Chapter IV (1)

AN EXAMINATION OF THE SCOTCH INTELLECT DURING THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY.

The remaining part of this volume, I purpose to devote to an attempt to unravel still further that two-fold paradox, which forms the prominent peculiarity of the history of Scotland. The paradox consists, as we have seen, in the fact, first, that the same people have long been liberal in politics, and illiberal in religion; and, secondly, that the brilliant, inquisitive, and sceptical literature which they produced in the eighteenth century, was unable to weaken their superstition, or to instil into them wiser and larger maxims on religious matters. From an early period, there were, as I have endeavoured to show, many circumstances which predisposed the Scotch to superstition, and, so far, had a general connexion with the subject before us. But the remarkable phenomenon with which we are immediately concerned, may, I think, be traced to two distinct causes. The first cause was, that, for a hundred and twenty years after the establishment of Protestantism, the rulers of Scotland either neglected the Church or persecuted it, thereby driving the clergy into the arms of the people, from whom alone they could obtain sympathy and support. Hence an alliance between the two parties, more intimate than would otherwise have been possible; and hence, too, the rise of that democratic spirit which was the necessary consequence of such an union, and which the clergy encouraged, because they were opposed and thwarted by the upper classes. So far, the result was extremely beneficial, as it produced a love of independence and a hatred of tyranny, which, twice during the seventeenth century, saved the country from the yoke of a cruel despotism. But these very circumstances, which guarded the people against political despotism, exposed them all the more to ecclesiastical despotism. For, having no one to trust except their preachers, they trusted them entirely and upon all subjects. The clergy gradually became supreme, not only in spiritual matters, but also in temporal ones. Late in the sixteenth century, they had been glad to take refuge among the people; before the middle of the seventeenth century, they ruled the people. How shamefully they abused their power, and how, by encouraging the worst kind of superstition, they prolonged the reign of ignorance, and stopped the march of society, will be related in the course of this chapter; but, in fairness to them, we ought to acknowledge, that the religious servitude into which the Scotch fell during the seventeenth century, was, on the whole, a willing one, and that, mischievous as it was, it had at least a noble origin, inasmuch as the influence of the Protestant clergy is mainly to be ascribed to the fearlessness with which they came forward as leaders of the people, at a period when that post was full of danger, and when the upper classes were ready to unite with the crown in destroying the last vestiges of national liberty.

To trace the operation of this cause of Scotch superstition, will be the business of the present chapter; while, in the next and concluding chapter, I shall examine the other cause, which I have as yet hardly mentioned. This latter inquiry will involve some considerations respecting the philosophy of method, still imperfectly appreciated among us, and on which the history of the Scotch mind will throw considerable light. For, it will appear, that, during the eighteenth century, the ablest Scotchmen, with hardly an exception, adopted a method of investigating truth, which cut them off from the sympathies of their countrymen, and prevented their works from producing the effect which they might otherwise have done. The result was, that though a very sceptical literature was produced, scepticism made no progress, and therefore superstition was undiminished. The highly-educated minds, indeed, were affected; but they formed a class apart, and there were no means of communication between them and the people. That this was owing to the method which literary men employed, I hope to prove in the next chapter; and if I succeed in doing so, it will be evident, that I have been guilty of no exaggeration in terming this the second great cause of the prolongation of Scotch superstition, since it was sufficiently powerful to prevent the intellectual classes from exercising their natural functions as the disturbers of old opinions.

We have already seen, that almost immediately after the Reformation, ill-feeling arose between the upper classes and the spiritual leaders of the Protestant church, and that this ill-feeling increased until, in 1580, it vented itself by the abolition of episcopacy. This bold and decisive measure made the breach irreparable. The preachers had now committed themselves too far to recede, even if they had desired to do so; and from that moment, uniting themselves heartily with the people, they took up a position which they have never since abandoned. During the remaining twenty-three years that James was in Scotland, they were occupied in exciting the people against their rulers; and as they became more democratic, so did the crown and nobles grow more hostile, and display, for the first time, a disposition to combine together in defence of their common interests. In 1603, James ascended the throne of England, and the struggle began in earnest. It lasted, with few interruptions, eighty-five years, and, during its continuance, the Presbyterian clergy never wavered; they were always steady to the good cause; always on the side of the people. This greatly increased their influence; and what favoured it still more was, that, besides being the champions of popular liberty, they were also the champions of national independence. When James I. and the two Charles's attempted to force episcopacy upon Scotland, the Scotch rejected it, not only because they hated the institution, but also because they looked on it as the mark of a foreign domination, which they were determined to resist. Their nearest and most dangerous enemy was England; and they spurned the idea of receiving bishops who must, in the first instance, be consecrated in London, and who, it was certain, would never have been admitted into Scotland unless England had been the stronger country. It was, therefore, on patriotic, as well as religious, grounds, that the Scotch clergy, during the seventeenth century, struggled against episcopacy;[410] and when they overthrew it, in 1638, their bold and determined conduct associated, in the popular mind, the love of country with the love of the church. Subsequent events strengthened this association.[411] In 1650, Cromwell invaded Scotland, overthrew the Scotch in the battle of Dunbar, and intrusted to Monk the task of curbing their spirit, by building fortresses, and establishing a long chain of military posts.[412] The nation, cowed and broken, gave way, and, for the first time for three centuries, felt the pressure of a foreign yoke. The clergy alone remained firm.[413] Cromwell, who knew that they were the chief obstacle to completing his conquest, hated them, and did every thing he could to ruin them.[414] But their power was too deeply seated to be shaken. From their pulpits, they continued to influence and animate the people. In face of the invaders, and in spite of them, the Scotch church continued to hold its General Assemblies, until the summer of 1653. Then, indeed, they had to yield to brute force; and the people, to their unutterable grief, beheld the venerated representatives of the Scotch kirk driven from their place of meeting by English soldiers, and led like criminals through the streets of Edinburgh.[415]

[410] In 1638, one of the most eminent of the Scotch clergy writes: 'Our
maine feare' is 'to have our religion lost, our throats cutted,
our poore countrey made ane English province, to be disposed upon
for ever hereafter at the will of a Bishope of Canterburie.'
_Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. i. p. 66. Compare p. 450.
'This kirk is a free and independant kirk, no less then the
kingdom is a free and independant kingdom; and as our own Patriots
can best judge what is for the good of the kingdom, so our own
Pastors should be most able to judge what form of worship
beseemeth our Reformation, and what serveth most for the good of
the People.' Two generations later, one of the most popular
arguments against the Union was, that it might enable the English
to force episcopacy upon Scotland. See _De Foe's History of the
Union between England and Scotland_, pp. 222, 284, 359. 'The
danger of the Church of Scotland, from the suffrages of English
bishops,' &c.

[411] The hatred which the Scotch naturally felt against the English for
having inflicted so much suffering upon them, was intense about
the middle of the seventeenth century, notwithstanding the
temporary union of the two nations against Charles. In 1652, 'the
criminal record is full of cases of murder of English soldiers.
They were cut off by the people whenever a fitting opportunity
occurred, and were as much detested in Scotland as the French
soldiers were in Spain during the Peninsular war.' _The
Spottiswoode Miscellany_, vol. ii. p. 98, Edinburgh, 1845. See
also p. 167: 'a nationall quarrell, and not for the Stuarts.'

[412] _Browne's History of the Highlands_, vol. ii. pp. 75-77: 'the
English army was augmented to twenty thousand men, and citadels
erected in several towns, and a long train of military stations
drawn across the country to curb the inhabitants.'

[413] Clarendon, under the year 1655, says, 'Though Scotland was
vanquished, and subdued, to that degree, that there was no place
nor person who made the least show of opposing Cromwell; who, by
the administration of Monk, made the yoke very grievous to the
whole nation; yet the preachers kept their pulpit license; and,
more for the affront that was offered to presbytery, than the
conscience of what was due to majesty, many of them presumed to
pray for the king; and generally, though secretly, exasperated the
minds of the people against the present government.' _Clarendon's
History of the Rebellion_, p. 803.

[414] And, what they must have felt very acutely, he would not go to hear
them preach. A writer of that time informs us that, even in 1648,
when Cromwell was in Edinburgh, 'he went not to their churches;
but it is constantle reported that ewerie day he had sermons in
his oune ludginge, himself being the preacher, whensoewer the
spirit came upon him; which took him lyk the fitts of an ague,
somtyms twise, sometyms thryse in a day.' _Gordon's Britane's
Distemper_, p. 212. In 1650, according to another contemporary,
'he made stables of all the churches for hes horsses quhersoeuer
he came, and burned all the seatts and pewes in them; riffled the
ministers housses, and distrayed ther cornes.' _Balfour's Annales
of Scotland_, vol. iv. p. 88. The clergy, on the other hand,
employing a resource with which their profession has always been
familiar, represented Cromwell as opposing Providence, because he
was opposing them. Rutherford (_Religious Letters_, reprinted
Glasgow, 1824, p. 346) says, that he fought 'against the Lord's
secret ones;' and Row (_Continuation of Blair's Autobiography_, p.
335), under the year 1658, triumphantly observes: 'In the
beginning of September this year, the Protector, that old fox,
died. It was observed, as a remarkable cast of divine providence,
that he died upon the 3d of September, which he, glorying of
routing of our armies at Dunbar and Worcester on that day, used to
call _his day_. On that same very day the Just Judge called him to
an account,' &c.

[415] See contemporary notices of this, in _Nicoll's Diary_, p. 110; and
in _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont of Newton_, pp. 56, 57. But the
best account is that given by Baillie, in a letter to Calamy,
dated Glasgow, 27th July 1653. He writes: 'That on the 20th of
July last, when our Generall Assemblie was sett in the ordinarie
tyme and place, Lieutenant-Colonell Cotterall besett the church
with some rattes of musqueteirs and a troup of horse; himself
(after our fast, wherein Mr. Dickson and Mr. Dowglas had two
gracious sermons) entered the Assemblie-house, and immediately
after Mr. Dickson the Moderator his prayer, required audience;
wherein he inquired, If we did sitt there by the authority of the
Parliament of the Commonwealth of England? or of the
Commanders-in-chiefe of the English forces? or of the English
Judges in Scotland? The Moderator replyed, That we were ane
Ecclesiasticall synod, ane Spirituall court of Jesus Christ, which
medled not with anything Civile; that our authoritie wes from God,
and established by the lawes of the land yet standing unrepealed;
that, by the Solemn League and Covenant, the most of the English
army stood obliedged to defend our Generall Assemblie. When some
speeches of this kind had passed, the Lieutenant-Colonell told us,
his order was to dissolve us; whereupon he commanded all of us to
follow him, else he would drag us out of the rowme. When we had
entered a Protestation of this unheard-of and unexampled violence,
we did ryse and follow him; he ledd us all through the whole
streets a myle out of the towne, encompassing us with
foot-companies of musqueteirs, and horsemen without; all the
people gazing and mourning as at the saddest spectacle they had
ever seen. When he had ledd us a myle without the towne, he then
declared what further he had in commission, That we should not
dare to meet any more above three in number; and that against
eight o'clock to-morrow, we should depart the towne, under paine
of being guiltie of breaking the publick peace: And the day
following, by sound of trumpet, we were commanded off towne under
the paine of present imprisonment. Thus our Generall Assemblie,
the glory and strength of our Church upon earth, is, by your
souldiarie, crushed and trod under foot, without the least
provocatione from us, at this time, either in word or deed.'
_Baillie's Letters and Journals_, vol. iii. pp. 225, 226.

Thus it was that in Scotland, after the latter part of the sixteenth century, every thing tended to increase the reputation of the clergy, by raising them to the foremost rank among the defenders of their country. And it was but natural that the spiritual classes, finding themselves in the ascendant, should conduct the contest according to views habitual to their profession, and should be anxious for religious advantages, rather than for temporal benefits. The war which the Scotch waged against Charles I. partook more of the character of a crusade than any war ever carried on by a Protestant nation.[416] The main object was, to raise up presbyters, and to destroy bishops. Prelacy was the accursed thing, and that must be rooted out at every hazard. To this, all other considerations were subordinate.[417] The Scotch loved liberty, and hated England. Yet, even these two passions, notwithstanding their strength, were as nothing, in comparison with their intense desire to extend and to propagate, if need be at the point of the sword, their own Presbyterian polity. This was their first and paramount duty. They fought, indeed, for freedom, but, above all, they fought for religion. In their eyes, Charles was the idolatrous head of an idolatrous church, and that church they were resolved to destroy. They felt that their cause was holy, and they went forth full of confidence, convinced that the sword of Gideon was drawn on their side, and that their enemies would be delivered up to them.

[416] In August 1640, the army marched into England; and 'it was very
refreshfull to remark, that after we came to ane quarter at night,
there was nothing almost to be heard throughout the whole army but
singing of Psalms, prayer, and reading of Scripture by the
souldiers in their severall hutts.' _Select Biographies_, edited
by Mr. Tweedie for the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 163. 'The most
zealous among them boasted, they should carry the triumphant
banners of the covenant to Rome itself.' _Arnot's History of
Edinburgh_, p. 124. In 1644, the celebrated divine, Andrew Cant,
was appointed by the Commissioners of the General Assembly, 'to
preach at the opening of the Parliament, wherein he satisfied
their expectation fully. For, the main point he drove at in his
sermon, was to state an opposition betwixt King Charles and King
Jesus (as he was pleased to speak) and upon that account to press
resistance to King Charles for the interest of King Jesus. It may
be wondered that such doctrine should have relish'd with men
brought up in the knowledge of the Scriptures; and yet, such was
the madness of the times, that none who preach'd in public since
the beginning of the Troubles, had been so cried up as he was for
that sermon.' _Guthry's Memoirs_, pp. 136, 137.

[417] 'The rooting out of prelacy and the wicked hierarchy therein so
obviously described, is the main duty.' _Naphtali, or the
Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_, pp. 53, 54. This refers to
the Covenant of 1643. So, too, the continuator of _Row's History
of the Kirk_, p. 521, says, under the year 1639, that the object
of the war was, 'to withstand the prelaticall faction and
malignant, countenanced by the kinge in his owne persone.' Compare
the outbreak of the Reverend Samuel Rutherford, against 'the
accursed and wretched prelates, the Antichrist's first-born, and
the first fruit of his foul womb.' _Rutherford's Religious
Letters_, p. 179.

The rebellion, therefore, against Charles, which, on the part of the English, was essentially secular,[418] was, on the part of the Scotch, essentially religious. This was because with us, the laymen were stronger than the clergy; while with them, the clergy were stronger than the laymen. In 1643, both nations having united against the king, it was thought advisable that an intimate alliance should be concluded; but, in the negotiations which followed, it is noticed, by a contemporary observer, that though the English merely wished for a civil league, the Scotch demanded a religious covenant.[419] And as they would only continue the war on condition that this was granted, the English were obliged to give way. The result was the Solemn League and Covenant, by which what seemed a cordial union was effected between the two countries.[420] Such a compact was, however, sure to be short-lived, as each party had different objects; the aim of the English being political, while that of the Scotch was religious. The consequences of this difference were soon apparent. In January 1645, negotiations having been opened with the king, commissioners met at Uxbridge, with the view of concluding a peace. The attempt failed, as might have been expected, seeing that, not only were the pretensions of the king irreconcilable with those of his opponents, but that the pretensions of his opponents were irreconcilable with each other. At Uxbridge, during the conferences, the Scotch expressed their readiness to concede to him what he required, if he would gratify them in regard to the Church; while the English, occupying themselves with civil and political questions, cared less, says Clarendon, for what concerned the Church than for anything else.[421] A better illustration could hardly be found of the secular character of the English rebellion, as compared with the spiritual character of the Scotch rebellion. Indeed, the Scotch, so far from concealing this, boasted of it, and evidently thought that it proved how superior they were to their worldly-minded neighbours. In February 1645, the General Assembly issued an address to the nation, including not only those who were at home, but also those who served in armies out of Scotland. In this document, which, proceeding from such a quarter, necessarily exercised great influence, political considerations, as having to do merely with the temporal happiness of men, are treated as insignificant, and almost despicable. That Rupert was defeated, and that York and Newcastle were taken, were but trifling matters. They were only the means of accomplishing an end, and that end was the reformation of religion in England, and the establishment there of the pure Presbyterian polity.[422]

[418] Our civil war was not religious; but was a struggle between the
Crown and the Parliament. See a note in _Buckle's History of
Civilization_, vol. i. p. 359.

[419] In September 1643, Baillie, writing an account of the proceedings
of the Westminster Assembly in the preceding month, says, 'In our
committees also we had hard enough debates. The English were for a
civill League, we for a religious Covenant.' Letter to Mr. William
Spang, dated 22nd September 1643, in _Baillie's Letters and
Journals_, vol. ii. p. 90.

[420] 'The Solemn League and Covenant,' which 'is memorable as the first
approach towards an intimate union between the kingdoms, but,
according to the intolerant principles of the age, a federal
alliance was constructed on the frail and narrow basis of
religious communion.' _Laing's History of Scotland_, vol. iii. pp.
258, 259. The passage, however, which I have quoted, in the last
note, from Baillie, shows that England was not responsible for the
intolerant principles, or, consequently, for the narrow basis.

[421] The Chancellor of Scotland 'did as good as conclude "that if the
king would satisfy them in the business of the Church, they would
not concern themselves in any of the other demands."' ... 'And it
was manifest enough, by the private conferences with other of the
commissioners, that the parliament took none of the points in
controversy less to heart, or were less united in, than in what
concerned the Church.' _Clarendon's History of the Rebellion_,
edit. Oxford, 1843, p. 522. See also p. 527: 'that the Scots would
insist upon the whole government of the Church, and in all other
matters would defer to the king.'

[422] See this extraordinary document in _Acts of the General Assembly of
the Church of Scotland from 1638 to 1842_, pp. 122-128, Edinburgh,
1843. It is entitled 'A solemne and seasonable warning to the
noblemen, barons, gentlemen, burrows, ministers, and commons of
Scotland; as also to armies without and within this kingdom.' In
it (p. 123) occurs the following passage: 'And for our part, our
forces sent into that kingdom, in pursuance of that Covenant, have
been so mercifully and manifestly assisted and blessed from heaven
(though in the mids of many dangers and distresses, and much want
and hardship), and have been so farre instrumentall to the foyling
and scattering of two principall armies; first, the Marquesse of
Newcastle his army; and afterwards Prince Rupert's and his
together; and to the reducing of two strong cities, York and
Newcastle, that we have what to answer the enemy that reproacheth
us concerning that businesse, and that which may make iniquitie it
self to stop her mouth. But which _is more unto us than all
victories or whatsomever temporall blessing_, the reformation of
religion in England, and uniformity therein between both kingdoms
(a principal end of that Covenant), is so far advanced, that the
English Service-Book with the Holy-Dayes and many other ceremonies
contained in it, together with the Prelacy, the fountain of all
these, are abolished and taken away by ordinance of parliament,
and a directory for the worship of God in all the three kingdoms
agreed upon in the Assemblies, and in the Parliaments of both
kingdoms, without a contrary voice in either; the government of
the kirk by congregational elderships, classical presbyteries,
provincial and national assemblies, is agreed upon by the Assembly
of Divines at Westminster, which is also voted and concluded in
both Houses of the Parliament of England.'

A war, undertaken with such holy objects, and conceived in so elevated a spirit, was supposed to be placed under the immediate protection of the Deity, on whose behalf it was carried on. In the language of the time, it was a war for God, and for God's church. Every victory that was obtained, was the result, not of the skill of the general, nor of the valour of the troops, but was an answer to prayer.[423] When a battle was lost, it was either because God was vexed at the sins of the people,[424] or else to show them that they must not trust to the arms of the flesh.[425] Nothing was natural; all was supernatural. The entire course of affairs was governed, not by their own antecedents, but by a series of miracles. To assist the Scotch, winds were changed, and storms were lulled. Such intelligence as was important for them to receive, was often brought by sea; and, on those occasions, it was expected that, if the wind were unfavourable, Providence would interfere, would shift it from one quarter to another, and, when the news had safely arrived, would allow it to return to its former direction.[426]

[423] In 1644, 'God ansuered our Wednesday's prayers: Balfour and Waller
had gotten a glorious victorie over Forth and Hopton, and routed
them totallie, horse and foot.' _Baillie's Letters and Journals_,
vol. ii. p. 155. In the same year, thanksgivings being offered at
Aberdeen for the victory of Leslie over Rupert, 'oure minister Mr.
William Strathauchin declairit out of pulpit that this victory wes
miraculous, wrocht by the fynger of God.' _Spalding's History of
the Troubles_, vol. ii. p. 254. In 1648, the Commissioners of the
General Assembly, in an address to the Prince of Wales, stated
that the Deity had been 'fighting for his people;' meaning by his
people, the Scotch people. They added, that the fact of their
enemies having been repulsed, was a proof of 'how sore the Lord
hath been displeased with their way.' _Clarendon State Papers_,
vol. ii. p. 424, Oxford, 1773, folio.

[424] Two Scotch notices are now before me of the fatal battle of Dunbar.
According to one, the defeat was intended to testify against 'the
great sin and wickedness' of the people. _Naphtali, or the
Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland_, p. 75. According to the
other, it was owing to the anger of the Deity at the Scotch
showing any favour to the partizans of Charles. For, says the
Reverend Alexander Shields, 'both at that time, and since that
time, the Lord never countenanced an expedition where that
malignant interest was taken in unto the state of the quarrel.
Upon this, our land was invaded by Oliver Cromwell, who defeat our
army at Dunbar, where the anger of the Lord was evidently seen to
smoke against us, for espousing that interest.' _Shields' Hind let
loose_, p. 75. These opinions were formed after the battle. Before
the battle, a different hypothesis was broached. Sir Edward
Walker, who was in Scotland at the time, tells us, that the clergy
assured the people that 'they had an army of saints, and that they
could not be beaten.' _Journal of Affairs in Scotland in 1650_, in
_Walker's Historical Discourses_, London, 1705, folio, p. 165.

[425] 'Each new victory of Montrose was expressly attributed to the
admonitory "indignation of the Lord" against his chosen people for
their sin, in "trusting too much to the arm of flesh."' _Napier's
Life of Montrose_, Edinburgh, 1840, p. 283. Compare _Guthrie's
Considerations contributing unto the Discovery of the Dangers that
threaten Religion_, pp. 274, 275, reprinted Edinburgh, 1846.
Guthrie was at the height of his reputation in the middle of the
seventeenth century. Lord Somerville says of the Scotch, when they
were making war against Charles I., that it was 'ordinary for
them, dureing the wholl tyme of this warre, to attribute ther
great successe to the goodnesse and justice of their cause, untill
Divyne Justice trysted them with some crosse dispensatione, and
then you might have heard this language from them, that it pleased
the Lord to give his oune the heavyest end of the tree to bear,
that the saints and people of God must still be sufferers while
they are here away; that that malignant party was God's rod to
punish them for their unthankfullnesse,' &c. _Somerville's Memorie
of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. pp. 351, 352.

[426] Baillie mentions, in 1644, an instance of these expectations being
fulfilled. He says (_Letters and Journals_, vol. ii. p. 138),
'These things were brought in at a very important nick of time, by
God's gracious providence: Never a more quick passage from Holy
Island to Yarmouth in thirtie houres; they had not cast anchor
halfe an houre till the wind turned contrare.' Compare p. 142: 'If
this were past, we look for a new lyfe and vigoure in all
affaires, especiallie if it please God to send a sweet northwind,
carrying the certain news of the taking of Newcastle, which we
dailie expect.'

It was in this way that, in Scotland, every thing conspired to strengthen that religious element which the force of circumstances had, at an early period, made prominent, and which now threatened to absorb all the other elements of the national character. The clergy were supreme; and habits of mind natural and becoming to themselves, were diffused among all classes. The theories of a single profession outweighed those of all other professions; and not only war, but also trade, literature, science, and art, were held of no account unless they ministered to the general feeling. A state of society so narrow and so one-sided, has never been seen in any other country equally civilized. Nor did there appear much chance of abating this strange monopoly. As the seventeenth century advanced, the same train of events was continued; the clergy and the people always making common cause against the crown, and being, by the necessity of self-preservation, forced into the most intimate union with each other. Of this, the preachers availed themselves to strengthen their own influence; and for upwards of a century their exertions stopped all intellectual culture, discouraged all independent inquiry, made men in religious matters fearful and austere, and coloured the whole national character with that dark hue, which, though now gradually softening, it still retains.

The Scotch, during the seventeenth century, instead of cultivating the arts of life, improving their minds, or adding to their wealth, passed the greater part of their time in what were called religious exercises. The sermons were so long and so frequent, that they absorbed all leisure, and yet the people were never weary of hearing them. When a preacher was once in the pulpit, the only limit to his loquacity was his strength. Being sure of a patient and reverential audience, he went on as long as he could. If he discoursed for two hours without intermission, he was valued as a zealous pastor, who had the good of his flock at heart; and this was about as much as an ordinary clergyman could perform, because, in uttering his sentiments, he was expected to display great vehemence, and to evince his earnestness by toiling and sweating abundantly.[427] This boundary was, however, often passed by those who were equal to the labour; and Forbes, who was vigorous as well as voluble, thought nothing of preaching for five or six hours.[428] But, in the ordinary course of nature, such feats were rare; and, as the people were in these matters extremely eager, an ingenious contrivance was hit upon whereby their desires might be satisfied. On great occasions, several clergymen were present in the same church, in order that, when one was fatigued, he might leave the pulpit, and be succeeded by another, who, in his turn, was followed by a third; the patience of the hearers being apparently inexhaustible.[429] Indeed, the Scotch, by the middle of the seventeenth century, had grown accustomed to look up to their minister as if he were a god, and to dwell with rapture upon every word that dropt from his lips. To hear a favourite preacher, they would incur any fatigue, and would undertake long journeys without sleep or food.[430] Their power of attention was marvellous. The same congregation would sometimes remain together for ten hours, listening to sermons and prayers, interspersed with singings and readings.[431] In an account of Scotland in 1670, it is stated that, in a single church in Edinburgh, thirty sermons were delivered every week.[432] Nor is this at all unlikely, considering the religious enthusiasm of the age. For, in those times, the people delighted in the most harassing and ascetic devotions. Thus, for instance, in 1653, when the sacrament was administered, they pursued the following course. On Wednesday, they fasted, and listened to prayers and sermons for more than eight hours. On Saturday they heard two or three sermons; and on Sunday, the number of sermons was so great that they stayed in church more than twelve hours; while, to conclude the whole, three or four additional ones were preached on Monday by way of thanksgiving.[433]

[427] No one, perhaps, carried this further than John Menzies, the
celebrated professor of divinity at Aberdeen. 'Such was his
uncommon fervour in the pulpit, that, we are informed, he "used to
change his shirt always after preaching, and to wet two or three
napkins with tears every sermon."' Note in _Wodrow's
Correspondence_, vol. ii. p. 222. James Forbes, also, was 'an able
and zealous preacher, who after every sermon behooved to change
his shirt, he spoke with such vehemency and sweating.' _Select
Biographies_, published by the Wodrow Society, vol. i. p. 333.
Lord Somerville, who wrote in 1679, mentions 'their thundering
preachings.' _Memorie of the Somervilles_, vol. ii. p. 388. A
traditionary anecdote, related by the Dean of Edinburgh, refers to
a later period, but is characteristic of the class. 'Another
description I have heard of an energetic preacher more forcible
than delicate--"Eh, our minister had a great power o' watter, for
he grat, and spat, and swat like mischeef."' _Reminiscences of
Scottish Life and Character_, by E. B. Ramsay, Dean of Edinburgh,
p. 201.

[428] He 'was a very learned and pious man; he had a strange faculty of
preaching five or six hours at a time.' _Burnet's History of his
own Time_, vol. i. p. 38. Even early in the eighteenth century,
when theological fervour was beginning to decline, and sermons
were consequently shorter, Hugh Thomson came near to Forbes. 'He
was the longest preacher ever I heard, and would have preached
four (or) five hours, and was not generally under two hours; that
almost every body expected.' ... 'He was a piouse good man, and a
fervent affectionat preacher, and, when I heard him, he had a vast
deal of heads, and a great deal of matter, and generally very good
and practicall, but very long.' _Wodrow's Analecta_, vol. iv.
p. 203.

[429] In 1653, Lamont casually mentions, in his journal, that 'the one
came doune from the pulpit and the other went vp, in the tyme that
the psalme after the first sermon was singing, so that ther was no
intermission of the exercise, nether were the peopell dismissed
till both sermons were ended.' _The Diary of Mr. John Lamont of
Newton_, p. 58. Burnet (_History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 92)
says, 'I remember in one fast day there were six sermons preached
without intermission. I was there myself, and not a little weary
of so tedious a service.'

[430] When Guthrie preached at Fenwick, 'his church, although a large
country one, was overlaid and crowded every Sabbath-day, and very
many, without doors, from distant parishes, such as Glasgow,
Paisley, Hamilton, Lanerk, Kilbryde, Glasford, Strathaven,
Newmills, Egelsham and many other places, who hungered for the
pure gospel preached, and got a meal by the word of his ministry.
It was their usual practice to come to Fenwick on Saturday, and to
spend the greatest part of the night in prayer to God, and
conversation about the great concerns of their souls, to attend
the public worship on the Sabbath, to dedicate the remainder of
that holy day in religious exercises, and then to go home on
Monday the length of ten, twelve or twenty miles without grudging
in the least at the long way, want of sleep or other refreshments;
neither did they find themselves the less prepared for any other
business through the week.' _Howie's Biographia Scoticana_, 2nd
edit., Glasgow, 1781, p. 311. One woman went forty miles to hear
Livingstone preach. See her own statement, in _Wodrow's Analecta_,
vol. ii. p. 249.

[431] Spalding gives the following account of what happened at Aberdeen
in 1644. 'So heir in Old Abirdene, upone the sevint of July, we
had ane fast, entering the churche be nyne houris, and continewit
praying and preiching whill tua houris. Efter sermon, the people
sat still heiring reiding whill efternone's sermon began and
endit, whiche continewit till half hour to sex. Then the prayer
bell rang to the evening prayeris, and continewit whill seven.'
_Spalding's History of the Troubles_, vol. ii. p. 244, edit.
Edinburgh, 1829, 4to. See also p. 42: 'the people keipit churche
all day.' This was also at Aberdeen, in 1642.

[432] 'Out of one pulpit now they have thirty sermons per week, all
under one roof.' _A Modern Account of Scotland_, in _The Harleian
Miscellany_, vol. vi. p. 138, edit. Park, London, 1810, 4to.

[433] 'But where the greatest part was more sound, they gave the
sacrament with a new and unusual solemnity. On the Wednesday
before, they held a fast day, with prayers and sermons for about
eight or ten hours together: on the Saturday they had two or three
preparation sermons: and on the Lord's day they had so very many,
that the action continued above twelve hours in some places: and
all ended with three or four sermons on Monday for thanksgiving.'
_Burnet's History of his own Time_, vol. i. p. 108.

Such eagerness, and yet such patience, indicate a state of society altogether peculiar, and for which we find no parallel in the history of any civilized country. This intense desire to hear whatever the preachers had to say, was, in itself, a homage of the most flattering kind, and was naturally accompanied by a belief that they were endowed with a light which was withheld from their less gifted countrymen. It is not surprising that the clergy, who, at no period, and in no nation, have been remarkable for their meekness, or for a want of confidence in themselves, should, under circumstances so eminently favourable to their pretensions, have been somewhat elated, and should have claimed an authority even greater than that which was conceded to them. And as this is intimately connected with the subsequent history of Scotland, it will be necessary to collect some evidence respecting their conduct, which will have the further advantage of exhibiting the true character of spiritual domination, and of showing how it works, not only on the intellectual, but also on the practical, life of a people.

According to the Presbyterian polity, which reached its height in the seventeenth century, the clergyman of the parish selected a certain number of laymen on whom he could depend, and who, under the name of elders, were his councillors, or rather the ministers of his authority. They, when assembled together, formed what was called the Kirk-Session, and this little court, which enforced the decisions uttered in the pulpit, was so supported by the superstitious reverence of the people, that it was far more powerful than any civil tribunal. By its aid, the minister became supreme. For, whoever presumed to disobey him was excommunicated, was deprived of his property, and was believed to have incurred the penalty of eternal perdition.[434] Against such weapons, in such a state of society, resistance was impossible. The clergy interfered with every man's private concerns, ordered how he should govern his family, and often took upon themselves the personal control of his household.[435] Their minions, the elders, were everywhere; for each parish was divided into several quarters, and to each quarter one of these officials was allotted, in order that he might take special notice of what was done in his own district.[436] Besides this, spies were appointed, so that nothing could escape their supervision.[437] Not only the streets, but even private houses, were searched, and ransacked, to see if any one was absent from church while the minister was preaching.[438] To him, all must listen, and him all must obey. Without the consent of his tribunal, no person might engage himself, either as a domestic servant, or as a field labourer.[439] If any one incurred the displeasure of the clergy, they did not scruple to summon his servants and force them to state whatever they knew respecting him, and whatever they had seen done in his house.[440] To speak disrespectfully of a preacher was a grievous offence;[441] to differ from him was a heresy;[442] even to pass him in the streets without saluting him, was punished as a crime.[443] His very name was regarded as sacred, and not to be taken in vain. And that it might be properly protected, and held in due honour, an Assembly of the Church, in 1642, forbad it to be used in any public paper unless the consent of the holy man had been previously obtained.[444]

[434] 'The power of those kirk-sessions, which are now private
assemblages, in whose meetings and proceedings the public take no
interest whatever, is defined to be the cognizance of parochial
matters and cases of scandal; but in the sixteenth and seventeenth
centuries, especially during the Covenanting reign of terror after
the outbreak of the Civil War against Charles I., the
kirk-sessions of Scotland were the sources of excessive tyranny
and oppression--were arbitrary, inquisitorial, and revengeful, to
an extent which exceeds all belief. It is truly stated by the
author of the "Memoirs of Locheill"--"Every parish had a tyrant,
who made the greatest Lord in his district stoop to his authority.
The kirk was the place where he kept his court; the pulpit his
throne or tribunal from whence he issued out his terrible decrees;
and twelve or fourteen sour ignorant enthusiasts, under the title
of Elders, composed his council. If any, of what quality soever,
had the assurance to disobey his orders, the dreadful sentence of
excommunication was immediately thundered out against him, his
goods and chattels confiscated and seized, and he himself being
looked upon as actually in the possession of the devil, and
irretrievably doomed to eternal perdition."' Introduction to _The
Kirk-Session Register of Perth_, in _The Spottiswoode Miscellany_,
vol. ii. pp. 229-230, Edinburgh, 1845. In regard to the perdition
which the sentence of excommunication was supposed to involve, one
of the most influential Scotch divines of that time merely
expresses the prevailing notion, when he asserts, that whoever was
excommunicated was thereby given up to Satan. 'That he who is
excommunicated may be truly said to be delivered to Sathan is
undeniable.' _Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming, or the Divine
Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated_, 1646, 4to, p. 239.
'Excommunication, which is a shutting out of a Church-member from
the Church, whereby Sathan commeth to get dominion and power over
him.' _Ibid._ p. 297. 'Sure I am an excommunicate person may truly
be said to be delivered to Sathan.' p. 424.

[435] Clarendon, under the year 1640, emphatically says (_History of the
Rebellion_, p. 67), 'The preacher reprehended the husband,
governed the wife, chastised the children, and insulted over the
servants, in the houses of the greatest men.' The theory was, that
'ministers and elders must be submitted unto us as fathers.'
_Shields' Enquiry into Church Communion_, 2nd edit., Edinburgh,
1747, p. 66. In the middle of the seventeenth century, one of the
most famous of the Scotch preachers openly asserted the right of
his profession to interfere in family matters, on the ground that
such was the custom in the time of Joshua. 'The Ministers of God's
house have not only the ministry of holy things, as Word and
Sacraments, committed to their charge, but also the power of
ecclesiastical government to take order with scandalous offences
within the familie; both these are here promised to Joshua and the
Priests.' _Hutchison's Exposition of the Minor Prophets_, vol.
iii. p. 72, London, 1654. In 1603, the Presbytery of Aberdeen took
upon themselves to order that every master of a house should keep
a rod, that his family, including his servants, might be beaten if
they used improper language. 'It is concludit that thair salbe in
ewerie houss a palmar.' _Selections from the Records of the Kirk
Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen_, printed for the
Spalding Club, 4to, Aberdeen, 1846, p. 194. It also appears
(p. 303) that, in 1674, the clergyman was expected to exercise
supervision over all visitors to private houses; since he ought to
be informed, 'iff ther be anie persone receaved in the familie
without testimoniall presented to the minister.'

[436] In 1650, it was ordered, 'That everie paroche be divydit in
severall quarteris, and each elder his owne quarter, over which he
is to have speciall inspectioun, and that everie elder visit his
quarter once everie month at least, according to the act of the
Generall Assemblie, 1649, and in thair visitatioun tak notice of
all disorderlie walkeris, especiallie neglectouris of God's
worship in thair families, sueareris, haunteris of aill houses,
especiallie at vnseasonable tymes, and long sitteris thair, and
drinkeris of healthis; and that he dilate these to the Sessioun.'
_Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife_, printed for
the Abbotsford Club, Edinburgh, 1837, 4to, p. 168. 'The elders
each one in his own quarter, for trying the manners of the
people.' _The Government and Order of the Church of Scotland_,
Edinburgh, 1690, p. 14. This scarce little volume is reprinted
from the edition of 1641. See the advertisement at the beginning.

[437] In 1652, the Kirk-Session of Glasgow 'brot boyes and servants
before them, for breaking the Sabbath, and other faults. They had
clandestine censors, and gave money to some for this end.'
_Wodrow's Collections_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 74, Glasgow, 1848,
4to.

[438] 'It is thocht expedient that ane baillie with tua of the sessioun
pas throw the towne everie Sabboth day, and nott sic as thay find
absent fra the sermones ather afoir or efter none; and for that
effect that thay pas and _sersche sic houss as they think maist
meit_, and pas athort the streittis.' _Selections from the Records
of the Kirk Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen_, p. 26.
'To pas throw the towne to caus the people resort to the hering of
the sermones.' p. 59. 'Ganging throw the towne on the ordinar
preiching dayes in the weik, als weill as on the Saboth day, to
caus the people resort to the sermones.' p. 77. See also p. 94;
and _Wodrow's Collections_, vol. ii. part ii. p. 37: 'the Session
allous the searchers to go into houses and apprehend absents from
the kirk.'

[439] 'Another peculiarity was the supervision wielded over the movements
of people to such a degree that they could neither _obtain lodging
nor employment_ except by a licence from the Kirk-Session, or, by
defying this police court, expose themselves to fine and
imprisonment.' _Lawson's Book of Perth_, p. xxxvii. Edinburgh,
1847.

[440] In 1652, Sir Alexander Irvine indignantly writes, that the
presbytery of Aberdeen, 'when they had tried many wayes, bot in
vaine, to mak probable this their vaine imaginatione, they, at
lenthe, when all other meanes failed thame, by ane unparalelled
barbaritie, enforced my serwandis to reweall upon oathe what they
sawe, herd, or knewe done within my house, beyond which no
Turkische inquisitione could pase.' _The Miscellany of the
Spalding Club_, vol. iii. p. 206, Aberdeen, 1846, 4to.

[441] In 1656, a servant was ordered to be brought before the
Kirk-Session of Aberdeen 'for her rayleing againest Mr. Andrew
Cant, minister, in saying that becaus the said Mr. Andrew spak
againest Yuill, he spak lyke ane old fool.' _Selections from the
Records of the Kirk Session, Presbytery, and Synod of Aberdeen_,
p. 138. In 1642, the Presbytery of Lanark had up a certain James
Baillie, because he stated the extremely probable circumstance,
'that two fooles mett togither, when the Minister and his sone
mett togither.' _Selections from the Registers of the Presbytery
of Lanark_, printed for the Abbotsford Club, Edinburgh, 1839, 4to,
p. 30.

[442] In 1644, 'If you dissent from them in a theological tenet, it is
heresy.' _Presbytery Displayed_, 1644, p. 39, reprinted London,
1663, 4to. In 1637, 'If ye depart from _what I taught you in a
hair-breadth_ for fear or favour of men, or desire of ease in this
world, I take heaven and earth to witness, that ill shall come
upon you in end.' _Rutherford's Religious Letters_, p. 116. In
1607, 'Mr. William Cowper, Minister, complained upon Robert Keir
that he had disdainfully spoken of his doctrine. The (Kirk)
Session ordained him to be warned to the morrow.' _Lawson's Book
of Perth_, p. 247.

[443] In 1619, a man was summoned before the Kirk-Session of Perth,
because, among other things, he would not perform 'that civil duty
of salutation, as becomes him to his pastor;' but 'passed by him
without using any kind of reverence.' _The Chronicle of Perth_,
Edinburgh, 1831, 4to, p. 80. The complaint was preferred by the
minister himself. Indeed, the Scotch clergy took these things so
much to heart, that they set up a theory to the effect that
whoever showed them any disrespect, was prompted thereto by Satan.
'It is Satan's great engine to draw men to contemne God and his
word, under pretext of disrespect and prejudice against the
Messengers only.' ... 'It may let us see their guilt who despise
most eminent ordinary Messengers.' _Hutcheson's Exposition of the
Minor Prophets_, vol. i. pp. 205, 233.

[444] The General Assembly of Saint Andrews, in 1642, passed 'an act
against using ministers' names in any of the public papers,
without their own consent.' _Stevenson's History of the Church of
Scotland_, p. 503.

These and similar proceedings, being upheld by public opinion, were completely successful. Indeed, they could hardly have been otherwise, seeing that it was generally believed that whoever gainsaid the clergy, would be visited, not only with temporal penalties, but also with spiritual ones. For such a crime, there was punishment here, and there was punishment hereafter. The preachers willingly fostered a delusion by which they benefited. They told their hearers, that what was spoken in the pulpit was binding upon all believers, and was to be regarded as immediately proceeding from the Deity.[445] This proposition being established, other propositions naturally followed. The clergy believed that they alone were privy to the counsels of the Almighty, and that, by virtue of this knowledge, they could determine what any man's future state would be.[446] Going still further, they claimed the power, not only of foretelling his future state, but also of controlling it; and they did not scruple to affirm that, by their censures, they could open and shut the kingdom of heaven.[447] As if this were not enough, they also gave out that a word of theirs could hasten the moment of death, and by cutting off the sinner in his prime, could bring him at once before the judgment-seat of God.[448]

[445] 'Directions for a believer's walk, given by Christ's ministers from
his word, are his own, and are accounted by him as if he did
immediately speak them himself.' _Durham's Exposition of the Song
of Solomon_, p. 102. I quote from the Glasgow reprint of 1788.
That my references may be easily verified, and any error, if error
there be, detected, I mention that the exact edition used will, in
every case, be found specified in the List of Authors at the
beginning of this work. But, if it will give the reader any
additional confidence, I will venture to observe, that I am always
scrupulously careful in reference to quotations, having looked out
each passage afresh, as the sheets came from the printers hands.
Some of the circumstances narrated in this chapter are so
monstrous, that I hope to be excused in saying that I have taken
all possible pains to secure their literal accuracy.

[446] 'Yea, such was their arrogance, that, as if they had been privy to
the councils of God, or the dispensers of his vengeance to the
world, they presumed to pronounce upon their future state, and
doomed them, both body and soul, to eternal torments.' _Wishart's
Memoirs of the Marquis of Montrose_, p. 237. 'Ye heard of me the
whole counsel of God. _Rutherford's Religious Letters_, p. 16. 'I
am free from the blood of all men; for I have communicated to you
the whole counsel of God.' _Ibid._ p. 191. 'This is the great
business of Gospel Ministers, to declare the whole counsel of
God.' _Halyburton's Great Concern of Salvation_, p. 4. 'Asserting
that he had declared the whole counsel of God, and had keeped
nothing back.' _Life of the Rev. A. Peden_, p. 41, in vol. i. of
_Walker's Biographia Presbyteriana_.

[447] 'The power of the keys is given to the Ministers of the church,
wherewith not only by the preaching of the word, but also to
church censures (sic) they open and shut the kingdom of heaven.'
_Dickson's Truth's Victory over Error_, p. 282. 'To preach the
Word, impugne, rebuik, admonishe, exhort and correct, and that
under no less paine then casting both bodie and soull into
eternall hell's fire.' _Forbes' Certaine Records touching the
Estate of the Kirk_, p. 519. 'The next words, "Whatsoever ye shall
bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven," being spoken to the
Apostles, and in them to other Ministers of Jesus Christ.'
_Gillespie's Aaron's Rod Blossoming_, p. 366. 'The keys of the
kingdom of Heaven' ... 'are committed and intrusted to the pastors
and other ruling officers of the Church.' _Ibid._ p. 260.