Chapter XVIII: Continuation of the History of Protestantism

THOUGH the clergy had obtained the sanction of the government to their form of Church polity, the public mind was still agitated. The air was filled with rumours of plots and conspiracies on the part of the Jesuits, and of projected invasions for the overthrow of the Reformed religion and the massacre of the Protestants. The zeal of the clergy against the Catholics was intense and implacable. They were much annoyed at the lenity of the King towards the Catholic Earls of Huntly, Errol, and Angus, and were constantly on the outlook for their enemies. In the month of November, 1592, they appointed a committee to sit in Edinburgh during the emergency in order to watch over the Church. To sharpen the feeling of the people, they proclaimed a fast to begin on Sunday, the 17th of December, “That by true humiliation and unfeigned repentance, the fearful judgments of God that hang over this land may be prevented.” During the fast the pulpits resounded with denunciations of the Catholics, the decrees of the Council of Trent, and the remissness of the King and the government in not executing justice upon malefactors and murderers. According to Calderwood, the effect of the fast was immediately manifested in the apprehension of George Ker, a doctor of laws, who was connected with a strange conspiracy. On the 27th of December, Andrew Knox, the minister of Paisley, having learned that Ker was ready to proceed to Spain, traced him to Glasgow, thence to the Island of Cumbrae, and apprehended him on the ship in which he was about to sail. Ker’s baggage was searched, and some packets of letters of a suspicious character being found, he was conveyed a prisoner to Edinburgh. Among the letters, several signatures of the ♦Earls of Huntly, Errol, and Angus, were found at the bottom of blank slips of paper. Graham of Fintry, an associate of Ker’s, was shortly after apprehended. Ker was tortured, and on the first stroke of the boots confessed the conspiracy. This mode of extracting information destroys any degree of credit which might otherwise attach to the statements of the accused individual, but it was enough in the heated temper of the clergy and the people, to arouse their passions and feelings to a pitch of great excitement. The Privy Council, after examining the letters, had no doubt of their authenticity. The King, then at Stirling, was requested to return to Edinburgh. The people clamoured for the trial and execution of Ker; and the authorities issued a proclamation ordering all Jesuits and excommunicated persons to depart from Edinburgh within three hours, under the penalty of death. Upon Sunday the 7th of January, 1583, the King attended church, and Robert Bruce, the preacher, exhorted him “that now was the time to execute justice,” or else, said he, “the chronicles will keep in remembrance King James VI. to his shame.” A meeting of the Protestant barons and ministers was held, and they called upon the King to prosecute and punish the traitors. Ker escaped; but Graham was convicted of conspiracy, and on the 10th of February, he was executed to appease the rage of the people, but in vain. On the night after his execution, a bill was posted up in a conspicuous part of the capital, which asserted that all the preparations against the Catholics would end in nothing, for the greatest criminals had been allowed to escape by the connivance of the Court.¹

♦ “Early” replaced with “Earls”

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 167, 168, 171‒193, 214‒230;
Melville’s _Diary_, pages 306‒307.

Towards the end of February, 1593, the King, at the head of an army made a demonstration against the Catholic Earls, but it resulted merely in the Earls of Huntly and Errol withdrawing to Caithness. Many circumstances indicated that the King intended to treat them leniently, and there were obvious reasons for this policy in the existing state of things. The Crown of Scotland was never strong, and the craft of James VI. was little fitted to enhance its importance. The nobles, on the other hand, were unusually distracted by feuds and factions, springing out of a variety of causes, social and political, as well as religious. Since the Reformation their landed possessions had frequently changed hands. The national records of the time are full of forfeitures, revocations, and confirmations, of landed estates; and naturally the plots of those who had been defeated and ruined were incessant. About one-third of the nobles were still more or less firmly attached to the Roman Catholic religion.¹ From these circumstances a mass of difficulties arose which reduced the Crown to the most miserable straits, and placed the King in the most ridiculous plights. Unfortunately, James had neither the sagacity to appreciate the tendency of his age, and to follow and moderate it, nor grasp of principle and firmness of character to turn it aside. His thin narrow mind was filled with little conceits and possessed with the most childish notion of his own power and prerogatives; while the moral side of his character was even worse than the intellectual, indeed, he had little regard either for truth or honesty. Yet, he was continually tampering with the Church, and in his own underhand and crafty fashion endeavoured to impress his notions upon her, and to install the bishops as executors of his will.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III.
throughout; _Register of the Privy Council_; Tytler’s
_History of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 65‒111, 376‒382.

The reformed clergy boldly insisted on the complete submission of the Catholics, and the entire extirpation of their faith. The General Assembly which met at Dundee in April, 1593, called upon the King and the government to punish all the Catholics in the country, according to the laws of God and the laws of the realm. They insisted “That Parliament should declare all the Jesuits and trafficking Catholics to be guilty of treason, and that the same penalties should be enforced against all persons who harboured them, not for three days, as the law then stood, but for any time, however short. That all those whom the Church found to be Catholics, although not excommunicated, should be debarred from holding any office in the kingdom; and also debarred from all access to his Majesty, and from the protection of the laws; and that the consequences of horning and all other social penalties should follow upon such a declaration, as upon the sentence of excommunication: that an act of council should be immediately made thereon, till the next Parliament, when it should be passed into a law.”¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, 798‒799, 802‒803.

When the petition in which these demands were embodied came before the King, he refused to grant it. In his answer he reminded the petitioners of his right to appoint the day and the place of the Assembly, and desired them to pass an act prohibiting every minister from declaiming in their pulpits against himself or the proceedings of his council. He also wished the ministers to name six of the wisest of their number, that from these he might select two to serve in his own household. Nothing, he said, would afford him more pleasure than to hear through the clergy what was doing in all parts of the country, for whoever were their enemies, were his enemies; he would be highly delighted, not only to hear from time to time about the practices of the Catholics and the Spanish faction, but also about Bothwell, whenever they had any information of him, because his whole course of action was directed against his Majesty’s person, and the total subversion of all religion.¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 805‒806.

Francis Stewart, Earl of Bothwell, was a near relative of the King. But he was restless, daring, and unscrupulous; and had repeatedly thrown the King into fits of terror for his life, by sudden and unexpected attempts to make him a prisoner. Bothwell was known to have entered into plots with the Catholic party, the Protestant party, and with Queen Elizabeth; but he lacked the strength of character and intelligence to carry out any great enterprise; while his exploits with the King, although extremely annoying and fearful to the royal personage himself, often assumed a rather ridiculous and comic form, and had no effect whatever on the main current of history.¹

¹ Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_, pages 414‒416; Calderwood,
Volume V., pages 117‒132, 138, 140, 134, 177, 258;
Melville’s _Diary_, pages 277, 294‒326.

Parliament met in July 1593, but the process against the Catholic lords failed. The King’s advocate informed the commissioners of the Church that the summons was informal, and the evidence against them insufficient, and that it was impossible then to forfeit them. An act was passed against the mass, and a searching inquisition was ordered to be made for all Catholics. But this did not satisfy the clergy; and they freely expressed their sentiments in the pulpits to the people. On the Sunday after the close of the parliament, John Davidson said in his sermon, “It was a black parliament, for iniquity was seated in the high court of justice: the arch traitors having not only escaped, but in a manner were absolved, as it was alleged that no evidence could be adduced against them. The absolving of the wicked, imported the persecution of the righteous, except God restrained the adversaries. Let us pray, that the King by some sanctified plagues, may be turned again to God.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.;
Calderwood, Volume V., pages 255‒256.

The King was still averse to proceed to extremities against the Catholic Earls. But the more ardent Protestants and the clergy had come to the conclusion, that it was impossible for the old and the new religion to exist together in Scotland. They therefore deemed it necessary to employ the power of the Church against the Catholics. The Synod of Fife met at St. Andrews on the 25th of September 1593, and agreed to a resolution to excommunicate the Earls of Huntly, Errol, Angus, Lord Home, and others of their adherents. This sentence was ordered to be intimated in all the congregations throughout the kingdom. The Synod concluded its proceedings by exhorting the pastors to prepare themselves by prayer and diligent study of the word, for the solemn fast which was to be observed in every parish of the realm.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 259‒265; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 309‒310.

The excommunication of the Earls highly displeased the King, and there was much contention between him and the clergy concerning it. The Earls themselves then supplicated the King to put them on their trial for conspiracy, and complained that they had been excommunicated and were treated as traitors, without having been offered an opportunity of vindicating themselves. When everything is taken into account, it certainly was hard that they should be compelled either to renounce their own religion and sign the Protestant confession, or submit to banishment and utter ruin. These, however, were the alternatives which the clergy were determined to exact. From the standpoint of modern ideas, the proceedings and the demands of the Protestants would be pronounced wholly wrong; but at the time the prevailing ideas, and the religious notions of truth and error, were far more influenced by the pressure of circumstances than they are in the present. With their aim, and from their point of view, the single line of policy which they followed was thoroughly logical and honest according to their light. On the 17th of October the leading ministers and their adherents met at Edinburgh to consult and prepare to face the threatened danger. They appointed six of their number to request the King to take order with the excommunicated Earls, and they freely expressed their regret that he had permitted those cast-off persons to come into his presence. The King gave them no thanks. He upbraided the members of the Synod of Fife for excommunicating the Earls. But the representatives of the clergy told him, that if their enemies took up arms, they had resolved to meet them face to face. “This,” they said, “we are minded to do, although it should be with the loss of all our lives in one day; for certainly we are determined that the country shall not brook us and them both, so long as they are God’s professed enemies.”¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 270, _et seq._; Melville’s
_Diary_, pages 110, 111; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume IV., page 44.

Matters were rapidly running to a crisis. Both parties were mustering their followers in all parts of the country. To the religious elements of the struggle, there were added the bitter and revengeful feelings springing out of long-standing family feuds, and if once the swords were drawn, the results would prove disastrous in the extreme to all alike. This was well known to the government; and a committee of the Three Estates, along with six of the leading clergy, met to deliberate on the state of affairs. After some animated debates, the King, on the 26th of November, pronounced what was called “The Act of Abolition,” touching the accused Earls. This act stated that the true religion, which was established in the first year of his Majesty’s reign, should be the only one professed in Scotland; and that those who had never embraced it, and those who had declined from it, should either conform to it, before the 11th of February, 1594, or depart from the country to such places as the King should direct, and there to remain till they professed the truth and satisfied the Church. During their banishment, they were to retain the full possession of their estates. All accusations against them were annulled. The Catholic Earls were ordered to inform the King and the Church, before the 11th of January, which of the alternatives they meant to accept.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages
46‒48; Spottiswood.

This act pleased neither party. The Earls were not disposed to renounce their religion, nor to retain it only at the cost of exile: while the clergy and their adherents were extremely annoyed at this temporising line of action, and immediately expressed their disapproval of it from their pulpits. On the 30th of November, 1593, Mr. Balcanquhal touched upon the practices of the court, in his sermon, and recalled the judgments of God that had fallen upon some of the chief actors――“as upon Bothwell who had died like a dog; and upon the Queen who was beheaded that day twenty years, after she had caused her husband to be murdered.” On the 4th of December, the ministers of the Presbytery of Edinburgh met to consult upon the Act, and many faults were found in it. Some proposed to amend it, but Pont thought it should be disannulled, for the reason that if they amended it, it would be called their work. Upon Sunday, the 16th of December, Mr. Robert Bruce in his sermon, in the presence of the officers of State and the Justice-Clerk, said “The King’s reign would be troublesome and short if he did not abolish the Act of Abolition.”¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume I., pages 288‒290; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 312, 313.

The clergy stood constantly on their watch-towers, ready to descry the enemy. When the General Assembly met at Edinburgh in May, 1594, Andrew Melville was chosen moderator, and the Assembly immediately proceeded to deal with the case of the Catholic Earls. Some persons in Perth, who had resetted them, were sharply called to account for their conduct; but they confessed their offence, and satisfied the Church. The Assembly unanimously avowed and ratified the sentence of excommunication passed by the Synod of Fife against the Catholic Lords, and ordered this to be intimated to every congregation in the kingdom. As the Catholic Earls had disregarded the Act of Abolition, and were persisting in their unholy and unlawful courses, the Assembly petitioned the King to confiscate all their lands, and annex them to the Crown; and then to muster the feudal array of the realm for the purpose of pursuing and defeating them.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 819‒821, 828‒834.

Parliament met in June 1594, and though the Catholic nobles were then in open rebellion, they had friends in Parliament. Andrew Melville appeared for the Church before the Lords of the Articles, and insisted upon strong measures being taken. He told the King to his face, “That many thought it a matter of great weight to overthrow the estate of three so great men. I grant that it is so; but yet it is a greater matter to overthrow and expel out of the country three far greater, to wit, true religion, the quietness of the commonwealth, and the prosperous state of the King.” Addressing the Lords, he said――“If ye can get us a better commonwealth than our own, and a better King, we are content that the treacherous lords be spared; otherwise we desire you to do your duty.” The majority of the Lords of the Articles voted for the forfeiture of the Earls, Parliament passed the act, and they were proclaimed traitors and rebels. The Earl of ♦Argyle was commanded to assemble his vassals and to wage war against them. But the Earls of Huntly and Errol attacked the hastily collected and undisciplined army of ♦Argyle in Glenlivet, on the 13th of October, and after a severe struggle, ♦Argyle was completely defeated, and his followers fled in confusion.¹

♦ “Argyll” replaced with “Argyle” for consistency

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages
56‒61; Tytler’s _History of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages
168‒172; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume II., pages
48‒50.

The King had advanced to Dundee when tidings of ♦Argyle’s defeat reached him, and he at once pushed forward with his army to Aberdeen. There some of the local chiefs, who were at feud with Huntly, joined him. On this occasion, Andrew Melville and a number of the most ardent preachers accompanied the army, and by their exertions and example contributed to bring the expedition to a successful issue. Huntly found himself unable to face the royal army and fled to Caithness. His stronghold, the Castle of Strathbogie, was dismantled; the Castle of Slaines, the seat of the Earl of Errol, and other mansions were also defaced. On returning to Aberdeen, the King caused a number of the Earl of Huntly’s adherents to be executed, and proclaimed a general pardon to all who had been with him at the Battle of Glenlivet, providing they paid the fines imposed by the Council. After making arrangements with the view of securing peace in the north, the army was disbanded, and the King returned to Stirling on the 14th of November, 1594.¹

¹ _Register of Privy Council_; Melville’s _Diary_, pages
318‒322; Calderwood, Volume V., pages 348‒357.

The Catholic Earls were reduced to despair, and they quitted the country in the month of March, 1595. The Protestants, however, did not relax their efforts. They knew that the Catholics would renew their plots. When the General Assembly met at Montrose in June, 1595, an order was issued to the presbyteries throughout the country to proceed against the Catholics within their bounds and excommunicate them, and to enforce the penalties of the law upon all who had offended, and on any who held intercourse with those who were absenting themselves from the sacraments on the plea that they were at deadly feud with their neighbours; indeed there was still a considerable amount of social anarchy in the country which seemed to defy all restraints and remedies.¹ Owing to the enormous iniquity and sins of the nation, the Assembly ordered a general fast to be held in all the churches throughout the kingdom on the first two Sundays of August. The ministers were enjoined to put the causes of the fast fully before the people. They were chiefly――“The great and present danger that the Church, the commonwealth, and the King standeth in through the wrath of God, not only kindled against us, but also justly burning and devouring us up already by sundry fearful plagues and punishments ... the deep conspiracies and daily confederacies of the faction of the known adversaries to religion, to the King, and to the country, and threatening to root us out from being any more a nation, and the breaking and removing of our two estates of Church and Commonwealth.” The Assembly also resolved that it was their duty to sympathise with the Protestants of other Churches.²

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 846‒848.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 853‒854.

The clergy were in continual fear of the return of the Catholic nobles and the renewal of their intrigues. When the General Assembly met at Edinburgh in March 1596, the King attended in person, and is reported to have delivered a speech in which he regretted that the ministers were so poorly paid. A list of the crimes, the sins, and the iniquities, of all ranks in the nation was drawn up by this Assembly. It presents a frightful state of society, and will be more fully examined elsewhere. The King, we learn, was in the habit of swearing, and set a bad example to all around him. He had also a habit of conversing with those beside him in the church during the time of sermon, and was therefore earnestly recommended to hold private meditation with God in spirit and conscience. The offences in the court and judgment seat were:――“a universal neglect of justice both in civil and criminal causes――by a system of granting remissions and respites for slaughter and other hideous crimes; and no execution of the laws against vice, nor in favour of the Church. Most of the judges in civil matters were declared unqualified for their office, either in respect of knowledge or conscience, or both; and when any office became vacant, the worst men were advanced to it both in high and low positions. The Court of Session was charged with buying pleas, delaying justice, and bribery, which was palpably to be seen by sudden conquests――by the extraordinary quickness in obtaining property which had become so common.”¹

¹ _Ibid._, pages 859, 872‒878.

In the summer of 1596, the Catholic Earls had secretly returned, and there were indications that the government would restore them. Huntly had forwarded overtures to the King offering submission and praying to be absolved from the sentence of excommunication. At a meeting of the nobles and some of the clergy it was agreed that Huntly might, under certain conditions to be drawn up by the King and the Privy Council, be received. But the majority of the clergy were opposed to this resolution; and the commissioners of the last General Assembly met at Cupar in Fife, and sent a deputation to remonstrate with the King on the evil consequences which were likely to result from the measures which his Council were pursuing. The King assured the ministers that the Catholic Earls should obtain no favour, until they had satisfied the Church. The ministers, however, had no faith in the King’s promises; and sixteen of their number from different parts of the country were selected to sit in Edinburgh, and along with the ministers of the capital, to watch over the reformed religion. This body immediately proceeded to action, and summoned Seaton, the President of the Court of Session, to appear before the Synod of Lothian to answer for his conduct, touching the recall of the Earl of Huntly. The President offered some resistance, but found it necessary to come forward and satisfy the Church.¹

¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 368‒371; Calderwood, Volume V.,
pages 439‒450.

The King quickly saw an invasion of his royal prerogatives in these proceedings. He endeavoured to convince the clergy of the justice and mercy implied in his proposals to restore the Catholic Earls, but in vain. The clergy were inexorable; and their firmness strengthened him in his intention to remodel the government of the Church, whenever an opportunity occurred. While the feelings of both parties were running high, and recriminations were passing from mouth to mouth, Mr. Black, one of the ministers of St. Andrews, delivered a sermon on the threatened triumph of idolatry in Scotland. Alluding to the prelacy established in the adjoining kingdom, he said: “The Queen of England was an atheist; the religion professed in that kingdom was nothing better than an empty show, gilded by the injunctions of the bishops; and not content with this pageant at home, they were persuading the King to set it up in Scotland. As for his highness, none knew better than he did of the meditated return of the Catholic Earls, and therein he was guilty of manifest treachery. But what could they look for? Was not Satan at the head of both court and council? Were not all kings devil’s bairns? Were not the Lords of Session miscreants and bribers, the nobility cormorants, and the Queen of Scotland a woman whom for fashion’s sake they might pray for, but in whose time it was vain to hope for any good.”¹

¹ Moysie’s _Memoirs_, page 128; Calderwood, Volume V., pages
453‒454.

For this Black was summoned to appear before the Privy Council. But the ministers knew that a blow was aimed against the liberties of the Church, that the King was bent on limiting freedom of speech in the pulpit; and they therefore advised him to decline the authority of the Council, in the first instance, on the ground that it was a spiritual subject. On the 10th of November, 1696, he obeyed the summons and appeared before the Council; but he denied that the court had any right to try him. “He was ready,” he said, “to give a confession and stand to the defence of every point of the truth of God which he had uttered ... yet seeing I am not at this time brought to stand before your Majesty and council, as a judge set to cognise and discern upon my doctrine; and though my answering to the said pretended accusation might import with the manifest prejudices of the liberties of the Church, and acknowledging also of your Majesty’s jurisdiction in matters that are merely spiritual, which might move your Majesty to attempt further in the spiritual government of the Church”; and so on. Afterwards he gave his reasons at length for declining the jurisdiction of the court. Enraged at this refusal of the preacher to recognise his supremacy, the King issued a proclamation commanding the commissioners of the Church to leave the capital and return to their flocks within twenty-four hours, under the penalty of rebellion. At so critical a time the ministers were not disposed to obey this royal order, as it was deemed rather arbitrary. They resolved therefore to remain and watch over the safety of the Church. Some of them went to the King to try the effect of a personal interview, but he insisted stoutly that they should allow his claim of supreme jurisdiction, as the condition of stopping the process against Black. The ministers could not agree to this, which would have been almost equivalent to a renunciation of their Protestantism; so the charge against Black was recast, and his trial proceeded. He was found guilty, and the measure of his punishment referred to the King; meanwhile he was ordered to be confined beyond the North Water.¹ The ministers then proclaimed a fast to avert the impending danger and judgments, “When the doctrine was sounded powerfully, and stirred up a mighty motion amongst the people of God.” The King seems to have considered this as a personal affront, and issued an order commanding the commissioners to depart from the capital; and announced that the ministers must subscribe a bond to obey the King and the Privy Council, before they received their stipends. At the same time Black was ordered to enter into ward.²

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, November and December;
Calderwood, Volume V., pages 454‒498.

² _Register of the Privy Council_; Calderwood, Volume V., pages
498‒502; Melville’s _Diary_, pages 510‒515.

The commissioners left Edinburgh on the 15th of December, 1596, and were no sooner gone than the King again thought of trying his craft on the ministers of the capital, who he imagined would be more manageable when alone. He accordingly invited them to an interview, but in reply they said that unless the commissioners were recalled as openly as they had been dismissed, there could be no communication between the court and them. The King’s flatterers continued to keep him upon the line of thought towards which he had always inclined; and he next commanded twenty-four of the most ardent Protestants among the citizens to leave Edinburgh within six hours. The excitement in the capital then became extreme. On the 17th of December a rumour spread that Huntly had been at the Palace of Holyrood, and the alarm of the preachers was intense. Balcanquhal was ascending the pulpit for the week-day sermon when this story was told to him, and unaware of its falsehood, he commented on it in his discourse, and aroused the feelings and passions of the congregation to the highest pitch. At the close of his sermon, he called on the barons present not to disgrace their names and their ancestors, but to meet the ministers immediately in the Little Church. A crowd had already collected there, and when the barons were seated, the preacher addressed them on the dangers to which the Church was exposed by the return of the Catholic lords. He reminded them of the rigour lately shown to the faithful professors of the reformed religion, and desired them to hold up their hands and swear to defend their faith against all opposers.¹

¹ Spottiswood, Calderwood, Volume V., pages, 510‒511.

A deputation was sent to the King, who at the moment was in the Tolbooth with the Lords of Council. When admitted, they informed him that they were sent by the barons convened in the Little Church, to lay before his Majesty the imminent dangers which threatened religion. “What dangers see you,” said the King, “and who dares to assemble against my proclamation?” Lord Lindsay replied, “we dare do more than that, and will not suffer religion to be overthrown.” The clamour increased, and a number of the people rushing into the room, the King started to his feet in great alarm, and without giving any answer, ran down the stairs and ordered the doors to be shut. The deputation returned to the Little Church, where one of the ministers had been reading the story of Haman and Mordecai; and when it was announced that the King had given no answer, the multitude were furious. The tumult thickened, and Lord Lindsay shouted at the top of his voice not to separate, that their only hope of safety was to remain and send notice to their friends to come and assist them. Some cried “to bring out the wicked Haman;” others shouted, “the sword of the Lord and of Gideon.” One of the crowd cried, “Fy, Fy, save yourselves, the Catholics are coming to massacre you, To arms! to arms! bills and axes.” The seething mob rushed hither and thither in wild confusion. Some fancied that the King was a prisoner, and ran to the Tolbooth; others, imagining that their ministers were being murdered, flew to the church; some knocked on the Tolbooth door, and called for President Seaton and other councillors to be delivered up to them, that summary punishment might be executed upon the misdoers. At last the provost of the city arrived. He addressed the multitude, and advised them to go quietly to their homes; and thus the uproar which threatened to be dangerous was quelled without serious mischief.¹

¹ Moysie’s _Memoirs_, page 131; Calderwood, Volume V., pages
512‒513; Bruce’s _Sermons_, pages 173‒176, 1843; Birrel’s
_Diary_.

After the King’s courage had revived, he determined to let the ministers and the citizens feel the weight of his wrath. The following morning he left Edinburgh for Linlithgow; and there issued a proclamation which described the disturbance of the preceding day as a treasonable uproar, excited by the ministers; and ordered the courts of law to leave the capital, which was no longer a fit place for the administration of justice. At the same time he commanded all the barons to depart to their own homes, and not dare again to assemble until they had received his permission.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 514, 515.

This unexpected move on the part of the King, cowed the citizens and cooled their ardour. The burgesses and craftsmen saw in it the decay of the town, and the loss of their trade, and were therefore ready to yield, and implore his Majesty’s clemency. The clergy, on the other hand, were prepared to brave the tempest. When all the people were in despair, Mr. Robert Bruce ascended the pulpit, and upbraided them for their timidity. He said, “A trial shall go through all men, from the King and Queen to the council and nobility, from the session to the barons, from the barons to the burgesses, yea, to the very craftsmen. The love of all men shall be seen, both towards God and the religion. Sorry am I that I should see such weakness in many of you, that ye dare not so much as utter one word for God’s glory and the good cause.... I am heartily sorry that our holy and gracious cause should be so obscured by this late tumult, and that the desperate enemies should be emboldened to pull down the crown off Christ’s head.... Let us suffer cheerfully, and in the meantime stand to the cause. The Lord so bear us out that, if the greatest were sitting there, we shrink not to admonish them with all reverence.... The Lord prepare us in mercy, enlarge the narrow bounds of our wretched hearts that they may be capable, and multiply His holy and divine unction on them, that His glory may break out, and shine on our constancy and holy perseverance; and, on the other side, that the tokens of His hot and just wrath may break up and begin in the heart of the enemy, and awaken their conscience, and open their mouths to confess their own turpitude, to the honour of the good cause, and the glory of Christ for ever.” The ministers invited Lord Hamilton to place himself at the head of those who had embraced the cause of the Church; but he modestly declined the honour, and sent the letter of invitation to the King. The citizens of Edinburgh dispatched humble messages to the King to appease his wrath, and solicited him to return to his capital, but in vain. The only answer he returned was an announcement, that ere long he would come to Edinburgh, and let them know he was their King. The Provost was meantime ordered to imprison the ministers; and the tumult was declared to be treason by an act of the Privy Council. A rumour arose that the city was to be sacked, razed, and sown with salt. But on the 1st of January 1597, the gates and streets were occupied with bodies of armed men, and the King re-entered the capital with all the pomp and circumstance of a conquering hero. The magistrates and the citizens offered the most complete submission, but the King declined to accept it. A convention of the Estates at Holyrood anew denounced the disturbance as a treasonable riot and ordered the Provost and Bailies to be imprisoned in Perth before the 11th of February, and there to remain till they were tried.¹

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_; _Register of Privy Council_;
Birrel’s _Diary_; Calderwood, Volume V., pages 515‒521, 530,
535‒538.

The day of the trial was at last fixed for the 5th of March, 1597; and the case was then put into this form:――two of the bailies, the treasurer, the dean of guild, four of the council, the town clerk, and four of the deacons, were summoned to attend their trial, as representing the city. On the appointed day they all appeared, except one, who, it was alleged, had the King’s dispensation; but the plea was overruled, and they were all found guilty of not fulfilling the order of the council, which required thirteen to be present. The city was denounced, the burgesses declared rebels, and all their public property forfeited to the crown. This sentence filled the capital with dismay; the magistrates threw up their offices and refused to act, and for fifteen days the city was without either magistrates or ministers. After this the provost, the magistrates, and the deacons were admitted into the King’s presence at Holyrood, and on their knees besought his highness to take pity on the city as they had thrown themselves entirely upon his mercy. The King severely reprimanded them, and after expatiating long on the enormity of their offence, he ordered them to retire, till he should resolve upon their doom. When recalled, they were commanded to give up to his Majesty the houses in the churchyard where the ministers used to dwell, who were henceforth to live separately; to protect the Lords of Session during their sittings under a penalty; to give up the lower council house for exchequer chambers, and to pay a fine of twenty thousand marks.¹ Such was the enormous punishment which the wisdom of James VI. deemed it necessary to inflict upon the inhabitants of Edinburgh for a harmless hubbub, which it was impossible for them to have foreseen or prevented, and for which the King himself and his courtiers were more to blame than any one else in the kingdom.

¹ _Burgh Records of Edinburgh_; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume IV., pages 103‒109.

This severe punishment of the people of Edinburgh enabled the King to extend his influence and power over the Church. For a time the chief ministers of the capital were silenced and put out of the way. Two of the most active had fled to England, and other two were in Fife. James had thus gained ground in the direction of the object which he had in view――the establishment of Episcopacy. He was aware that any overt attempt to reintroduce the bishops would be firmly resisted; and in accordance with the statecraft and pedantry on which he prided himself, a series of fifty-five questions were drawn up and published in the name of the King,¹ touching the polity of the Church, and appointing a General Assembly to be held at Perth on the last day of February, 1597. Those questions were drawn up by Secretary Lindsay, and they were issued with the intention of casting discredit upon the established government of the Church. The points raised in this long string of questions involved among other matters the great and difficult problem of the relations of the Church and State, a subject on which the King and the clergy held directly opposite views. The Church, in all spiritual things, claimed a supremacy over the civil government, as Jesus Christ was her Head and King, and the word of God her guide, to these only was she bound to render obedience. But the weak side of this principle, as then understood, came out clearly in the realities of political and practical life. The proceedings of the Church were held to be independent of the civil government in form and doctrine; and yet, according to the theory of the Church, the civil authorities must enforce the decisions of the spiritual courts by the infliction of secular penalties, as when a person was excommunicated all the legal machinery of the land was to be employed to crush him. This singular confusion of ideas was one of the main embittering stings in the long conflict of the Church and State in Scotland. It seems to have originated from the theocratic conception embedded in the Old Testament, already noticed, as influencing the form and spirit of the reformed religion. Thus it was that the Church and the King both claimed to be directly under God, and each consequently thought they were supreme. According to some of the notions of the time the King was accountable to God alone, and therefore his authority must be above all persons and courts in the kingdom. At this period the social advantages of the contention were nearly all on the side of the Church, and it was with the aim of turning the balance in his own favour that the King proposed the questions.

¹ They are printed in the _Book of the Universal Kirk_, and in
Melville’s _Diary_, pages 390‒403.

The clergy of the age had no idea of a Church existing separately from the State. They were continually calling on the King and the government to pass laws relating to the establishment of the Church, and also on points of discipline and doctrine; and many acts of parliament, and of council, were passed on these matters from the Reformation to the end of the century. But the conditions of society, and the circumstances in which Protestantism found itself placed, rendered the sanction and support of the State necessary to its existence; and even if an idea of the complete separation of the Church and State had arisen in the minds of the Reformers, it could not have been realised anywhere in Europe for long after their day.

The King’s questions were industriously circulated among the presbyteries and synods. The leading ministers, however, were opposed to the discussion of them, because they wished to hold by the existing polity and discipline. The Synod of Fife drew up instructions for the guidance of the commissioners of all the presbyteries within its bounds, who were to attend the ensuing Assembly at Perth; and the Presbytery of Edinburgh did the same. The tenor of these instructions were directly adverse to the renewed discussion of the polity of the Church.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 903‒911.

When the Assembly met at Perth, after a long debate on the manner of appointing a General Assembly, the majority agreed to hold the meeting to be a lawful General Assembly. The proposals submitted by the King were then considered. They were hotly contested; but in the end the King gained his object. It was carried by a majority, that the King or his commissioner might propose any point of the external polity of the Church which he desired to be reformed; that the ministers in their sermons should refrain from rebuking individuals by name, and from introducing political subjects in their discourses; that they should hold no unusual meetings without his Majesty’s consent; and that in all the chief towns the ministers should be chosen with the consent of the King. The rest of the King’s questions were postponed to the next Assembly, on the understanding that in the meantime they should not be condemned either in pulpits, synods, or presbyteries. These conclusions were ratified by the parliament then sitting in Perth.¹ The King had thus gained a footing in the General Assembly, which he retained, until it became a mere organ of the court, and the clergy opposed to his measures were kept in the background for many years.

¹ _Ibid._, pages 895‒896; _Acts of the Parliaments of
Scotland_, Volume IV., pages 110‒112; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 403‒411.

Another General Assembly met at Dundee on the 10th of May, 1597, when the Assembly at Perth was declared lawful, and its proceedings were ratified. The court party had made great exertions, but it was with difficulty that they carried their measures. The King was present, and he obtained the consent of the Assembly to a standing commission of fourteen ministers, who were to meet with his Majesty and consult and deliberate on all matters concerning the Church.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 924‒928.

The conditions prescribed for the absolution and admission of the Earls of Huntly, Errol, and Angus, came before this Assembly; and a commission was appointed to receive them into the Church. The ceremony of their reconciliation to the Church, and their restoration to their estates, took place at Aberdeen in the Old Church on the 26th of June, 1597. The church was crowded. Immediately before the sermon, the three earls publicly subscribed the Confession of Faith. After the sermon, they rose and with a loud voice confessed their defection and apostacy, and professed their present conviction of the truth of the Protestant faith, and their resolution to adhere to it. The Earl of Huntly then declared before God, the King, and the Church, his penitence for the murder of the Earl of Moray. The three earls were then absolved from the sentence of excommunication and received into the bosom of the Church. They next communicated in the Protestant form, and solemnly swore to keep order in all respects and to execute justice within their territories. The following day their reconciliation was proclaimed at the cross amid a multitude of the people, who shouted for joy, drank their health, and tossed their glasses in the air.¹

¹ The Laird of Gight was also reconciled. In the garb of a
penitent he threw himself upon his knees before the pulpit,
and there implored pardon for supporting Bothwell, and
prayed to be released from the sentence of excommunication.
Scott’s _Narrative_, page 98; _Analecta Scotica_, page 299;
_Spalding Club Miscellany_, Volume II., page 60.

The four ministers of Edinburgh, who had sought refuge in flight, were permitted to return, and began to preach in their own churches in July, 1597. The King was all the more bent on his project of improving the polity of the Church, as the democratic elements of Presbyterianism were extremely hateful to him. It was soon shown what he intended to effect by the commission of ministers. He called them together at the Palace of Falkland, and having summoned the Presbytery of St. Andrews to appear before them, they reversed two of its judgments. The King with his commissioners next proceeded to the University of St. Andrews, and instituted an inquiry into the teaching of the professors. The commission manifested an intention to find matter for censure against Andrew Melville, the rector of the new college and professor of divinity; and, though nothing was proved against him, he was deprived of his rectorship.¹ The King had at last got his foot pretty fast upon the chief university and the Church. He aspired to be the supreme dictator in literature as well as religion.

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 550‒654; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 417‒419; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume II.,
pages 111‒117.

Parliament met at Edinburgh in December, 1597, and the Commissioners of the Church presented a petition, asking that the ministers should be permitted to vote in parliament as the third estate of the realm. This was the way which the King took to restore the order of bishops and episcopacy; and the presbyterian clergy at once saw the drift of the proposal, and attempted to oppose it. But parliament passed an act authorising the King to appoint such pastors as he thought fit to the office of bishop or abbot, and conferred upon them the right to vote in parliament as in past ages. In keeping with the petty craft of the King, it was left to himself and the General Assembly to determine the limits of the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops.¹ It was well known that there would be much opposition to this act among the clergy, and the commissioners endeavoured to represent what they had done in the most favourable light.

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages
130‒131.

When the Assembly met at Dundee in March 1598, the question of the bishops, and their voting in parliament in the name of the Church, was hotly discussed. The King’s party had made great efforts to pack the Assembly, yet there were still members present whom his majesty wished to exclude from the debate. At the beginning of the Assembly, when Andrew Melville’s name was called, the King challenged it, and said that he could not agree to the admission of one whom he had restricted from attending on Church courts. Melville, of course, defended his right to be there; and was supported by the venerable Mr. Davidson, who reminded the King that he was present only as a Christian, and not as the President of the Assembly. The King then, with his characteristic tactics, declared that he would not allow the business of the Assembly to proceed till Melville retired; and accordingly he was ordered to confine himself to his lodgings; but when it was found that his brethren repaired to him, he was charged to quit Dundee under the penalty of rebellion. After a week spent on the complaints given in against the commissioners, and a number of other matters, the chief question was introduced by a speech from the King. He reminded the Assembly of his own services to the Church; how he had laboured to remove controversies, restore discipline, and increase the patrimony of the establishment; and how that in order to secure this, it was now necessary that she should have a voice in parliament. He therefore desired the members to discuss every point of the act lately passed on the subject. The question whether ministers should have a vote in parliament was then debated at great length, and the affirmative was carried by a majority of ten. It was further agreed that the number of the representatives of the Church should be fifty-one, about the same number as under the Roman Catholic system. Their election was to belong partly to the King and partly to the Church; but this and other details were referred for consideration to the presbyteries and synods, and then to the delegates of the synods, who were to meet with the theological professors, and, in the presence of his Majesty, to reason and conclude on the points undecided; and if they could not agree, the whole matter was to be again put before the General Assembly.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 932, 940, 942‒946;
Melville’s _Diary_, pages 439‒441.

The resolutions in the southern Presbyteries and Synods showed a strong opposition to Episcopacy, and an attempt to confine the powers of their representatives in Parliament within narrow limits. When the discussions in the provincial meetings were concluded, and their deputies chosen for the conference, several meetings were held with the professors; but the result was not satisfactory to the King. He then summoned the leading ministers of the kingdom to meet at Holyrood in November, 1599, where with their brethren of the commission they opened a debate upon the whole subject. The chief proposition was, whether it was lawful for ministers of the Gospel to have a seat in Parliament? A long and hot discussion ensued, which naturally enough ended in settling nothing. Those who took the affirmative side argued that the Gospel was not intended to destroy civil polity, that the ministry were a part of the State, and ought therefore to be represented in Parliament, as well as any other class; that it was reasonable that they should assist in framing and passing the laws by which they were to be governed; that ministers were not prohibited from discharging the social duties of life, and that to debar them entirely from secular business would be to carry the doctrine as far as the Catholics had done, when they forbade the priests to marry. It was also pointed out that, as matters had actually stood for some time past, the Commissioners of the Church had waited on meetings for fixing stipends, and often presented petitions to Parliament, and that General Assemblies had repeatedly craved that no one should vote in Parliament for the Church without their commission. Those who opposed the proposition maintained, on the other hand, that though the Gospel by no means sought to destroy civil polity, Christianity was distinct from it, and might exist under any form of government; that a seat in the high council of a kingdom constituted no part of this religion; and that the ministry was not a civil corporation, nor recognised as a distinct body in the State, but only as a portion of the general community, and the ministers, like their fellow-citizens, were already represented in Parliament by the commissioners of the shires and the burghs. The performance of the natural duties of domestic life, and the social duties which devolved upon them all, was a different matter, they said, from being directly engaged in the offices of the government; and the presenting of a petition occasionally, had little resemblance to a regular attendance in Parliament. They knew little of the importance of the ministerial function, who thought that it was compatible with the holding of civil offices, and the worldly titles and dominion which it was sought to import into the Church were not in harmony, they maintained, with the injunctions of the Gospel, but opposed to the leading example of Jesus Himself, who professed that His kingdom was not of this world. It was suggested that the elders and deacons might be commissioned by the General Assembly to vote for the Church in Parliament, if it was necessary, which, however, was not admitted. It was urged also that no General Assembly, before the last, had ever solicited a seat for the ministers in Parliament; and since 1580, the Church had objected to bishops and other ecclesiastical persons sitting in Parliament in her name. The meeting ended where it began. The King saw that he could gain nothing by it, on the second day he broke it up, and announced that he would leave the matter to the ensuing General Assembly.¹ The scheme for the establishment of Episcopacy meantime continued to be pushed on.

¹ Calderwood, Volume V., pages 745‒761.

James had at last got the preachers of Edinburgh, who had for long been rather free in their comments on him and his government, pretty well under his hand. But he was greatly mortified to meet with a rebuff in a quarter where he least expected it. He had deprived the popular preacher, Mr. Robert Bruce, of a part of his stipend. Bruce sued the Crown before the Court of Session, and got a decision in his favour. James appealed, appeared at the bar in person, and ordered the judges to give their votes against Bruce. Seaton, the President, then rose and said: “It is my part to speak first in this court, of which your highness has made me head. You are our King, we your subjects, bound and ready to obey you with our lives and substance; but this is a matter of law, in which we are sworn to do justice according to conscience and the laws of the realm. Your Majesty may indeed command us to the contrary; in which case I, and every honest man on this bench, will either vote according to conscience, or resign and not vote at all.” Lord Newbottle next rose and said: “It had been spoken in the town, to his Majesty’s great slander and theirs, who were his judges, that they dare not do justice to all classes――a foul imputation, to which the lie that day would be given; for they would deliver an unanimous opinion against the crown.” For this the King was utterly unprepared, and proceeded to use the most childish arguments, taunts, and threats; but in vain. The judges re-affirmed their decision in favour of Bruce, and the abashed monarch, flung out of court, vowing vengeance and raging like a maniac.¹

¹ Tytler’s _History of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 289‒291.
It is noted by Tytler, that Seaton was a Roman Catholic.
The King, however, by the most deplorable means afterwards
managed to deprive Bruce of this part of his stipend. There
are full details of this matter in the _Life of Bruce_,
published by the Wodrow Society, along with his _Sermons_,
pages 80‒83; and in Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume
II., pages 169‒171.

Much interest was felt throughout the country in the General Assembly which met at Montrose on the 28th of March, 1600. Both parties had exerted themselves to the utmost to bring up their men, and there was a very full attendance of members. It was well known that the decision of the Assembly would fix the fate of the establishment. The Presbyterians were confident of their superiority in point of argument and debating power. Andrew Melville attended the Assembly as the representative of the Presbytery of St. Andrews; but he was called before the King, who asked him why he persisted in coming to the Assemblies after his Majesty had prohibited him. Melville answered that he had a commission from the Church, and it was his duty to discharge it, on higher grounds than the command of any earthly monarch. He was not allowed to take his seat in the Assembly, but he remained in the town and assisted his brethren with arguments and advice.¹

¹ Melville’s _Diary_, pages 468, 485; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of
Melville_, Volume II., pages 144‒146.

The debate on the proposition of ministers voting in parliament was resumed. Many arguments were adduced against it and backed by references to the Scriptures, the writings of the reformed divines, and the decision of general councils. The court party finding themselves fairly vanquished by their opponents in the field of open discussion, then shifted their ground, and affected to condemn the union of sacred and civil offices, and asserted that the ministers who were to sit in parliament, would have no civil charge, but would simply be present to watch over the interest of the Church. But they were quickly driven from this position; and at last retired behind the maxims of their master, and asserted that the King alone makes the laws, and the estates only gave him advice. When the discussion reached the words of the act of parliament which restored “the office, estate, and dignity of bishops,” the discussion became too hot, and the King intimated that this point had been already settled by the last General Assembly, which at once terminated the debate. If the general question had been put to the vote, it seems probable that the scheme would have been defeated; yet, by one device and another the Assembly sanctioned the measure. A series of restrictions were framed by the Assembly to keep the commissioners, who were to vote for the Church to their duty; but the King had no intention of observing these customs. His object was the re-establishment of Episcopacy, and he filled up several of the bishoprics; although, in spite of all his efforts, he failed to materially alter the presbyterian organisation of the Church, till after his accession to the throne of England.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 954‒956; Calderwood,
Volume VI., pages 2‒21.

However much the policy of James the VI. has been admired,¹ it is a fact, that for many years he distracted the reformed clergy by his childish notions and his scheme of Church polity. Much of the energy of the ministers, which but for him might have been employed in the instruction of the people, was wasted without producing any good results. The higher aims of religion were neglected, and the introduction of the reformed religion into the Highlands was greatly retarded.

¹ “Those who wish to perceive the glory of James’s reign must
carefully attend to this part of his history. It was at
this time that he found a stage on which he could exert his
distinguished talent, and stick the doctor’s chair into the
throne. It was at this time that he acquired that skill in
points of divinity, and in the management of ecclesiastical
meetings, which afterwards filled the English bishops
with both admiration and shame, and made them cry out that
they verily thought he was ‘inspired.’ Never did this wise
monarch appear to such great advantage, as when, surrounded
with his own northern men, he canvassed for voters with
all the ardour and address of a candidate for a burgh; or
when presiding in the debate of the General Assembly, he
kept the members to the question, regaled them with royal
wit, calling one ‘a seditious knave,’ and another ‘a liar,’
saying to one speaker ‘that’s witch like,’ and to another
‘that’s anabaptistical,’ instructing the clerk in the true
geographical mode of calling the roll, or taking him home
to his closet, helping him to correct the minutes.”――Dr.
M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume II., page 152.

The reader of Scottish history soon becomes familiar with the plots of the aristocracy against the Crown. The 5th of August, 1600, was memorable for an event of this character, known as the Gowrie conspiracy. The Earl of Gowrie of that time was the grandson of Lord Ruthven, who acted a leading part in the Riccio tragedy. It seems, for the evidence is imperfect, that Gowrie intended to imprison the King and then rule the kingdom in his name, as had often been done before. Very few persons were aware of the plot; hence the doubts of its reality, and the natural suspicion that it was got up by the King himself. The main facts were, that the Earl of Gowrie decoyed the King to his house; and after dinner conducted him into a room in which the Master of Ruthven handled him rather roughly, but the nobles who accompanied the King coming to his rescue, after a short scuffle, the Master and his brother, the Earl of Gowrie, were both slain in the house. The family of Gowrie, of course, was utterly ruined. The King insisted that all men must believe that his escape was miraculous. The ministers of Edinburgh, who had not quite so high an idea of the King as he had of himself, refused to admit that there was any conspiracy at all, and would not give thanks to God for his Majesty’s deliverance in the exact words dictated to them. Five of them were therefore removed from the capital. With one exception they afterwards submitted and professed to believe in the conspiracy. The exception was Robert Bruce, who refused to believe in this conspiracy, and was banished.¹

¹ Tytler’s _History of Scotland_, Volume IX., pages 329,
351‒358; _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 1000‒1002;
_Register of the Privy Council_; Bruce’s _Sermons, Life_,
pages 84‒96, 188‒196.

The King manifested his vanity and want of common sense in connection with this affair more than in any of his proceedings. Granting that the conspiracy of the Earl of Gowrie was real, it was not an unusual occurrence or one which stood alone. At the utmost it was simply one of those projects which were from time to time attempted by the nobles against their kings. It is not surprising therefore that some of the clergy and the people should have failed to see anything miraculous about the matter; and especially those who knew how great an adept the King was at making conspiracy and treason out of a harmless affair, such as the recent example of the tumult in Edinburgh. The King issued a mandate to change the week-day religious service in all towns to Tuesday, the day on which the event happened. Nor was he content with this. An Act of Parliament was passed which ordained that the fifth of August should be observed yearly――“In all times and ages to come, as a perpetual monument of their humble, hearty, and unfeigned thanks to God for his miraculous and extraordinary deliverance from the horrible and detestable murder and parricide attempted against his Majesty’s most noble person.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV., pages
213‒214; _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 1061.

Notwithstanding that the King continued his efforts to complete his scheme of Church polity, his success while he remained in Scotland was very limited; and he looked eagerly forward to the time when he could command greater resources for the accomplishment of his projects.

Queen Elizabeth died on the 24th of March 1603. The same day the King of Scots was proclaimed her successor. For some time the English had been looking toward the rising sun; and James immediately prepared to go and take possession of the throne. If he did not fulfil all the expectations of his new subjects, this was perhaps more their own fault than his, for if they had moderated their hopes and expected little, they would not have been disappointed. On the 5th of April James began his journey, and entered London on the 6th of May, greeted by the shouts of his English subjects.

Before proceeding further, it seems appropriate to ask what is the ultimate problem of the Reformation in relation to the development of Civilisation? The first thought that strikes one is the extreme complexity of the problem. The influence of the Reformation was felt throughout the entire organisation of the nation. The domestic, the social, the moral, the political, and the intellectual relations of the people were affected by it, not less profoundly than their religious practice and faith. Their whole circle of thought and action was moved to its centre. This revolutionary movement, then, must have a connection with the philosophy of the human mind. But the historical manifestation of the mind, for obvious reasons, is exceedingly difficult to handle; when it is applied to nations or communities, and not merely treated as a history of systems. There have been various elaborate philosophical systems emanating from individuals and schools, which have had comparatively little effect on the progress of the race, or on the civilisation of independent nations. The philosophy of the Reformation, however, whatever it was, deeply affected the people; and this at least is an indication of its reality. In its essence the Reformation was a religious movement springing out of the devout feeling and aspiration of the people, which was then associated with the belief in the divine revelation of the Bible. It opened to the individual a free access to the heavenly promises offered in the Gospel, and thus for the time satisfied the inherent cravings of his being and the deepest emotions of his mind; warm thrills of joy passed through his soul, till his nature was renewed and he lived in peace and hope. Another tendency of the movement was to withdraw the senses from the mere external emblems and material forms of worship, in order to concentrate the mind on the essential dogmas and the doctrines of religion in their ideal modes. Hence religion became more allied with morality and the understanding; but this was rather a result which ensued in the subsequent development of Protestantism than a special aim of the Reformers.

The search for the ultimate problem of the Reformation suggests the question of the relative efficacy of the religious feelings, the moral sentiments, and the intellectual ideas, as factors in the development of civilisation; in other words, the comparative potency of religion, morality, and science, in advancing social organisation, the development, the progress, and the happiness of mankind. Upon the evidence adduced in the first volume, and especially on the evidence in the preceding chapters of this volume, the following tentative deduction is proposed:――That the supreme sustaining power of the Reformation throughout was the moral sentiments and ideas, coupled with the religious feeling and aspiration. In the succeeding chapters of this volume more evidence will be advanced and summarised, and finally the various steps of the generalisation will be explained and formulated.