Chapter XXIV: Influence of the Union of the Crowns upon Scotland (2)

James persisted in his intention of introducing his five articles into the worship of the Church. On the 13th of July, he held a special meeting at St. Andrews with the bishops and a select number of the ministers. He told them that he wished to introduce a more decent order into the Church; and if they had anything to say against his five articles, he was ready to hear them. But he reminded them that his demands were just, that he was not to be resisted with impunity, and that it was the peculiar prerogative of Christian kings to regulate the external polity of the Church. They might approve or disapprove of his proceedings, but they must not imagine that anything they might say would have the slightest effect upon him, unless they could support their opinions by arguments which he found himself unable to answer. Still, all that his Majesty obtained was the postponement of the difficulty, and the expression of a wish that the articles should be referred to a General Assembly.¹

¹ Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages 533,
534. The Rev. David Calderwood, for his free speaking in the
King’s presence at this meeting, was imprisoned, and then
banished from the kingdom.

These rites which the King so eagerly sought to impose, were inconsistent with the historical standards of the Reformed Church of Scotland. To two of the articles especially, kneeling at the communion, and the observance of holidays, there was a deep feeling of opposition in the national mind; and this, in connection with other unpopular features of Episcopacy, was the reason why all the attempts of James himself, of his son, and of his grandson, utterly failed to establish it in Scotland. The Church of England was really reformed by the authority of the Crown; but the Church of Scotland was reformed at first in spite of the Crown and of the regular Government, and throughout her history she had to maintain a struggle against the claims of the royal prerogative. Thus it was that the Church of Scotland rested more on popular sentiment and feeling, and conviction, than the Church of England; and, hence also, it came to pass that all the efforts of the Crown and of the Government to change the polity of the Church of Scotland resulted in complete failure.

But the King was resolved to carry his point, and he informed those who opposed him that they should know what it was to draw upon themselves the anger of a king; at the same time he threatened all ministers who refused to accept the articles with the loss of their stipends. The primate and the bishops, prompted, threatened, and scolded by the King, now used the King’s authority to subdue the reluctant ministers; and in May, 1618, the bishops informed his Majesty that he might summon a General Assembly,¹ as it was likely that the ministers would now be more submissive. Attempts had been made by the bishops to enforce kneeling at the communion, but with little success; while the observance of the holydays had already been commanded by an act of the Privy Council.

¹ Botfield’s _Original Letters_, Volume II., page 522;
Spottiswood’s _History of the Church of Scotland_, pages
535‒537.

Archbishop Spottiswood, in his sermon at the opening of the Perth Assembly, adduced nothing in support of the articles, save that they had originated with the King, and were entirely his Majesty’s own, who demanded that they must be adopted; and, as the King knew better than they did what was right, they were bound to obey him. In his sermon the following passage occurs on the King and his articles:――“If it cannot be shown that they are repugnant to the written Word, I see not with what conscience we can refuse them, being urged as they are by our sovereign lord and King; a King who is not a stranger to divinity, but has such acquaintance with it, as Rome never found, in the confession of all men, a more potent adversary; a King neither superstitious nor inclined that way, but one that seeks to have God rightly and truly worshipped by all his subjects. His person, were he not our King, gives them sufficient authority, being recommended by him, for he knows the nature of things and the consequences of them, what is fit for a Church to have, and what not, better than we do all.” The King’s letter to the Assembly was in his usual style. He said that they should not allow the unruly and ignorant multitude to overawe the better and more judicious; and they must remember that he could impose the articles at once by his royal authority, and therefore it would do them no good to reject them; indeed, it would have become the bishops and ministry better to have begged him to establish these articles, than that he should need to urge the practice of them upon the ministry.

Yet all the influence of the court and the exertions of the bishops failed to prevent opposition in the Assembly. No open discussion of the articles being permitted in the Assembly, they were referred to a committee, which, after some debate, recommended their adoption. Then the articles were again brought before the Assembly, but those who opposed them were not allowed to discuss the question on its own merits, but were sharply told that the only question before them was, “Is the King to be obeyed or not?” In the face of this threatening of the King’s anger, the opposition ministers insisted on giving their reasons against the adoption of the articles. Before the roll was called, the King’s letter was again read to the Assembly, and when at last the vote was to be taken, Spottiswood emphatically reminded each man of the issue involved in his decision. The articles were carried by eighty-six votes to forty-five, a majority of forty-one. The majority was obtained from the votes of the nobles and the bishops, the votes of the ministers being nearly equal on each side.¹

¹ Lindsay’s _True Narratives of all the Passages at Perth_;
Botfield’s _Original Letters_, page 573; Calderwood, Volume
VII., pages 304‒332. In speaking of the articles of Perth,
Burnet remarked, “These things were first passed in General
Assemblies, which were composed of bishops and the deputes
chosen by the clergy, who sat all in one house.... Great
opposition was made to all these steps; and the whole force
of the Government was strained to carry elections to those
meetings, in which it was thought that no sort of practice
was omitted.”――_History of his own Time_, Volume I., page 17.

Although the Presbyterian ministers were outvoted at Perth, they had on their side the strength which flows from moral principle and firm conviction. They had also the support of many of the people, who considered that the five articles had no better recommendation than the injunctions of the King. The Presbyterian ministers warmly declared that the meeting at Perth was not a lawful General Assembly; and the King and his bishops discovered that they had still much hard work before them. The observance of the holydays and kneeling at the communion were extremely offensive to the majority of the people, and caused great discontent. Kneeling was new to all, and many thought that it was connected with the doctrine of transubstantiation; but the bishops, urged on by the King and armed with the weapons of coercion, haplessly drifted on towards destruction――suspending, imprisoning, and banishing the ministers who declined to conform. Those who absented themselves from the public worship on the holydays, or on Sunday, were threatened and punished. The nonconforming ministers and many of their adherents deemed the High Commission and its proceedings an usurpation; and this sentiment was very strong in Edinburgh, in the southern counties, and in Fife. The displeased people in Edinburgh began to hold meetings, at which the suspended and deposed ministers preached and officiated. The court and the bishops anxiously desired that Edinburgh would conform, and various means were tried to secure this, but in vain.¹

¹ Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 348, 352‒364, 383, 388, _et
seq._; Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume II., pages 76, 79‒81.

In August 1621, Parliament met at Edinburgh, and ratified the five articles of Perth by a small majority. In a house of one hundred and twenty members, a majority of twenty-seven voted in favour of the articles. The representatives of the burghs were on the side of the opposition, the members of the counties were nearly equally divided, and it was by the votes of the bishops and the higher nobles that the act was passed. A number of the ministers sought to petition and to protest against it, but were prevented by the authorities.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume IV.;
Calderwood, Volume VII., pages 495‒504.

When the King heard the result of the Parliamentary vote, he hounded on the bishops to greater severity. He said, “hereafter that rebellious and disobedient crew must either obey, or resist both God, their natural King, and the laws of their country.... The sword is now put into your hands, go on therefore to use it, and let it rest no longer till you have perfected the service entrusted to you. For otherwise we must use it both against you and them.” During the remainder of his reign, there was a constant effort to enforce the observance of the articles. The King was always exhorting and threatening in vain; nonconforming ministers were imprisoned and banished without effect. Some of the conforming ministers of Edinburgh complained to the Privy Council that there could be no peace among the people while the deprived and suspended ministers resorted to the city, and held private meetings. A proclamation was therefore issued prohibiting such meetings, under the penalties of sedition and rebellion. Six of the citizens of Edinburgh were cited before the Privy Council, and some of them imprisoned. In spite of this, many of the churches of the conforming ministers began to be deserted; so that they were left to declaim against schism and rebellion to the paupers of the parish, or to empty benches.¹

¹ _Melrose Papers_, Volume II., page 637; Spottiswood’s
_History of the Church of Scotland_, page 542; Calderwood,
Volume VII., pages 507‒509, 512, 514, 517‒520, 533‒546,
596‒615, 618‒631.

King James died on the 27th March, 1625, at the age of fifty-nine. His reign in Scotland had been rather stormy; and after his accession to the throne of England, it cannot be said that his policy was beneficial to his native country. Though naturally timid, he was vindictive, and at all times extremely conceited, a feature of his character which was much fed and gratified by the indiscreet and excessive flattery of the English bishops. In literature he was a pedant. Of his kingly prerogative and powers he had the most extravagant and absurd ideas. The bishops had always been submissive and yielding to his demands, and to please him they had preached and enforced an order of ceremonies which had offended and alienated many of the people; and now, with a king on the throne who heeded not their warnings, they drifted closer to the rocks on which they were ultimately wrecked.

Soon after the accession of Charles I., the Scotch ministers forwarded to him a petition craving that they might be relieved from the observance of the five articles of Perth; but they found that little relief could be expected. In the summer of 1626, Charles did send instructions to the archbishops, that the ministers who had been admitted before the Perth Assembly, and had scruples about the articles, might be exempted from observing them, if they did not openly argue against them, or refuse the communion to any one who wished to partake of it kneeling. The banished, imprisoned, and suspended ministers were to be restored on similar conditions; but all those who had been admitted after the Perth Assembly, were commanded to observe the articles.¹ The King, however, was firmly resolved to pursue the ecclesiastical policy of his father.

¹ Balfour’s _Annals_, Volume VII., pages 142‒145.

In October, 1626, Charles issued an act of revocation of all grants of land by the Crown, either before or after his father’s act of annexation in 1587. This was intended for the benefit of the bishops and the clergy, and to remedy some of the evils connected with tithes; but from another standpoint, it may be regarded as the opening of one side of that bitter contest of which Charles I. never saw the end. The proposal of the Crown to retake all the Church lands which had passed into the hands of the nobles since the Reformation, aroused violent feelings amongst the class whose interests were invaded; but it soon became manifest that the King had resolved to fight a hard battle, and pursue his end with great firmness.

Charles subsequently found it necessary to limit the scope of his contemplated revocation, and summonses of reduction were then raised to reduce the grants upon legal grounds. Still this caused much alarm among the nobility; and a deputation was sent to London to treat with the King. After some discussion, a commission was appointed in January, 1627, to examine the whole subject. The commissioners continued their investigation throughout the following summer, and prosecutions were commenced against all who refused to accede to the proposals of the Crown. After a long and tedious inquiry, a compromise was effected. The Church lands, and the property in dispute were to remain in the hands of those who held them, upon the payment of a certain proportion in the form of rents to the Crown. The Crown also insisted on a right of feudal superiority over all the property at issue, and from this, additional dues would fall to the public revenue. The tithes were disposed of in this way; the landowner got liberty to extinguish the right of levying tithes on his property, by payment of a sum calculated at nine years’ purchase; if he did not choose to exercise this option, then the tithe in kind was to be commuted into a rent charge, and from this was to be deducted the stipend payable to the ministers, and an annuity reserved for the Crown.¹

¹ Connell on _Tithes_, Book III.; Forbes’s _Treatise on Church
Lands and Tithes_. “The tithes at this time were more rigidly
exacted by their lay owners than ever they had been during
the most corrupt times of the hierarchy; yet these persons
grudged the small portion which the law compelled them to
bestow on the Church.”――Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of
Scotland_, Volume II., page 357.

This adjustment of the tithes, which was sanctioned by Parliament, in 1633, has proved a beneficial measure to Scotland. It extinguished a teasing class of disputes between landowners and tithe owners, between tenants of land and tithe owners, and between the ministers and their flocks. Yet the arrangement, though beneficial to the nation, was not received with universal satisfaction. Many of the nobles surrendered their tithes and their full claims to the Church lands with a grudge which embittered their minds, and predisposed them to join in the struggle which subsequently ensued. They still dreaded that the King might attempt further encroachments upon their landed rights.

Various circumstances had delayed the King’s visit to Scotland, but in 1633, he crossed the border and entered Edinburgh in June. He received a respectful reception, and was crowned on the 18th of June, at Holyrood. Charles was anxious to complete the scheme of religious polity which his father had begun; and proceeded to treat all difficulties with an imperious hand. For a time, the opposition was overborne by his presence and his power, though unconverted to his opinions or policy. The Scots were well aware of the King’s quarrels with his English subjects, and on every side the elements of a fierce conflict were forming.

Charles was firmly convinced that it was necessary to introduce a new liturgy to complete his scheme of government in Scotland, and he seems to have thought that the time was come to execute his purpose. A form of Episcopacy had existed in Scotland for about thirty years, and some parts of the English ritual had been introduced; but the ecclesiastical system still retained many traces of the organisation of Presbyterianism. It was only a kind of mixed Episcopacy; it had the external form of the hierarchy, archbishops and bishops as in ancient times, but they were merely the chief ecclesiastical ministers of the King, their master, and had little authority of their own. The titles of dean and archdeacon had been restored, but such persons appeared in the Church courts only as parish ministers; while there still existed the Kirk Sessions, the Presbyteries, and the Synods, though their organisation was maimed. The Book of Common Prayer, adopted at the Reformation, was still in common use, though less esteemed among the Presbyterians, who were becoming averse to set forms of prayer; while the Episcopal party considered it defective. The five articles of Perth were not universally observed. Though there might have been slight differences of opinion touching some doctrines, the general creed of the clergy and the people was in harmony with the Reformation Confession of Faith. Thus matters stood when Charles and Laud began their work.

Preparations were made for composing a book of canons and a liturgy for Scotland. The book of canons as finally revised by Laud, and the Bishops of London and Norwich, was ratified by the King in May, 1635, and promulgated in 1636. It was prefaced by the sanction of the King, and the announcement of his will concerning its observance, in the following terms――“We do, not only by our royal prerogative and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical, ratify and confirm, by these our letters patent, the said canons and constitutions, and everything contained in them; but likewise we command, by our royal authority, the same to be diligently observed and executed by all our loving subjects of that kingdom, in all points ... according to this our will and pleasure, hereby expressed and declared. We strictly charge and command all archbishops, bishops, and all others who exercise any ecclesiastical jurisdiction, within our realm, to see and procure as much as they can, that all and each of these canons, orders, and constitutions be in all points duly observed; not sparing to execute the penalties, in them severally mentioned, upon any that shall willingly and wilfully break or neglect to observe the same.”

This book is a very small volume, divided into nineteen chapters, with the different paragraphs or headings of each chapter numbered.¹ In arrangement and composition it is an admirable production of the class to which it belongs.

¹ The first edition of the Canons, printed at Aberdeen in 1636,
is the one used and referred to in the text.

The first chapter contains a statement of the powers and prerogatives of the King in religious matters. The doctrine of the royal supremacy is laid down and enforced under the penalty of excommunication against all who dared to resist it, upon the ground that it had been exercised by the Jewish kings and by the early Christian emperors. To secure reverence for this divine supremacy of the King, it was stated that “none shall be permitted to teach in any college or school, either as principal, regent, or fellow, except he first take the oath of allegiance and supremacy. And having taken the charge upon them, they shall acquaint their scholars, and train them up according to their capacity, in the grounds contained in the book entitled _Deus et Rex_, God and the King.”¹

¹ Page 28.

One of the canons was directed against the press. “In setting forth books, satirical libels, and other pamphlets, repugnant to the truth, or not agreeing with honesty and good manners, it is ordained that nothing hereafter be printed except the same be seen, and allowed, by the visitors appointed to that purpose.”

These canons placed the whole internal life of the Church in the hands of the bishops. They alone were invested with the right of expounding the Bible, all private meetings of ministers for this were to be strictly prohibited; and no one was to be permitted to impugn the opinion of another minister in the same or in the neighbouring church without the permission of the bishop. The whole drift of the book of canons is well expressed in its concluding sentences:――“In all this book of Canons, wherever there is no penalty expressly set down, it is to be understood that the punishment shall be arbitrary, as the ordinary shall think fittest.”

The manner in which these canons were introduced certainly was unusual, and it touched the national pride, as well as the religious sentiments of the Scots. They also made direct reference to a Liturgy, which had not yet been published. These canons had little resemblance to any Scottish ecclesiastical rules or acts subsequent to the Reformation; but such was the King’s blind confidence in the efficacy of the royal supremacy, that he imagined he had only to command what he pleased, and the people would obey him. Acting on this assumption, he signed a warrant to the Privy Council, on the 18th of October, 1636, containing his instructions concerning the introduction of the Liturgy. These stated that the King had several times recommended to the Scotch archbishops and bishops the introduction of a regular form of service to be observed in the public worship; and as this had now been definitely undertaken, he believed that all his Scottish subjects would receive it with becoming reverence. “Yet thinking it necessary to make known our pleasure concerning the authorising of the book, we require you to command, by open proclamation, all our subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, to conform themselves to the practice thereof. It being the only form which we, having taken the counsel of our clergy, think fit to be used in God’s public worship there. Also, we require you to enjoin all archbishops and bishops, and other presbyters and churchmen, to take care that the same be duly obeyed, and the contraveners to be condignly censured and punished. And to see that every parish procure to themselves, within such a time as you shall think fit to appoint, two copies at least of the Book of Common Prayer for the use of the parish.” In compliance with his Majesty’s commands, the Privy Council passed an act on the 20th of December, and issued a proclamation ordering all the people to conform themselves to the new liturgy.¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 440‒441.

The nation was soon in a ferment. A suspicion arose among the people that Roman Catholicism was to be reintroduced. They had already yielded so far to the King, and restrained their feelings in deference to the royal authority; but now the limit of their passive obedience was passed. They declared that the King had no right to impose a service-book upon them without the consent of Parliament and the General Assembly; they asserted that it was popish, that it taught popish doctrines, and that it was little better than a massbook. Some attempted to defend it, but in vain.¹

¹ In a note to the first volume of Baillie’s _Letters and
Journals_, it is stated that the Liturgy itself was not
completed till May, 1637; but Dr. Grub says, “before
Easter, copies of the book were ready for distribution.”
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume II., page 378.

The liturgy itself was framed upon the form of the English Book of Common Prayer, with some slight differences, especially in the office of the communion. After the proclamation commanding its use, and a preface, it began with remarks on ceremonies; how the psalter was appointed to be read; how the rest of the Scriptures was appointed to be read; a table of proper psalms and lessons for Sunday and other holydays; a table for the order of psalms at daily prayers; an almanac; a table and calendar for the daily psalms and lessons; and a list of holydays which were to be observed. The order for the administration of the communion differed in some important points from the English office. This form was elaborate, and out of many points minutely stated, it may be mentioned that a commemoration of the faithful departed was inserted at the end of the prayer for the Church militant. In the form of marriage, it was enjoined that the newly married persons should receive the communion on the day of their marriage.

The royal proclamation ordered the new Liturgy to be observed in all the churches on Easter, 1637. The authorities, however, postponed it, but this only heightened the feeling and excitement against it. The bishops themselves were not unanimous regarding the expediency of enforcing its observance; some of them indeed brought the subject before their synods, but little progress was made. On the 13th of June, the Privy Council passed an act which declared that some of the ministers had perversely failed to obey the former proclamation: “Therefore the Lords ordain letters to be directed, charging the whole presbyteries and ministers within the kingdom, that they and every one of them provide themselves, for the use of their parishes, with two copies of the said Book of Common Prayers, within fifteen days after this charge, under the penalty of rebellion, and being put to the horn.”¹

¹ Baillie’s _Letters and Journals_, Volume I., page 4, _et
seq._; pages 442, 447.

At a meeting of the bishops it was agreed that the public reading of the new liturgy should begin in Edinburgh, on Sunday, the 23rd of July, 1637; and this was ordered to be intimated in all the churches in the city on the previous Sunday. The congregations listened to the intimation in silence; but in the following week speeches, declarations, and pamphlets were launched on every hand against the new liturgy; while no really vigorous efforts were made in favour of its introduction.

On the appointed Sunday, preparations were made to celebrate the new service with the utmost solemnity, and to ♦give the occasion of its introduction in the capital an imposing character. In the historic Church of St. Giles, the two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and several other bishops, the Lords of the Privy Council, the Judges of the Court of Session, and the Magistrates of the city, all attired in their official robes, attended in the forenoon to grace the proceedings. The Bishop of Edinburgh was to preach, and the Dean to read the service. A large congregation had assembled, but they looked restless and wistful; and the dean had scarcely begun to read when confused cries arose. As he proceeded, the clamour became louder, and the prayers could not be heard. The people started to their feet and the church was a scene of hideous uproar. The voices of the women were the loudest, some cried “Woe, woe me,” and others shouted that “they were bringing in popery”; and instantly stools were thrown at the Dean and the Bishop of Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St. Andrews and the Lords of the Privy Council then interposed, but in vain; the tumult continued till the Magistrates came from their seats in the gallery, and with extreme difficulty thrust out the unruly members. The Dean read the service, and the Bishop preached with barred doors. But the crowd stood around the church in a state of vehement excitement, rapping at the doors and throwing stones at the windows, and shouting “popery, popery,” and calling the bishops the most abusive names. When the bishops came out of the church, the multitude attacked Bishop Lindsay on his way home, and he narrowly escaped with his life. Similar disturbances occurred in the other churches of the city, though less violent. In the Greyfriars church, the Bishop of Argyle was obliged to stop reading the service. Between the hours of worship, the Lords and the Magistrates met, and made such arrangements that the evening service at St. Giles, and some of the other churches, passed without interruption; though the Bishop of Edinburgh was again attacked in company with the Earl of Roxburgh, but the armed servants of the Earl enabled him to escape without serious injury.¹

♦ “gave” replaced with “give”

¹ Rothes’ _Relation_. “So on Sunday morning when the bishop
and his dean, in the great church, and the Bishop of Argyle
in the Greyfriars, began to officiate, as they spoke,
immediately the serving maids began such a tumult as was
never heard of since the Reformation in our nation. However,
no wound given to any yet such was the contumelies in words,
in clamours, runnings and flinging of stones in the eyes of
the magistrates, and the chancellor himself, that a little
opposition would have infallibly moved that enraged people
to have rent sundry of the bishops in pieces. The day after,
I had occasion to be in town, I found the people nothing
settled; but, if that service had been presented to them
again, resolved to have done some mischief.” Baillie’s
_Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages 18, 448.

The excitement was rapidly spreading and becoming more intense; and it was manifest that the actors in the tumults in Edinburgh could not be punished. Indeed, the Liturgy was almost universally spurned. In the face of this heated feeling, the authorities were comparatively powerless. On the 4th of August, the Privy Council received a letter from the King, commanding them to search out and to punish the persons concerned in the late disturbances, and to support the bishops and the clergy in establishing the new liturgy. The Council resolved that another attempt should be made to use the new service on Sunday, the 13th of August; but when this day came it was not tried in the churches of Edinburgh, because among other reasons, readers could not be got to officiate. At Glasgow there was strong opposition to the Liturgy, and Baillie gives some particulars of the treatment which Mr. Annand, the minister of Ayr, received, because he had ventured to defend the Liturgy in his sermon before the Synod of Glasgow, in the end of August, 1637. According to Baillie’s opinion, he defended it as well as any man in Britain could have done. But his sermon caused a great din among the women in the town. “At the out-going of the church, about thirty or forty of our honest women in one voice before the bishops and the magistrates, did fall rayling, cursing, scolding with clamours on Mr. William Annand. All the day, up and down the streets where he went, he got threats in words and in looks; but, after supper, while needlessly he will go to visit the bishop, he is no sooner on the street, at nine o’clock, in a dark night, accompanied with three or four ministers, than some hundreds of enraged women, of all ranks, are about him, with fists, staves, and peats, but no stones. However, upon his cries, and candles set out from many windows, he escaped all severe wounds; yet he was in great danger, even of his life.”¹ Thus was the curtain drawn, and the first scene of the long tragic drama enacted which convulsed the kingdom.

¹ _Large Declaration. Letters and Journals_, Volume I., pages
20‒21.