despotic and unscrupulous king, who was succeeded by another, more despotic and more unscrupulous than himself. It was of no avail that a handful of meddling and intrusive bishops, deriving their consecration from London, and supported by the authority of the English church, took counsel together, and conspired against the liberties of their native land. They played the part of spies and of traitors, but they played it in vain. Yet, everything that government could give them, it gave. They had the law on their side, and they had the right of administering the law. They were legislators, councillors, and judges. They had wealth; they had high-sounding titles; they had all the pomp and attributes for which they bartered their independence, and with which they hoped to dazzle the eyes of the vulgar. Still, they could not turn back the stream; they could not even stop it; they could not prevent it from coming on, and swallowing them up in its course. Before that generation passed away, these little men, big though they were in their own conceit, succumbed, and fell. The hand of the age was upon them, and they were unable to resist. They were struck down, and humbled; they were stripped of their offices, their honours, and their splendour: they lost all which minds like theirs hold most dear. Their fate is an instructive lesson. It is a lesson, both to the rulers of nations, and to those who write the history of nations. To rulers, in so far as it is one of many proofs how little they can do, and how insignificant is the part which they play in the great drama of the world. To historians, the result should be especially instructive, as convincing them that the events on which they concentrate their attention, and which they believe to be of supreme importance, are in reality of trifling value, and, so far from holding the first rank, ought to be made subservient to those large and comprehensive studies, by whose aid alone, we can ascertain the conditions which determine the tread and destiny of nations.

The events that now happened in Scotland, may be quickly told. The patience of the country was well-nigh exhausted, and the day of reckoning was at hand.[311] In 1637, the people began to rise. In the summer of that year, the first great riot broke out in Edinburgh.[312] The flame quickly spread, and nothing could stop it. By October, the whole nation was up, and an accusation was preferred against the bishops, which was signed by nearly every corporation, and by men of all ranks.[313] In November, the Scotch, in defiance of the Crown, organized a system of representation of their own, in which every class had a share.[314] Early in 1638, the National Covenant was framed; and the eagerness with which it was sworn to, showed that the people were determined, at all hazards, to vindicate their rights.[315] It was now evident that all was over. During the summer of 1638, preparations were made, and, in the autumn, the storm broke. In November, the first General Assembly seen in Scotland for twenty years, met at Glasgow.[316] The Marquis of Hamilton, the king's commissioner, ordered the members to separate.[317] They refused.[318] Nor would they disband, until they had done the work expected from them.[319] By their vote, the democratic institution of presbyteries was restored to its old power; the forms of consecration were done away with; the bishops were degraded from their functions, and episcopacy was abolished.[320]

[311] In October 1637, Baillie, who was carefully watching the course of
affairs, writes, 'No man may speak any thing in publick for the
king's part, except he would have himself marked for a sacrifice
to be killed one day. I think our people possessed with a bloody
devill, farr above any thing that ever I could have imagined,
though the masse in Latine had been presented.' And, in a
postscript, dated 3rd October, he adds: 'My fears in my former
went no farther then to ane ecclesiastik separation, but now I am
more affrayit for a bloudie civill warr.' _Baillie's Letters and
Journals_, edit. Laing, Edinburgh, 1841, vol. i. pp. 23, 25.

[312] _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 131. _Chambers'
Annals_, vol. ii. pp. 101-104. _Spalding's History of the Troubles
in Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 47, 48.

[313] 'The accusation, among themselves a bond of union, and to their
enemies a signal of hostility, was subscribed by the nobility, the
gentry, the clergy, and afterwards by all ranks, and almost by
every corporation in the kingdom.' _Laing's History of Scotland_,
vol. iii. p. 137.

[314] _Ibid._, vol. iii. p. 138.

[315] 'It was signed by a large majority of the people, in a paroxysm of
enthusiasm beyond all example in our history.' _Chambers' Annals_,
vol. ii. p. 105. Kirkton, who was a contemporary, says, 'And
though only eleven private men (and some of them very
inconsiderable) had the boldness first to begin this work, without
ever asking leave of king or council, yet was it very quickly
taken by all the people of Scotland, with hands lifted up in most
solemn manner.' _Kirkton's History of the Church of Scotland_, p.
33. Lord Somerville, taking a somewhat different view of affairs,
remarks, that 'the generalitie of the natione entered into a
hellish covenant, wherein they mutually obleidged themselves to
extirpate episcopacy, and to defend each other against all
persones whatsoever, noe not excepting the persone of his sacred
majestie; but upon conditiones of ther oune frameing.'
_Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. p. 187.

[316] There had been no General Assembly since 1618. _Argyll's
Presbytery Examined_, p. 102; and the _Spottiswoode Miscellany_,
vol. i. p. 88. But 'the provincial synods, presbyteries, and
sessions still remained, and in these, good men mutually comforted
one another.' _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_,
p. 162.

[317] 'The assembly went on at such a rate, that the marquis judged it
no longer fit to bear with their courses.' _Burnet's Memoirs of
the Dukes of Hamilton_, p. 128. 'In end, seeing nothing said in
reason did prevail, he, in his majesty's name, dissolved the
assembly, and discharged their further proceeding under pain of
treason.' p. 135.

[318] _Stevenson's History of the Church of Scotland_, p. 310.

[319] 'Notwithstanding the Proclamation, the Assembly presently
thereafter met, and sat daily for divers weeks, until they had
done their affairs, and were themselves pleas'd to dissolve.'
_Guthry's Memoirs_, p. 41, edit. London, 1702.

[320] _Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland_, from
1638 to 1842, Edinburgh, 1843, pp. 9-18. _Stevenson's History of
the Church of Scotland_, pp. 332, 338.

Thus, the bishops fell, even more rapidly than they had risen.[321] As, however, their fall was merely a part of the democratic movement, matters could not stop there.[322] Scarcely had the Scotch expelled their bishops, when they made war upon their king. In 1639, they took up arms against Charles. In 1640, they invaded England. In 1641, the king, with the hope of appeasing them, visited Scotland, and agreed to most of their demands. It was too late. The people were hot, and a cry for blood had gone forth. War again broke out. The Scotch united with the English, and Charles was every where defeated. As a last chance, he threw himself upon the mercy of his northern subjects,[323] But his offences were of that rank and luxuriant growth, that it was impossible to forgive them. Indeed, the Scotch, instead of pardoning him, turned him to profit. He had not only trampled on their liberties, he had also put them to an enormous expense. For the injury, he could offer no adequate atonement; but the expense they had incurred, might be defrayed. And as it is an old and recognized maxim, that he who cannot pay with his purse, shall pay with his body, the Scotch saw no reason why they should not derive some advantage from the person of their sovereign, particularly as, hitherto, he had caused them nothing but loss and annoyance. They, therefore, gave him up to the English, and, in return, received a large sum of money, which they claimed as arrears due to them for the cost of making war on him.[324] By this arrangement, both of the contracting parties benefited. The Scotch, being very poor, obtained what they most lacked. The English, a wealthy people, had indeed to pay the money, but they were recompensed by getting hold of their oppressor, against whom they thirsted for revenge; and they took good care never to let him loose, until they had exacted the last penalty of his great and manifold crimes.[325]

[321] See, on their fall, some highly characteristic remarks in
_Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i. p. 168. In 1639, Howell
writes from Edinburgh, 'The Bishops are all gone to wrack, and
they have had but a sorry funeral; the very name is grown so
contemptible, that a black dog, if he hath any white marks about
him, is called _Bishop_. Our Lord of Canterbury is grown here so
odious, that they call him commonly in the pulpit, the Priest of
Baal, and the Son of Belial.' _Howell's Letters_, edit. London,
1754, p. 276.

[322] 'That people, after they had once begun, pursued the business
vigorously, and with all imaginable contempt of the government.'
_Clarendon's History of the Rebellion_, p. 45. Now, for the first
time, the English government began to tremble. On 13th December
1639, Secretary Windebank writes, 'His Majesty near these six
weeks last past hath been in continual consultations with a select
Committee of some of his Council (of which I have had the honour
to be one), how to redress his affairs in Scotland, the fire
continuing there, and growing to that danger, that _it threatens
not only the Monarchical Government there, but even that of this
kingdom_.' _Clarendon State Papers_, vol. ii. p. 81, Oxford, 1773,
folio. This is the earliest intimation I have met with of Charles
and his advisers being aware of their real peril. But though the
king was capable of fear, he was incapable of compunction. There
is no evidence on record, to show that he even felt remorse for
having planned and executed those arbitrary and unprincipled
measures, by which he inflicted immense misery upon Scotland and
England, but more especially upon Scotland.

[323] 'The kinge was now so waik, haueing nether toune, fort, nor armie,
and Oxford being a waik and onfortified toune, from whence he
looked daylie to be taken perforce, he therefor resolues to cast
himself into the arms of the Scots; who, being his natine people,
and of late so ongratfullie dealt with by the Inglish, he hoped
their particular credit, and the credit of the wholl natione
depending thereupon, they would not baslie rander him to the
Inglish.' _Gordon's Britane's Distemper_, p. 193, published by the
Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1844, 4to.

[324] That it may not be supposed, that, as an Englishman, I
misrepresent this transaction by looking at it from an English
point of view, I will merely quote what Scotch writers have said
respecting it. 'Giveing up the king to the will and pleasure of
the English parliament, that soe they might come by ther money.'
_Somerville's Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. p. 366. 'The
Scots sold their unfortunate king, who had fled to them for
protection, to the commissioners of the English Parliament, for
200,000_l._ sterling.' _Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, vol. ii.
p. 38. 'The incident itself was evidence of a bargain with a _quid
pro quo_.' _Burton's History of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 493. 'The
sale of the king to the parliament.' _Napier's Life of Montrose_,
Edinburgh, 1840, p. 448. 'The king was delivered up, or rather
sold, to the parliament's commissioners.' _Brown's History of
Glasgow_, vol. i. p. 91. 'Their arrears were undoubtedly due; the
amount was ascertained before the dispute concerning the disposal
of his person, and the payment was undertaken by the English
parliament, five months previous to the delivery, or surrender of
the king. But the coincidence, however unavoidable, between that
event and the actual discharge and departure of their army, still
affords a presumptive proof of the disgraceful imputation of
having sold their king; "as the English, unless previously assured
of receiving his person, would never have relinquished a sum so
considerable as to weaken themselves, while it strengthened a
people with whom such a material question remained to be
discussed."' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp. 369,
370.