YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOTLAND REFORMATION TO THE REVOLUTION. JOHN PARKER LAWSON, M.A. AUTHOK OF THE " HISTORY OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHDRCH FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT TIME," ETC. EDINBUEGH: GALLIE AND BAYLEY, GEORGE STREET. LONDON : JAMES BURNS ; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. GLASGOW : MURRAY. ABERDEEN : BROWN AND CO. OXFORD : J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE : J. AND J. J. DEIGHTON. DUBLIN : GRANT AND BOLTON. M.DCCC.XLIV. ALEX. LAURIE AND CO. PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY. MKw7e L44 PREFACE. This Volume, derived from Acts of Parliament, Proceedings of General Assemblies, Records of Diocesan and Presbyterian Synods, Episcopal and Presbyterian Presbyteries, and numerous contemporary and other Records, is intended to elucidate the History of the Episcopal Church when it was the Ecclesiastical or National Estabhshment of Scotland. It is designed to illus trate what the Episcopal Church, while connected with the State, really was, and its condition during its contention.s with successive generations of adversaries. For this purpose the nar rative is divided into Three Books or Parts — I. The History OF THE Titular or Tulchan Episcopate from the Reformation to the Accession of James VI. to the English Crown. II. The History of the Episcopal Church of Scotland from 1606, and especiaUy from the First Consecration in 1610 to the commencement of the Covenanting Rebellion in 16.38. III. The History op the Episcopal Church from the Restoration to the Revolution, or from 1661 to 1688. Of the first, or Tulchan Episcopate, the Author has freely expressed his opinion as a miserable and contemptible system, and it is only surprising that the Titulars could have considered themselves true Bishops in any sense, yet ample proof is adduced in the foUowing narrative that they did so, and that they endured persecutions and indignities for maintaining their " phantom Episcopate." Nevertheless it served its political and temporary purposes, and as such the Titular Episcopacy must be understood, in developing the progress of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland previous to the union of the two Crowns in the person of King .James VI. IV preface. The Author designs this Work as a contribution to Scottish Ecclesiastical History, and the reader is referred for subsequent details to his " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church FROM THE Revolution to the Present Time " as a continua tion of this narrative. It wiU be seen from a perusal of both volumes, that probably no branch of the Church Catholic has experienced more vicissitudes, or has been more traduced and misrepresented by its enemies, than the Episcopal Church op Scotland, both during its legal establishment and after the Revolution, when it was supplanted by Presbyterianism. Not withstanding the depressions, persecutions, and malignant false hoods against which that Church contended, the treachery of its pretended friends, and the malignant hostility of its Covenanting enemies, whose libelling and assassinating propensities cannot be denied, the Scottish Bishops and clergy maintained the cause of their Church with dignity and constancy in the most dangerous and eventful times. The present Writer, therefore, submits his Work with confidence to the reader, convinced that he has distorted no fact, and that he has detailed in as temperate language as is pos sible to be employed, the history of a Church which has never been properly understood by some, and has been assailed by others with aU the rancour, hatred, and revenge of sectarian hostility. Edinburgh, March 1844. CONTENTS. BOOK I. history of the TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE IN SCOTLAND AFTER THE REFORMATION. Chap. page I. — Scottish Archbishoprics and Bishoprics at the Eeformation, . . 1 II. — The Eeformation in Scotland and its Consequences — the last Eomau Catholic Bishops, and the first Protestant Preachers, in Scotland, 39 in. — The Superintendent System of Church Govemment, . . 80 IV.— The Titular or Tulchan Episcopate, . . . . 96 In liead U-iie of Pages 33, 35, and 37, for Restoration, read Reformation. II. — Internal State of the Church — Trial of Lord Balmerino — The High Court of Commission — General Assembly — Synods of Fife and Lothian — Consecration of the Scottish Bishops, . . . 297 III. — Peaceful State ofthe Church — Bishop Cowpar of Galloway — Trial of Ogilvie the Jesuit — Death of Archbishop Gladstanes, . . 319 IV. — Intemal State of the Church — Archbishop Spottiswoode removed to St Andrews — Changes in the Bishoprics — The See of Orkney — The High Commission — General Assembly at Aberdeen — A Catechism, Liturgy, and Book of Canons, ordered to be prepared — A Confession of Faith approved, ... . . . 347 V. — King James in Scotland in 1617 — Proceedings during his Visit — Its Eesults — General Assembly at St Andrews — State of the As.sembly — Elevation of Patrick Forbes of Corse to the Bishopric of Aberdeen, 38.5 VI. — The General Assembly and Five Articles of Perth — Bishop Cowpar's Defence of them — The Controversies whicli ensued — Conduct of Hen derson — Fate of the Eecords of the General Assemblies, . 39n iv PREFACE. The Author designs this Work as a contribution to Scottish Ecclesiastical History, and the reader is referred for subsequent details to his " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church FROM the Revolution to the Present Time " as a continua tion of this narrative. It will be seen from a perusal of both volumes, that probably no branch of the Church Catholic has experienced more vicissitudes, or has been more traduced and misrepresented by its enemies, than the Episcopal Church of Scotland, both during its legal establishment and after the Revolution, when it was supplanted by Presbyterianism. Not- vidthstanding the d^.pressions, persecutions, and malignant false- Edinburgh, March 1844. CONTENTS. BOOK I. HISTORY OF THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE IN SCOTLAND AFTER THE REFORMATION. Chap. page I. — Scottish Archbishoprics and Bishoprics at the Eeformation, . . 1 II. — The Eeformation in Scotland and its Consequences — the last Eomaii Catholic Bishops, and the first Protestant Preachers, in Scotland, 39 HI. — The Superintendent System of Church Govemment, . . 80 IV. — The Titular or Tulchan Episcopate, .... 96 V. — The Titular Bishops — their Humiliating Position — Proceedings of the General Assemblies — their Presbyterian Opponents, . 124 VI. — The Titular Bishops attacked in the General Assemblies, . . 143 VII. — Progress of Presbyterianism, . ..... 168 VIII. — King James VI's Contentions with the Presbyterians, . . 202 IX. — Opinions and Practices of the Presbyterians of Scotland at the end of the Sixteenth Century — their Notions of Ordination — Mode of Exer cising Discipline — ^Fondness for Trying and Punishing Cases of Scandal and Licentious Offences — their Tyrannical Proceedings, . . 243 BOOK II. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOTLAND FROM 1606 TO 1639. Chap. I.— Establishment ofthe Church, . . . . 263 II. — Internal State ofthe Church — Trial of Lord Balmerino — The High Court of Commission — General Assembly — Synods of Fife and Lothian — Consecration of the Scottish Bishops, . . . 297 III. — Peaceful State ofthe Church — -Bishop Cowpar of Galloway — Trial of Ogilvie the Jesuit — Death of Archbishop Gladstanes, . . 319 IV. — Internal State of the Church — Archbishop Spottiswoode removed to St Andrews — Changes in the Bishoprics — The See of Orkney — The High Commission — General Assembly at Aberdeen — A Catechism, Liturgy, and Book of Canons, ordered to be prepared — A Confession of Faith approved, ... . . . 347 V. — King James in Scotland in 1617 — Proceedings during his Visit — Its Eesults — General Assembly at St Andrews — State of the Assembly — Elevation of Patrick Forbes of Corse to the Bishopric of Aberdeen, 365 VI. — The General Assembly and Five Articles of Perth — Bishop Cowpar's Defence of them — The Controversies which ensued — Conduct of Hen derson — Fate of the Eecords of the General Assemblies, . 39(1 IV CONTENTS. Chap. ''*«e VIL— The Observance of the Perth Articles— Death of Bishop Cowpar— Ecclesi astical Arrangements and Discussions — Meeting of the Scottish Parlia ment — Its Proceedings — Changes in the Dioceses, . . 408 VIIL— The Episcopal Church at the Accession of Charles I.— Proceedings of the Bishops— History of Teinds in Scotland— The King's Eevocation of the Teinds — Its Disastrous Consequences, . . . 426 IX. — Changes in the Dioceses — Irregular Ordination of Presbyterians in Ire land — Intemal Affairs of the Church — Coronation of Charles I. at Holyroodhouse — Foundation of the Bishopric of Edinburgh — The First Bishop — His Death — Death of Bishop Forbes of Aberdeen, 445 X. — Discontent in Scotland — Plots of the English Puritans and Scottish Pres byterians — Trial of the Second Lord Balmerino — Bishop Sydserff of Galloway — Calvinism — The Compilation of the Scottish Liturgy — Archbishop Laud's Correspondence with the Scottish Bishops, . 463 XI. — The Scottish Book of Canons and Scottish Liturgy, . . 484 XII. — The Eiots at Edinburgh at the First Use of the Liturgy and the Eesults, 499 XIII. — The National Covenant and the Covenanters, . . . 532 XIV. — The Confederacy against the Church and the Eival Covenant, . 548 XV. — The Glasgow General Assembly, .... 571 XVI. — Overthrow of the Church — the Aberdeen Doctors — ^the Solemn League and Covenant — the Civil War — the Presbyterians sell the King, 604 XVII. — Fanaticism, Oppression, and Cruelties of the Covenanting Presbyterians, 635 BOOK III. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOTLAND FROM 1661 TO 1688. Chap. I. — Preliminaries of the Ee-establishment of the Church, . 661 n.— The Scottish Bishops of the Second Anglican Consecration, . 676 III. — The Eetaliation, ..... 702 IV. — The Consecration and Public Affairs, .... 715 v.— Administration of the Church during its Establishment, . 741 VI.— Changes in the Episcopate and State of the Kingdom, . 749 YII.— Difficulties of the Church and Plots of its Enemies, . 769 VIII.— Farther Discouragements of the Church, . . .789 IX. — The Church and its Opponents, .... 810 X.— The Murder of Archbishop Sharp, . . . .836 XI. — The Church and the Covenanters, .... gsj XII. — State of the Church previous to the Eevolution, . 869 BOOK I. THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE IN SCOTLAND AFTER THE REFORMATION. CHAPTER I. SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS AT THE REFORMATION. After the primitive Episcopacy of the ancient Culdees was sub verted, and merged into the Church of Rome, so as to leave few memorials of its existence, the City of St Andrews in Fife was for centuries the seat of the Scottish Roman Catholic Primates, as Maximi Episcopi Scotorum, but the See was not constituted arch- episcopal till 1470, during the episcopate of Patrick Graham, the successor and half-brother of the illustrious Bishop Kennedy who founded the University of St Andrews. This mark of distinction appears to have been procured from Pope Paul II. by Bishop Graham when at Rome, to extinguish the claims of superiority over the Scottish Church which had been often asserted by the Archbishops of York. In 1488, Robert Black- adder, who was consecrated Bishop of Glasgow in 1484, pro cured a Bull from Pope Alexander VI. erecting that See into an Archbishopric, notwithstanding the violent opposition of Arch bishop Schevez of St Andrews and other dignitaries. The king dom was thus divided into two ecclesiastical provinces, at the head of each of which was the Archbishop, whose powers and jurisdic tion were defined by Papal Bulls, and ratified by royal charters. The Archbishop of St Andrews was Priraate of all Scotland and Metropolitan ; but it does not appear that the Archbishops of Glas gow ever -enjoyed the title of Primate, as in the case of the Arch- 1 2 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS bishops of York, who are styled t'rimate of England, and of the Archbishops of Dublin, who are Primate of Ireland. The Suffragan Sees ofthe Scottish Archbishops were subsequent ly arranged. Those of the Province of St Andrews were Aber-- deen, Brechin, Caithness, Dunblane, Dunkeld, Moray, Orkney, and Ross ; those of the Province of Glasgow were GaUoway, Argyll, and the Isles. Keith includes Dunblane and Dunkeld among the Suffragan Sees of Glasgow as appointed by the Bull of Pope Alex ander VI., and omits The Isles ; but this must either be a mistake, or a different arrangement was subsequently effected. The Diocese of St Andrews was of great extent before the foundation of Ihe Bishopric of Edinburgh by Charles I. It included the counties of Fife, Kinross, and Clackmannan, and a large portion of Perth, For far, and Kincardine shires, on the north side ofthe Firth of Forth ; the counties of Haddington, Edinburgh, LinUthgow, and part of Stir ling and Berwick shires, on the south side of that river and estuary, stretching towards the English Border ; and a considerable number of parishes, churches, and chapels in other dioceses, belonged to the See. In reference to the Suffragans, the Diocese of Aberdeen com prehended the county of Aberdeen (except six parishes in the district of Strathbogie), twelve parishes in Banffshire, and four in Kincardineshire. It is said that the Bishops of Aberdeen ancient ly took precedence after the two Archbishops, which was altered in 1633, when Edinburgh and GaUoway ranked next to the Arch bishops, andthe rest according to the seniority of their consecration. Brechin included parts of the two counties of Forfar and Kincar dine. Caithness comprised the counties of Sutherland and Caith ness. The Diocese of Ross extended over the counties of Ross and Cromarty, and most of Inverness. That of Moray consisted of the counties of Elgin and Nairn, parts of the counties of Banff and Inverness, and some parishes in Aberdeenshire. The Diocese of Dunkeld comprehended the greater part of Perthshire, some districts in Forfarshire, and some parishes south of the Forth in Linlithgowshire. The Diocese of Dunblane included the west and southern districts of Perthshire, and a smaU portion of Stir- Ungshire. The Diocese of Orkney consisted of aU the Orkney and Shetland Islands. The Archdiocese of Glasgow extended over the counties of Lanark, Dunbarton, Renfrew, Ayr, and part of the counties of AT THE REFORMATION. 3- Dumfries, Peebles, Selkirk, Roxburgh, and part of Berwickshii^e. Some portions of Stirlingshire were also included. The Diocese of Galloway comprehended the ancient district so called, now divided into the counties of Wigton and Kirkcudbright, and part of Dumfries-shire. The Diocese of Argyll contained the county of Argyll and some of the Western Isles. The Diocese of The Isles included the Islands of Bute and Arran in the Frith of Clyde, and most of the Western Islands in the dreary and remote regions of the Scottish Archipelago. The Isle of Man is said to have been anciently a part of the Diocese of The Isles, from which it was disjoined, during the contest between Bruce and Bahol for the Scottish Crown, by Edward HI. of England, who made himself master of the island. A curious arrangement took place in 1508, which was ratified by a Papal Bull that year. It was ordered that in future the Bishop of Galloway, or Whitehorn, as the Diocese was sometimes designated, should be Dean of the Chapel-Royal at Stirling, con stituted and endowed by James IV., with " the care of the souls of the King and Queen, along with precedence in the Chapel." The additional title of Bishop of the Chapel-Boyal was conferred on the Bishops of GaUoway by the King's solicitation, and con firmed by Pope Alexander VI., with all the emoluments derived from the appointment as Dean of the Chapel-Royal.* The first prelate who enjoyed the united bishopric, if that of the Chapel- Royal may be designated, was George Vaus or Vans, and the second was James Beaton, successively Archbishop of Glasgow and St Andrews. The prelates who held the united episcopal jurisdic tion, after the translation of Archbishop Beaton to Glasgow, were David Arnot, Archdeacon of Lothian, Provost of BothweU, and Abbot of Cambuskenneth ; Henry Wemyss ; Andrew Durie, Ab bot of Melrose ; and Alexander Gordon, who is prominently noticed in the sequel. As to the Chapel- Royal of Stirling, within the pre cincts of that Castle, it is said to have represented a more ancient chapel dedicated to St Michael, to which the provostry of the church of St Mary of Kirkheugh, near St Andrews, was annexed about the close of the fifteenth century, before the Chapel-Royal was endowed by James IV. The edifice founded or enlarged by • Brief Analysis of the Chartularies of the Abbey of Cambuskenneth, Chapel- Royal of Stirling, &c. by Sir John Graham Dalyell, Bart. Edin. 1828, p. 55, 56, 57. 4 SCOTTISH archbishoprics and bishoprics that monarch was demolished by order of James VI., andthe pre sent building was erected, probably more extensive, when he re solved to celebrate the baptism of his eldest son Prince Henry in it with great splendour in 1594. The revenues of the Chapel- Royal of Stirling were absorbed after the Reformation, and the accession of James VI. to the English Crown extinguished its im portance. The building has been in subsequent times used as an armoury, and for keeping fire-engines and small pieces of artillery. The only memorials long visible were a mutilated wooden crown, ornamented with a border in relief, and the stains of decaying colours. These had survived the wreck of the decorations with which the interior was adorned for the royal baptism, when ambassa dors from Denmark, England, France, HoUand, Brunswick, and Magdeburg, were present, and the Prince baptised amid a mix ture of christian devotion and pagan pantomime. It is clear from the details of the chartulary, that James IV. must have orna mented his episcopal Chapel-Royal in a munificent manner. One of the articles of furniture is a striking clock, " per dominum Jaco bum Pettygrew fabricatum ;" and as the inventory was made in 1505, this is the second intimation of a clock striking the hours in Scotland, the first, as is supposed, occurring in 1489. Three organs are described—" Tria paria organorum, quorum unum ut de lignis, et duo ahi de stanno sive plumbo." Sir John DalyeU observes— " Possibly they were portable." On this conjecture the following statement is curious :— " Most probably not. The very learned authority forgets that at this period music was cultivated by church men as a science— that the chantor, whose rank was next to the sub-dean, had no less than sixteen canons under him, and six sing ing boys, aU trained to the Church services, including the solemn requiem for the souls of the departed. Could any thing be more ludicrous than to figure three of tho prebends or canons, each grinding away on his portable organ ? Did it not occur to the learned author that the tria paria might include the choir the great organ, and the swell ? An instrument of this description is now extant m HoUand, which was removed from the Cathedral of Glasgow at the period of the Reformation."* Let us now attend to the Chapters of the several Dioceses as • The above, written in pencil, on the copy of Sir John Dalyell's " Bripf Ar„i •. r the Chartulary of the Chapel-Eoyal of Stiriing," in the Advocates' Libra™, Ed^p 69 AT THE REFORMATION. 5 they were constituted before and at the period of the Reformation, so far as they are known, commencing with the metropolitan church of St Andreavs. The Diocese included the Deaneries of St An drews, Fothrick, Gowrie, Angus, Mearns, LinUthgow, Haddington, Dunbar, and the Merse, or Berwickshire. The Archdeacons of St Andrews and Lothian are specified as the principal dignitaries. According to Martinets statement, the Archbishops of St Andrews before the Reformation had no chapter, properly so called, but the Prior and Convent were considered a Chapter, and all acts or confirmations were " testified by appending the Convent's common seal. — Thereafter, the Priorie being erected into a temporal Lord ship, it was found needful that the See should not want a Chapter, the former being by this erection supprest, but that some course behoved to be taken for a new one," which was carried into effect in 1609 and 1617.* The Chapter of Aberdeen appears to have varied in number at different periods. In 1256, the statutes enjoined that the number of Canons should be thirteen at least, which was ratified by Bishop William de Deyn in 13G6 ; but in 1382 they had encreased to twenty-two. Between 1448 and 1514, the statutes, which were con firmed or sanctioned by Bishop Elphinstone, intimate that twenty nine persons were either obliged to find \'icars, or that so many vicars were considered necessary for the performance of the ecclesias tical duties, to all of whom it is probable that prebends were assign ed. Bishop Elphinstone provided in his Constitutions, dated 1506, that to prevent any disputes about the hire of the vicars of the choir of the cathedral church, there " shall be twenty vicars of the priesthood in the choir skilled in the Gregorian song for the daily service, two deans, two sub-deans, two accolltes, six boys, and the sacrist." The Constitutions of Bishop Peter Ramsay, in 1256, enjoin the Dean to reside the greater part of the year ; the Precentor, Chancellor, and. Treasurer, half the year ; and the non- residence of the Archdeacon was allowed on certain days, because it was his duty to go through the diocese, and regulate abuses. -f- The Bull obtained from Pope Innocent IV. by the same Bishop • Eeliquia! Divi Andreae, or the State of the Venerable and Primatial See of St An drews, by a true though unworthy Sone of the Church (George Martine), first publish ed in 1683, reprinted at St Andrews in 1797, 4to. p. 39. t Eemarks on the Chartularies of the See of Aberdeen, by Sir John Graham Dalyell, Bart. pp. 14, 15, 16. 6 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS that year, ordained the CoUege of Canons, founded about 1157 by Bishop Edward in consequence of a BuU from Pope Adrian, to consist of twelve prebendaries, some of whom were appointed dig nitaries, and a house, glebe, and garden, were allotted to each in the Chanonry. The Bishop of Aberdeen was rector of the parish of St Nicholas in New Aberdeen ; the rector of the church of Kirktown of Seaton was Dean of the Chapter, the parson of Birse was ChanceUor, the parson of Daviot was Treasurer, and the par son of Rhynie was Archdeacon. The other prebendaries were seven, exclusive of the minor canons or vicars-choral, who were presby ters, the singing boys, and the sacrist. But other prebendaries were added by subsequent prelates. Bishop Potton, or Polton, added one in 1262 ; Bishop Cheyne, four between 1313 and 1328 ; Bishop Alexander Kinninmont I. one in 1330 : Bishop Alexander Kinninmont II. five from 1356 to 1368 ; Bishop Greenlaw, one in 1412 ; Bishop Leighton, two in 1420 and 1424 ; and Bishop Lindsay, two in 1445. The rector of St Peter's Hospital was admitted to the dignity of a prebendary in 1527 by Bishop Dun bar, and was appointed sub-chantor. The twenty vicars-choral, or minor canons, were appointed by Bishop Elphinstone with con sent of the Dean and Chapter. The sacrist, who was a priest, was to attend the choir properly vested, along with the other vicars, on holidays and festivals, and cause his beadle to ring the bells on these occasions, and throughout the year. Before the Reforma tion the Diocese of Aberdeen contained two Cathedrals — Mort lach and Old Aberdeen, and episcopal palaces at Balveny and Old Aberdeen, three episcopal manors, ten religious houses, three coUegiate churches, one coUegiate chapel, one university of King's college, one grammar school at Aberdeen, and the five Deaneries of Aberdeen, Mar, Garioch, Buchan, and Boyne. The Deanery of Aberdeen comprehended nine parish churches ; that of Mar, thirty-three ; that of Garioch, twenty-two ; that of Buchan, seven teen ; and that of Boyne, fifteen.* The Chapter of Moray consisted, about 1208, of eight preben daries, constituted by Bishop Bricius, and confirmed by his suc cessor Bishop Andrew in 1226 ; but in subsequent times the num bers, as in other establishments, were variable, and were probably augmented as the funds of the Cathedral were encreased by dona- • Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen, vol. ii. p. 317-327. AT THE REFORMATION. 7 tions. In 1362 seventeen chaplains were constantly resident at the cathedral church of the Holy Trinity at Elgin, performing divine service. In 1542 and 1545 two prebends were instituted by Bishop Patrick. The official members of the Chapter speci fied are the Dean, the Chantor, Treasurer, Chancellor, Archdeacon, Sub-Dean, and Sub-Chantor. The dependencies enumerated are sixteen parsonages, six common churches, and twenty-six chaplain- eries, of which latter seventeen were within the walls of the Cathe dral.* It appears upon the original documents that Bishop Bri cius instituted eight canonries when the Cathedral of Moray was at Spynie, from whom he nominated the Dean, Chancellor, Arch deacon, Chantor, and Treasurer.f Bishop Andrew in 1226 added fourteen canons, and the Chapter of Moray was thus encreased to twenty-two, a number which they never exceeded. To every ca nonry a vicarage was annexed for the better subsistence of the in cumbent, who received the great tithes of both parishes, and was generally the patron of the vicarage. The Diocese of Moray was divided into the Deaneries of Elgin, comprising twelve parishes ; Inverness, fourteen parishes ; Strathbogie, eight parishes ; and Strathspey, nine parishes. The Chapter of Ross consisted of the Dean, the ChanceUor, Archdeacon, Chantor, and Treasurer, but the number of canons or prebendaries is not accurately known. No chartulary belong ing to the Bishopric of Ross has been discovered in Scotland. The conjecture is not improbable that Bishop Leslie, the last Roman Catholic Prelate, who was the zealous defender of Queen Mary, carried with him the documents of his Diocese, and they are now either lost, or preserved in a foreign library or coUege.j The Chapter of Caithness is also unknown, as are the ecclesias tical divisions or deaneries. It is probable that the writs and other documents connected with this Diocese may be in the posses sion of the Duke of Sutherland. The state of the Chapter of the insular Diocese of Orkney in former times is very obscure. In 1544, Bishop Robert Reid • Brief Analysis of the Ancient Eecords of the Bishopric of Moray, by Sir John Graham Dalyell, Bart. p. 7, 8, 9. t The original documents, with translations, are inserted in the Appendix to the edi tion of Mr. Lachlan Shaw's History of the Province of Moray, brought down to the year 1826, and published in 1827 by John Grant. f Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xi. p. 341. 8 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS granted a charter for the " foundation and erection of certain offices in the cathedral church of Orkney for the service of God ;" six canons and as many chaplains are mentioned, and the Chapter is noticed as consisting of the Provost, Archdeacon, Chantor, ChanceUor, Treasurer, Sub-Dean, Sub-Chantor, seven prebendaries, thirteen chaplains, and six singing boys." The Provost was to be a Doctor of Theology, of " good fame, conversation, and name," who was to take precedence immediately after the Bishop ; and the duties of his office are defined — " totius diocesis inquisitor here- tice pravitatis, cui correctio canonicorum, prebendariorium, et ca- pellaniorum in capitulo speotabit." In his absence the Sub-Dean was to act. The second dignitary next to the Provost was to be the Archdeacon, who was to be a Master of Arts — " vir probatisv vitse, et morum, presbiter bene eruditus in diuinis et humanis literis." The Precentor or Chantor was to be the third dignitary ; and to be eligible for the office he was to be a Master of Arts, or a gra duate in another faculty well instructed in the Gregorian chant. The Chancellor was to rank third after the Provost, and he was to be a doctor in canon or civil law, or " bachalarius formatus in ali qua florenti universitate." Next to him was the Treasurer, who was to be a Master of Arts — " vir probus et circumspectus';" the sub-dean was also to be a Master of Arts — " presbiter vir bene instructus in utroque testamento ;" and the Sub-Chantor was to be a presbyter — " bene instructus per omnes numeros in utroque cantu." The duties of the librarian, organist, the keeper of the clock; and other minor functionaries, are defined. This arrange ment of the Chapter of Orkney was confirmed and ratified by Cardinal Beaton, when Archbishop of St Andrews and Papal Legate, in 1545.* The Chapter, as above constituted, continued in that state till the Reformation. Little is apparentlyknown of the ancientChapterofBRECHiN. The ChanceUor of this Diocese is mentioned in a document signed by the Bishop inl511, the original of which is in the possession of Viscount Arbuthnot.f Some notices occur of the cathedral establishment in the various charters to the bishops and clergy. King Robert Bruce, • The original documents are printed in " Eentals of the Ancient Earldom and Bishopric of Orkney," by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. Edinburgh, 1820, Svo. Appendix, p. 18-30. f The History of Brechin, by David D. B'.ack, Town-Clerk, 1839. AT THE REFORMATION. 9 by a chai'ter dated at Scone, 10th July 1322, gave to John, Bishop of Brechin, and to the chaplain and canons of the cathedral church, the privilege of holding a market within the city on Sundays. In 1359, David II. confirmed to the same cathedral church all the privileges grotnted by his ancestors ; and in 1374, Robert II. en joined his justiciaries, sheriffs, and provosts, to defend the Bishop of Brechin and the canons in all their lands and privileges. Among the more conspicuous benefactors was Walter Stewart, Earl of Atholl and Caithness, who, in 1429, assigned L.40 Scots, payable annually from his estate and lordship of Cortachy or from Brecliin, for the maintenance of two chaplains and six boys, to perform divine service within the choir ; and he gave land on the west side of the city for their residence. The one chaplain is enjoined to be instructed in music, and the other in graumiar, which they were expected to study during the hours of interval from their spiritual functions. In 1435, the Bishop reduced ihe chaplaincies to one ; and nearly ninety years aftersvards, in 1524, the then Bishop de cided in some differences between the chaplains and the Chapter, for non-performance of duties, The Bishop, Dean, and Chapter, are noticed in a legal document dated 1535 ; and in 1566, Bishop Hepburn, at the request of Erskine of Dun, the patron of the two chaplaincies of the Virgin ]\Iary in the Cathedral, united them, because they were insufficient for the support of two, and appro priated the income to one. But the constitution of the Cliapter may be inferred from a reference to a more ancient document, de signated an " ApostoUc Letter issued on Trinity Monday, in 1372, by Patrick, Bishop of Brechin, and the Chapter, in presence of the canons, rectors, and vicars of the diocese, to ascertain the number of benefices, and the dignities and offices belonging to theCfithedral, the incumbents who were to be considered prebendaries, and who of the eleven of them were to enjoy the dignities of Dean, Chantor, ChanceUor, Treasurer, and Archdeacon." Among the official wit nesses are the Precentor, ChanceUor, Treasurer, Arch-Dean, Sub- Dean, two prebendaries, and sundry canons of the Cathedral, the Dean and one prebendary being absent on account of distance. In .] .384 the parish church of Lethnot was constituted a prebend at the request of Sir David Lindsay of Glenesk, with a stall in the choir, and a place in the Chapter. In 1429 the Bishop and Chapter de clare that the Dean, Precentor, Chancellor, and Treasurer, have 10 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS precedence of aU the Canous, which was confirmed by their sign^r tures in 1435. The parish church of Finhaven was constituted a prebend in 1474 at the request of the Earl of Crawford. Several chaplaincies and altarages were connected with the Cathedral.* The Chapters of Dunkeld and Dunblane consisted of the usual dignitaries, but were Umited ; as both these Dioceses, like that of Brechin, were of no great extent. The Bishops had what were caUed mensal churches in various Dioceses. The chartulary and other records of the Bishopric of Dunblane are not to be found. Those of Dunkeld may probably be among the archives of the Dukes of AthoU, and some allusions occur in the Lives of the Bishops of Dunkeld, from the foundation of the See to 1515, writ ten in Latin by Alexander Myln, Abbot of Cambuskenneth, and published in 1831. In the Archiepiscopal Province of Glasgow the Chapter of the Archdiocese of Glasgow first demands our attention. After John Achaius, the preceptor and chaplain of Alexander I., was promoted to the Bishopric in 1129, he divided the Diocese into the two Arch deaconries of Glasgow and Teviotdale, established the dignitaries of Dean, Sub-Dean, Chantor, Chancellor, Treasurer, Sub-Chantor, and Sacrist, and settled a prebend on each out of the donations he had received from the King. During the episcopate of Bishop John Cameron, the most munificent of aU the prelates who occu pied the See of Glasgow, elected in 1421, the members of the Chap ter were thirty-nine, whom he ordered to erect parsonages, and reside in the vicinity of the Cathedral, appointing curates to offici ate in their respective parishes. Those parsonages were situated at the upper end of the High Street near the ancient Cross, and in the streets caUed Drygate, Rottenrow, and Deanside Brae. During Bishop Cameron's episcopate, the Dean, Chantor, Chan ceUor, Treasurer, Sub-Dean, and Archdeacon, were the dignitaries, and this constitution of the Chapter continued tiU the Reform ation. The vicars of the choir are not of course included.-)- The original Chapter of the See of Whitehorn or Galloway consisted of the Bishop, the Prior, Sub-Prior, and eleven Canons.J Nothing is known of the Chapters of Argyll and of The Isles. * The History of Brechin, by David D. Black, Town-Clerk, 1839. t Cleland's Annals of Glasgow, vol. i, p. 113, 114. t Brief Analysis ofthe Chapel-Eoyal of Stirling, p. 58. AT TIIE REFORMATION. 11 The Earl of Argyll seized all the registers and charters of those Sees at the Reformation, when he obtained possession of the church lands, and it is uncertain whether they are lost, or were wilfully destroyed at the time. In taking a view of the Scottish Cathedrals, much valuable in formation is presented to the ecclesiastical historian and anti quary. With no pretension to the magnificence, vastness, and im posing grandeur of those of England, and in every respect inferior in architectural display and genius, some of the Scottish Cathedrals were nevertheless stately edifices ; and those of Glasgow and Kirkwall, the two which are entire, may be considered as muni ficent memorials of the founders. The Cathedral of St Andrews was one of the largest in Scotland, and though most of those in England are of greater extent, it was undoubtedly a splendid church. The ruins which remain, chiefly a monument of the violence of John Knox and his followers, and partly in subsequent times the work of the inhabitants, who resorted to it for materials to build houses and garden walls, sufficiently indicate the dimen sions. The church consisted of the nave, 200 feet long and 62 wide, including the two lateral aisles ; a transept, with an eastern aisle, 160 feet long ; a choir with two lateral aisles, 98 feet long ; and at the eastern extremity 3.3 feet long :* the entire length of the whole structure within the walls being 356 feet. This magni ficent edifice, the erection of which occupied one hundred and sixty years, with its stately towers and shining copper roof, all destined to fall by the hands of some thousands of sacrilegious enthusiasts, was begun by Bishop Arnold, formerly Abbot of Kelso, who filled the See from 1159 to 1162. Malcolm IV. was present at the foundation. The buUding was carried on by eleven of his suc cessors, but the work, as appears from the long time for its com pletion, advanced slowly on account of the want of funds, and the anxiety that the edifice should be as splendid as possible. It was finished in 1318, when King Robert Bruce was present at the con secration, during the episcopate of Bishop Lamberton, who filled the See from 1298 to 1328 ; and, says Martine, " considering the time it was demolisht [June 1559], it stood entire two hundred md forty years, and from the foundation to the razing thereof, * The History of St Andrews, by the Eev. C. J. Lyon, M.A. In 2 vols. Edin. 1843. 12 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS occasioned by a sermon of John Knox against idolatrie, preached' to a giddy lawless multitude, it was just four-'hundred years." It appears, however, that fifty years after the consecration a part of the church was accidentally burnt, but it was speedily repaired, and placed under the superintendence of the Priors of St An drews, several of whom awarded large sums from their own revenues for its internal and external decoration. The ground selected for the site of the Cathedral is an elevated piece of table land on the east end of the city, overlooking the Bay of St Andrews, and a short distance north of the Priory, which had been founded for the Canons by Bishop Robert, the immediate predecessor of Bishop Arnold. Adjoining stands the vener able tower of the Chapel of St Regulus, the waUs of the latter stiU remaining, 32 feet long and 25 feet broad ; the whole struc ture generally admitted to be as ancient as the end of the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century, though unnoticed by histo rians till the thirteenth century, when the common tradition is retailed by them. The ruins of the Cathedral of St Andrews, which are now preserved with great care from farther dilapida tion, are the remaining portions of a very large cross church, which, when entire, was principaUy of the very late Norman style, with some portions early English, and some parts later. The ruins consist of the east end of the choir, part of the waUs of the south transept and south aisle of the nave, and a portion of the west end. Mr. Rickman states — " The details of the several styles, as far as they can be made out, are very fine, and it is to be regretted that so little is left for examination." The east gable contains three oblong windows with semicircular arches, above which is a large window, aU between two turrets terminated by pointed octagonal pinnacles. The west point consists of a pointed arched gateway, ornamented with rich mouldings, but only one of the two windows above is entire, with one of the turrets of light and elegant workmanship surmounted by an octagonal lantern; pinnacle.* The great central tower was supported by four mas sive pillars, the bases of which are stiU seen at the intersection of the nave with the transept. The Cathedral, which in addition to the outrages committed on it by Knox's adherents in 1559, pro bably was farther dilapidated in 1560, when an order was issued * History of St Andrews, by the Eev. C. J. Lyon, M.A. Edin. 1843. AT TIIE REFORMATION. 13 hr demolishing such cloisters and abbey churches as were not then puUed down, must have been considered beyond the possi bUity of repair after the partial and nominal restoration of the Episcopal Church in 1572, and its fuU establishment in 1606. Most of the rubbish lay on the site of the ruined church till 1826, when it was removed by order of the Barons of the Scottish Court of Exchequer, and the floor and foundations of the columns laid Dpen. Since that year subsequent clearings have farther developed this now melancholy memorial of fanatical violence, which may be viewed as no enviable monument of Knox and his mob. The ruins of the Archepiscopal (Jastle of St Andrews are a short dis tance north-west of the Cathedral, overlooking the Bay. The sastle was completely destroyed after the murder of Cardinal Beaton, when the assassins and their followers were compelled to surrender ; but it was rebuilt by Archbishop Hamilton, the Car- iinal's successor, whose arms are still to be seen on the walls. The front window in it, from which the Cardinal is said to have witnessed the incremation of his conspiring enemy George Wishart, ¦' the Martyr," is therefore, as far as that tradition is concerned, altogether a fable. It is already mentioned that only two of the Scottish Cathedrals ire entire, or escaped the violence of the Reformation — Glasgow, preserved by the spirited conduct of the citizens, and Orkney, ivhich owed its safety to its distance from the scene of turbulence. These edifices are subsequently noticed ; meanwhile, proceeding lorthwards, the episcopal city of Brechin, nearly forty miles from 3t Andrews by Dundee and Forfar, claims our notice. This Cathedral was founded by David I. in the eleventh century, and dedi- jated to the Holy Trinity, but no distinct account of the date of the erection of the church, or of the adjoining steeple, and cele brated round tower, is known to exist. The belfry appears to liave been buUt between 1354 and 1384, at least during the epis- 3opate of Bishop Patrick de Leuchars, when, as a part of the 3ayment of twenty-eight marks due annually from the parish of Lethnot to the Cathedral, Henry de Leighton, the vicar, delivered ,0 the Bishop " a large white horse, and also a cart and horse ;o lead stones to the building of the belfrey of the Church of Brechin."* It appears that this Cathedral never was completed ; * History of Brechin, by David D. Black, p. 17. 14 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS and though, some beautiful ruins of the choir and chancel are still seen, the inteUigent historian of Brechin doubts if " the high altar had ever been finished, and if there had been any thing more than a Lady Ghapel, of which the foundations are occasionaUy met with to the east of the ruins."* The great western door and the nave, according to this statement, constituted the whole of Brechin Cathedral ever erected, as there is no appearance of transepts, and what are now considered as such seem to have been mere extensions of the side aisles. This Cathedral escaped the fury of Knox's mob, whose ravages indeed were very limited north of the Tay. Before 1806 the church, as used by the Presbyterian con gregation, was an elegant Gothic edifice, consisting of the nave and two side aisles, and the transepts or extension of the aisles. In that year the north and south transepts were removed, new aisles were built on each side of the nave, and one roof placed over the whole, completely eclipsing the beautiful clere storey windows in the nave, and obscuring a fine carved cornice of the " nail head quatrefoil description, which runs under the eaves of the nave.-f- It is needless to observe that, in an architectural point of view, the Presbyterians have completely deformed the edifice by their outrageous alterations. The church, as now occu pied by the Established Presbyterians, is 114 feet in length, and 30 feet in breadth, or 58 feet including the aisles, added in 1806-7, each of which measures 14 feet, and the whole is supported by 12 pillars. The western door is beautifully carved, and the large Gothic window above it is deservedly admired for its elegant muUions and tracery. The original roof was Gothic, and was of a similar construction to that of Westminster HaU. At the north angle of the nave, close to the west door, rises the steeple, a stately square tower of 70 feet high, ornamented with elegant quatrefoil belfry windows, the top battlemented, and surrounded with a bar tizan, from which rises a fine octagon spire 50 feet high. The base of the steeple contains an apartment with an elegant groined roof, terminating in an open circle about four feet in diameter, and 17 feet from the floor.J This room in aU probabUity was a kind of chapter room for the clergy of the Cathedral, and it is now used as the Presbyterian session-house. A board in it intimates • History of Brechin, by David D. Black, p. 253, 254. t lUd. p. 254. X lud. p. 253, 254, 255. AT THE REFORMATION. 15 that in 1615, Andrew, Bishop of Brechin, " gifted the hearse before the pulpit," the said hearse, which is still in the church, being a very elegant brass chandelier for holding candles. This Bishop was Andrew Lamb, one of those consecrated in England in 1610. Another intimation in this " session-house" is to the effect that in 1 665, David, Bishop of Brechin, gifted the " orlodge," or clock on the steeple. This prelate was David Strachan, conse crated in 1662.* The residence of the Bishops of Brechin in their own episcopal city was near a lane, still called the Bishop''s Close, to the east of the Cathedral, and leading to the High Street. At one end is an arch, the aisles of which display part of the walls which enclosed the episcopal house, but no vestige now remains. Campbell, the last Roman Catholic incumbent, who dilapidated the See after the Reformation in favour of the Earl of Argyll, probably sold the mansion when he disposed of a piece of ground near the Bishop's Close to a certain James Graham, on the pretence that it had long been a " receptacle of filth and nuisance," and that " he had not been able to walk in his own garden in safety by reason thereof." It is weU observed by the local historian of Brechin, that at the Reformation it was simul taneously discovered that the " manses, houses, and hospitals of the Roman Catholics, had been contrived to last only during the continuance of their dominion. — The Archdean sold his man sion, with the houses and yards pertaining thereto ; the ChanceUor conveyed a piece of waste ground upon which formerly stood his manse, with the garden thereof, and the Presbyters found that part of their residence and habitation was in a like dangerous and decayed situation, and that there was no cure but a sale. These and other simUar grants are all ratified by James IV., and thus a great part of the property belonging to the church of Brechin passed to lay hands."| Such was the fate of much of the ecclesi astical property in other places. The See of Aberdeen is generaUy alleged to have been at Mort lach, a parish and decayed hamlet in the county of Banff, the latter in the vicinity of the thriving viUage of Dufftown, erected since 1815 under the auspices of the Earl of Fife. Malcolm II. is the reputed founder, and he was induced to erect a church and monastery to perpetuate a victory over the Danes in the • History of Brechin, by David D. Black, p. 302, 305. f Ibid. p. 32, 33. 16 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS neighbourhood about A. D. 1010. Mortlach became the seat of the ancient prelates, and the Cathedral, such as it is, a remark ably plain edifice, is still used for parochial purposes ; but the time of the proper erection of the See must be referred to the reign of David I., about 1136, when Nectanus was appointed Bishop, and the seat of the Diocese transferred to Old Aberdeen, within two miles of the large seaport of Aberdeen. The present Cathedral, dedicated to St Machar, occupies the site of the old church of St Machar, and was begun by Bishop Alexander Kinin- mont, the second of that name, who succeeded to the See about 1357 ; but at his death in 1381 the work had made little progress. His successors carried on the edifice according to their resources, which appear to have been very limited ; for in 1430, Bishop Leighton laid the foundation of the steeple on the east end, and of the two towers on the west front. Bishop Lindsay, who suc ceeded him, completed the roof of the nave about 1445, and the church continued in this state till the episcopate of Bishop Elphin stone, who after 1484 rebuilt the ancient choir on the east end, and covered the roof with lead at the expense of James IV. That prelate also completed the great steeple about 1511, and placed in it three bells, the united weight of which was twelve thousand pounds. Bishop Gavin Dunbar, uncle of Archbishop Gavin Dun bar of Glasgow, who succeeded in 1518, finished the Cathe dral, by completing the two towers on the west end, and about 1522 erecting the south transept, which was known by the name of his aisle. He also ceiled the roof of the nave with the finest oak of curious workmanship. His two successors, however, must have done something to the fabric, as their names and that of Queen Mary appear on the roof. But the Cathedral of Aber deen, which occupied upwards of one hundred and fifty years in erecting, was not allowed to remain forty years entire. As the citizens of both the towns of Aberdeen were generaUy by no means favourable to the Reformation, being under the influence of the Earl of Huntly, and other noblemen and barons devoted to the Roman Hierarchy, a body of Reformers from the South considered it necessary to meet them, and ascertain their sentiments on the Protestant opinions. As the magistrates had heard of their de stroying propensities in other places, they removed every article of value to a place of safety, and secured the archives and public AT THE REFORMATION'. 17 records. At the end of December 1559, a large mob of enthusiasts entered the seaport town of Aberdeen, and commenced their usual work of destruction by attempting to pull do^vn the great spire of the church of St Nicholas, but they were driven back, and the fabric was saved, though they succeeded in destroying the monas teries of the Black Friars and Carmelites. The insurgents next pro ceeded to Old Aberdeen, to wreak their vengeance on the Cathe dral. Bishop WiUiam Gordon, a relative of the Earl of Huntly, was fortunate to secure the jewels, silver plate, and other valuables belonging to the Church, portions of which were entrusted to the prebendaries for protection, and were never afterwards seen. En raged at being deprived of their plunder, they stripped the Cathe dral of its roof, demolished the choir and chancel, and the whole fabric would have been destroyed if the Earl of Huntly and Les lie of Balquhain had not arrived at the head of a strong force of armed retainers, and dispersed the assailants. They contrived to seize the lead of the church roof, and the three bells which Bishop Elphinstone had placed in the steeple, all of which were shipped at Aberdeen to be sold in Holland ; but it is some consolation to know that their avarice was frustrated, and that the vessel sunk with the plunder near the Girdleness, within half a mile of the harbour. That portion of the Cathedral preserved by the timely interference ofthe Earl of Huntly remained in a neglected state till 1607, when it was repaired by the inhabitants of the parish of Old Machar, in which it is situated, and covered with slates. From that time, except the interruptions noticed in the sequel, till a few years after the Revolution, the church was the Cathedral of the Diocese of Aberdeen, and the Principal of King's College was constituted Dean of the Chapter. In 1688, the lofty steeple on the east end, which was about 150 feet high, and contained three bells presented by Bishop Patrick Forbes, feU on the eastern part of the nave. It was in consequence greatly injured, and several of the sepulchral monuments were destroyed ; but the bells had been re moved a short time before this accident, which was occasioned, according to the local tradition, by CromweU's soldiers who were stationed in Aberdeen, and who had removed some of the buttresses to procure materials for military works erected by them on the CastlehiU. The Cathedral, which is now possessed by the congregation ofthe 2 18 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS Established Presbyterians, and is in complete repair, i.s a large Gothic edifice of granite, massive and stately, but externally of no architectural pretensions. In reality it is far inferior in beauty to several of the other Cathedrals even in Scotland. The west part, however, is very imposing, and is mostly worked in granite, in a bold style, of the decorated character. As it now exists, the church consists only of the nave and side aisles, 126 feet in length, and nearly 68 feet broad, including the latter, a very smaU portion of the waU of the transepts remaining ; but when entire, the edifice is conjectured to have been about 200 feet in length, and the choir and transepts were probably 70 feet long. The windows are lan cet-shaped in the west end, above the great entrance, and on this part are two towers, each 112 feet high, rising square above the ground about 52 feet, at which three projecting courses of stones are successively laid with intervening spaces, and then projecting probably 15 inches within the waU. The breadth above is con tracted, and the towers are octagonal, diminishing as they rise in height. The spires are divided into three storeys, and terminate in points, on each of which is an iron cross, the whole being a very humble imitation of the papal crown. The side walls are about 42 feet high, and supported by a range of pillars on each side, 15 feet 6 inches high, and the diameter upwards of three feet. Seven Gothic arches are thrown over these pUlars, extending the entire length of the side walls, and between them is an open passage in the centre of the waU, 5 feet 9 inches high, by one foot 10 inches broad. One of the Gothic arches which supported the great steeple is stiU in the east end, the columns of the arch entire, resembling trunks of trees bound together, and the capitals displaying beauti fully ornamented foliage in high relief. In the south aisle a portion of Bishop Dunbar's tomb stiU exists, and in St John's, or the north aisle, are the remains of the tomb of Bishop Leighton, both of which monuments were defaced by the incendiaries at the Reformation. The roof, originally constructed by Bishop Dunbar, includes three compartments of square pannels joining at the opposite angular points, on which are painted the arms and titles of the sovereigns, princes, prelates, and nobles, who are supposed to have contribut ed to the expence of the edifice. In the first compartment, among the sovereigns and princes are the Emperor of Germany, the Kings of England, France, Spain, Denmark, Hungary, Portugal, Aragon, AT THE REFORM.\TIO,\. 19 Navarre, Sicily, Poland, and Bohemia, two foreign Dukes, and tho city of Old Aberdeen. In the second compartment appear the Pope, the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, all tho Scot tish Bishops, the Prior of St Andrews, and the University of King's College. In the third are the Scottish King and Queen, the Duke of Albany, the Earls of March, Moray, Douglas, Angus, Mar, Sutherland, Crawford, Huntly, Orkney, Erroll, Marischal, and BothweU, and the town of New Aberdeen ; along tho top of the walls are also inscribed on tho south side the names of aU the Scottish sovereigns, from Malcolm II. to Queen Mary, and on the north side, of all the Bishops from Nectanus to Bishop WiUiam Gordon, the last Roman CathoUc prelate. The latter records a succession of twenty-six Bishops, including Nectanus. All the in scriptions are painted in the old black Saxon character, but the great height precludes the decyphering of them in a legible man ner. Tradition ascribes the whole to an artist named James Winter, a native of Forfarshire. A tabular record of this ceUing is inserted in Kennedy's " Annals of Aberdeen," which, it is stated, was the performance of " Mr James Paterson, the last master of the ancient music school of Old Aberdeen, who was also clerk of the [Presbyterian] church-session, and died some years ago at the advanced age of eighty-nine." It is farther stated — " A neat paint ing of this ceiling was executed by Mr. Cordiner, one of the ministers of St. Paul's Chapel in Aberdeen, and presented to the Royal Society of Antiquaries of London." The mutilated tomb of Bishop Dunbar, in the south aisle of the church, is already mentioned. It is an altar tomb, the effigy of the prelate in fuU pontificals under a round flowered arch, at the base of which are his famUy arms and those of Scotland. His body is interred in the vaidt beneath. Near his tomb is a blue stone marking the cemetery of Bishop Forbes in 1635, an<^ in the same aisle is also an altar tomb, under a round arch of oak branches, with the figure of a bishop in pontificals wanting the head, a horn at the feet, under the head of which is a helmet for a cushion, with arms, and a Hon rampant. This aisle was respectively known as St Machar's, Bishop Dunbar's, Bishop Cheyne's, and Bishop ScougaU's Aisle. The tomb of the last-mentioned prelate is entire in tho west end of the church. It was at one time finely illumin ated, but the colours are now scarcely discernible. In the centre 20 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS of the tomb' is an effigy of the Bishop in his episcopal robes in high relief, supported on each side by a young man, and in the back ground appears a burning torch. His mitre and crozier are finely cut on the pedestal, with his armorial bearings and motto, over which are placed three fiaming urns. The inscription on the tablet intimates that he was consecrated in 1664, and that he died on the 16th of February 1682, in the 18th year of his episcopate, and 75th of his age. This monument, which was erected by his son, Mr. James 'Scougall, commissary of the Diocese, formerly stood at some distance from the walls, where it accidentally fell down, hut it was ordered to be carefully rebuilt in its present position by Dr. Skene Ogilvy, one ofthe Presbyterian incumbents ofthe parish. Several other Bishops are interred in the aisles, whose graves are only indicated by common stones.* The Cathedral of Aberdeen was the scene of another act of fa natical violence, nearly one hundred years after its first dilapidation by the mob in 1560. This was in 1649, when the crimes of that disastrous period were consummated by the murder of Charles I. " So violent," says Grose, " were the zeal of that reforming period against all monuments of idolatry, that perhaps the sun and moon, very ancient objects of false worship, owed their safety to their distance. As there was nothing to be found in the Cathedral of Aberdeen worth carrying off, the illiberal zealots wreaked their vengeance upon the stones and timber. The high altar-piece, of the finest workmanship of any thing of the kind in Europe, had to that time remained inviolate, but in the year 1649 it was hewed to pieces by order, and with the aid of the [Presbyterian] parish minister. The carpenter employed for this infamous purpose, awed by the sanctity of the place, and struck with the noble work manship, refused to lay a tool on it tiU the more than Gothic priest took the hatchet from his hand, and struck the first blow. The wainscotting was richly carved, and ornamented with different kinds of crowns at the fop, admirably cut ; one of these, large and of superior workmanship, even staggered the zeal of the furi ous ^ms^ ,• he wished to save it, perhaps as a trophy over a faUen enemy. Whatever his motive may have been, his hopes were dis appointed. While the carpenter rudely hewed down the sup- • Kennedy's Annals of Aberdeen, 4to. 1818, vol, ii, p. 338-346. AT THE REFORMATION. 21 porting timber, the crown fell from a great height, ploughed up the pavement of the church, and flew in a thousand pieces."* If Grose is correct in his date, the Presbyterian " priest," the hero of "this exploit, was named WiUiam Strachan. The consistory-house, adjoining the west end of the church, was built by Bishop WiUiam Stewart, in which is preserved an oak pulpit, having on the front his initials and a mitre. The episcopal residence stood at the east end of the Cathedral, and communicated with the east end of the choir by a covered passage. It was dila pidated during the episcopate of one of tho Bishops Kinninmont, was repaired by Bishop Spens about 1459, and from that period the Bishops of Aberdeen had a permanent mansion in their own city. This residence was of limited accoliuuodation, and was of no architectural importance, consisting of a quadrangular court, with a small turret at each of the angles. During the Civil Wars the building was plundered and defaced by the Presbyterian Co venanters, and in 1651 the Vihole materials were carried to the CastlehiU of New Aberdeen by CromweU's soldiers to complete their fortifications. The deanery house occupied the site of the Presbyterian manse, and most of the houses of the prebendaries were removed about 1725. The date of the erection of the See of Moray is uncertain. Malcolm III. is the reputed founder according to Leslie and Buch anan, and it certainly existed in the twelfth century. Bishop Gregory of Moray is a witness in the chartulary of Scone Priory in 1115. Various churches were used as the CathedraltUl 1208, when Bishop Bricius, of the Douglas family, applied to Pope Inno cent III., who empowered the Bishops of St Andrews and Brechin and the Abbot of Lindores to transfer the See to the church of the Holy Trinity at Spynie, and to distinguish it by the title of a Cathe dral ; but that locality was soon found to be inconvenient and in secure, and in 1224 Pope Honorius enjoined the Bishop of Caith ness, the Abbot of Kinloss, and the Dean of Ross, to translate the seat of the Diocese to the church of the Holy Trinity at Elgin, now the county town of Elgin, or Moray, sixty-seven mUes north-west from Aberdeen by Huntly. King Alexander II. granted a site to Bishop Andrew Moray, or de Moravia, the successor of Bishop • Grose's Antiquities of Scotland, 4to. 1791, vol. ii. p. 265. 22 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS Bricius, on the east side of the town, near the river Lossie. The foundation of the magnificent Cathedral was laid by that prelate on the site of the former church in 1224. No information of the progress of the edifice is given in the chartulary, though penalties' are mentioned which were incurred for not fulfiUing obUgations connected with the construction or repair of the buUding. One instance occurs in 1234, and two others in 1286 and 1293. Bishop Andrew de Moravia added fourteen canons to the eight constitut ed by Bishop Bricius, and it is said that the Cathedral was almost completed during his episcopate, which terminated at his death in 1242, eighteen years after the foundation. In 1390 the Cathedral of Elgin was burnt, during the episcopate of Bishop Alexander Barr, by Alexander Earl of Buchan, commonly called the Wolf of Badenoch, youngest son of King Robert II. by Elizabeth More. This was to revenge a sentence of excommunication issued against him for keeping forcible possession of some ecclesiastical property, and the town shared the same fate of the Cathedral. This is the usual reason assigned for the attack of this fierce chief on the Cathedral of Elgin, but his resentment may have been excited by a different cause. In 1389, the very year before he committed this outrage, the Bishops of Moray and Ross, as judges ordinary of the Diocese of each litigant party, took cognizance of the Wolf of Badenoch for deserting his lawful wife, the Lady Euphemia Ross, and living in adultery with another woman. The Bishops ordained that the said Euphemia Ross " be restored to Alexander Stewart, Earl of Buchan and Lord of Ross, her husband, along with her possessions, to be treated with conjugal affection, in bed and board, in clothing, and all other matters corresponding to her station — that he shaU put away Athyn's daughter Mariota — and faUing to do so, as the said Lady Euphemia aUeges fear of her life, he shall find the security of great and noble persons, under penalty of L.200, to treat her respectfuUy in every thing, and without endangering her safety." Moray was a flourishing See, but it comprised a district in which the people were fierce and barbarous, and ready to follow their leaders in any outrage. Bishop Barr represented the state of his Cathedral and Diocese, after the violence commit ted by the Wolf of Badenoch, in a very affecting manner to King Robert III. He says — " Being debUitatcd by age, impoverished and reduced by so many depredations and robberies, and brought AT THE REFORMATION. 23 to such necessity, that at this Parliament of Scone I can scarcely sustain a needy existence for myself and my few servants, to solicit the rebuilding of my church, which was the especial ornament of the country and the glory of the kingdom, the delight of strangers, the praise of guests, the renowned among foreign nations for its beautiful decorations, and the number of those in its service. I shall say nothing of its lofty towers, its venerable utensils, and in numerable jewels, having had a personal concern in them along with some of my Canons. Because the Parliament did not hold, and as I could not labour farther in the cause of God and my church from the want of funds, I humbly implore your Majesty to compel the incendiaries to give suitable satisfaction for proper re-edification, and the other damage which they have occasioned ; and because I, a feeble old man, cannot prosecute the injury and the burning of my church for the foregoing reasons, I commit it to the justice of your royal Majesty, as the Bishop of Ross will explain."* It appears that the Bishop directed a subsidy to be levied from all the benefices in his Diocese to repair the mischief inflicted by the Wolf of Badenoch, and he enforced this subsidy by a seques tration of their fruits. The rebuilding of the Cathedral was in pro gress in 1414, for we find the members of the Chapter, who had convened to elect a Bishop, binding themselves by an oath that hc on whom the choice might fall should assign a third of his revenues until the fabric was repaired. The Cathedral vs^as at last rebuilt in a style inferior to few in that age, in the form of a Jerusalem cross, ornamented with five towers, two of which were at the west end, two at the east, and one in the centre. The church remain ed entire many years till 1506, when the great steeple in the centre, begun by Bishop Innes, who was consecrated by Pope Benedict in 1406-7, fell down. On the foUowing year Bishop Forman commenced the rebuilding of it, which was not finished tiU 1538, when the height, including the spire, was 198 feet. The stately edifice thus continued, and escaped the violence of the mob at the Reformation only to be dUapidated in a more premeditated manner. On the 14th of February 1567-8, the Privy-Council issued an order that the " lead be taken from the Cathedral * Brief Analysis of the Ancient Eecords of the See of Moray, by Sir John Graham Dalyell, Bart. p. 10, 11. 24 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS churches of Aberdeen and Elgin, and sold for sustentation of the men of war." The Earl of Huntly and his deputies, with William, Bishop of Aberdeen, and Patrick, Bishop of Moray, were appointed to enforce the order, which is signed R. M., probably the initials of the Regent Moray. The lead was accordingly stript from the Cathedral of Elgin, which was left completely roofless, and shipped at Aberdeen with the lead from that church ; but the vessel went down off the Girdleness as already stated, and the sacrilegious cupidity of the Privy- Council was utterly defeated. The stately Cathedral of Elgin soon fell rapidly to decay, though some painted rooms remained entire in the towers and choirs till about 1640, and were frequented by Roman Catholics for devotional purposes. The great tower fell in 1711. Considerable attention has been paid by Government to prevent the ruins from complete decay,' and the edifice is now an object of great and impressive interest, though the service of the Episcopal Church was never celebrated within its walls. The two western towers are of massive and ele gant proportions, and are the most entire portions of the present ruin. The two eastern turrets are also tolerably entire ; but no part of the great or centre tower now remains. From an engrav ing of the roofiess Cathedral in 1668, it appears that the edifice was then in good preservation ; but more than one half of it has now disappeared. The walls of the choir and the whole chapter house remain, but those of the nave and transepts have faUen. The dimensions of the Cathedral are variously given. According to one authority, the measurement of which is expressly stated to be " nearly accurate," the length over walls was 234 feet, the breadth 35 feet ; the transept 114 feet ; height of centre tower 198 feet ; eastern turrets 60 feet ; western towers, without the spires, 84 feet; side waU 36 feet.* Another stateraent is, that "the length from east to west, including towers, is 289 feet; breadth of nave and side aisles 144 feet ; breadth of choir, includ ing waUs and side aisles, 79 feet ; length of transepts, including walls, 120 feet ; height of west towers 83 feet ; of east towers 64 feet ; of middle tower and spire 198 feet ; height of grand entrance 26 feet ; of great western window 28 feet ; of side walls 43 feet ; breadth of side aisles 18 feet ; diameter of eastern wheel window " New Statistical Account of Scotland— Morayshire. AT THE REFORMATION. 25 12 feet."* The chapter-house, which is lighted by seven windows and is in good preservation, is an octagon, 37 feet in diagonal breadth, with a vaulted roof 34 feet high, supported in the cen tre by a column 24 feet high, and 9 feet in circumference, sus taining arched pillars from each angle. In the walls are niches of the oak stalls or chairs of the clergy. It is on the north side of the Cathedral, and is entered by an arched apartment called the sacristy. The episcopal residence was the castle of Spynie, up wards of a mile from Elgin, and on the banks of what was formerly the loch or lake of Spynie. The ruins still indicate the importance and extent of the palace, which, when it stood entire, in the opinion of Mr. Lachlan Shaw, " was incomparably the most stately and magnificant he had seen in any Diocese in Scotland."-f- Mr Rick- man's observations on the architecture of Elgin Cathedral are to the following effect : — " The general arrangements of this church seem to have been early English, carried on slowly, and thus mixed graduaUy with ornaments of later date. There are several very fine doors, and in some of them the ornaments of the early EngUsh and decorated characters are mixed. The east end is a very fine specimen of enriched early English, not exactly resem bling any other example of that style. The western towers are of a plainer character, and the wall between them, with the great entrance doors and large window above, seem of rather later date. The chapter-house may be considered decorated, and there are a few fragments of perpendicular character. This church must be seen to be properly appreciated."! The Cathedral of Ross, the See of which was founded by David I., was in the small town of Chanonry, about a mile from the an cient royal burgh of Rosemarkie, and hence the Bishops of Ross were often designated Episcopi Rosemarkiensis. It stood in a spa cious square formed by the residences of the clergy, and at the present time almost every house in the town was a manse belong ing to the Chapter. The episcopal palace was situated a short distance from the residences of the canons, and as mentioned by Bishop Leslie, the last Roman Catholic prelate of the Diocese, as * Ehind's Sketches of the History of Moray. t History ofthe Province of Moray, 4to. edition of 1827, p. 322. % Eickman on the Styles of the Architecture of England, from the Conquest to the Eeformation, p. 287. 26 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS splendid and magnificent. The date of the erection of the Cathe dral is unknown, and no description is preserved of its architec tural appearance, though it is stated to have been a fine edifice, with a lofty steeple. It is said to have been considerably injured at the Reformation, but the tradition in the district is that both the church and the episcopal palace were puUed down by Crom weU's soldiers to procure materials for his fort at Inverness, eight mUes distant, and that he sent the stones thither by sea. A part of the edifice, however, was left, which was repaired, and used for divine service during the establishment of the Episcopal Church after the Restoration of Charles II. At that period it was sup posed to have been a portion of the original church, about 100 feet long, and 30 feet broad, with an arched roof. The edifice, however, was either repaired, or a new buUding was projected, during the reign of James I. In a letter from Mr. John Carse to the Right Rev. Dr. Patrick Lindsay, Bishop of Ross, dated Lon don, Jan. 10, supposed year 1615, the writer says — '" My hart rises at the newes of a rysing cathedral at Rosse."* The only remnant of it is in a state of decay, and is used as a burying-place. At the east of this sole memorial of the fabric, but detached from it, is a building supposed to have been the vestry, the upper part, now the council-chamber of the little burgh, and the vault below formerly used as a prison. A large bell in the modern spire bears the inscription of Thomas Tulloch, Bishop of Ross, and that it was dedicated to the Virgin Mary and St Boniface, the latter the pa tron of the place, in 1460 ; but according to Keith, Thomas Ur quhart was Bishop of Ross from 1449 to 1463, in which year he was succeeded by a prelate whose name was Henry. The seal of the old Cathedral is still preserved as the common seal of the royal burgh of Rosemarkie, and contains an inscription in Saxon charac ters, with St Peter and his keys, and St Boniface with his crook. In the inside of the ruins of the Cathedral are some mutUated stone- coffins, with figures of bishops in their episcopal dress, which ap pear to have been elegantly cut, but time and violence have en tirely defaced the names and dates.-f- " Letters and State Papers of the Eeign of James VI. Edinburgh, 4to. printed for the Abbotsford Club in 1838, p. 248, 249. t Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xi. p. 311 342. New Statistical Account of Scotland— Koss and Cromarty shires. AT THE REFORMATION. 27 The date of the erection of the See of Caithness i,s uncertain. The first recorded Bishop is Andrew in 1150, and his name occurs as a witness in sevei-al charters. The Cathedral was erected in the now poor and decayed royal burgh of Dornoch, 57 miles from In verness, on the road to Thurso. Tho Cathedral is supposed to have been built by Bishop Gilbert Moray, who was consecrated in 1222, and died at Scrabster, where the Bishops of Caithness had a resi dence, in 1245. He was afterwards canonized, and a mutilated statue of him, under the name of St Gilbert, is still in the church. This Cathedral was a large and beautiful structure in the form of a cross, and escaped, by its distance from the scene of fanatical vio lence, the fury of the heroes of the Reformation, only to be burnt, with the exception of the steeple, in 1570, by the Master of Caith ness and Mackay of Strathnaver, who had a feud with the Murrays, a tribe who then inhabited the district, about the possession of the person of Alexander eleventh Earl of Sutherland, at that time a minor. They also burnt the episcopal palace or castle, a large and massive edifice into which the Murrays had retired, but a part of it was repaired in 1813, and subsequently used as the county jail of Sutherland. The Cathedral was renovated by John twelfth Earl of Sutherland, and completed by Sir Robert Gordon, his " tutour." The whole was completely rebuilt, renewed, and beautified after 1835 by the Duchess-Countess of Sutherland, mother of the second Duke, and it is now one of the finest struc tures of the kind in Scotland. A part of it is the burying-place ofthe Noble Family of Sutherland, and the other portions are fitted up for the Presbyterian congregation.* Proceeding northward in these remote regions, and crossing the Pentland Frith, the stately pile of the Cathedral of Magnus, the church of the See of Orkney, towers above the houses of the royal burgh of Kirkwall, on the island known as the Mainland of Orkney, rising in the midst of dreariness and apparent desolation. The date of the foundation of the See of Orkney is unknown, and as the Orkney Islands, though occasionally under the Scottish crown, were often subject to Norway, their ancient ecclesiastical history is obscure. Rudulphus, Bishop of Orkney, is first mentioned as a wit ness to a charter of David I., but not as a liege of that monarch. * New Statistical Account of Scotland — Sutherlandshire. 28 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS The foundation of the Cathedral is thus historicaUy related. Mag nus, Earl of Orkney, was murdered in the island of Eaglesay, one of the Shetland groupe, about 1115, by a rival named Haco. The Earl, on account of his reputed sanctity, was canonized, and his body deposited in Christ Church at Birsay, on the north-west of the Mainland. His nephew Ronald, who had visited Palestine as a Crusader, failed in an attempt to gain possession of the Earldom of Orkney, and resolved to rouse the courage of his followers by religion. Before he sailed from Shetland for Orkney, he vowed that if he was successful he would found a splendid church, and dedicate it to his uncle's memory. This was between the years 1130 and 1159, but the exact date is not known. In the accom phshment of the work he found it necessary to parcel out the islands in lots among his followers and subjects, to induce them to assist in completing the church, sorae vestiges of which are said to be still perceptible in the udal land-rights of the proprietors. The body of St Magnus was transferred frora Birsay to the Cathedral thirty-four years after his murder, and the Pope declared Earl Ronald a saint for his pious work. At that time Orkney was under Norwegian dominion, and there can be little doubt that the Bishopric was then in existence. It is proved from some of the public records of Scotland that the Cathedral of St Magnus was canonically occupied in 1266. In the Parliament held at Edin burgh in 1485, seventeen years after the Orkney Islands were ab solutely transferred to the Scottish Crown, the Scottish Ambas sador at Rome was ordered to obtain a confirmation of all the transactions from the Pope, and the Cathedral was duly vested, along with the other rights of sovereignty, in the Scottish Kings. Soon after this annexation, James III. in 1486 erected the village of Kirkwall into a royal burgh and episcopal city, with extensive jurisdiction, property, and privUeges ; and the Cathedral church with all its lands and rights, were conferred on the corporation, with power to let or sell the lands, " to be always employed and bestowed upon repairing and upholding of the said kirk called St Magnus' Kirk ;" but the Cathedral and its funds were speedily re stored to episcopal authority. Bishop Edward Stewart lengthened the choir of the Cathedral at the east, by adding three arches resting on Gothic columns, and introducing the rose window at the altar. Bishop Robert MaxweU, who succeeded to the See in AT THE REFORMATION. 2.'J 1525, fitted up the choir with stalls, and furnished the tower with a set of finely toned bells, which still enliven the citizens of this remote town every day in a particular chime. Bishop Robert Reid, the founder of the University of Edinburgh, and projector of a college in Orkney, who obtained the See in 1540, enlarged very considerably the Cathedral at the west end, but the arched roof of this addition was never finished. This portion of the church is curiously decorated by various mixed specimens of architecture. The embellishment and completion of the Cathedral terminated with Bishop Reid's life, and its great distance from the scenes of destruction at the Reformation accounts for its preservation. Sub sequently, while the Stuart Earls held the patronages in Orkney, and possessed the Bishopric at the first introduction of Presbyte rianism, they maintained the Cathedral, and the nominal Bishop kept the choir in repair. The church was threatened with destruc tion by the Earl of Caithness, who was sent to quell an alleged rebellion of Patrick, Earl of Orkney, between 1609 and 1614, but he was prevented by the resolute conduct of the Bishop. Crom weU's soldiers committed gross outrages in the Cathedral, and it appears that the " pulpitt and the rest of the seats in the church were broken down by thame and brunt." In 1671, during the episcopate of Bishop Honeyman, the spire was struck with light ning and entirely destroyed. The tower was afterwards roofed in with a paltry roof, which greatly disfigured the edifice.* But CromweU's soldiers were not the only desecrators of the venerable Cathedral of St Magnus, which Mr. Erskine, Sheriff- Depute of Orkney, afterwards a Judge in the Supreme Court by the title of Lord Kinnedar, justly designated in his Report to the Barons of Exchequer as " one of the most beautiful and valuable reliques of antiquity in Scotland," when he was successful in pre venting the Magistrates, Kirk-Session, and others from erecting some hideous buildings in the church-yard, on the north side of the Cathedral, for school-rooms, a county-hall, and various local purposes. In Presbyterian times it appears that the Magistrates of Kirkwall generally converted the church into a guard-house during their annual fair in August. This was done at least in • Notes on Orkney and Zetland, illustrative of the History, Antiquities, Scenery, and Customs of those Islands, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. Sheriff-Substitute of Ork ney. Edin. 1822, Svo. vol. i. p. 26—55. 30 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS 1701 ; but it is only justice to the Presbyterian authorities or ministers to state that they denounce this as an " unchristian and more than barbarous practice," and speak of the people of the town " keeping guard within the church, shooting of guns, burning great fyres on the graves of the dead, drinking, fiddUng, pipeing, swearing and cursing night and day, within the church." It appears also that little respect was evinced even when a sermon was delivered in the choir ; for the same parties aUege — " Neither can the preacher open his mouth, nor the hearers conveniently attend, for smoke ; yea, some of the members of the Presbytery have been stopped in the outgoing and coming to their meetings, and most rudely pursued by the soldiers with their musquets and halberts." In 1710, however, one Presbyterian minister was charged with " taking his horse through St Magnus' church to grass in the church-yard, and another not long ago caused tye his horse to a pUlar within the church, where it stood all the time of the sermon."* The Cathedral of St Magnus is said to be the property of the Corporation and inhabitants of Kirkwall, granted by charter of James IIL, confirmed in 1536 by James V., and again by Charles II. in 1661. Infeftment followed upon the last-mentioned charter in 1669, and it was confirmed by an Act of the Scottish Parlia ment in 1670.-f- The entire length of the church from east to west outside is 226 feet, the breadth 56 feet ; the arms of the cross or transept are each 28 feet beyond the side waUs, and 28 feet in breadth. The height from the fioor to the roof is 71 feet, and to the summit of the spire on the central tower variously stated at 133, and about 135, or 140 feet. Thirty-two piUars, faced with freestone, support the elegantly arched main roof of the choir and part of the nave ; the roof of the side aisles consists of groined arches ; and the whole edifice is lighted by 103 windows, including those of the steeple, some of them in the Gothic style, and of great size. The east window is provincially called a rose window, being of Gothic form, of four pointed arches separated by three shafts, and a wheel or circle is added above of twelve com partments ; the height of the whole is 36 feet, and the width 12 feet. On the south wing of the cross or transept is another cir- * Peterkin's Notes on Orkney and Zetland, vol. i, p. 57, 58. t Acta Parliamentorum Scotorum, vol. viii. p. 34, 35, 36. AT THE REFOIiMATlON. 31 cular window, and in the nave three doors and a fine Gothic pointed window, two side doors forming with the others a porch. The whole edifice is built chiefiy of red sandstone, interspersed regularly, especially on the west end, with white. The architecture is mixed Saxon and Gothic. This Cathedral was long kept in repair solely by a small fund derived from seat-rents, but it was inadequate for the purpose, and the church was prevented from becoming ruinous by the generous bequest of Gilbert Meason, Esq., a wealthy native of Orkney, who left, at the suggestion of his relative, Malcolm Laing, Esq., author of a well known History of Scotland, the sum of L.IOOO sterling, the interest of which he ordered to be annually appUed to repairing and beautifying the edifice. The choir is used by the Presbyterian congregation, and is fitted up in the most uncomfortable and deforming style ; but they threaten to evacuate the edifice altogether, and occupy a structure near it, erect ed in 1842, and dignified with the title of the " East Church."* Close to the Cathedral, in the vicinity of the ruins of the Palace of the Earl of Orkney, are the dilapidated remains of the Epis copal Palace. It is locally known as the Palace of the Yard, and is interesting as the scene of the death of Haco, King of Norway, after his defeat at the battle of Largs in Ayrshire, in 1263. James V. also resided within its walls some days, and was the guest of the Bishop when he visited Orkney. The Episcopal Palace is of great antiquity, but the date of its erection is un known. Little remains except the round tower built at the north end of it by Bishop Reid, a small freestone statue of whom has escaped the ruthless hands of the barbarians who puUed down and stole the materials of the rest of the Palace. A different scene presents itself to the inquirer into the his tory of Scottish ecclesiastical antiquities, when surveying the vene rable Cathedral of Dunkeld in Perthshire, romantically situated on the banks of the River Tay, and literaUy embosomed among the magnificent scenery of the neighbourhood. When first seen on diverging from the Pass of Birnam, a hill immortalized by Shak speare, this old episcopal city and its environs have a most striking effect, the fine bridge, the ruined Cathedral, and the palace of the • Peterkin's Notes on Orkney and Zetland, vol. i, p. 55, 56. New Statistical Account of Scotland, 1841. Orkney. 32 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS Dukes of Atholl, appearing amid the dark woods. Great obscurity involves the early history of this original seat of the Scottish Pri mates before it was transferred to St Andrews. The choir, now used for parochial purposes, was built by Bishop Sinclair in 1350 ; Bishop Cairney commenced the great aisle, which was finished by Bishop Ralston in 1450 ; the chapter-house was built and the foundation of the tower laid by Bishop Lauder in 1469 ; and the lat ter was completed by Bishop Brown in 1501. There were several other buildings and the episcopal residence. At the Reformation this Cathedral was gutted and defaced in the most wanton man ner. On the 12th of August 1560, a letter was written at Edin burgh, signed by the Earl of Argyll, the Regent Moray, then Lord James Stuart, and Lord Ruthven, addressed to their " traist friendis the Lairds of Arntilly and Kinvaid," enjoining them " to pass incontinent to the kyrk of Dunkeld, and tak down the haill images thereof, and bring furth to the kirk-yaird, and burn the organ openly; and siclyk cast down the altaris, and purge the kyrk of all kynd of monuments of idolatrye." It is true that those three unprincipled worthies of the Reformation intimated in a postscript to their trusty friends — " Faill bot ze tak guid held that neither the dasks, windocks, nor duris be ony ways hurt or broken, either glassen wark or iron wark." A rabble of fanatics excited by the most outrageous passions are seldom disposed to respect conditions, or to be restrained within certain limits, and this was exemplified in the case of the Cathedral of Dunkeld. Neither the sacredness of the pile, nor the romantic beauties by which it was surrounded, could impress their ruthless minds, and half the church was at least laid in ruins. According to the statement of Abbot Mylne of Cambuskenneth, who thirty years before was one of the Canons of the Cathedral, the mob had ample temptations to display their destructive propensities, for he describes the south gate built by Bishop Lauder as an elegant piece of architecture, beautified with several statues. The Presbyterian congregation occupy the choir of the Cathe dral. In the centre of the wall of the east gable is a part of the wall of the old abbey of the Culdees. The present roof was placed over the choir, instead of the former decayed one, in 1762, by James second Duke of Atholl, who obtained L.300 from Govern ment to assist in defraying the expences, and making alterations AT TIIE RESTORATION. .33 in the interior, and on that occasion the elegant Gothic windows were altered in a style which displays the barbarian taste of the parties concerned. Several monuments of the Bishops who were buried in the choir were either defaced at the Reformation, or have entirely disappeared. The square slab of blue marble which indicated the grave of Bishop Sinclair, part of whose arms are on the outside of the east gable, long lay in front of the Duke of AthoU's pew on the floor. In the interior, on the south wall, are the arms of Bishop Alexander Lindsay, who filled the See at the eventful year of 1638. The monument of the Wolf of Badenoch, already mentioned in the notice of Elgin Cathedral, now on the north side of the door from the choir into the nave, stood origin ally in the centre of the choir. It consi.sts of a recumbent figure in armour, the size of life, supported by a row of ornamental pil lars, between which are figures, and a Latin inscription recording his titles, that he was of " good memory," and that he died in 1394. Although this and other monuments were greatly mutilated by a party of Cameronians after the Revolution in 1689, it is in toler able preservation. The architecture of the nave, and of other parts of the church in ruins, is simple and elegant. A range of seven round pillars, above which are an equal number of windows, rises on each other in the walls of the nave, and at the west end are the remains of a magnificent window. In the wall of the south aisle, is the monument of a bishop in his episcopal dress, with his staff, in a niche prepared for its reception. On the north side of the choir is the chapter-house, the upper apartment of which is the charter-room of the Dukes of Atholl, and the vault below is the cemetery of that Noble Family. The steeple, which was roofed in 1762, contains four of the five bells placed in it by Bishop Brown in 1502. The fifth, which was broken, was recast in 1688, at the expence of John Marquis of AthoU. This steeple is rent in a singular manner on the west side, frora the bottom of the upper most window down the centre of the wall. The present state of Dunkeld Cathedral may be thus described. Exclusive ofthe choir the great aisle is 122 feet long, the breadth 62 feet, that of each of the side aisles 12 feet, and the height of the walls 40 feet. The body of the church is separated from the choir by a lofty built up Gothic arch. The main aisle is separated from the side one by six plain pillars of the Roman style, and two half columns, 3 ^4 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS the capitals being plain mouldings, supporting Gothic arches of the second style, above each of which is a seraicircular window of two bays, with a trefoil in the interval. Above the roof of the said aisles is an acute bisected window with two trefoils, and a quatre- foU in the intervals. AU the muUions have disappeared from the great westem window, but the remaining fragments springing from the arch indicate that it was of a handsome florid design. Above it was a circular spiral window, the gable terminating with an elegant florid cross.* The Cathedral of Dunblane, the See of which was erected by David I., though the date is uncertain, and an ancient religious house of the Culdees superseded by it, is in the episcopal town of that name, seven miles from Stirling, on the road to Perth. The founder of this Cathedral is unknown. When entire, it was an elegant edifice, 216 feet in length, 56 feet in breadth, and the length of the walls 56 feet. The general style of the church is the early English, of a beautiful character, but it has various later intersections and alterations. The choir is used by the Presby terian congregation, all the rest of the church being in ruins. Some of the prebendal stalls are still entire in the choir, and the original roof and ceiling. The steeple is a modern erection, 128 feet high. Here are still some remains of the episcopal residence, which in Slezer's time, after the Revolution, as appears from the view of the city in his " Theatrum Scotise," was then a ruin of considerable extent, and a sequestered promenade in the neigh bourhood is known as the Bishop''s Walk. Slezer mentions that " in the ruins is an ancient picture representing the Countess of Stratherne, with her children, kneeling, asking a blessing from St. Blasius, clothed in his pontifical habit." The greater part of this Cathedral was dilapidated by a band of Reformers led by the Earl of ArgyU and the Regent Moray, then Prior of St Andrews, one morning towards the end of June 1559, and the interior was pwrified, whUe the people were at mass, in the absence of Bishop William Chisholm, who was peculiarly obnoxious to the marauders. The Register of Dunblane, commencing 15th January 1663, is extant in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates at • Macculloch's Highlands and Western Islands of Scotland, Edin. 1824, vol. i. p. AT THE RESTORATION. 35 Edinburgh. It is a folio volume, written in a neat style, and chiefly consists of transcripts of leases of the teinds belonging to this poor Bishopric, granted by the Chapter to particular indivi duals after 1663 ; but it contains no information respecting the state of the Diocese, except the names of the Bishops, the pre bendaries, and members of the Chapter. The Register of Dun blane, however, is a valuable document. It is stated in a manu script note at the commencement of the volume, signed by John Swinton, then solicitor for the renewal of leases of the Bishops' Teinds in Scotland, afterwards a Judge in the Court of Session, from 1782 to 1799, by the title of Lord Swinton, that this Regis ter was discovered in the garret of a house in Perth, which " Neil Menzies, surgeon there, purchased from Provost WiUiam Fergu son, whose wife was related to John Graham, commissary-clerk, and clerk of the Chapter of Dunblane." The said Neil Menzies gave it to Patrick Murray, sheriff-clerk of Perth, his great- grandson, who, in 1767, says Lord Swinton, " gave it to me, mentioning that he believed it to be a record of the Bishopric of Dunblane," in Mr. Graham's handwriting, "as it might be use ful to me in my office of solicitor for Bishops' Teinds." The Cathedral of the Archiepiscopal Diocese of Glasgow, stUl the most interesting object of antiquity in that large and populous commercial city, now claims our notice as the chief of the western Dioceses. The foundation of the See of Glasgow is generally as cribed to St Mungo, or Kentigern, in A. D. 560, and tradition aUeges that the holy man was burned at the east end of the ground on which the church stands, his tomb being pointed out in the Crypt below. Previous to 1100, St Mungo's church was an erec tion of wood, and was a very humble edifice. John Achaius, who suc ceeded to the See in 1129, began the Cathedral, and the portion of it buUt by him was solemnly consecrated in 1133, in the pre sence of David I. Bishop Joceline added to the Cathedral, and it was carried on by succeeding Bishops, though very few notices are recorded of the progress of the work. It was designed to be in the form of a cross, but the transepts were never erected, the founda tions of the south one, covering a funeral arched vault beneath, having only been laid. It appears that in the fourteenth century, the great spire was of wood ; for in 1387, during the episcopate of Mathew Glendoning, it was destroyed by lightning. In 1408, 36 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS Bishop WiUiam Lauder, his successor, built the great tower to the first battlement, and also laid the foundation of the chapter house. Bishop John Cameron succeeded Bishop Lauder, and he expended considerable sums in completing the Cathedral and Epis copal Castle — the Royal Infirmary now occupying the site of the latter. Bishop Andrew Muirhead, who obtained the See in 1455, also adorned and beautified the Cathedral. This magnificent old edifice of Saxon architecture stands on the banks of the ravine traversed by the Molendinar rivulet, on the north-east side of Glasgow, in the locality called the Townhead. Previous to the repairs and alterations contemplated in 1843, the church measured 319 feet from east to west ; width, 65 feet ; Jieight of the nave, 90 feet ; of the choir, 85 feet — the general character of the whole structure being the early English, excel lently designed and executed. The interior contains 147 piUars, and the whole is lighted by 159 windows, many of them of exqui site workmanship. " The composition of the nave and choir" observes Mr. Rickman, " is different, but each very good. In the choir the capitals are flowered, in the nave plain. These in the choir very much resemble some capitals in the transepts at York Minster, and are equally well executed. The west door is one of great richness and beauty, and bears a strong resemblance to the doors of the continental churches, being a double door, with a square head to each aperture, and the space above fiUed with good niches. The general design of the doorway is French, but the mouldings and details are EngUsh." A splendid tower, surmounted by a graceful spire, rises from the centre. The grand entrance is on the west end, and on the south and north are doors ; the choir, locally known as the High Church, is the only part of the Cathe dral now used by the Presbyterians, and behind are the Lady Chapel and the Chapter-House. The latter, at the north end of the chancel, forms a cube of 28 feet, and the groined ceiUng is supported by a piUar 20 feet high. The Consistory House, in which the Bishops held their ecclesiastical courts, projects from the north-west corner of the Cathedral, is 25 feet long, and 23 feet broad ; but as it is evidently a more modern addition, it in jures the general harmony of the whole building. The Dripping Aisle, so caUed from the perpetual dropping of water from the roof, is the lower part of the unfinished transept, long a place of AT THE RESTORATION. 37 sepulture for the parochial incumbents of Glasgow. The Crypt, under the choir and chancel of the Cathedral, is not surpassed by any similar structure in Great Britain. M'Ure, the gossiping historian of Glasgow, who describes the Crypt when it was fitted up as a place of worship for the parishioners of the Barony parish, states, that " it is of length 108 feet, and 72 feet wide ; it is sup ported by 65 pillars, some of which are 18 feet in circumference ; the height of each, 18 feet ; it is illuminated with 41 windows." The piers and groining of the pillars are of the most intricate character, beautifully designed and executed, the groinings having rich bosses, and the doors much enriched with foliage and other ornaments. The Crypt is again restored to its ancient purpose as an impressive region of death, at the east end of which is the sup posed recumbent statue of St Mungo over his reputed grave. The noble Cathedral of Glasgow only escaped the fate of the Cathedral of St Andrews at the Reformation by the prudence of the Lord Provost of the city, who appears to have been Robert Lindsay of Dunrod. The populace wished to pull down this grand fabric of former ages, and the Provost alleged that he was equally anxious for its destruction ; but he advised them first to build a new church. This suggestion appeared reasonable, and the church was saved from the tempest of the Reformation. The citizens soon recovered their attachment to their Cathedral ; for some years afterwards, when the famous Andrew Melville, then Principal of the University, and the preachers in the neighbourhood, had in duced the Magistrates to sanction its demolition, the incorpo rated trades ran to arms, took possession of the church, and threatened instant death to the first individual who offered to in jure a stone. They even compelled the Magistrates to raake a solemn declaration that the edifice would be preserved. The work of renovating the Cathedral of Glasgow was in active progress in 1843. The Cathedral of Galloway was at the royal burgh of Whit horn, in the county of Wigton, on Wigton Bay. Nothing is re covered of its architectural appearance, size, dimensions, or even of its ultimate destruction. The church is so completely dUapi dated, or rather demolished, by time and human violence, that only a few old arches remain, one of them of the Saxon order, al- 38 SCOTTISH ARCHBISHOPRICS AND BISHOPRICS. most entire, and much admired as the finest specimen of the kind in that quarter of Scotland. The Cathedral of the See of Argyll, a See founded about 1200, and disjoined from the Diocese of Dunkeld, was in the Island of Lismore, at the mouth of the large inlet of Loch Linnhe, nearly eight miles from Oban. The chancel of the Cathedral, after hav ing been considerably altered, is used as a Presb}i:erian place of worship, but nothing is known of the original edifice, the date of its erection, or the buUder. Four miles west of this Island Cathedral, such as it now is, are the ruins of the Bishop's Castle, having a square open court in the interior. The parish church of St Mary at Rothsay, in the Island of Bute, was one of the cathedral churches of the Diocese of The Isles for a considerable time before the Reformation, and the sole Cathedral during the establishraent of the Episcopal Church in the seventeenth century. It was probably buUt about the end of the thirteenth century, and was taken down in 1692. The most of the materials were used to erect a new one, which was succeeded by the present Presbyterian edifice, buUt in 1795. Near this the waUs of the choir of the old church of St Mary are stiU seen, and in it Robert WaUace, Bishop of the Isles, was interred in 1669. Such is a sketch of the past and present state of the ancient Ca thedrals of the Scottish Sees, for that of St GUes at Edinburgh was not so constituted tiU the foundation of the Bishopric by Charles I. in 1633. It wiU thus be seen, that in only a few of them was divine service performed by the Bishops and clergy after the Re formation, and those now whoUy or partly entire are defaced and deformed to adapt them to the Presbj^terian raode of worship. No aUusion is here raade to the destruction of the monasteries, abbeys, priories, and other religious houses, as the present volume has only to do with the ecclesiastical edifices connected with the Sees. CHAPTER II. THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND AND ITS CONSEQUENCES — THE LAST ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS, AND THE FIRST PROTESTANT PREACHERS, IN SCOTLAND. The destructive outrages committed in Scotland at the outbreak of the Reformation attracted the attention of several distinguished raembers of the Church of England, who appear to have fraternized considerably with the Reformers of Switzerland. John Knox ar rived in Edinburgh from France on the 2d of May 1559, and the first fruits of his orations were the destruction of most of the Cathe drals and religious houses. The reader may form some idea of the kind of information then current in England, at least in London, and of its authenticity, from several letters of Bishop Jewel to Peter Martyr : — " In Scotland we hear that there have been some dis turbances, I know not of what kind, respecting matters of religion ; that the nobles have driven out the monks, and taken possession of the monasteries; that some French soldiers of the garrison, [probably Edinburgh Castle is meant] have been slain in a riot, and that the Queen [Mary of Guise, widow of James V., and mo ther of Queen Mary, then Regent] was so incensed, as to proclaim the banishment of the preacher Knox by sound of horn, according to the usual custom in Scotland when they mean to send any one into exUe. What has becorae of him I know not."* In another letter is the following information : — " Every thing is in a ferment • John Jewel to Peter Martyr, no date, but supposed to be 1559, in the " Zurich Letters, comprising the Corre,spondence of several English Bishops and others with the Helvetian Eeformers, during the early part of the Eeign of Queen Elizabeth," edited and translated for the Pakkeb Society, by the Eev. Hastings Eobinson, D.D. &c. 1843, p. 24. 40 the REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1559, in Scotland. Knox, surrounded by a thousand followers, is hold ing assemblies throughout the whole kingdom. The old Queen [Dowager and Regent] has been compelled to shut herself up in garrison. The Nobility, with united hearts and hands, are re storing reUgion throughout the country in spite of aU opposition, AU the monasteries are everywhere leveUed with the ground, the theatrical dresses, the sacrilegious chalices, the idols, the altars,- are consigned to the flames ; not a vestige of the ancient superstition and idolatry is left. What do you ask for? You have often heard of drinking like a Scythian, but this is churching like a Scythian^'* It is melancholy to find such a man as Bishop Jewel not merely writing gross absurdities to his correspondent Peter Martyr, but actuaUy exulting at the committal of the outrages caused by Knox, which he weU knew must have been of the most serious consequences, and productive of the greatest distress and poverty, to say nothing of the valuable property destroyed, which to a country then so poor as Scotland must have been a severe de privation. But as the Established Episcopal Church of Scotland had no connection with the public affairs of those times, and was never linked in any way with the Roman Catholic Hierarchy which was prostrated by the Reformation, it is only necessary to narrate those transactions illustrative of the change of religious opinions, and the introduction of Presbyterianism into the country previous to the establishment of Episcopacy as the apostolical and primi tive government of the Church. And as the present work is not intended to be a History of the Reformation, or of the strife of partizanship which it engendered, it is only necessary to foUow the pubUc events which were to exercise an important influence on the government and the community. In the Parliament which met at Edinburgh on the 29th of No vember 1558, the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, and Dunblane, were present. The Archbishop of St Andrews was John Hamilton, an iUegitiraate son of James first Earl of Arran, who was translated to the Primacy from Dunkeld soon after the murder of Cardinal Beaton. The Archbishop of Glasgow was James Beaton, nephew • Jewel to Peter Martyr, London, August 1, 1550, p. 39, 40. 1560.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 41 of the Cardinal, and the successor of Archbishop Dunbar in the See. The Bishop of Dunkeld was Robert Crichton, advanced to that See after the translation of Archbishop Hamilton. The Bishop of Aberdeen was "SVUliam Gordon, fourth son of Alexander third Earl of Huntly. The Bishop of Moray was Patrick Hepburn, third son of Patrick first Earl of Bothwell, and brother of John Hep burn, Bishop of Brechin, who died in the month of August the same year in which this Parliament met ; and the Bishop of Dun blane was WiUiam Chisholm, uncle of William Chisholm, the last Roman Catholic Bishop of that See, his coadjutor. Fourteen Abbots and Priors also took their seats in this Parliament, exclu sive of Lord James Stuart, Prior of St Andrews, and Sir James Sandilands, styled Lord St John, or Preceptor of the Knights Templars, both of whom were laymen. The only business of any importance which the Parliament transacted was to negotiate and ratify the marriage of the young Queen Mary and the Dauphin of France, son of the " maist cristine king," afterwards Francis II. After this meeting of the Estates the destruction of the monas teries and churches took place; the triumphant party deposed the Queen Regent from her office, and appointed a council, too nume rous to be of much essential benefit, for the government of the kingdom until the Parliament again met; and defended their con duct on the plea that they were hereditary counciUors of their sovereign, describing themselves, moreover, as " the Nobility and Commons of the Protestants of the Church of Scotland.'''' The Parliament, in which was sealed the fate of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy of Scotland as an ecclesiastical establishment, met at Edinburgh on the 1st of August 1560. The Church dig nitaries mustered in considerable force. The Archbishop of St Andrews, the Bishops of Dunkeld and Dunblane already mention ed, James HamUton, Bishop-elect of Argyll, brother of the Arch bishop, but never consecrated, Alexander Gordon, Bishop of Gallo way, on whom the Pope had conferred the title of Archbishop of Athens, and John Campbell, Bishop-elect of the Isles, were pre sent. It thus appears that before the Reformation the Bishops were entitled to take their seats in the Scottish ParUament after their election to their Sees, even previous to their consecration. No fewer than twenty-one Abbots and Priors attended, including 42 the REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1560. Lord James Stuart, the lay Prior of St Andrews.* The proceed ings are not recorded tUl the 18th of August, when the " Confes sion of Fayth professed and believed by the Protestants within the realme of Scotland" was produced. This is said to have been the corapUation of a coraraittee, though Knox is generaUy considered the principal, and it was " pubUschit by thame in Parhament, and by the Estatis thairof ratifeit and' approvit as haUsome and sound doctrine, groimdit upoun the infaUibiU trewth of God's word." This production, which is of considerable length, and is inserted in the Acts of the Scottish Parliament, has never been minutely analyzed by Presbjiierian writers, and most assuredly it contains Uttle to favour many points of their system.-f Although evidently an emanation from the school of Calvin, so far as it discusses the speculative doctrines of election and predestination, this Confes sion neither maintains parity in the ministerial office, nor denies the episcopal government of the Church CathoUc. It is for the most part doctrinal, and after an introductory preamble, in cludes the foUowing subjects : — " Of God — Of the Creatioun of Man — Of OriginaU Sin— Of the Revelatioun of the Promeis — The continuance, increase, and preservatioun of the Kirk — of the Incamatioun of Chryst Jesus — why it behovit the Mediator to be very God and very man — Electioun — Chryst's Death, Pas sioun, BuriaU, &c. — Resurrectioun — Ascensioun — Faith in the Haly Gaist — The same of Gude Warkis — What ^Varkis are re- putit gude before God — The Perfectioun of the Law and Imper- fectioun of Man — Of the Kirk — The ImmortaUtie of the SauUs — Of the Notis by the quhUk the trew Kirk is decemit fra the false, and quha shall be judge of the Doctrine — The authoritie of the Scriptures — Of Generall Counsells, of thair Power, authoritie, and cause of thair conventioun — Of the Sacraments — Of the rycht ad ministratioun of the Sacraments — To quhorae Sacraments apper- teine — Of the Civil Magistrate — The Gifts freUe gevin to the Kirk." Many of these subjects are discussed at considerable length, and some of them contain the very language of the Thirty-Nine * Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ii. p. 523. t Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ii. p. 526-534. 1560.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 43 Articles approved by the Convocation held at London in 1552, only eight years before, which Knox and the compilers must have seen. Thus, in the one entitled " Of the Kirk" — it is stated — " We utterlie abhorr the blasphemie of thame that affirme that men quhilk live according to equitie and justice sal be saved, quhat religioun that ever they have professit." In the one entitled " General Counsells," the compilers affirm — " As we do not raschly denie that quhilk godlie men assembUt togidder in generall counsel lauchfuUie gadderit have proponit unto us ; so, without just exarainatioun, dar we not ressave quhatsaever is obtrudit unto men under the narae of General Counsells ; for plane it is that thay wer men, sa have sum of thame manifestlie erred, and that in materis of greit wecht and importance ;" and they conclude by de claring — " Not that we think that ane policie and ane ordour in cere monies can be appointit for all aiges, tymes, and places ; for as ce remonies, sic as men have devysit, ar bot temporali, so may and aucht thay to be changeit when they rather foster superstitioun, than that thay edifie the Kirk using the same." But the sentiments of the compilers of this Confession respecting the Sacraments are worthy of notice, because they are utterly at variance with those of the Scottish Presbyterians of modern times who claim Knox and his associates as the founders of their system. " We utterlie denie the vanitie of those that affirme Sacramentis to be nathing else but nakit and bair signes. No; we assuritlie believe that by baptisme we are ingraffit in Christ Jesus, to be maid partak- aris of his justice, by quhilk our sins are coverit and remittit. And also that in the Supper rychtlie usit Christ Jesus is sa joynit with us, that he becumes the very nurischement and fude of our saulis. Not that we imagine ony transubstantiatioun of breid in Cristis naturall body, and of wyne in his naturall bluide, as the Pa^ pists have perniciously taucht and damnablie believit, but this unioun and conjunctioun quhilk we have with the body and blude of Christ Jesus is wrought by the operatioun of the Haly Gaist." Mr. Tytler, who pronounces this Confession to be " a clear and admirable summary of Christian doctrine grounded on the word of God," thus writes — " On most essential points it approximates in definitely near, and in many instances uses the very words of the Apostles' Creed, and the Articles of the Church of England as established by Edward VI. Thus, in the section on Baptism, the 44 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1560. Scottish Confession of Faith declares—' We assuredly beUeve, that by baptism we are ingrafted into Je.^us Christ, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted.' Compare this with the Article of Edward VI. and EUzabeth, ' Of Baptism.' It is there said to be a sign not only of profession but of regeneration, wherebv as an instrument they that receive bap tism rightly ' are grafted into the Church.'' " After observing that a passage in the same Confession on the Lord's Supper consists of the " precise words," as in the Articles of Edward VI., Mr. Tytler adds — " Indeed, it is worthy of remark, that in these holy mysteries of our Faith this Confession, drawn up by the primitive Scottish Reformers, keeps in some points at a greater distance from the rationalizing of ultra-protestantism than the Articles of Edward."* This Confession was read in the Parliament on the 17th of August, and confirmed by the three Estates. On the 24th of August the jurisdiction of the Pope in Scotland was abolished, under the penalty, in the case of those who persist in acknowledg ing the papal supremacy, of " proscription, banishment, and never to bruike honor, office, nor dignitie within this realme :" and that " na Bischop nor uther Prelat use any jurisdiction in tymes to cum by the said Bischop of Rome's authoritie under the pane fore said." AU previous Acts of ParUament on reUgious raatters, " not agreeing with God's holie Word," were repealed; and the celebra tion of or resorting to mass was prohibited, " under the pane of confiscatioun of aU thair gudes movable and umnovable, andpunis- sing of thair bodies at the discrecioun of the magistrate within avhose jurisdictioun sik personis happynis to be apprehendit, for the first fait ; banissing of the realme for the secund fait ; and justifying to the death for the third fait." In reference to the penalties enacted against the supporters of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy by the very men who," declaimed against its tyranny, and declared its ministers to be usurpers, it may be merely observed that we need not accuse Rome of a mo nopoly of persecution. This Confession is cliiefly remarkable as having been the common creed of the Established Episcopal • History of Scotland, by Patrick Fraser Tytler, Esq. vol. ii. Edinburgh, 1S37. Svo. Edit. p. 212-213. 1560.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 45 Church in subsequent times, and of the Presbyterians, until they adopted the Westrainster Confession. It was adopted by Knox, Row, Winram, Willox, Spottiswoode (father of the Archbishop), and Douglas, Rector of the University of St Andrews, and after wards the first titular Archbishop of that See. Although only four days were employed in the preparation of this summary of the doctrines which they considered true, and necessary ^o be received, an examination proves that it embodies the result of much previous study and theological research. The compilers were considerably divided in opinion, Spottiswoode, Winram, WiUox, and Douglas, being anxious merely to reform corruptions and abuses, while Knox and Row contended for a complete change. It has been argued that the Parliament which ratified the Confession was ille gal, because at the time there was no accredited Government in Scotland, and it wanted the sanction of the Sovereign ; but though the objection is important, it is now of little moment, for all the Acts of this Parliament were confirmed by Queen Mary in 1577, or rather by the Regent Moray. The timidity and apathy of the Roman Catholics who were present, and heard the Confession read and ratified, may justly be pronounced disgraceful. Not one of them raised his voice against it, and the "Earl Marischal bitterly animadverted on their conduct. The Earl of Atholl, Lord Borth wick, and Lord Somerville, were the only opponents, but they contented themselves with merely declaring that they would " be lieve as their fathers had believed." The First Book of Discipline, the work of the same compilers, was also presented with this Con fession ; but neither it nor the Secqnd Book of Discipline ever re ceived the sanction of law. An analysis of the forraer work is un necessary on the present occasion. It may be observed that by this First Book of Discipline the election of " ministers" was vested solely in the people, after which the individuals were to be exa mined publicly by other ministers and elders, before admitted to discharge their functions. If such examination was satisfactory, each individual so elected was to be introduced to his congrega tion by his brethren without ordination or ceremony of any kind — the " approbation of the people, and the declaration of the chief minister, that the person presented is appointed to serve," being expressly declared sufficient ; for, according to the compilers, " albeit the Apostles used the imposition of hands, yet seeing the 46 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1560. miracle is ceased, the using the ceremony we judge not to le neces sary!''' The conduct of the triumphant party, and the pusillanimity of the Roman Catholic Prelates, in this aUeged Parliament of 1560, are thus noticed in a MS. sketch written at the time of the Re volution : — " Upon the whole, it can scarcely be said that a right step was taken by either party at that time. The Reformers did all in a hurry, with violence and precipitation, breaking through all order and decency, and aUowing themselves to be made tools by a few ambitious aspirers, who perhaps had something less than religion in their eye. On the other hands it wiU not be easy to underrate the conduct of the Popish churchmen either. Their general sUence under the attacks that were made upon the Hier archy and rights of the Church gave their adversaries too much advantage over them, and made the equity of their cause too much suspected, according to what Spottiswoode tells us of the Earl Marischal's speech in what was called the Parliament of 1560 — ' Seeing ray Lords the Bishops, who by their learning can, and for the zeal they have for the truth, would, as I suppose, gainsay any thing repugnant to it, say nothing against the Confession we have heard, I cannot think but it is the very truth of God, and the con trary of it false and deceivable doctrine.' Such a silence, I do think, was not agreeable to the practice of the first Christians in such cases. They preached and wrote, held Councils, and published decisions ; and even when under the persecutions of heathenish or oppressions of heretical Emperors, still they kept up a succession of church governors in every national church, and asserted, both with vigour and patience, their original and spiritual privileges ; whereas it does not appear that any such thing was done by the Popish clergy in Scotland at that time."* Such was the faU of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy in Scotland, with the miserable prostration of its digni taries, when not one of them had the courage to raise his voice in defence or paUiation of that system of which they ought to have been the resolute defenders. It is, however, stated, on the autho rity of Archbishop Hamilton, that the Bishops of Dunkeld, Dun blane, and another, probably indicating hiraself, opposed the new Confession ; but it is evident that he must mean what is caUed a • MS. Advocates' Library, (marked 32, 3, 7,) p. 120, 121. 1560.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 47 silent mte, though it is probable that they were intimidated by their peculiar circumstances. Several of them, considering the meeting as Ulegal, absented themselves ; and others, who took their seats, having protested against the injustice of excluding them from being chosen Lords of the Articles, refused to interfere. A bUl of complaint was presented against them by the Barons, " con taining," says Randolph, the English ambassador, " rather a gene ral accusation of all living Bishops than any special crime they were burdened with." No answer was returned to this document by the Prelates, and as the Archbishop of St Andrews, and the Bishops of Dunkeld and Dunblane, who were specially cited, ne glected to appear, a decree was passed for the " stay of their livings." All the leases which the Prelates had granted to pre serve their lands from the avaricious grasp ofthe Reforming leaders, under the stipulation that the rents were to be paid, and the lands reconveyed to their original proprietors in more prosperous times, which had been duly sanctioned by the Pope, were declared to be void, without further process of law.* The First Book of Discipline encountered a determined oppo sition. Knox and his colleagues suggested a most impracticable scheme for coUecting the ecclesiastical revenues, which it was never supposed for a moment would be appropriated by the rapa cious reforming nobility to their own use. It was recommended that " annual deacons should be surrogated into the room of the former legal proprietors," to coUect the tithes and rents of the church lands, and " those deacons were to distribute the incomes according to warrants signed by the ministers and elders."-f- This proposition was received with scorn, and ironically termed " a devout imagination." As a reply to the suggestion of Knox, it was subsequently enacted by the Secret Council on the 17th of January 1560-1, that " the Bishops, Abbots, Priors, and other Prelates, and beneficed Vicars, who have also joined theraselves to us, bruik [enjoy] the revenues of their benefices during their lifetiraes, they sustaining and upholding the ministry and minis ters for the preaching of the word, and the ministration of the sacraments." Dr George Cook, a Presbyterian writer of high * Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. vi. Svo edit. p. 220, 221. t Bishop Keith's History, p. 494. 48 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAXD [1560. authority, thus expresses himself on the appropriation of the temporalities at the Reformation :— '• Had the Papal Bishops been succeeded by men invested with the episcopal character, it would have been very difficult for the laity, as the law then stood, to wrest from the Church her ample possessions. By destroying the ancient policy, and laying the foundation ofa new church, these possessions were left avithout a legal owner, and it might have been perceived that the nobles and barons would feel little inclina tion to endow the infant establishment with the wealth which they had so long contemplated with envy, when it ministered to the ' pomp and the indulgence of the priesthood."* MeanwhUe the first General Assembly of this new religious association, for the Roman Catholic Hierarchy was stUl the legal ; establishment, and, as will be subsequently seen, the Bishops con tinued to sit in Parliament, was held at Edinburgh on the 20th of December 1560. It consisted of forty-six individuals, preachers and private individuals, of whom John Knox was the most con spicuous, as " minister " of Edinburgh. A list was presented of those persons who were thought most qualified for the " ministering of the Word of God and Sacraments, and reading of the com munion prayers publicklie in all kii'ks and congregations, and given up by them every ane within their awin bounds." Eight individuals were nominated " readers," with a certain John Chal mers, described as " apt to teach," in the district of Ayrshire, anciently termed Kyle ; twenty-one were nominated " for minister ing and teaching " in St Andrews, probably 'meaning the Diocese generaUy ; and twelve are " thought apt and able " by the forty- six " ministers and commissioners" comprising the Assembly, " to minister." On the 21st of December, the deanery church' of Restalrig, about a mile and a half equaUy distant from Leith and Edinburgh, and then the parish church of Leith, was ordered to be " raysit, and utterlie casten downe and destroyed," because it was a " monument of idolatrie." On the 27th of December, sundry resolutions were adopted in opposition to the " Pope's Kirk," and it was resolved to apply to Parliament and the Lords of Secret Council to inflict " sharp punishment " on sundry per sons of rank in Wigtonshire, Kirkcudbrightshire, Haddingtonshire, Cook's History of the Eeformation in Scotland, vol: ii. p. 415. 1500.] AND ITS CONSEQtJENCES. 49 Fifeshire, Selkirkshire, and Ayrshire, for '• causing masses to be said, and being present thereat." Among them are specified in the district of GaUoway, now the counties of Wigton and Kirkcud bright, the Prior of Whithorn and the Laird of KirmichaeU, the latter charged with causing " masse daylie to be said, and images holden up, and idolatrie to be maintained within his bounds." In Ayrshire the principal recusants were the Earls of Eglinton and CassiUis, the Abbots of Crossraguel, and the parishioners of May bole, Girvan, Kirkoswald, and Dailly. The " auld Ladie Hume in Thornetoun" is denounced in Haddingtonshire, and " the good- man" of Galashiels in Selkirkshire., who " not only causes masse to be said, but also maintains the sayers thereof, who are enemies to God and his truth, and therefore were exylit out of Edin burgh."* It is clear, from a careful examination of all the proceedings of Knox and his associates, that they had adopted no regular plan for their new religious system. They appointed preachers in most of the principal towns, and they next subdivided a considerable part of the kingdom into five districts, to each of which they no minated persons to exercise a kind of jurisdiction or controul, under the, title of Super-iniendents, over the preachers in the seve ral towns and parishes. It was contemplated to increase those Superintendents to ten, but this was never effected, and even the five continued in their anomalous and illegal vocation only a short time. Those were John Spottiswoode, for the counties south of the Frith of Forth, to the English Border ; John Winram, for the county of Fife ; John WUlox, for the counties included in the Archepiscopal Diocese of Glasgow ; John Carswell, for the Bishop rics of ArgyU and The Isles ; and John Erskine, Baron or " Laird" Dun, for the counties of Forfar and Kincardine, then known as Angus and Mearns. With the exception of Erskine of Dun, aU the " Superintendents " were in holy orders. Spottiswoode, who was descended from ancient family in Berwickshire, had been ordain ed by Archbishop Cranmer in England, and when he returned to Scotland he was appointed " parson" of Calder in Linlithgowshire by Sir James Sandilands, a parish which he held tiU hii^ death. " " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland," or Acts and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland from 1560. Printed for the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 4to. 1839. Part I. p. 3-6. 4 50 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1560. Winrara had been Sub-Prior of St Andi-ews, and was an Augus tine Monk. He is described by Principal Lee, of the University of Eduiburgh, who is considered very high Presb^ierian authority, as '• a man of an intrigumg turn, and probably was admitted to the confidence of both pai-ties. It is not understood that he ever made any strenuous efforts in support of the Protestant doctrmes ; but he was aUowed to retain some of the most lucrative appoint ments In the church, along with the dignity and honour of Super intendent. In various actions carried on before the Commissary Court of St Andrews he continued to be designated Pnor of Portmoak, Sub-Prior of St Andrews, Superintendent of Stratherne, Parson ofKirkness, &c.tiU the time of his deathin September 1582."* In 1566, Winram appears, however, to have becorae weary of the " dignity and honour" of Superintendent of Fife, as he confessed to the General Assembly that year " his own inabUitie to discharge the office, and desired the AssembUe to denude him of it."f Wil lox was originaUy a Dominican Friar in the town of Ayr, and it appears that after his appointment as Superintendent he took possession of the Dean's residence In Glasgow, and continued to receive L.IOOO (probably Scots money) per annum out of the re venues of the Archbishopric! CarsweU was rector or parson of Kilmartine in Argyllshire, and haring been patronized by the Earl of Argyll, a zealous reformer, he was promoted to this office by the interest of that nobleman, to assist him in his projects of seizing the temporahties of the Bishoprics of ArgyU and The Isles. The facUity with which the Superintendent WUlox was enabled to receive a considerable portion of the revenues of the See of Glasgow is easUyexplained. At the outbreak of the Reformation in 1559, Archbishop James Beaton, already mentioned as the Cardi nal's nephew, retired to Paris, and he subsequently obtained con siderable preferment in France. The victorious Insurgents insti tuted a legal process against him, and sequestered aU the revenues of his See. The Archbishop carried with hira some of the silver • Notice prefixed to the Eevocation of the sentence of heresy pronounced by Cardinal Beaton against Su: John Borthwick, son of Lord Borthwick. Bannatyne Club, 4to, 1827, vol. i. p. 254. t Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, part I. p. 77. t Letter of Thomas Archibald, Chamberlain to Archbishop Beaton of Glasgow, at Paris, dated 10th October 1560. 1560.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 51 ornaments, charters, documents, and whatever he could save frora certain destruction by the mob. He never returned to Scotland, and before his death in 1603 he committed them to the care of the Scottish College of Douay and ordered all the writings to be restored when the Papal Hierarchy was re-established. It may be here observed that most of the documents were sent to Scotland in 1839, and were deposited in the Roman Catholic Col lege of St Mary at Blairs, In Maryculter parish, near Aberdeen. But extraordinary, unecclesiastical, and preposterous as was the new religious association, it is singular to find the Roman Catholic Prelates proffering to maintain its preachers. At a meeting of the Convention of Estates held at Edinburgh on the 22d of December 1561, the Archbishop of St Andrews, and the Bishops of Dunkeld, Moray, and Ross, appeared and offered to relinquish the third part of their revenues for various purposes, after the amount of the rentals was accurately ascertained, and " siclyke to charge the whole Superintendents, ministers, eldars, and deacons, of the principale touns and shires of this realme to give in before the Queen's grace and Lords of Counsale foirsaid, [on] the 24th day Januar next to cum, ane formale and sufficient roU and meraoriaU what may be sufficient and reasonable to sustene the ministerie and whole mem bers ofthe realme, that her Majestie and Lords of Counsale foirsaids may tak order thairintil as accords." The same Prelates on that occasion also offered, on the condition that their benefices and pri* vileges were restored to them, to the " Queen's Majestie for the space of ane yeir the third part of the rents of thair benefices, to be employit as hir Grace thinkis expedient, and this they offerit, and na forder."* Queen Mary landed at Leith frora France on the 20th of August 1561, and soon found her kingdom in a religious, political, and cIvU feud. This unfortunate Sovereign assumed the government of a people little removed from barbarism, and excited by the most extravagant fanaticism. The ecclesiastical establishment was sub verted; the temporalities seized by the powerful nobility; and a religious polity was openly sanctioned which was not only iU di gested, but apparently not weU understood by Its authors. The whole country was in a state of confusion, and religion was made • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ii. Appendix, p. 606, 607. 52 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1561-2. the pretext for committing atrocious crimes and causing innumer able disorders. The utter inefficiency of the Superimtendmt System is proved by the facts recorded at the time. At the raeeting of the " haiU Kirk," held in the Tolbooth of Edmburgh on the 26th of May 1561, it was resolved to petition the Lords of the Secret Councel " for maintaining, and specIaU provision to be raade for Superintendents, for the erecting and estabUshing of raore in places convenient, and for punishing of the contemners of the said Superintendents, and disobeyers of them."* This indicates that the functionaries were not generally recognized in their new office, and it would startle many to see a man Uke Winrara, who, as al ready observed, is described of " an intriguing tum," who had been the intimate friend of Cardinal Beaton, and who had preached the sermon in the Cathedral of St Andrews at the commencement of Wishart's trial for heresy on the last day of February 1545-6, advocating opinions in 1561 which he then maintained should be opposed by the Church and State, and that those who held them might be lawfuUy put to death. Complaints were soon preferred against the conduct of the Superintendents. In the General Assembly, held in the " Auld CounseU-House" at Edinburgh on the 25th of December 1562 — the sacred festival of Christmas being utterly disregarded, Spottiswoode, the Superintendent of Lothian, was alleged to be " somewhat slack in his visitations, and remaned not at the kirks for ordering such things as were necessar for the same ; that he was too much given to worldlie affaires, slack in preaching, rash In excomraunlcatioun, sharper nor became him in making acts for payment of sraall tithes." Even of the Baron of Dun, lay Superintendent of Angus and Mearns, It was complained, that " manie popish priests, unable and of wicked life, were admitted to reading at kirks within his Diocese — ^that some young men were rashlie adraitted to the ministrie, and to be exhortars, without such trial and examination as are required In the Book of Discipline — that gentlemen of vitious lives were chosen to be elders in divers kirks — that sundrie ministers under his jurisdictioun re maned not at thair kirks, visit not the sick in thair extremitie, also that the youth are not Instructed — that some ministers come too late to the kirks where they should preach on the Lord's Day, • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, printed for Bannatyne Club, Part 1, p. 5. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 53 SO that the people doe wearie staying upon thera, and Inconti nent the sermon being ended they depart."* In the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 25th of December 1563 in the " New Tolbuith," It was aUeged against Winram, as Superintendent of Fife, that " he preached not in his visitations, but caused the minister of the kirk to occupie the room ;" and WUlox of Glasgow was accused of not using " his endeavour to procure the extirpation of idolatrie in his bounds," the blame of which he ascribed to the Duke of Chatelherault and the Earl of CassUis. The state of Angus and Mearns was also noticed — that no discipline was used in " many of the kirks" — that " there was no convention of elders and deacons at kirks for correction of faults" — and that Erskine " preached not at his visitations." So completely satisfied were the Superintendents themselves of the utter inefficiency of their system, that on this very occasion Spot tiswoode " requested the Assemblie to give him libertie to return to his forraer cure, because he was not able to discharge so great a burthen as he was burthened with." This was foUowed by a complaint from the parishioners of Calder, that " Mr John Spot tiswoode, presented to the parsonage of Calder fifteen years since by the Laird of Calder, had been presented three years since to be Superintendent of Lowthiane without their knowledge, and that by reason of his public office and exercise he is abstracted frora his cure at the said kirk the most part of the year ; desired, therefore, as before, to cause him renounce his Superintendentship, and returne to his forraer vocation, or else to demitt the said par sonage, to the effect ane other qualified man might be presented." WiUox " desired to be disburthened of the great charge laid upon him, which he had undertaken onlie for a time, and request ed the Assemblie to lay no greater burthen upon him than he was able to bear."-f- Two years afterwards, in the Assembly held at Edinburgh in 1565, when Erskine of Dun was chosen Moderator, he candidly admitted that his " visitations could not be very pro fitable, in respect it behoved him to lodge with his friends for the raost part, who had most need of correction and discipline ; there fore he besought the AssembUe to provide some other to that office."! ¦• Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part 1, p. 25, 26. t Ibid. p. 39. % Ibid. p. 65.- 54 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. Some of the ordinary preachers were becoming dissatisfied with the unscriptural system of ecclesiastical poUty with which they were connected, and which had not received any legal sanction. A cer tain Robert Ramsay was accused in the Assembly of 1563 of " en tering In the ministrie within the Superintendent of Angus his bounds without electioun or his admission ; and that he affirmed there was a mid way between Papistrie and our religion ^ It is true It was also aUeged against the said Robert Ramsay that he had , borrowed some money on security from the town of Inverness to purchase books, which he had not paid ; but as this was a mat ter with which the Assembly had no right to interfere, there can be little doubt that his principal offence was the assertion of the " raid way between Papistrie and their religion." He was sus pended from his functions, and ordered to appear before Winram at St Andrews, on the 19th of January foUovring.* The confusion which succeeded the Reformation In Scotland had its effect on some of the Roraan Catholic Bishops, two of whom associated with the promoters of the new polity, and two others, who were Bishops elect, but never consecrated, joined the same party. The two latter were James HamUton, elect of ArgyU, and Robert Stewart, elect of Caithness ; the two former were Adam BothweU, promoted to the See of Orkney, and Alexander Gordon, Bishop of GaUoway and titular Archbishop of Athens. HamUton was an IUegitiraate son of the Duke of Chatelherault, formerly bet ter known as the Earl of Arran, Regent of the kingdom, and younger brother of Archbishop HamUton of St Andrews. He was at the outset of life Incumbent of Petty in the Diocese of Moray, subsequently Rector of Spott in Haddingtonshire, and after various unsuccessful nominations to the Abbey of Paisley and even the Archbishopric of Glasgow, he was preferred to the See of ArgyU, with the Sub-Deanery of Glasgow, in 1558 ; but there Is no evidence of his consecration. He was on the side of the Reformers in the Convention or ParUament of 1560, in the Ust of which his name appears as James, Bishop of ArgyU. The only other notices of him which subsequently occur are in a charter granted to an Individual in 1565, and his signature to the bond, with other relations of the name of Hamilton, to release Queen • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland— Acts of General AssembUes, Part I. p. 44. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 55 Mary from prison In 1567. He was alive in 1575. His name Is also in the Commission of the Estates appointed in August 1560, to " move the Queene of England to take the Earl of Arran [the Duke of Chatelherault his father] to be her husband."* Robert Stewart, designated Bishop of Caithness, of the temporalities of which he obtained possession, though he was never in holy orders, was the second son of John third Earl of Lennox. He was edu cated for the Church, and there is little doubt that his powerful faraUy connections would have procured for him the highest eccle siastical preferment, as while Provost of the collegiate church of Dunbarton he was made Bishop-elect of Caithness In 1542, at the death of Bishop Andrew Stewart, son of John Earl of Atholl. Before he could enter into holy orders he became involved in the feuds between his brother, Matthew fourth Earl of Lennox, father of Lord Damiey, and the party who supported the Earl of Arran previously mentioned. He Incurred the same forfeiture in 1545 with his brother the Earl, and was compeUed to live in exile till 1563, when he returned to Scotland, and was not only invested with the temporalities of the Bishopric of Caithness, but was eventually rewarded, for complying with the Reformation, by a grant of the Priory of St Andrews, from his brother the Earl during his regency, after the assassination of the Regent Moray. He became sixth Earl of Lennox by royal charter, dated June 1578, at the death of his nephew Charles fifth Earl ; but as he had only one illegitimate daughter, he resigned the earldom of Lennox for that of March in favour of his grandnephew Esme Stewart, Lord of Aubigny in France. The Earl of Lennox or March retained his title of Bishop of Caithness after he became a Protestant, and occasionally took a prominent part in the religious proceedings of his time. He Is mentioned as connected with the " Superintendents, ministers, and commissioners of the Kirk," In the proceedings of the General Asserably held at Perth on the 25th of June 1563, when " coramissions were given to the Bishops of Galloway, Orkney, and Caithness, for the space of a year, to plant kirks within their own bounds."-f- In subse quent Assemblies his name occurs in & similar manner. He resided privately at St Andrews till his death in March 1586, • Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. II. Appendix, p. 606. t Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 32. 56 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563* in the 70th year of his age. Though a mere layman, he is styled in the commission signed at Leith, in 1571, the Right Reverend Father in God Robert, Bishop of Caithness, directing him and the Superintendents of Lothian, Fife, Angus, or " any uthers lamful Bischops and Superintendents within this realm," to consecrate John Douglas as " Bischop and Pastour of the metropolitan kirk of St Androis." This is one of the many instances of the ecclesiastical disorders which succeeded the Reformation In Scotland, when worldliness and fanaticism perpetrated acts utterly opposed to every principle of apostolical and primitive antiquity. More comprehensive notices of the two conforming Bishops, BothweU of Orkney, and Gordon of GaUoway, must be given, be cause those two very questionable personages early connected them selves with the then so called " General Assemblies." The See of Orkney was vacant after the death of Bishop Robert Reid at Dieppe in 1558, when returning with the other commissioners ap pointed to proceed to France to witness the marriage of Queen Mary to the Dauphin. Adam Bothwell, second son of Francis Bothwell, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Scotland at its institution in 1532, was admitted to the temporalities of the See of Orkney on the 11th of October 1559. Bishop BothweU was the uncle of John Napier of Merchiston, the celebrated inventor of Logarithms. He is described by the biographer of that great man as " courtly and luxurious," and " although he was the first Re formed Bishop of Orkney, no prelate of the ancient regime could have been more studious of his ease. He seems to have joined the infant church rather from a sense of the staggering state of the old religion than because he entertained a violent distaste for its corruptions. He succeeded his brother WiUiam as rector of Ashkirk [a parish partly in the counties of Roxburgh and Selku-k] in 1552, and was only about thirty years of age when the vacancy occurred in the See of Orkney which he was selected to fiU."* As he Is designated Bishop of Orkney in the grant investmg him with the temporahties of the Bishopric on the 11th October 1559, he must have been elected by the Chapter some time previous to that date. His consecration is not recorded, but there is no doubt of * Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston, by Mark Napier, Esq. Edin. 4to. 1834, p. 61, 62. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 57 the fact from subsequent acts of his life, and because he was duly elected by the Chapter. In a letter to his " richt honorable and best beloved brother the Laird of Merchistoun," dated Sth Feb ruary, the year supposed to be 1560,* he expressly mentions a visitation which he made of his Diocese, which corrects the asser tion of Keith In his Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, that " Adam of Orkney appears never to have taken any charge of his cure." He was confirmed by Queen Mary in the Bishopric in 1562, about which period he joined Knox's party, and he continued to associate with them, though his office and station rendered him always an object of their suspicion. He was connected with the General Assembly held at Perth in 1563, when he obtained a " commis sion " for one year to " plant kirks " within his Diocese, and the name of Adam, Bishop of Orkney, occurs among the list of the principal persons present in the General Assembly held in the " New Tolbooth " of Edinburgh on the 25th of December that year, when he was appointed one of a committee to revise the Book of Discipline. In June 1565, Adam, Bishop of Orkney, George Buchanan, and four others, were by the same body " ordained to convene, and decide questions proponed or to be proponed, and to report their decision to the Assemblie, that the same may be inserted in the register .""I- He had been nominated an Extraordi nary Lord or Judge in the Supreme Court of Law on the 14th of January 1564, by the promotion of Sir Jaraes Balfour, and an Ordinary Lord or Judge on the 13th of November 1565. This appointment involved no abandonment of any principle by Both- well, because by the original constitution of the Scottish Supreme Court, consisting of a President and fourteen Senators, eight, in cluding the foreman, were to be ecclesiastics, and the distinction of spiritual and temporal judges, as provided by the act of institu tion, was carefully preserved — an ecclesiastic receiving the ap pointment when a vacancy occurred on the spiritual side of the Bench, and a layman at a deficiency on the temporal side ; but this distinction was ordered to be "suppressed and forgotten" by the Act of 1640, by which aU the Judges were enjoined to be of • Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston, by Mark Napier, Esq. p. 68. f Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 60, 61. 58 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. the " temporal estate," or laymen.* " Adam of Orkney, ane of the Sessioun," was present in the General Assembly held at Edin burgh In June 1566. In his judicial capacity or function Both weU appears to have been considered useful, and he was appointed one of two committees, one of which was authorized to " recon sider and revise " an answer to a book by Henry BuUinger, written by WiUiam Ramsay, Professor in St Salvador's CoUege, St An drews ; and the other was to " receive and decide questions, and to report decisions."-f- But the important political affairs with which Bishop Bothwell connected himself soon drew upon him the resentment of his Reform ing associates. He subscribed his name to the bond granted by several of the nobUity to the notorious James Hepburn, Earl of BothweU, on the 20th of April 1567, and he celebrated the un happy marriage of that personage and Queen Mary in the great haU of the Palace of Holyrood House on the 15th of May that year, in the forra of the Protestants then in use. Yet the Bishop of Orkney, imraediately after sanctioning a marriage he had counselled, which involved the Queen in Irretrievable misery, and caused much disorder and bloodshed in the kingdom, joined the powerful association formed against the Earl of BothweU. It is appropriately said of the Bishop of Orkney, and his cousin the Lord Justice-Clerk, Sir John BeUenden, that " two greater hypo crites never breathed," and that " they were deeply impUcated in the rebeUion of the times, and parties to that diaboUcal plan to ruin the Queen which owed its success to treason, murder, rape, and forgery."! In the deed of abdication extorted from Mary in favour of her son James, dated the 24th of July 1567, one of the Commissioners named in the document, as if empowered by the Queen to receive her renunciation of the throne, is Adam, Bishop of Orkney ; and on the 29th of that month he performed the cere mony of crowning the infant King in the parish church of Stirhng, at the histigation of the insurgent nobUity and their adherents. When the Eari of BothweU, whom the Queen at the unhappy mar- i/.o^k'*!.™'' "^T"* "^ *' ^'°'""'' °^ ^^' ^°"'^^ °""^«=« fr<"° its institution in 1532, by George Brunton and David Haig, Edin. Svo. 1832, p. xxxvii. t Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 90. t Napier's Life of John Napier of Merchiston, p. 112. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 59 riage had created Duke of Orkney, fled to that island region after his humiliating disgrace at Carberry Hill near Musselburgh, an armament of five ships was fitted out against him under the com mand of Sir William Murray of TuUibardine, and Sir WilUam Kirkaldy of Grange, two of the most daring personages of that age, and they sailed In quest of Bothwell on the 19th of August 1567, accompanied by the Bishop of Orkney, who went in Kirk aldy's ship named the Unicorn. They descried two of BothweU's ships cruising off the east coast of the Shetland Islands noted for dangerous currents, tides, and whirlpools. Kirkaldy's vessel was the swiftest, and he approached Bressay Sound, through which the fugitive Earl steered. So close was the chace that when BothweU escaped by the north entrance Kirkaldy came in by the south. The foUowers of the Earl knew well those dangerous and narrow seas, and though their keel often grazed the sunken rocks, they soon got into a deeper and safer sea. In opposition to the remonstrance of his more experienced mariners, Kirkaldy, who saw his prize vrithin his grasp, ordered every sail to impel the bulky Unicorn, and the ship struck on a rock covered at high water. It became instantly a wreck, and there was only time to save the crew and soldiers in a boat. Bothwell escaped — but the interest ing part of this adventure followed. "As it was, one warrior heavily arraed still clung to the wreck, and the boat already on Its way deeply laden, it seeraed iraposslble to save this being from de struction. His cries reached them, and were disregarded; another instant of delay, and he had perished; when collecting all his energies, he sprung with a desperate effort into the midst of the crowded boat, causing it to reel with his additional weight, encum bered as he was with a corslet of proof. Who could have sur mised that this athletic man-at-arms, the last to quit the wreck, was a Bishop — the Bishop who had so lately joined the hand of him he pursued with that of Queen Mary — the very Bishop who a month before had poured the holy oU on the infant head of James VI. , and stood proxy for the extorted abdication of that monarch's mother ! It was Adam BothweU, Bishop of Orkney. The rock frora which he leapt can be seen at low water, and is called the Unicorn to this day."* " Napier's Memoirs of John Napier of Merchiston, p. 121, 122, 123. 60 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. The conspicuous enmity of Bishop Bothwell to the Earl of Both- well, and his prominent connexion with the insurgent par^ against Queen Mary, were of little avaU with his Reforming associates of the new " Church." In the General Assembly held in the " Nether Tolbuith" of Edinburgh, on the 25th of December 1567—" Adam, called Bishop of Orkney, Commissioner for Orkney, being absent, was deleted for not visiting the kirks of his country but from Lambraass [Lammas] to Hallowmass. Item, that he occupied the room of a judge in the Session, the sheep wandering without a pastor. Item, because he retained In his own company Sir Francis BothweU, a Papist, to whom he had given benefices, and placed a minister. Item, because he solemnized the marriage of the Queen and the Earl of BothweU, which was altogether wicked, and con trair to God's law and statutes of the Kirk."* On the 30th of December It was declared — " Anent the marriage of the Queene with the Erie of Bothwell, by Adam, caUed Bischop of Orkney, the haUl Kirk finds that he transgressed the Act of the Kirk in marrying the divorcit adulterer, -f- and therfor depryvis him fra ail functioun of the ministrie, conforme to the tenour of the Act made thereupon, ay and until the Kirk be satisfied of the slander com mittit by him."! Calderwood states — " Adara, called Bishop of Orkney, pretended he might not remain in Orkney by reason of the evil air and weakness of his body. He denied that he understood Francis Bothwell to be a Papist, or that he had placed hira in the ministry." This Francis BothweU was a son of either Richard or WilUara, the Bishop's brothers, and is probably the " Freir Fran cis BothweU" who, with three others, found security to appear be fore the Justiciary Court on the 15th of April 1561, for exciting a riot in the town of KirkwaU during the previous September, in which two persons were kiUed."|| The wily Bishop, however, was not long under sentence of deprivation from " all functioun of the ministrie." In the proceedings of this General Assembly held at • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 112. t Bothwell had divorced his Countess, Lady Jean Gordon, daughter of George fourth Eari of Huntly, that he might be enabled to marry the Queen. Lady Jean married subsequently Alexander, eleventh Eari of Sutheriand, and after his death Alexander Ogilvy of Boyne. She died at Edinburgh in 1629 in the 84th year of her age. t Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 114. li Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol. I. p. 413. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 61 Edinburgh on the 1st of July 1568, occurs the following passage, which is sufficiently explanatory — " Touching the Bischop of Ork ney's suspensioun from the ministrie [by] the last Assemblie, and his obedience and submission, the Kirk restores him again to the ministrie of the word, and also ordaines him one some Sonday when he best may for weakness of his body, to make a sermoun in the kirk of Halierudehous, and in the end thereof to confesse the offence in raarrying the Queen with the Erie Bothwell, and desyre the Kirk ther present for the tyrae to forgive him his offence, and slander given by him in doing the fornamet act. The quhilk he promised to doe."* The Bishop of Orkney was conspicuous in the Commission, chiefly composed of the murderers of Rizzio, against Queen Mary, This Commission met first at York, and the Regent Moray was incessantly urged by the Bishop and the more violent of his asso ciates to prefer the charge against the Queen unconditionally. He was also the individual who gave in the document to the English Council accusing the Queen of the murder of Lord Darnley, to which the Regent Moray pretended an opposition. The parties returned to Scotland in February 1568-9, and the disreputable service in which the Bishop of Orkney had been engaged, though approved by the incipient Presbyterian Reformers, who were the bitter enemies of Mary, failed to shield him from their resentment. Shortly after his return from England he exchanged the property of the Bishopric of Orkney with Lord Robert Stewart, Abbot of Holyroodhouse, an illegitimate son of James V., and afterwards created Earl of Orkney by James VI. in 1581, for that. Abbacy, which was ratified by charter under the Great Seal dated the 25th of Septeraber 1569. This transaction exasperated his Reforming friends ; and in the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 1st of March 1569-70, it was made the first of six accusations, or " chief offences" brought against him ; but this alleged " simonia cal charge" of which the wily Bishop was accused, appears to have been forced upon him rauch to his advantage in 1569, as appears by an Act of ParUaraent in 1592, entitled " Exceptioun in favour of Adara Bischope of Orknay." As the six charges now mentioned curiously illustrate the spirit of the times, and of the leaders of the new religious * Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 131. g2 THE REFORMATIOjy IN SCOTLAND [1563. party in Scotland, they are worthy of perusal; more especi ally as they were preferred by men with whom the Bishop of Orkney associated, and who only gave him battle, and tormented him, when they had some sinister purpose of their own in view, or when he objected to comply with sorae of their extravagant conceits. " Imprimis, The said Adam being called to the said office of Bischopric, and promoted to the profit thereof, and espe cially in Christ's Kirk received the charge of preaching of the EvangeU, to be also Commissioner In Orknay, quhUk he accepted, and executed for a certain space thereafter, quhUe now of late he hath made a simoniacaU change of the same with the Abbacy of Halyrudhous, yet bruiking the narae, and stUed Bishop of the same, contrar to aU laws both of God and man made against simony. Secondly, He hath demitted the said office and cure In and unto the hands of an unqualified person, without con sent and licence asked and granted by the Asserably, leaving the flock destitute without a shepherd ; whereby not only ignorance is increased, but also most abundantly all vice and horrible crimes are there committed, as the number of six hundred persons, con- victedof incest, adultery, and fornication InZetland, beareth witness; and hath simpliciter left the office of preaching, giving himself daily to the exercise of the office of a temporali judge as a Lord of the Session, which requireth the whole man, and so rightly no wise can execute both ; and stileth himself with Roman titles, as Reverend Father in God, which pertaineth to no minister of Christ Jesus, nor is given them in Scriptures." The third complains of the " great hurt and defraud of the Kirk," and the assumed injustice done to the " said Lord Robert and his bairnes," by the " simo niacaU" exchange of the rents of Orkney for the third part of the revenue of the Abbey of Holyroodhouse, without " consent or knowledge of the Assembly." The fourth comprises local matters, chiefly accusing him of carelessness and neglect of his ecclesiasti cal duties ; and the fifth, of allowing the parochial edifices to be come so ruinous that it was dangerous to enter them. " Sixth, The said Adam hath accused, both publicly and privately, the minis ters of Edinburgh as persons who have passed the bounds of God's word in their publick teaching, &c. ; In token whereof he hath ab solutely absented himself from aU preaching in the said kirk, and receiving of the sacraments, howbeit he hath had his dweUing 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 63 place within the said burgh [Edinburgh] at certain anddlversetiraes since." They add — " Many more might be laid to his charge, but the Assembly trusting the former being amended, the rest will the better be redressed, doth supersede."* But the Bishop of Orkney was too wily a personage to be easily frightened, and a few days afterwards he presented his answers to the " offences laid to his charge." In reply to the first he de clared — " That in the 58 year of God [1558], before the Reforma tione of religione, he was, according to the order then observed, provided to the Bishopric of Orknay ; and when idolatry and su- perstitione were suppressed, he suppressed the same also in his bounds, preached the word, administered the sacraments, planted ministers in Orkney and Zetland, and gave stipends out of his rents to ministers, exhorters, and readers ; and when he was a commissioner, visited all the kirks of Orkney and Zetland twice, to the hazard of his life in dangerous stormes on the seas, whereby he contracted sickness to the great danger of his life, till he was suspended from the exercise of his said commission in the year 1567, by reason of his infirmity, and sickness contracted through the air of the countrey and travells in time of tempest, at what time he desired some other place to travel in, which was then thought reasonable." He denied that he had demitted any part of his office to Lord Robert Stewart, but " that the said Lord Robert violently intruded himself Into his whole living, with bloodshed and hurt of his servants ; and after he had craved justice, his and his servants' lives were sought in the very eyes of justice in Edinburgh ; and then was he constrained for mere necessity to take the Abbacy of Halyrud- house by advice of sundry godly men, because then we could not have the occasion of a GeneraU Assembly." In reference to the second accusation, he denied that he had abandoned absolutely the preaching of the Word, or that he had intended to do so, maintaining that ill health alone prevented him — that when Queen Mary appointed him a Judge in the Court of Session, he accepted the situation by the " advice of godly and learned men," beheving that it was not repugnant to " any good order as yet established In the Kirk," and " aUedged that diverse others having benefices had done the like, and are not condemned for so doing." • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 162, 163. 64 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. He thus hypocriticaUy noticed the conclusion of the second article, which charged him with assuming " Roman" titles — " With par don and reverence of the Assembly I may declare that I never delighted in such a style, nor desired any such arrogant title ; for I acknowledge myself to be a worm of the earth, not worthy any reverence, giving and attributing to my God only all honour, glory, and reverence, with all humble submission." His answers to the third, fourth, and fifth charges consisted of explanations, modifi cations, and denials, not particularly Interesting." As to the last, he denied thathe "spake any thing butthat whichhespake in the last Assembly in their own audience. God forbid that he should be a detractor of God's ministers for any privie injustice done to him, as he alleged none ; if there were any, he would rather burie them than hinder the progress of the EvangeU. As for absenting himself from their preaching, he answered, he only keeped his own parish kirk, where he received the sacraments.* John Knox and two others were appointed to try the " suffi ciency " of these answers, and to report to the next Assembly ; but as nothing occurs in the records. It may be presumed that the Bishop's defences were considered satisfactory. The General As sembly held at Edinburgh on the 5th of March 1570-1, addressed a letter on that day to their " right worshipfull and their loring brother," Lord Robert Stewart, whom they still designated Com mendator of Holyroodhouse, reminding him of their letter of the 8th of March 1568-9, thanking him for what he had done in " planting kirks " in Orkney and Shetland, and entreating liim not only to " continue to the end," but to cause all who commit gross crimes and immoralities to be severely punished. Mean whUe Bothwell continued to retain both the Abbey of Holyrood^ house and the title of Bishop during his Ufetime, and always after the exchange signed himself " Adam, Bishop of Orkney, Com mendator of Holyroodhouse." He was subsequently connected with various public transactions and matters of state, and died on the 23d of August 1593, in the 67th year of his age. His monument is stiU to be seen In the now ruinous chapel of the Palace of Holyrood, enumerating his titles, and containing a most flattering poetical inscription in Latin, In which this worldly hypo- • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 165-168. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 65 crlte and Intriguing apostate is represented as one of the greatest and the best men of his time. The subsequent history of his family may be here summarily noticed. At what time the un scrupulous Bishop Bothwell availed himself of a wife no intima tion is preserved ; but he married Margaret, daughter of John Murray of Touchadam, some years before 1580, by whom he left three sons and one daughter. John Bothwell, the eldest son, appointed a Lord of Session at his father's resignation in July 1593, and sworn a Privy CounciUor to James VL, whom he ,accorapanied to England in 1603, was created a Peer, by the title of Lord Holyroodhouse, by charter on the 20th of December 1607, with remainder to the heirs-male of Adam, Bishop of Ork ney, failing whom to his own heirs and assigns whosoever. He married a daughter of Sir John Carmichael of Carmichael, by whom he had John, second Lord, who succeeded in 1629-30, and died without issue In 1635. The Peerage was dormant tUl 1704, when it was moved in Parliament that Alexander Bothwell of Glencorse, great-grandson of William, third son of Adam, Bishop of Orkney, who had been served heir to the second Lord, should have his name marked on the rolls of Parliament conform to his precedency. Some legal difficulties intervened, and his son Henry BothweU of Glencorse was served heir to John, second Lord, in 1734. His petition was laid before the House of Lords on the 20th of March, but no judgment was ever pronounced. This gentleman, who died in the Canongate of Edinburgh in February 1755, married Mary, daughter of Lord Niel Campbell, second son of Archibald, eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyll, and father of the Honourable Archibald CampbeU, consecrated a Bishop of the Scottish Episcopal Church at Dundee in 1711, and by her had five sons, four of whom died without issue. Robert, the youngest, who settled in Jamaica, married Margaret, daughter of William Preston, Esq., of Gorton, near Edinburgh, by whom he had one daughter, who married Colin Drummond, M.D., a younger son of George Drummond, Esq., merchant, six times Lord Provost of Edinburgh. The offspring of this marriage were two sons and a daughter. One of the former, Archibald Bothwell of Glencorse, became Lieutenant-Colonel of the Scots Greys, and died in London in 1809. The children of the daugh- 5 66 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. ter are also mentioned, but the race of Adam BothweU, Bishop of Orkney, is now extinct. Alexander Gordon, Bishop of GaUoway, the only other conse crated Bishop who associated with the Reformers, was the second son of John Lord Gordon, by Jane, caUed also Margaret In the Peerage Lists, an IUegitiraate daughter of James IV. by Mar garet, daughter of John Lord Drummond. The Bishop's father was Alexander third Earl of Huntly, and his brother George suc ceeded as fourth Earl. In his early youth he associated much with King James V., with whom he became a favourite, and was Intended to be promoted to the Bishopric of Caithness in 1542, then forfeited by Robert Stewart, afterwards Earl of Lennox, already mentioned, but the election never took place, though the See of Caithness remained vacant from Stewart's forfeiture tUl his return to Scotland, and assumption of the temporahties of the Bishopric In 1563. At the death of Archbishop Dunbar, Gor don was elected by the Chapter to the See of Glasgow, and went to Rome to receive his confirmation, but the enmity of the Regent Arran was again successful, and James Beaton was consecrated at Rome to that Archbishopric In 1552, after a vacancy of a few years. The Pope, however, constituted him the titular Arch bishop of Athens, and he was promised the first Scottish Bishopric, which was that of The Isles, to which he was elected In 1553, when he received the Abbey of Inchaffray, in the Stratheam dis trict of Perthshire, in commendam. He had been admitted Abbot of Inchcolm, in the Frith of Forth, In March that year. He was translated to the See of GaUoway, on the death of Bishop Durie, in 1558, but he also contmued to retain the title of Archbishop of Athens. At the outbreak of the Reformation, the Bishop of GaUoway inunediately joined the leaders of the movement, and Bishop Keith aUeges that he was the " only prelate of that dignity In office at the time who turned Protestant."* If by this statement Bishop Keith intimates that Gordon was the only duly consecrated pre late who deserted the Roman CathoUc Hierarchy he is In error, for there is no doubt that Bishop BothweU of Orkney was also consecrated. But it Is probable that Bishop Gordon had openly • Keith's History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, note, p. 113. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 67 associated and was connected with the Reformers before the Bishop of Orkney identified himself with them, and to this he raay aUude in the extraordinary sermon aUeged to have been preached by him In St Giles' Church, Edinburgh, which is subsequently noticed. In that sermon he exhorts his hearers to pray for Queen Mary, and he is made to say — " Yea, and farther, was she ever excom municat by the order of the Kirk 1 If sa be, just causes had we not to pray for her ; and albeit she were, we aught to pray for her and all other sinners, to bring them to the spirit of repent ance. But many of our ministers are too ceremonious at this present, for I remember myself, at the begynning of our religion [the Reformation in 1560], when I teached either in this pulpet, or in the pulpet heir besydes, when we wald have been glad to had the mass here, and the preaching there. And, brethren, when I stood with the stole about my neck, how many Bishops bade [remained] or bore the burden on their back than but I? But now our ministers are grown sa wantone and ceremonious, that they will not pray for their lawfull heretrix, wha hes permitted them such libertie of conscience, that they may use what religion they please."* Gordon sat in the disputed ParUament of 1560, and consented to the Book of Discipline, on the important condi tion that those Prelates who joined the cause should retain their preferments for life. This renegade prelate had the meanness to petition the General Assembly, or " Convention of the Kirk," which met in June 1562, to be appointed " Superintendent" of Galloway, and he received a very contemptuous reply. " Mr Alexander Gordon, entituled Bishop of GaUoway," was taken into some favour by the Assembly held in December that year, though placed on a leet for the office, he requested with Mr Robert Pont, minister of Dunkeld, and " in the meantyme, the Assemblie giveth commission to Mr Alexander to admit ministers, exhorters, and readers, and to doe such other things as were before accustomed in planting kirks."-f- In June the following year his conduct was ordered to be investigated, but a comraission was given to him for one year, with the Injunction "that the Bishop of Galloway haunt as weUl the sherifdora of Wig- * Memoriales of Transactions in Scotland, subsequently cited, p. 140. t Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 28. 68 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. ton as the Stewartrle of Kirkubright, reckoned to be within his own bounds." His name occurs in various subsequent Assemblies, connected with his friend Bishop Adam BothweU and others in the peculiar business entrusted to them. On the 26th of Novem ber 1565, having been previously sworn a Privy CouncUlor, Gor don was appointed an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and he now assumed courage to disown the title of Superintendent, for which he had humbly petitioned, and, says Knox, " now he would no more be caUed overlooker or overseer of Galloway, but Bishop ;" but Knox admits that he zealously used his influence with the Queen to secure the stipends promised to the preachers, and in December 1566, he procured for their support an assignation out of the thirds of the benefices. This service, however, did not pre vent a complaint to be preferred against hira In the General As sembly held in December 1567 — though he and his nephew, the Earl of Huntly, had sat in the Regent Moray's ParUaraent held in that month — that " he had not visited these three years bygone the kirks within his charge ; that he had left off the visiting and planting of kirks, and he haunted Court too much, and had now purchased to be one of the Session and Privie Councel."* He confessed " aU that was laid to his charge ;" but his " commission was continued tUl the next AssembUe, with admonition to be dUi gent in visitation ."-|- Gordon joined Queen ]\Iary immediately after her escape from Lochleven in May 1 568 ; and as this involved him in the party disputes which foUowed, the General Assembly, on the 10th of July, ordered him to appear at Edinburgh at the next meeting of ParUament, and once for all " answer whether he wIU await on Court and CounceU, or upon preaching the word and planting kirks."! The Assembly of July 1569 " inhibited him to exerce any function in the Kirk, conform to the act made against him In the General Assembly holden in July 1568." Bishop Gordon was associated with Bishop LesUe of Ross and Lord Livingstone as commissioners on behalf of Queen Mary, to receive proposals from Queen Ehzabeth's CouncU. Their return renewed the civil war between the q,uee£s Men and the King's Men, as the contending parties were designated. On Sunday the 17th of June 1571, a few days after the Regent Morton had defeated • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part I, p. 112. t Ibid. p. 114. J _fj,y. p 131. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 69 a strong body of the former between Edinburgh and Leith, the Bishop of Galloway occupied the pulpit of John Knox in St Giles' Church at Edinburgh. The sermon which he preached was pre served by Richard Bannatyne, the gossiping secretary of Knox, who alleges that it was " transported [reported] word by word, by the most copious auditorie being thair present for the tyme."* It Is, however, probable that this very extraordinary specimen of pulpit eloquence, which chiefly enjoins the duty of praying for Queen Mary, is altogether spurious, and it certainly bears marks of doubt as to its authenticity . About this time the Bishop was forfeited with the rest of the Queen's party ; but this sentence was soon afterwards annulled by what was called the Pacification of Perth. The Bishop's reconciliation with his associates of the General Assembly was not such an easy matter. In March 1572, " the Assembly, for certain causes moving them, discharge Alexander, called Bischop of Galloway, to use any function within the Kirk of God tiU they be farther advised ; and ordaineth Mr John Row, Comraissioner of Galloway [who had superseded hira In that office] to suramon the said Alexander to compear before the next Gene ral Assembly to answer such things as shall be laid to his charge, under the pain of excommunication."-f- The Bishop appeared in the General Assembly held on the 6th of August 1573, and on the 9th seven charges were preferred against him, which were chiefly political ; but he was also accused of unwarrantably preach ing in the kirks of Edinburgh, St. Cuthberts, and Holyroodhouse.! On the following day he sent an answer to the accusations by a domestic, but the Assembly refused to receive It, and ordered him to attend in person " the morne at ten hours." He still refused to appear, and he was in consequence ordered to " make publick repentance in sackcloath three severall Sundays — one in the kirk of Edinburgh, another in Halyrudhouse, and the third in the Queen's College for Sanct Cuthbert's kirk, humbly confessing his offences and slander, asking the Eternal God and his Kirk pardon for the same." II The Bishop refused to obey this degrading • The " Sermon is printed in the " Memoriales of the Transactions in Scotland, from 1563 to 1567, by Eichard Bannatyne, Secretary to John Knox." Printed for the Bannatyne Club, one vol. 4to. Edinburgh, 1836, p. 138-141. t Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland. Part First, p. 261 . X Ibid. p. 273, 274. II IW. p. 277. 70 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. sentence, which was doubly humiUating when the parties who enjoined it are considered. He sent a " supplication" to the Assembly held In March 1574, with various explanations and ex pressions of contrition, and by the interference of the Regent Morton, the " brethren ordered the said Bishop to appear before the kirk of HaljTudhouse, without sackcloath, upon Sunday next to come, and in presence of the congregation therein convened humbly to confess his offences, and ask the Etemal God mercy."* He complied with this modification of punishment ; and In the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 6th of August 1575, it was found that he had " satisfied the sentence presented by them."-f- The interference of Morton In his favour explains a statement in the eccentric sermon ascribed to Bishop Gordon, who is reported to have said — " How mony lords have observit thair hand writes and their scales, or keipit thair promises, either upoun thair syde or ours ? Yea, few or nane. But I wiU speak newtral- ly, for it is my pairt, seeing my brother's sone and I am thrlddis of kin to the Lord of Morton. Is not the Regent siclyke and we neir of kin ?" This Bishop died in 1576, and It is said that he made a resignation of his benefice in favour of George Gordon, one of his sons, which was afterwards confirmed by charter under the Great Seal ; and he is also said to have granted charters of church lands in the Stewartry of Kirkcudbright, In AprU 1564, to John Gordon of Lochinvar, grandfather of the first Viscount Kenmure.! The time of his marriage is not mentioned ; but it appears that his wife was named Barbara Logie. || His four sons and one daughter are enumerated. John Gordon, apparently the eldest son, after attending the University of St Andrews, was sent in 1565 to attend the Universities of Paris and Orleans, by the special direction of Queen Mary, who allowed him an annual sum from her French dowry and jointure for his maintenance. It Is said that his father designed to resign the Bishopric of Gal loway in his favour in 1567, and had procured a confirmation of it under the Great Seal of Scotland, but it was never carried Into • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland. Part First, p. 320. t Ibid. p. 334. X Catalogue of Scottish Bishops-See of GaUoway. Sir Eobert Gordon's Histoiy of the Earldom of Sutherland, folio. Edinburgh, 1813, p. 290. II Douglas' Peerage, edited by Wood, vol. ii. p. 26. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 71 effect. John Gordon obtained some lay appointments at the French Court under Charles IX., Henry III., and Henry IV., and was a person of great leaming. He went to England after the accession of James VL, entered into holy orders, and was ap pointed Dean of Salisbury Cathedral in 1604, which he held to his death in 1619 in the 75th year of his age, and was interred in the choir of that church. He was made Doctor of Divinity at Oxford at the first visit of King James to the University. It is stated — " This John Gordon was one of the greatest advancers of our Reformed Churches in his time, arid was one of the most learned men in Europe in his days — well read in the ancient fathers, excellent in the Hebrew, Chaldee^ Syriac, and Greek languages, having by his travels much advanced the reformed religion in France during his stay there. — He was a stout defen der of the privileges of the church of Sarum, having been in his lifetime, and after his death, in some particulars an Instrument to preserve their liberties."* Of the Roman Catholic Prelates of Scotland at the Reformation who resolutely adhered to their own system little need be said. The fate of Archbishop Hamilton of St Andrews Is well known. Three years after the meeting of the alleged Parliament in 1660, he was Imprisoned in the Castle of Edinburgh for celebrating mass, and he was released only by the intercession of Queen Mary. who is said to have petitioned for his liberty with tears. In 1566 he baptized James VI. at Stirling, with all the ceremonial en joined by the Church of Rome — a circumstance which powerfully operated against the Queen and himself in the minds of the Re formers. He was soon afterwards accused as a party concerned in the murder of Lord Damiey, for which there was not the shadow of evidence. Faithful to the hapless Queen In all her vicissitudes and sufferings, he resolutely opposed her legitimate brother the Regent Moray, in whose first Parliament he was at tainted and declared a traitor. He feU into the hands of his enemies in Dunbarton Castle, was carried to Stirling, and hanged on the old bridge over the Forth there on the 5th of April 1571. • Sir Eobert Gordon's History of the Earldom of Sutherland, p. 292, 293. John Gordon was the author of several works enumerated in Watts " Bibliotheca Brittanica," in which he is absurdly designated Deacon of Salisbury. He was Dean from 1604 to 1619. Dodsworth's Historical account of the Cathedral Church of Salisbury, 4to. 1814, p. 234. 72 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. This inhuman and wanton murder, committed In defiance of law, justice, and religion, was long remembered by the adherents of the prostrated Hierarchy of which he was the last Primate. He left a son who was subsequently legitimated. This Individual i$ mentioned among those forfeited in 1571 ; but he and sundry others of his name were " restored" by the Pacification of Perth in February 1572-3. WUUam Gordon, Bishop of Aberdeen, was the fourth son, of Greorge, fourth Earl of Huntly, brother of the fifth Earl, and nephew of Bishop Gordon of GaUoway. Although attainted with sundry others for aUeged political offences, he continued in the exercise of his temporal and occasionaUy of his spiritual functions tiU his death, which occurred on the 7th of August 1577. He seems to have riewed the Reformation with Indifference or con tempt. An instance of this is recorded in the case of Walter CuUen, vicar of Aberdeen, whom, though a zealous Protestant, he collated to the benefice In the month of June before his death. It is stated — " My Lord of Aberdeen gave the said Walter CuUen coUacioun be ane ryng on his finger."* CuUen seems to have been as unscrupulous as the Bishop. The Bishop of Moray was Patrick Hepburn, third son of Patrick, first Earl of BothweU, and grand-uncle of the notorious Earl. He kept possession of his episcopal palace of Spynie till his death in June 1573, and he was interred in the choir of his magnificent cathedral, which had several years previously been dUapidated by order of tho Regent Moray. John Hepburn, an elder brother, was Bishop of Brechin from 1.517 to his death in 1558. Donald CampbeU, Abbot of Coupar, fourth son of Archibald second Eari of ArgyU, was elected his successor by the Chapter, but he became a Protestant, and was never consecrated, though he seems to have retained the temporalities tUl his death in the end of 1562, when he held the office of Lord Privy Seal to Queen Mary. His successor, after a vacancy of three years, was John Sinclair, or St Clair, Dean of Restah-Ig near Edinburgh, who married Queen Mary to Lord Darnley in the Chapel-Royal of Holyroodhouse on the 29th of July 1565. He was the fourth son of Sir Oliver St Clair of Roslin, and younger brother of * Spalding MisceU.any, 4to. 1842, vol. ii. p. xxv. 4.5. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 73 Henry Sinclair Bishop of Ross, with whom he proceeded to France in 1554, and returned with the documents which that prelate had collected for a continuation of Hector Boece's History of Scot land. He was admitted an Ordinary Lord of the Court of Ses sion in April 1540, and succeeded his brother, the Bishop of Ross, as Lord President of the Court in 1565. He died in April 1566. Bishop Sinclair of Ross, previously Rector and Dean of Glas gow and Abbot of Kilwinning, died on the first of January 1565, sometime after an operation had been performed on him at Paris by Laurentius, a celebrated practitioner of his time In cases of stone. It is doubtful whether he or his brother the Bishop of Brechin was the author of the Report of Decisions known as Sin clair's Practicks, which comraences frora the 1st of June 1540, and are continued to the 28th of May 1549. His successor was John Les lie, the learned and intrepid defender of Queen Mary, a truly emi nent prelate, statesman, and historian. He is aUeged to have been the son of Gavin Leslie, fourth son of Alexander Leslie of Balquhain In Aberdeenshire ; but Knox designates him a " priest's bastard," and Keith, who corroborates his illegitimacy from copies of original documents in the charter-chest of Balquhain, inclines to the opinion that he was the son of Gavin Leslie, parson of Kingussie. He was bom in 1527, and notwithstanding the defect of his birth a dispensation was obtained in his favour, and he be came a canon and prebendary of Aberdeen. In the beginning of 1561 he disputed with the Reformers at Edinburgh, and if Knox is to be credited, he was compelled to confess that the only authority for the mass was that of the Pope. Nevertheless his own party had a high opinion of his abilities, and he was selected by them to proceed to Queen Mary after the death of Francis II. , and invite her to return to Scotland, at the very time her illegi timate brother, then Lord James Stuart, and designated Prior of St Andrews, was sent by the Reformers on a similar mission. He reached Mary one day before the Prior, returned with her, and soon afterwards was made a Privy Councillor, in 1564 was admitted an Ordinary Lord of Session, and obtained the Abbacy of Lindores in commendam. In 1565 he succeeded Bishop Henry Sinclair in the See of Ross, and his consecration was doubtless private. The exertions of Bishop Leslie in favour of Queen Mary are well known. He accompanied her to Carlisle, 74 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. was appointed her ambassador to EUzabeth, the privilege of which he foreited by entering deeply Into the Duke of Norfolk's intrigue. For this he was committed first to the charge of the Bishop of Ely, and to the Tower of London, from which he was Uberated after an imprisonment of two years, on condition that he would leave England. He went to France, and thence to Rome, where he pubUshed his history of Scotland in Latin, only inferior to that of Buchanan, during a residence of three years. Subsequently he wandered from Court to Court, vainly endeavouring to rouse the Roman CathoUc Princes in behalf of his captive mistress. He was appointed Vicar-General of the archipiscopal church of Rohan in 1579, and Bishop of Constances in Normandy in 1593, but the troubles of the times precluded him from deriving any advantage by those preferments, and he returned to Brussels, where he died in 1596, in the 69th year of his age. WUliam Chisholm, second son of Edward Chisholm of Cromlix was consecrated Bishop of Dunblane at Stirling, in 1527, and died in 1564. He was a zealous opponent of the Reformation, and alienated the greater part of his Bishopric to his nephew. Sir James Chisholm of Cromlix, and to his own three IUegitiraate chUdren, a son and two daughters. WiUiara Chisholra, another nephew, was his coadjutor in the See, and stiU farther dilapidated the episcopal patrimony of the Bishopric. He was prosecuted for refusing to comply with the Reformation, and withdrew to France. He was appointed Bishop of Vaison, and Is said to have died a Carthusian at Grenoble.* Robert Crichton, Bishop of Dunkeld, was expeUed from his Diocese by the Reformers in 1561 or 1562. He succeeded his uncle Bishop George Crichton in the See. No particulars of any importance are recorded respecting him. The Diocese of the Isles was vacant by the translation of Bishop Gordon to GaUoway. Keith mentions John Campbell, a son of Campbell of Cawdor in Nairn shire, a branch of the Family of ArgyU, and ancestor of the Earls of Cawdor, as elect of the Isles, and Prior of Ardchattan in 1558 and 1560, but he was never consecrated. This personage dilapi dated most part of the episcopal patrimony of the insular Diocese * In " Catalogues of Scottish Writers" Svo. Edinburgh, 1833, it is stated—" Guliel mus Cliisholmus scripsit Examen Confessionis Fidei Calvinianse. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 75 In favour of his relations, and conferred some heritable jurisdic tions on his own family of Cawdor. The remaining property was seized by the Earl of ArgyU, when to serve his own purposes he procured, in 1566, the appointment of John Carswell, his chaplain, and rector of Kilmartine, as titular Bishop both of the Isles and Argyll, of which he had been nominated Superintendent by the Reformers. Carswell encountered the censures of the General Assembly for his conduct, but the influence of the Earl of Argyll, and his own remote situation, probably rendered him indifferent to the remonstrances of his associates. He was present as Super intendent of Argyll in the " Convention ofthe Kirk of Scotland" held on the " penult day of June 1562," and he was challenged in a subsequent General Assembly, but he is seldom mentioned in connection with the proceedings of the time. He died in 1572, or, according to Spottiswoode, in 1575, after various altercations with his opponents on the distracting subject of Church govern ment, for accepting the titular Bishopric, and for his attachment to Queen Mary. CarsweU was a man of considerable ability, and was the first who translated portions of the Scriptures into Gaelic. His son is mentioned in the public documents of the time. The more conspicuous of the preachers who supplanted the Ro raan Catholic Hierarchy in the principal towns, exclusive of the Superintendents, may be here noticed. John Knox, who studiously avoided the office of Superintendent, was located at Edinburgh. Bishop Keith observes — " It is most likely he saw that he could be more useful for the main point by remaining close within Edin burgh, and guiding the inhabitants of that capital into such mea sures as he found necessary for bringing about their designs." Various unsuccessful attempts were made to remove him both to St Andrews and to Stirling. Knox was very active at all their meetings, and was often employed in matters of importance. John Craig, educated at St Andrews, and originaUy a Dominican Friar, was appointed to the church of Holyrood in 1561, then the parish church of the Canongate in Edinburgh. He was command ed in 1567 to publish the banns of marriage between Queen Mary and Bothwell, which he boldly refused, publicly condemned the marriage, and exhorted all who had access to or influence with the Queen to prevent such a scandalous alliance. Craig was also nine years colleague to John Knox, and he was afterwards re- 76 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. moved to Montrose. At the death of Adam Heriot subsequently noticed he succeeded him at Aberdeen, and resigned that charge in 1579, when he was appointed chaplain to Jaraes VI. He died in 1600, in the eighty-eighth year of his age. WiUiara Harlow, a person who had followed the avocation of a tailor in the Canon gate, was appointed to St Cuthberts, Edinburgh. David Lindsay, of an ancient family in Forfarshire, was located at Leith. It Is said that he was ordained in England, and whUe officiating at Leith he baptized the Princess Elizabeth in Holyroodhouse in 1599, and Charles I. in the Palace of Dunfermline in 1600. He died Bishop of Ross in 1613. David Ferguson, a native of Ayr shire, was stationed at Dunfermline. John Row, a priest, who had been induced to abandon the Roraan Catholic Hierarchy by the detection of a clumsy imposture practised at Loretto, near the town of Musselburgh, Intended to be set off as a miracle, was ap pointed to Perth. He was a raan of considerable attainments, and made a conspicuous figure in subsequent times. WiUiam Christison was located at Dundee. Christopher Goodman, a na tive of Cheshire, and a student of Brazennose College, Oxford, at which he had been reader of the divinity lecture, was appointed to St Andrews. He became acquainted with Knox at Geneva, when a refugee during the reign of the English Mary, and readily adopted the tenets of Calvin. Although he died Archdeacon of Richmond in 1603, he is described as a violent nonconformist, and " for rigidness in opinion went beyond his friend Calvin, who remembers and mentions him in one of his Epistles."* He re turned to England in 1565. Adam Heriot, an Augustine Monk of St Andrews, and connected with the family in Haddingtonshire from which the celebrated George Heriot was descended, was sta tioned at Aberdeen. His stipend was fixed at L.200 Scots payable from the revenues of the town, and the Magistrates presented to him annually a suit of black clothes and other necessaries to the value of L.30, with a donation of L.IO in money for house-rent, the whole sum equal to L.55, 8s. sterling. He died much respect- . ed for learning, piety, and worth, in the 60th year of his age, in August 1574. The other individuals appointed as " Reformed preachers," in the cities,* towns, and Important districts in 1560, were of no particular note. • Wood's Athon. Oxon. by Dr. Philip Bliss, Vol. I. p. 722. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 77 Such was the singular amalgamation of individuals who at first supplanted the ancient Hierarchy, while most of its prelates and dignitaries were alive ; and " with this small number," as Arch bishop Spottiswoode observes, " was the plantation of the church first undertaken." They of course received in every succeeding year considerable accessions, and before 1571-2, when Episcopacy was re introduced during the Regency of Morton — if that can be called Episcopacy which consisted merely of the restoration of the titles of the Dioceses, the holders never having been consecrated — ^they form ed a very numerous association, and had many powerful supporters. Their extensive ramifications are indicated by the curious " Register of Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers, and of their Stipends, after the Reforraation,"* or " since the yeir of God 1567." In the dis tricts from Stirling " eastward," including part of that county, and those of Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and Haddington, were seventy- nine ministers, exhorters, and readers, in the towns and parishes ; in the Lauderdale district of Berwick were only two ; but in the Merse district of that county were thirty-nine. In Forfarshire were thirty-two " ministers" and forty-seven " readers ;" in the Stormonth district of Perthshire were seventeen " ministers, ex horters, and readers ;" and eleven in the Carse of Gowrie district ; in Kincardineshire were ten " ministers" and twenty " readers ;" those within " Fife, Strathern, Forthrig, Strathtay, and Menteth," including the exhorters, comprised one hundred and forty-five ; those of the district of Glasgow, comprising Lanark, Renfrew, and Dunbarton counties, were one hundred and seven ; in the Cunningham, Kyle, and Carriek districts of Ayrshire were fifty- six ; in Teviotdale, now Selkirk, and part of Roxburgh shires, were thirteen ; in Tweedale, were eighteen ; in Nithsdale, were thirty- nine ; in Annandale, were eighteen ; in the adjacent districts, call ed Wauchopdale, Ewesdale, and Eskdale, were six ; and In the Bishopric of GaUoway were fifty-eight. In the northern county of Ross were twenty-three ; in Caithness were twenty-two ; in Orkney were twenty-five ; Shetland, eleven ; in Moray were nine " ministers," eighteen " exhorters," and twenty-two " readers ;" in Aberdeen and Banff were twenty-six " ministers," six " exhor ters," and sixty-nine " readers ; and in the Marr district of Aber- • Edinburgh, 4to. 1830. Printed for the Maitland Club. 78 THE REFORMATION IN SCOTLAND [1563. deen there were one " minister," two " exhorters," and twenty-one " readers." AU the names of the individuals are recorded, and some other modifications are given in the extracts from the " Buik of Resignations of the Ministers' and Reidars' Stipends" for the year 1576. The great proportion of those functionaries were " readers," and this office requires explanation, as it Is always mentioned as infe rior to " exhorters," who were next in grade to the " ministers," and whose functions are sufficiently indicated by the title. The duties are thus defined in the First Book of Discipline :* — " To the churches where no ministers can be had presentlie must be appointed the most apt men that distinctlie can read the Common Prayers and the Scriptures, to exercise both themselves and the Church till they grow to greater perfection; and in the process of time he that is a reader may attain to a further degree, and by consent of the Church and discreet ministers may be permit ted to minister sacraments, but not before that he be able somewhat to persuade by wholesome doctrine, beside his read ing, and be admitted to the ministrie as before is said." On the 26th of December 1564 the General Assembly enjoined that every " Minister, Exhorter, and Reader, shaU have one of the Psalme Bookes latelie printed in Edinburgh, and use the order con tained therein in prayers, marriage, and ministration of the Sacra- raents.""!- Readers were not aUowed to baptize chUdren or cele brate marriages-! Several duties were connected with these functions. In 1578, for example, the Reader of Aberdeen was ordered to catechize the children ; and in 1604 he was enjoined, at the end of Prayers on Sunday mornings and week days, to re cite the Ten Commandments and the Apostles' Creed. || The office was long retained even after the establishment of Presby terianism in 1690, and appears to have been discharged by the parish schoolmasters, who read chapters from the Scriptures be fore the " minister " entered the pulpit. One of the last Instances of which the present writer has heard, is that of CraU in the east of Fife, where the practice was retained tiU the beginning of the * Chap IV, Part. IV, § 14. t Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 54. } Ibid. p. 82, 124. 11 Miscellany ofthe Spalding Club, Vol. II. 1842. Preface, p. xxiv. 1563.] AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 79 nineteenth century, and the parish schoolmaster acted as the " reader." It Is probable that the same occurred in other parishes throughout Scotland, and it was curious as one of the last relics of an office Introduced by Knox, Winrara, Spottiswoode, and the other compilers of the First Book of Discipline, most of which is now abrogated even by the Presbyterians themselves, though they occasionally appeal to It as an authority when it suits their own purposes. The Second Book of Discipline, drawn up by Andrew MelviUe and others In 1579, and ratified by the General Assembly in 1581, contains all those peculiarities and dogmas of Presbyter ianism on which the First is silent. 80 [1564.. CHAPTER III. THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. The ecclesiastical, political, and civU disorders which sprung from the Scottish Reformation were farther Increased by the conduct of the Government. Vt^e have seen that the Reformers in their General Assemblies had no scruples to accept the assistance of the regularly consecrated Bishops of Galloway and Orkney, and of the persons designating themselves Bishops of Caithness and Ar gyll, and that they never refused to acknowledge the episcopal rank and functions of the two former, except when those prelates offended them by being either negUgent or lukewarm in their cause. In 1564 Queen Mary appointed a Commission to the Col leges in the University of St Andrews, to " cognosce, visit, and consider the patrimonie of the said CoUeges,'" to facUitate the purposes of instruction. In this Commission " ane Reverend Father in God," Bishop Sinclair of Ross, was associated with the Queen's IUegitiraate brother the Eari of Moray, the celebrated George Buchanan, John Erskine of Dun, John Winram, Maitland of Lethington, and other avowed enemies of the former Hierarchy, and of that very religion to which Mary herself was zealously atr tached.* MeanwhUe the Roman CathoUc Prelates were stiU legaUy recognized, and in the Pariiament which met at Edinburgh on the 16th April 1567, the Archbishop of St Andrews, andthe Bishops of Dunkeld, GaUoway, Dunblane, Brechin, Orkney, Aber deen, and Ross, were present. John CarsweU, titular of th'e Isles, also appeared, and took his place as if he had been a lawfully * Acta Pari. Scot. Vol. II. p. 544. 1564.] THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM, &C. 81 consecrated Bishop, without any objections urged by those among whom he is enumerated. Three of those prelates — the Archbishop, and the Bishops of Ross and Orkney, with Carswell, Titular of the Isles, were elected to represent the clergy among the Lords of the Articles, for which the said Titular was censured by the General Asserably. On the last day of the Parliament, which was on the 19th of April, for the meeting continued only three days, an act was passed by the Bishops, Abbots, Nobility, and Commissioners from the burghs present, entitled — " Conceming the ReUgion," but so vague and general that it might mean anything or nothing.* It merely sets forth that, as the Queen had " attempted nothing contrair the estait of religioun which her Majestie found public- He and universalUe standing at the time of hir arrival furth of France," the Queen, with advice of the three Estates of Pariia ment, annuls and abrogates all laws, acts, and constitutions, " canon, civil, and municipal, introduced contrary to the fore said religioun and professors of the same." If this refers to the peculiar association formed by Knox and his associates, it is an other proof of the extraordinary apathy with which the Roman Catholics beheld the downfall of their Hierarchy. But this apathy may probably in some degree be explained. In 1561 the act had been passed, already mentioned, ordering the whole revenues of the Archbishoprics, Bishoprics, Abbacies, Priories, and all bene fices, to be produced, out of which the Roman Catholic clergy agreed to give one-third to the Queen, on the condition that they were to retain the two-thirds. This third was to be appropriated to the maintenance of the preachers, the endowment of schools, the support of the poor, and the increase of the Crown revenues. " Before this proposal was made," Mr Tytler observes, " the funds ofthe Romish Church, previously immense, had been greatly dilapi dated. On the overthrow of Popery the Bishops and other dignified clergy had entered into transactions with their friends or kinsmen, by which large portions of ecclesiastical property passed into private hands. In some cases sales had been made by the ancient incum bents, or leases had been purchased by strangers, which the Pope, zealous to protect his persecuted children, had confirmed. The Crown, too, had appointed laymen to be factors or administrators * See Lord Hailes' Annals of Scotland, Edinburgh, Svo. edit. vol. iii. Appendix. 6 82 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1564. of Bishoprics and livings, so that by these various methods the property of the Church was so much dispersed and curtailed, that the third of all the money coUected feU far lielow the sum neces sary to give an adequate support to the clergy."* In short, the temporahties were for the most part aUenated, and that influence which the Prelates formerly possessed was now annihUated. The power of the Roraan Catholic Prelates had been farther weakened by the institution of the Consistorial Court of Edraburgh by Queen Mary in 1563. For centuries they had been the judges in every matter connected with religion, and as the Church of Rome chooses to include marriage among its Seven Sacraments, questions of divorce, lUegitlmacy, intestate successions, and scan dal, as rendering the guUty parties liable to ecclesiastical censure, were brought exclusively under their jurisdiction. These eventu ally became so numerous, and enabled the Bishops to obtain such a preponderating influence, that they were obliged in 1466 to de legate their judicial functions to their vicars or commissioners, but In 1560 aU clerical jurisdictions were abolished. Queen Mary, on the 8th of March 1563, instituted the Consistorial Court of Edinburgh, with four judges, to try questions of marriage, free dom, nullity, divorce, legitimacy, bastardy, confirmations of move able succession, and a variety of incidental matters, such as ali mentary claims. A subordinate Commissary was also appointed to each of the Dioceses, to try minor causes, such as the consti tution of the debts of a person deceased, confirraations of raoveable estates, actions Involving declarator or nuUIty of marriages, and other cases of less importance. On the 12th of March the Queen issued particular instructions to be observed by the Commissa ries of Edinburgh and of the Dioceses, which were ratified by King James and the Scottish Parliament In 1592 and 1606. It raay be here stated that in 1609, after the coraplete estabUshment of the Episcopal Church, the right of norainating the four Oom- ralssary judges was conferred equaUy upon the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, who in 1610 issued certain instructions to be observed by the said judges and their clerks.-f- CromweU made considerable changes in the forms of the Consistorial Court, which were pe-adjusted by the instructions of Charles II. In January 1666, » Tytler's History of Scotland, Svo. edition, vol. vi. p. 292, 293. t See Balfoui-'s Practicks, p. 655. 1567.] OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 83 and the right of nominating the judges remained with the two Archbishops till the Revolution, when, by the establishment of Presbyterianism, it devolved upon the Crown. It is curious to notice, that although Knox and his associates denounced the Romish Prelates for holding offices which were considered incom patible with their functions, they never scrupled to arrogate to themselves those very powers, as if what was faulty in one set of raen became the reverse when exercised by another. Accordingly, in the proceedings of their General Assemblies after 1560, we find those men assuming to themselves the judgment of cases of divorce, adultery, and other violations of morality, and discussing raost licentious and indelicate subjects. It may be said that they thus act ed to inflict ecclesiastical censures and penalties on the guilty par ties, but a perusal of the proceedings of those General Assemblies, as detailed in the " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland," at once proves that they interfered in indecent matters with which they had no connection, and discussed them with a coarseness and vulgarity strangely at variance with their extraordinary pretensions to religious sanctity. While, too, they unhesitatingly ascribed to the prelates and clergy all kinds of vices, numerous cases of gross and licentious immorality occurred among themselves, of which the case of Paul Methven, once baker in Jedburgh, and " Reformed minister" in Dundee, is as flagrant as any on record. The short meeting of the Parliament in April 1567, in which was passed the Act " Concerning the Religion," was the last with which Queen Mary was concerned. On the raorning of the 10th of February of that year the murder of her husband Lord Darn ley was perpetrated by the Earl of Bothwell and his associates in the house of Robert Balfour, Provost of the collegiate church of St Mary-in-the-Fields, commonly called the Kirk of Field, where Darnley was lodged while he was labouring under small pox, with which he had been seized at Glasgow. The locality where this horrid crime was committed, and which accelerated Mary's mis fortunes, is now a part of the southern suburb of Edinburgh in the iraraediate vicinity of the University. On 15th of May foUowing, Mary completed her ruin by marrying the Earl of Bothwell, the murderer of her husband ; on the 15th of June she surrendered to the insurgent NobUity on Carberry HiU near Musselburgh ; and on the evening of the ensuing day she was sent a prisoner to 84 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1567. Lochleven Castle. Immured in that island-stronghold, the Queen was compeUed to sign her resignation of the Crown and the ap pointment ofa Regency, both of which documents were proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh on the 25th of July. Four days after wards the infant James VL, then not fourteen months old, was crowned at Stirling, the ceremony of anointing being performed by Adam BothweU, Bishop of Orkney, and the sermon preached by Knox. In August the Earl of Moray was declared Regent, and the unfortunate Queen's authority in Scotland was annihilated. Her escape from Lochleven on the 2d of May 1568 ; the battle which ensued at Langside near Glasgow, where her supporters were utterly discomfited; and her flight into England, to endure a long and severe captivity, from which she was only released by the exe cutioner in Fotheringay Castle, are matters of history well known. Such was the hapless fate of Mary of Scotland, and of aU her ene mies in her own kingdom the most bitter, bigotted. Insulting, and ferocious, were the Reformed preachers and their adherents, both before and after her flight into England. In the midst of their devotional exercises they expressed themselves against her in language of fierce indignation, founding their arguments on the examples of wicked princes mentioned in the Scripture history of the Jews deposed and put to death for idolatry, and on aUeged precedents in former reigns among their own sovereigns. The government was now in the hands of the Regent Moray, a personage who, under the mask of zeal for the " Reformed religion," concealed the most dangerous and unscrupulous designs, and who had been more or less cognizant of many of the crimes and con spiracies of the age ; but at the same time a man of great abUities, of undoubted courage, and indefatigable in his exertions. The final doom of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy was sealed by Moray's appointment to the Regency. But before narrating the proceed ings of his first ParUament, it is necessary to glance at some of the transactions of the General Assembly. It may be here observed, that whatever opinion may be formed ' of the new Superintendent System of church government invented and introduced by the Reformers, It was essentiaUy different from the subsequent Presbyterian rule, about which nothing is said in the First Book of Discipline. The country was not divided into Presbyteries and Synods, and not a word occurs about Presby- 1567.] OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 85 terianism, as it is now known, in aU the acts of the General Assem blies of the " UniversaU Kirk " for raany years after 1 560. On the contrary, the word diocese, or " diocie,'" is invariably used, and though in some instances the ancient boundaries was disregarded, this appears to have been done for the personal convenience of the Superintendents. In December 1566, John Knox was ordered by the General Assembly to write a letter to the EngUsh Bishops, which was thus addressed — " The Superintendents, Ministers, and Commissioners of kirks, within the realme of Scotland, to their Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of England, who hes renounced the Roman Antichrist, and who does professe with the Lord Jesus in sinceritie, desyres the perpetual increase of the Holy Spirit." This ungrammatical epistle, which appears to have been duly trans mitted, though the individual Prelate who had the " honour" to receive it is not mentioned, is signed by John Spottiswoode, John Winram, John Erskine of Dun, John Row, David Lindsay, Robert Pont, James Melville, John Craig, William Christison, and Nicol Spittal, all leaders in their way, though the latter were less conspi cuous than the former. It is a rather unpolite remonstrance from the above personages, who complain — " By word and writ it is come to our knowledge, Reverend Pastors, that divers of our dearest brethren, among whom are some of the best leamed with in that realme [England], are depryvit from ecclesiastical functions, and forbidden to preach, and so by you are stayed to promote the kingdom of Chryst, because their conscience will not suffer them to take upon them, at the commandment of the authoritie such garments as idolaters in the time of blindness have used In the time of idolatrie." Those incipient non-conformists had become troublesome to the English Bishops, by objecting to the canonical observances of the Church in divine service, and their Scottish " brethren" accordingly denounce " surplice-claithes, cornet, cap, and tippet," which they declare to be " dregs of the Romish Beast." After some impertinent advice they express themselves in a more respectful manner, and acknowledge the episcopal authority of the English Bishops. — " But herein we may confesse our offence, in that we have entered further in reasoning than was purposed and pronounced at the beginning ; and therefore we shortly return to our former humble supplication, which is, that our brethren who among you refuse the Romish rags, may find of you, the .Prelates,'in favour 86 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1567. as our Head and Master commands every ane of his members to shaw to another ; which we look to receive of your gentleness, not only for that ye fear to offend God's Majestie, in troubling your brethren for such vain trifles, but also because ye wiU not refuse the humble request of us, your brethren and fellow preachers, in whom, albeit there appear not great worldlie pomp, yet we suppose that ye will not so far despise us, but that ye wUl esteem us to be of the number of those that fight against the Roman Antichrist, and traveU that the kingdom of Jesus Christ be universalUe advanced."* The correspondence between the General Assembly and their Calvinistic friends in Switzerland, whatever it was. Is not mentioned In their "Acts," as officially recorded in the " Booke of the Univer saU Kirk of Scotland." Only two allusions occur during several years after 1560. One Is in 1562, when " it was concluded that one uniforme ordour shall be taken or kept in the administration of the Sacraments, and solemnization of marriages and buriaUs of the dead, according to the Book of Geneva."-f- The other Is some time afterwards. On the day they sent their Interfering epistle to their " Brethren," the " Bishops of England" — Is the following re port : — " The Assemblie being advised with the interpretation ofthe Confession of the Kirk of Zurich by Mr Robert Pont, ordained the same to be presented, together with ane epistle sent by the Assem blie of the Kirk of Scotland, approving the same, providing a note be put in the margin, where mention is made of some hohdays." This Confession was penned by the pastors of Zurich, and other wise called the Latter Confession of Helvetia. In this Confession superiority of " ministers above ministers" is caUed "ane human ap pointment ; confirmation Is judged to be a device of man, which the Kirk may want without damage ; baptism by women or mid- wives condemned ; item, prolix and tedious public prayers, hinder ing the preaching of the Word In canonical hours, that is, prayers to be chanted, and often repeated at set tiraes, to the prejudice of Christ's libertie ; observation of Saints' Days. And this As sembly would not allow the days dedicated to Christ, the Clroumci- • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 85, 86, 87. t Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 30. It is also stated— " Ordains the Communion to be ministrat four times in the yeir within burroughs, and twyce in the year in landwart," or rural districts. 1567.] OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 87 sion, Nativitie, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and Pentecost Days, but took exception against that part of the Confession."* The Regent Moray's first Parliament was held at Edinburgh on the 15th of December 1567, and as this raeeting of the Estates was the most important of any since the Reforraation, a notice of it Is indispenslble. The Regent presided, and the Bishops of Moray (Hepburn,) Galloway, Orkney, and Brechin, were present. This last named person styled Bishop of Brechin, though never consecrated, was, it is already stated, Alexander CampbeU, a younger brother of Campbell of Ardkinglas, and was nominated to the See of Brechin In 1566 by the influence of the Earl of Argyll, after the death of Bishop Sinclair in 1565. His identity is involved in considerable difficulty. Bishop Keith alleges that Argyll obtained for him, while he was a " mere boy," the grant of the Bishopric, with power to alienate the teraporalities as he pleased, and which he most unscrupulously achieved In favour of the Earl ; but another authority,-)- which completely refutes Keith's assertion, states that he was appointed Provost of St. Giles' church in Edinburgh in 1554, at the resignation of Bishop Crichton of Dunkeld. Among the first proceedings of Moray's Parliament were ratifi cations of the Acts passed in 1560 concerning the jurisdiction of the Pope, the abolition of " Idolatry," and the acts contrary to the Confession of Faith " published in this Parliament," and the " abo lition of the Mass." All the Acts of the disputed Parliament of 1560 were confirmed, and the Roman Catholic Hierarchy com pletely abolished. Yet it is singular that no act was proposed to exclude the Prelates from their seats, for the Bishop of Moray was again in his place in the Parliament of 1568, and was chosen one of the Lords of the Articles on the spiritual side with Bishop Bothwell of Orkney. It is commonly asserted that the Regent Moray's first Parliar- ment established the Protestant religion in Scotland. New sta tutes were undoubtedly added to those of 1560 ; the General As semblies were in some raeasure ratified ; the thirds of benefices * Book of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 90. t Panmure MS. quoted in " History of Brechin," by David D. Black, Town-Clerk, p. 301, 302. Bishop Keith mistakes the meaning of a very common phrase. He says — " This Bishop was abroad at Geneva at the schools on the 28th of January 1573-4, so the reader may judge what age he has been of at the time of the grant of the Bish opric." But this does not intimate that he was a boy at school. 88 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1564. were ordered to be paid to coUectors appointed by the Reformers, who were to account to the Exchequer after allotting stipends to the Superintendents, ministers, and their auxiliaries the exhort ers and readers ; and the funds of Provostries, Prebends, and Chaplaincies, were appropriated to the maintenance of Bursars in the Universities. It was also enacted that every sovereign at ac cession should take an oath to raaintain the Protestant reUgion, and that Protestants exclusively should be admitted to any office not hereditary or for life, such as that of a judge, procurator, no tary, or member of any Court. The teachers of youth were sub- j ected to the examination of the Superintendents and other visitors appointed by the General Assembly.* But though these measures caused an important change in the state of the kingdom, that state was the reverse of peace and harmony. The supporters of Episcopacy, and the advocates of Presbyterianism, while both united against the Papal Hierarchy, were now to enter on the questions of ecclesiastical polity and discipline ; and these dissen sions, as is observed by Dr Cook, " strongly influenced the politi cal principles, the manners, and the general sentiments of the in habitants of Scotland."-}- Other matters also combined to fan the flame of discord. " Although," says Dr. Cook, '• the Reformed faith had been declared to be that of the State, yet the manner in which it was to be inculcated, the form of church-government, and the support to be given to it by the Crown, were left in a great degree open for future discussion, rendering it probable that some changes in all these respects would yet be introduced. The un settled condition of the Cliurch was attended with many inconve niences to the clergy. Their stipends were not regularly paid ; constant disputes arose between them and the persons who, under the former ecclesiastical establishment, had been inducted into benefices ; the funds for paying the ministers were not with suffi cient precision defined ; and it was not determined whether, like the higher orders of the Popish clergy, they were to be recognized as one of the Estates of the kingdom."! The official account of the proceedings of the General Assembly which met on the 25th of December 1567, ten days after the Par- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 14, 15, et seq. t History ofthe Eeformation in Scotland, vol. iii. p. 310. X History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 78, 79. 1568.] OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 89 liament, is not of much interest apart from local and personal matters. A committee was appointed, the more conspicuous members of which were the Superintendents of Lothian and Angus, John Knox and John Craig of Edinburgh, David Lindsay of Leith, and John Row of Perth, " to concur at all times with such persons of Parliament or Secret Counsell as my Lord Regent's Grace has nominat for such affairs as pertained to the Kirk and jurisdictioun thereof, and also for the decision of questions that may occur in the meane tyme."* Sundry regulations were sanctioned respecting the mode of collecting the stipends, and the " sufficiency" of the persons employed. Lady Jane, Coun tess of Argyll, illegitimate daughter of James V. by Eliza beth, daughter of John Lord Carmichael, appeared before this Assembly, and was ordered to " make public repentance in the Chapel-Royal of Stirling upon ane Sunday in time of preach ing," for being present at the baptism of James VI. in " a papis ticaU manner" by Archbishop Hamilton of St Andrews. The proceedings appear to have been concluded by a letter drawn up and sent to their " beloved brother," Mr Superintendent Willox of Glasgow, who for some reasons of his own had withdrawn himself into England, requesting him to return ; and it commences with the significant motto — " Videbam Satanam sicut fulgur de coelo caden- tem^ In this letter they give a flattering representation of the state of religion throughout the kingdom — " virtue increasing, virtuous men in reputation ;" and they conclude by declaring — " We cannot look for any other answer than ye shall give by yourself, and that with all expedition possible."-f- Willox obeyed the summons to return, and opened the General Assembly held on the 1st of July 1568, of which he was chosen Moderator. Although in subsequent meetings of their Assemblies the " Reformed " preachers were continually petitioning the Govern ment about the mode of collecting their stipends, it is well known that during Moray's regency they were greatly encouraged and protected. That regency terminated with the life of Moray, who was assassinated while riding through the town of Linlith gow, on the 21st of January 1569-70, by Hamilton of Bothwell haugh, to revenge the atrocious treatment of his lady by the " Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 113. t Ihid. p. 120, 121, 122. 90 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1569. Lord Justice-Clerk BeUenden, one of Moray's favourites, although there is Uttle doubt that the perpetrator of this deed was also the tool of a faction who had some time determined on the Regent's destruction. This extraordinary man, long remembered by his partizans as the Good Regent, and execrated by hia opponents, obtained almost uncontroUed power as the leader of the Reform ing party when Uttle more than a youth, under his previous titles of Lord James Stuart, Prior of St Andrews and Earl of Mar, before he was created Earl of Moray, and he feU the rictim of private rindictlveness In the midst of his greatness before he was forty years of age. He was interred in what was called St An thony's Aisle In St GUes' church at Edinburgh, on the 14th of February, and John Knox preached his funeral sermon on the passage — " Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord." The General Assembly appointed to be held at StirUng on the 25th of February, was adjourned to the 1st of March at Edinburgh, be cause only five persons appeared, " by reason of troubles faihng out by the slaughter of my Lord Regent's Grace."* When that Asserably met, the principal business seems to have been the " accusations " and " offences " brought forward against Bishop Bothwell of Orkney previously noticed. During this period the civU govemment of Scotland, rent by faction, was in the utmost confusion after the Regent Moray's death. An EngUsh army, under the Earl of Sussex, invaded the kingdom by ravaging the romantic district of Teviotdale and the Merse, destroying fifty castles, towers, or fortaUces, and numbers of hamlets. In a second inroad Home Castle, one of the strongest in that quarter, was taken. Lord Scrope about the same time entered Dumfries-shire, and the march of his soldiers was too fataUy indicated by the flames of vUlages and farm-houses, and the destruction of the labours of the field. Queen EUzabeth foUowed up this severity by sending the Earl of Lennox and Sir WiUiam Drury, Marshal of Berwick, at the head of 1200 foot and 400 horse, to advance against Edinburgh, and avenge the murder of her great agent the Regent Moray upon the House of Hamilton. This was so far done effectuaUy by forming a junction with the Earl of Morton, that LinUthgowshire and Clydesdale in Lanarkshire were devastated, and the estates and * Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 156, 157. 1570.] OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 91 residences of the kindred and adherents of the House of Hamil ton were ravaged. The appointment of the Earl of Lennox, father of the unfortunate Lord Darnley, and grandfather of the young King, to the regency, on the 12th of July 1570, evinced the power of the English interest. A civil war ensued, and Sussex at the head of 4000 men again invaded Scotland, ad vancing through Annandale to Dumfries. Soon afterwards Arch bishop Hamilton of St Andrews, who was found in Dunbarton Castle when that fortress was surprised, was carried to StirUng, and inhumanly executed on the bridge over the Forth, for his alleged concern in the murder of Lord Darnley and of the Regent Moray, the latter of which he is said to have adraitted so far as to confess that he knew it was to be attempted. Such was the fate of the last Roman Catholic Primate of Scotland, the only Bishop who ever died by the hands of an executioner in Scotland ; a prelate whose character, even according to the admission of Dr Cook, though " far from spotless, possessed considerable vir tues, and under other circumstances might have been useful to his country. His talents were respectable, and had in early life been assiduously cultivated ; he was for the period deeply versed in theological and moral science ; he made several efforts to re form the Popish clergy, and to excite them to the discharge of their duties ; and he left, in the Catechism which he composed or approved, a striking proof of his learning and of his moderation. Although he was led upon some unhappy occasions to sanction the enormities of persecution, he was constitutionally mild, and had the merit of restraining the cruelty which his predecessors in the Primacy had delighted to indulge. But he had been cor rupted by the dissolute manners which were so prevalent among the clergy of the Romish communion, and whilst he urged upon others a strict regard to teraperance, he did not seek in his own conduct to preserve even the decency with which he might have been expected to veil his vices." The judicial murder of Archbishop Hamilton was the signal for Queen Mary's party to fly to arms ; the Indignation of his kins men the Hamiltons was unbounded ; and this deed caused a war of two years, by which the country was desolated by all the miseries of civil strife. It caused the assassination of the Regent Lennox, on the 4th of September 1571, at Stirling, by one Cap- 92 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1571. tain Calder, who confessed, before he was broken upon the wheel, that he was instigated to shoot him through the back at the attack on Stirling by Lord Claud Hamilton and the Eari of Huntly, before they took the town, to revenge the death of the Archbishop, whose execution the HamUtons had sworn to visit to the uttermost upon the Regent. The successor of Lennox in the regency was John sixth Earl of Mar of the name of Erskine, who was chosen by a majority of Parliament on the 5th of September, the day after the death of Lennox in the Castle of Stirling. This nobleman, under whose brief government a most important change was effected in the ecclesiastical poUty introduced by the Reformers, Is described as " owing his preferment to his moderation, his humanity, and his disinterestedness. As soon as he was in possession of that high office, he applied himself vigorously to allay, as far as possible, the contending factions in Scotland, and to free his country from the influence of English counsels. But Morton and his associates thwarted his views. The selfishness and ambition which reigned among his party made a deep impression on the Regent, who wished for peace with much ardour. — He was perhaps the only person in the kingdom who could have enjoyed the office of Regent without envy, and have left it without loss of reputation. Not withstanding their mutual animosities, both parties acknowledged hie views to be honourable, and his integrity to be uncorrupted."* This high eulogium is confirmed by historians. " The Earl of Mar, governor to the young King," says Mr Tytler, " was chosen Regent. His competitors for the office were Argyll, whom Mor ton had induced to join the King's faction, and Jdorton himself, who was supported by EngUsh influence, but the majority declared for Mar, whose character for honesty in those profligate times stood higher than that of any of the nobles. On his accession to the supreme power. Mar confidently hoped that, by a judicious mixture of vigour and conciliation, he should be able to reduce the opposite faction, and restore peace to the country ; but the difficulties he had to contend against were infinitely more compli cated than he anticipated. Every attempt at negotiation was defeated by the unreasonable and overbearing conduct of Morton, • Douglas' Peerage of Scotland, edited by Wood, folio, vol. ii, p. 212. 1571.J OP CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 93 who had entirely governed the late Regent, and determined either to rule or overwhelm his successor. This daring and crafty man, who was the slave of ambition, knew well that his best chance of receiving the supreme power lay in keeping up the commotions of the country, and in this perfidious effort he received rather coun tenance than opposition from England. So successful were his efforts, that for some months after Mar's accession to the Regency ; the war assumed an aspect of unexampled ferocity. — For many miserable months Scotland presented a sight which might have drawm pity from the hardest heart ; her sons engaged in a ferocious and constant butchery of each other ; every peaceful and useful art entirely at a stand ; her agriculture, her commerce, and manufactures neglected ; nothing heard from one end of the country to the other but the clangour of arms and the roar of artillery ; nothing seen but viUages in fiames, towns beleagured by armed men, women and children flying from the cottages where their fathers or husbands had been massacred ; and even the pulpit and the altar surrounded by a steel-clad congregation, which listened tremblingly with their hands upon their weapons. Into all the separate facts which would support this dreadful picture I must not enter, nor would I wiUingly conduct my reader through the shambles of a civil war. Prisoners were tortured, or massacred in cold blood, or hung by forties and fifties at a time. Country men di'iving their carts, or attempting to sell their stores in the city [Edinburgh], were hanged or branded with a hot iron. Wo men coming to market were seized and scourged, and as the punish ment did not prevent repetition of the offence, one delinquent, who ventured to retail her country produce, was barbarously hanged In her own village [West Edmonston] near the city. These are homely details, but they point to such intensity of national misery, and made so deep an impression, that the period, taking its name from Morton, was long after remembered as the days of the Douglas Wars!""* The General Assembly held in 1570 appear to have confined themselves cliiefly to the management of their own crude and un defined system of polity. In that held at Stirling on the 6th of August 1571, a letter was read from John Knox, dated St An- • Tytler's History of Scotland, Edin. Svo. edit. vol. vii. p. 365, 366, 370, 371. 94 THE SUPERINTENDENT SYSTEM [1571. drews, August 3d, in which he complains of his weak state of health, for he was then dying, otherwise he says — " I would not have troubled you with this my rude dictation." He entreats his brethren patiently to hear and judge certain libels against him In the former Assembly as they shall answer to God, being convinced that he had neither offended God nor good men in any thing of which he was accused. Those libels, it is aUeged by his servant Bannatyne, had been thrown into the General Assembly In a counterfeit handwriting, accusing Knox of scurrilously reviling Queen Mary, and of sedition, schism, and erroneous doctrine.* Knox continues In his letter — " And now, brethren," he says, " be cause the [daUy] decay of naturaU strength threatens unto me certain and sudden departure from the miseries of this life ; of love and conscience I exhort you, yea. In the fear of God I charge and command you, that ye take heed to yourselves, and the flock over which God has placed you pastours. To discourse of the behaviour of yourselves I may not ; but to command you to be faithful to the fiock I dare not cease. UnfaithfuU and traitours to the flock shall ye be before the Lord Jesus, if that with your consent, directlie or indirectlie, ye suffer unworthie men to be thrust into the ministrie of the Kirk, under what pretence that ever it be." He exhorts them to " gainstand the mercUess devourers of the patrimonie ofthe Ku-k," and concludes by praying that God may give them " wisdom and stout courage in so just a cause," and himself a " happie end." It is recorded that this letter was " read, considered with mar ture dehberation, and aUowed in aU points, with firm purpose to proceed and do according to the godly counseU contained therein touching the affau-s of the whole Kirk. And as concerning his [Knox's] own part contained in the said letter, the Assembly or dained aU persons to be warned at the Tolbooth-door that had, or pretended to have any thing to lay to the charge of the Superin- dents or ministers, either presently convened or absent from the Assembly, to compear before the dissolving of the same, and ac cuse, If they had any just matter ."-|- In this Assembly It was resolved that a certain number of them should be nominated coramissioners to " pass to my Lord Regent's • Bannatyne's Memoriales, printed for the Bannatyne Club, 4to. 1836, p. 91-103. t Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 199-200. 1571.J OF CHURCH GOVERNMENT. 95 [Mar] Grace, CounseU, and ParUament, and conclude upon the heads, articles, and designns, presented in his Grace's name to this Assembly ; to propone, humblie require, and desire, in the Kirk's name, the granting of heads, articles, and redresses of com plaints, as shaU be given to them by the Kirk, the ane and the other always to be concludit on conforme to the instructions to be delivered to them." Erskine of Dun, Spottiswoode, Winram, Row, and fifteen others, or any eleven of them, were empowered to proceed to Stirling on the 22d of the same month of August, " to counsell and reason." Most important projects were now to be developed respecting the form of ecclesiastical government. It wasclear thatthe Superintendent System, which was neither Episco pal nor Presbyterian, with its rainisters, exhorters, and readers, as devised by Knox, Spottiswoode, Winram, Erskine of Dun, Row, and others, had proved a failure, after an experiment of ten years, and it was clear that the very constitution of the kingdom had been rendered imperfect by the questionable authority of the Acts of the various Parliaments during that period. A different con struction of the " Reformed Church" was in consequence deter mined, and this forms a curious episode in the history of that eventful time. 96 [1571.] CHAPTER IV. THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. The miserable state of Scotland, rent by faction and ciril discord, at the accession of the Eari of Mar to the Regency, is already deUneated. The affairs of religion were also in utter confusion ; the Reformation had faUed to produce beneficial effects on the gene ration who embraced its doctrines ; and the ancient Hierarchy was extinct, or at best only represented by the temporizing Bishops of Galloway and Orkney. The Acts of Parliament merely sanctioned the " pure religion " then professed in the realm as taught by the Reformers, but no form of church-government, not even the Super intendent System, was legally acknowledged. The laws of the kingdom stiU recognised the clerical order as one of the Estates of Parliament ; the Bishops and other dignitaries had been regu- « larly summoned from a very early period to that assembly ; and their consent was indispensable In aU the laws and constitutions enacted. " At the Reformation," says Dr Cook, " it was esteemed dangerous to make any great innovation upon the political consti tution then existing, and although the Roman Catholic Bishops were prohibited from teaching, and were In fact deprived of their right to exercise their clerical functions, they were permitted to retain the privilege of sitting in Parliament, and many of them regularly attended its deliberations. In progress of time several of them died, and as there was no possibility of continuing the succession, the Sees remained permanently vacant, and there waa a near prospect of the total extinction of the spiritual branch of the legislature. The persons who successively administered the government of James contemplated, with much anxiety and alarm, an event which might be attended with consequences fatal to the 1571.] the TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCDPATE. 97 throne of their sovereign. They dreaded that if, under the reign of a minor, one of the Estates ceased to exist, their proceedings might be afterwards declared Illegal, and the whole of those in teresting regulations by which the liberty and the religion of the great mass of the people were intended to be secured might be set aside."* This is also the view of the then state of affairs by Bishop Sage. " The Lords," he says, " thought it expedient that the Ecclesiastical State should sit in Parliament, and therefore were eager to restore Bishops, that their acts might be valid.'\ It was consequently determined to establish Episcopacy, if that can be so termed which was merely nominal, and had no pretensions to the episcopal function. Certain of the Protestant preachers were allowed to vote in the Parliaments as the successors of the defunct Prelates, and officially appointed Bishops of the vacant Sees. This measure excited considerable dissatisfaction on the part of those In the General Assemblies who were wedded to the Superintendent System. The persons selected for this visionary episcopate were John Douglas, originally a Carmelite Friar, rector of the University of St Andrews, a cadet of the Earl of Morton's family, who was appointed to the Archbishopric of St Andrews ; John Porterfield to Glasgow; and James Paton to Dunkeld. Some of the other Sees were not vacant, and the nomination of the titu lars was delayed in several cases tUl a future period. The Earl of Morton had obtained from the Regent a grant of the ample revenues of the Archbishopric of St Andrews, and doubtless others of the nobility anticipated similar appropriations. But this gift was illegal, for the patrimony of the Primacy never had been forfeited, and it was clear that, if by any change of affairs In subsequent times the Church should be restored, the Archbishops would have had a legal claim to recover not only the revenues, but to prosecute those by whom they had been appro priated without the authority of ParUaraent. Another motive for restoring the nominal order of Bishops was, not only to prevent the possibility of such proceedings at a future period, but with their consent to secure a certain portion of the patrimony to each See, while the rest was to be conveyed by statute to those of the nobility already in possession of the ecclesiastical plunder. When • Cook's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 167, 168. f Fundamental Charter of Presbytery Examined, p. 195-198. 7 98 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571. Morton found that the Regent Mar was resolved to restore this nominal episcopacy, he hastened to St Andrews to secure the election of Douglas, and thus, by having a person entirely devoted to his Interest in the See, keep undisturbed possession of the revenues, after aUotting to him such an allowance as he was dis posed to accept. Douglas appears to have been advanced in years, and In iU health at the time. The gossipping Richard Ban natyne, secretary of John Knox, describes hira as an " auld un able raan " — " ane man unable to traveU in body as a man should do, and more unable of his tongue to teach the principal office of ane bishop." He was nominated Archbishop on Saturday the 18th of August 1571, and as such he attended the Parhament or Convention held at StirUng on the 28th of that month. An attempt was made to prohibit him from voting as " ane of the Kirk," under pain of excommunication, until admitted by the said " Kirk," and Superintendent Winrara was the party em ployed to threaten hira with their censures;* but the Earl of Morton insisted on his voting as Archbishop of St Andrews under pain of high treason. He was ordered to get all the fruits of the benefice, and he attended the Convention of Stirling held on the 5th of September 1571, his name appearing as Joannes Archepisc Sancti- Andree, with Adam. Orchaden. Episc.-^ In the proceedings of that Convention they are designated Prelates, and as such they took the oaths of obedience to the Regent Mar, with the " Lords, commissioners of burghs, barons, and gentlemen."! Porterfield signs an " admonition " to the garrison of Edinburgh Castle as Archbishop of Glasgow along with Douglas and Bishop BothweU. II But before narrating the proceedings connected with the estar blishment of this nominal episcopacy, it is necessary to glance at the mode by which the Regent Mar successfuUy effected a change In the new ecclesiastical constitution. Some of the enactments of a previous ParUament had excited considerable discontent among the preachers, which was increased by the continued pressure of poverty, and by a declaration in the name of the Regent that the coUectors who were appointed to receive the thirds of the ecclesi- * Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 178, 183. t Ibid. p. 213. Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 65. X Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 67, 68. | ibid. p. 70. 1571.J THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 99 astical revenues as the stipends of the preachers could cease to act. This order, which was proclaimed at St Andrews, was grounded on the pretence that the stipends had not been regular ly paid, and that the King's proportion of the thirds had been withheld ; but it was reported that it originated with the Earl of Morton, whose agents had been prevented by the collectors from obtaining certain duties which he had appropriated. " It was thought," says Richard Bannatyne, " that these letters were raised by the Earl of Morton, unto whom the Rector of St An drois had written, showing that the Collector wald not suffer him to take up certain dues pertaining to the Bishopric, as the said rector had alleged, who was appointed and made Bishop of St An drois by the Lord of Morton, without any consent, assent, or ad mission of the Kirk."* Erskine of Dun considered it necessary to correspond with his relative the Regent Mar on the state of religious affairs and the poverty of the Reformed preachers. His first letter is dated from Montrose, 10th November 1571, and some of the passages of it are curious, as developing the sentiments of this zealous supporter of the Superintendent System, and the extraordinary notions he maintained respecting church govemment in general. " As to the provision of benefices," he teUs the Regent, " this is my judge ment — AU benefices of teinds, or having teinds joined or annexed thairto (which is taken up of the people's labours), have the offices joined unto thera, which office is the preaching of the Evangel and ministration of the Sacraments ; and this office is spirituaU, and thairfoir belongs to the Kirk, which only has the distributione and ministratione of spiritual things. So, by the Kirk spirituaU offices are distributed, and men are received and admitted thairto ; and the administration of the power Is committed by the Kirk to Bischops or Superintendents ; whairfoir to the Bischops and Superintendents pertains the examinatioun and admissioun of men into benefices and offices of spirituaU cure, whatsoever bene fice it be, as weU Bishoprlcks, Abbacies, Priories, as other infe rior benefices. That this pertains by the Scriptures of God to the Bischop or Superintendent Is manifest." Erskine then cites 2 Tim. u. 2, and 1 Tim. v. 22, for the edification of his friend the * Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 197. 100 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571. Regent, and proceeds — " The Apostle, also writing to Titus, Bischop of Crete, puts him in remembrance of his office, which was to admit and appoint ministers in every citie and congre gation ; and they could not do the same rashlie, without examinar tione ; he expressed the quahties and conditiouns of some men as should be admitted, as at length is contained in the first chapter, in the epistle foresaid. The deacons that were chosen in Jerusa lem by the whole congregatioun were received and admitted by the Apostles, and that by laying on of their hands, as Saint Luke writes in the Oth chapter of the Acts of the Apostles. This we have expressed plainlie by the Scriptures, that to the office of a Bishop pertains examination and admission into spirituaU cure and office, and also to oversee them that are admitted, that they walk uprichtlie, and exercise their office faithfuUy and purely. To take this power from the Bischop or Superintendent is to take away the office of a Bischop, that no Bischop be In the Kirk, which loere to alter and abolish the order that God has appointed in his Kirk.— K greater offence or contempt of God and his Kirk can no prince do than to set up by his authority men in spirituall offices, as to create Bischops and Pastours of the Kirk, for so to do is to conclude no Kirk of God to be ; for the Kirk can not be without it have the own power, jurisdiction, and libertie, with the ministratione of such offices as God has appointed." Erskine next declares — " In speaking this touching the libertie of the Kirk, I mean not the hurt of the King or others in their patronages, but that they have their privileges of presentatioun according to the laws, provyding always that the examinatioun and admissione pertain only to the Kirk of aU benefices having cure of souls." After some general observations on benefices and their temporalities he proceeds to the proper subject of his letter, which is an expostulation with the Regent for having nomi nated and constituted Douglas to be Archbishop of St Andrews, by his own authority, as grossly irregular and unscriptural, not to say unnecessary. " As to the question — If it be expedient ane Superintendent to be where a qualified Bischope is? — I under stand that a Bischop or Superintendent to be but one office, and where the one is the other is. But having some respect unto the case whereupoun the questione is moved, I answer, the Super intendents that are placed ought to continue in their offices, not- 1571.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 101 withstanding any others that intrude themselves, or are placed by us as have no power in such offices. They may be called Bischops, but are no Bischops, but idols (Zachar. verse 11., cap. vi.) with the Prophet, and thairfoir the Superintendents which are called and placed orderly by the Kirk have the office and jurisdictioun, and the other Bischops so called have no office nor jurisdic- tioune in the Kirk of God, for they enter not by the door but by another way, and thairfoir are not pastors, as says Christ, but thieves and robbers. I cannot but lament from my verie heart that great misorder used at Striveling at the last Par liament in creating Bischops, placing them, and giving them vote in Parliament as Bischops, in despite of the Kirk and hie contempt of God, having the Kirk opposing itself against that misorder."* To this letter, and to another dated from Perth, 14th Novem ber, the Regent Mar addressed as his reply to his " right trustie cousine" from Leith, on the 15th November. It contains a most important statement, which indicates his enlightened views of the important subject. " The default of the whole stands in this, that the policie of the Kirke of Scotland is not perfect, nor any solid conference among godly men who are well willed and of judg ment how the same may be helped ; and for corruptione which daily increases, whensoever the circumstances of things shall be well considered by the guid ministers that are neither busy nor over desirous of promotions to thame and thairs, it will be found that some have been authors and procurers of things that no guid policie in the Kirk can allow."-(- These admissions by the Regent prove that the Superintendent System was a complete failure, and he might weU say that the " policie of the Kirk of Scotland," as he calls it, though that Church was in reality extinct, was " not perfect." The Earl of Morton was at this time in Leith with the Regent, and Mr Richard Bannatyne records that " few godly believe that any comfort shaU come to [the] Kirk by the Lord of Mortone's means, who more seiks the destructione of the Kirk in de- paupering the same, than either he seiks God's glorie, or the weill of this present cause." The negotiations for altering and " Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 198-201. f ^l'^'^- V- 205, 206. 102 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571. adjusting the ecclesiastical " policie" are noticed in a letter from a certain Mr Alexander Hay, preserved by the sarae Bannatyne, retaiUng all the foreign and domestic news of the time, apparently to John Knox. He relates—" There has been some conference betuixt some of the Superintendents and Ministers, and my Lord Regent's Grace and the CounsaU, for agi'eement In matters touch ing the poUcie of the Kirk and dispositioun of benefices. The matter is deferred tiU the 8th of January. It seems to differ rather in circumstances than in effect ; and to speake truth, I find the Regent wiUing and desirous to have a form agreed unto, which I trust he could perform for his Interest. — -If you have with you the book I sent you when I came frora England, Intituled Leges Ecclesiasticce Anglicance, or Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum, which is the worke of John Foxe,* I wUl pray yow send the same to me with the bearer, and I shall doe goodwiU to send you some other book to supplie the place of that, while [untU] I return it, if ye think it worth."-f- On the Oth of December the Titular Archbishop Douglas and Superintendent Winram left St Andrews for Leith. As all parties were now generaUy agreed on the necessity of taking Into considera tion the subject of church government, the Regent consented to the request of the leading preachers that their jurisdiction and main tenance should be settled ; and Erskine of Dun wrote to the other Superintendents and Commissioners to assemble and make regu lations respecting the provision for the King's household out of the thirds of the benefices, and to consult about other matters of ecclesiastical poUty.! A Convention of " Superintendents, Com missioners, Ministers, and Commissioners for towns and kirks," was accordmgly held in the present parish church of Leith on the 12th of January 1571-2. The names of sixty-two persons are recorded as present ; the most conspicuous of whom are the Super intendents Erskine, Spottiswoode, and Winram, Messrs Darid Lindsay of Leith, WiUiam Christison of Dundee, Robert Pont, and David Ferguson of Dunfermline. || They unanimously found that " the present Convention shaU have the strength, force, and • No work so entitled occurs among the acknowledged writings of John Fox the " Martyrologist." t Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 208. j ibid. p. 213. II Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 203, 204. 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 103 effect of a General Assemblie, and that all things be treated and ended herein that may goodlie be done, and meet to be concluded in any Generall Assemblie." Erskine, Winram, WiUiara Lundie of that ilk, Andrew Hay, commissioner for Clydesdale, David Lindsay, commissioner for Kyle, Robert Pont, commissioner for Moray, and John Craig, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, or any four of them, were authorized to " compear before my Lord Re gent's Grace, and so many of the Lords of the Secret Counsell as his Grace shall appoint. In Leith this instant month of January, and there In the Kirk's name most humbly request for answer thereto," and to report to the Generall Assembly appointed to be held at St Andrews on the Oth of March foUowing. The mem bers of this Convention or Assembly permitted Mr Robert Pont to accept the office of a Judge in the Court of Session, to which he had been appointed by the Regent, thus sanctioning in his case what they condemned in that of Bishop BothweU of Orkney. This person, who became one of the leading preachers among the Re formers, was born at the little town of Culross in 1529, and edu cated at St Leonard's College in St Andrews, from which it is supposed he proceeded to a foreign university. It is already no ticed that he competed for the office of Superintendent of GaUoway with Bishop Gordon in 1563, and that in 1566, when a translation of the Helvetian Confession was ordered to be printed by the General Assembly, he was in so great repute with his party that they petitioned the Regent about three years afterwards to pre fer him to a situation of greater usefulness. Pont was in con sequence appointed Provost of Trinity College Church in Edin burgh, and afterwards to St Cuthberts near that city. In 1569 he excommunicated Bishop Bothwell of Orkney by comraand of the General Assembly. It appears that he was indebted for his seat in the Supreme Court to the influence of the Earl of Morton, who had his own reasons at the time for propitiating the Reformers. Pont, who was continued in his " office of the ministrie," was ac cused of non-residence in the General Assembly held at Edin burgh in August 1573, and of not sufficiently visiting the district of Moray, in answer to which he pleaded want of leisure ; and " no wonder," says the zealous Calderwood, whose Presbyterian notions were offended at his appointment ; " he was suffered to be a Sena tor in the College of Justice." 104 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. The persons nominated to appear before the Regent Mar and the Lords of the Secret Council in the " Kirk's name," were met by the Earl of Morton, then Lord ChanceUor, Lord Ruthven, Lord High Treasurer, Bishop BothweU of Orkney, Robert Pitcairn, commendator of Dunfermline, " secretary to our sovereign Lord," James Macgill of Nether RankeiUor In Fife, Clerk-Register, Sir John BeUenden, Lord Justice-Clerk, WUliam Lundie of that Ilk, , and Colin CampbeU of Glenorchy, who, or any four of them, were authorized by the Regent, on the 16th of January 1571-2, to " converse, treat, and conclude with the Superintendents and ministers in the Kirk, or commissioners authorized by them, anent aU matters binding to the ordering and estabUshing of the policy of the Kirk."* After several meetings and lengthy deUberar tions, Erskine, Winram, Craig, who was still the coUeague of John Knox, and the others, agreed not only to overthrow the whole Superintendent System, but even to explode whatever tendency there might be towards Presbyterianism, and to substitute or re store a peculiar kind of Episcopacy, of their own construction, which had no succession, and was utterly divested of apostoUoal authority. This singular transaction, which the gi'eat mass of the people beheld with Indifference, and the adherents of the deposed and al most defunct Romish Hierarchy with contempt, shews that its con- cocters were completely bewildered on the great and important subject of the constitution of the Christian Church. It was con temptible in such a man as Winram to be a party to this spurious polity, which subsequently tended, more than any irregularity which the Reformation had introduced, to Inflict serious Injury on the Church, after Andrew MelvUle commenced the agitation in favour of Presbyterianism ; and It was degrading in Bishop Both- well of Orkney to sanction a procedure which Incurred the ridicule of the people. It is too evident that religion at that period was in Scotland considered in a poUtical view, and the holiest and most sacred functions were assumed and usurped by men who must be held as either destitute of principle, or as Indifferent to the con stitution of the Church from the apostolical times. The first article, as sanctioned by the two parties at their • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 207. 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 105 deliberation, is entitled — " Anent Archbishopriks and Bishopriks," and is expressed in the following manner, the orthography of which It is unnecessary to give verbatim. The date is " at Leith, the xvi day of Januar 1571-2." " It is thought, in consideration of the present state, that the names and titles of Archbishops and Bishops are not to be altered or innovated, nor yet the bounds of the Dioceses confounded, but to stand and continue in time coming, as they did before the Re formation of religion, at least till the King's majority, or consent of Parliament : — That persons promoted to Archbishoprics and Bishoprics so far as raay be endowed with qualities specified in the Epistles of Paul to Tiraothy and Titus : — That there be a cer tain assembly or chapter of learned rainisters annexed to every metropolitan or cathedral seat. To all Archbishoprics and Bishop rics vacant, or that shall happen to be vacant hereafter, persons qualified [are] to be nominated within the space of [one] year and day after the vacancy, and the persons nominated to be thirty years of age at the least. The Dean, or failing the Dean, the next in dignity of the Chapter, during the time of the vacancy, shall be Vicar-General, and use the jurisdiction in spiritualibus as the Bishop might have need. All Archbishops and Bishops to be admitted hereafter shall exercise no farther jurisdiction in spiritual function than the Superintendent has and presently exercises, until the same be agreed upon ; and that all Archbishops and Bishops be subject to the Kirk and General Assembly thereof in spirituali bus as they are to the King in temporalibus ; and have the advice of the best learned of the Chapter, to the number of six at the least, in the admission of such as shall have spiritual function in the Kirk ; as also, that it be lawful to as many others of the Chap ter as please to be present at the said admission, and to vote thereanent."* The second article is entitled — " Anent Abbacies, Priories, and Nunneries." It places these under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of the Diocese In which they are situated, who is bound to take cog nizance that the " ministerie" connected with them shall be main tained. If possible, by special assignation of so rauch annual stipend from the revenues as shall be found reasonable. The Bishop in • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 209. 106 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. this matter was to act with the Privy CouncU. The remainder of the revenues were to be assigned to the support of those ofthe " Ec clesiastical Estate" in ParUament who were to have the titie of Abbot, PrioK, or Commendator, and were to be " weU learned and quali fied therefore." The appointments were to be by royal letters under the Signet addressed to the Archbishops or Bishops of the Dioceses, who were to examine the persons so nominated for their^ learning and abUIty, and being found qualified, they were to be instituted to the dignities by the Bishops of the respective Dio ceses, by authority of the King's letters under the Great Seal. AU persons admitted commendators were to be eligible to be Senators of the " Spuritual State" in the CoUege of Justice, or Court of Session, or might be employed in any other affairs con nected with the public service, the consent of the Bishop being obtained that no churches connected with the preferments of such persons shaU be " destitute of ministration." The third article, entitled " Anent Benefices of cure under Prelacies," contains a variety of particrdars regulating the Crown and.indiridual patronages, stipends, and the mode of presentation to vacant parishes. It was resolved that no person was eligible to the " office of a minister" under twenty-three years of age — that all such were to be admitted to their cures by the Bishop or Superintendent, in whose presence they were to subscribe aU the articles of religion which " concern the confession of the true faith and the doctrine of the Sacraments," ratified by the Regent Moray's first Parhament in 1567, — and they were also to take the oath of aUegiance to the King acknowledging his authority. They were to procure from the Bishop a testimonial that they had thus qualified themselves, and on the first Sunday in " time of session or pubhc prayers In the kirk," they were to read this testimonial and the Confession of Faith before the congregation, otherwise they were to be deprived. The other articles relate to " provost ries of coUege kii-ks," prebends in the said " kirks," and chapel- ries founded for " support of the schools and increase of letters," and to maintain bursars or poor students at the grammar school and Universities. All bursars and students within the Diocese of Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, Caithness, and Orkney, were " to study their art, Theologle, the Laws, or Medicine," at the University of King's College In Old Aberdeen ; those in the Diocese of St 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 107 Andrews, Dunkeld, Dunblane, and Brechin, within " ane of the Colleges of the University of St Andrews ;" and those within the Diocese of Glasgow, Galloway, Argyll, and The Isles, were to study " thair art within the Pedagogy of Glasgow." v The form of " creating a Bishop," or appointment by the Crown to a vacant Diocese, was approved, also the " license" under the Great Seal to the Dean and Chapter to choose " such ane as Bishop and Pastor of the said Bishoprick that shall be devoted to God, and to his Highness [the King] and his realm." A certain document called an " edict" was also sanctioned, enjoining the Chapter to convene and choose their Bishop on a specified day, and the Dean and Chapter were to return a prescribed " testi monial" of their obedience to the King, who was to grant " con firmation, provision, and royal assent upon the Chapter's certifi cate made of their election." If the party elected was already a " Bishop," and was to be translated, the document was to be ex pressed accordingly. After " the consecration," the Bishop was to appear before the King, and take the oath of allegiance and supremacy framed for that purpose. An arrangement was made lor the restitution of the temporalities of the Dioceses to the Bishops, and in favour of the " metropolitan and cathedral kirks." The Chapters of the several Dioceses were also reconstructed. After stipulating that for the " seat" of St Andrews as many of the old Chapter then alive and " are ministers, professours of the true religioun," shall be of the Chapter during their natural lives, among whom was the lay " Bishop " of Caithness, who is styled Commendator of the Priory of St Andrews, it was enjoined that after the " death of the present convent of the Abbey the Chap ter was to consist of twenty-one members." The Prior of St An drews was to be the Dean, and the others were to be the Prior of Portmoak, the Ministers of Edinburgh, Leith, Linlithgow, Stirling, Dunbar, Haddington, Perth, Crail, Cupar-Fife, Anstruther, Dy sart, Kirkcaldy, Kinghorn, Dunfermline, Aberbrothwick, Calder, in " Lothian," Fettercairn, Dun, and Methven. There were to choose by the King's licence the Dean, the Archdean of St An drews, the Archdean of Lothian, and the Chancellor ; and in the meanwhile Winram was to act as Archdean of St Andrews, Spot tiswoode as Archdean of Lothian, and Mr David Lindsay of Leith as ChanceUor. The " seat" of Glasgow was arranged to 108 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. have a Chapter of thirty-two " canons or prebendaries founded upon distinct and several benefices." Of these the Pastor of Hamilton was to be the Dean, the Parson of KUbride was to be the Chantor, the Parson of Campsie was to be the ChanceUor, the Parson of Carnwath was to be Treasurer, the Parson of Cad der and Monkland was to be the Sub-Dean, and the other digni taries were the Archdeans of Glasgow and Teviotdale. The Chap ters of the other Dioceses are not enumerated in the Acts of the General Assemblies as recorded in the " Booke of the Universall Kirk." AU these and other Articles were approved and ratified by the Regent Mar at Leith on the 1st day of February 1571-2. On the 24th of the previous January an " edict" was signed at Leith for the election of an Archbishop of St Andrews, conformably to this new state of affairs ; on the 28th of January the Earl of Morton had proceeded to that city to influence the appointment of John Douglas ; and the said " edict," by authority of the Regent, was fixed upon the church door and the Abbev gate on the 3d of February, ordering the election to take place on the Oth. An account of the proceedings is given by Richard Bannatyne, who, as secretary to John Knox, appears to have been present. On the 6th of February John Douglas gave " specimen doctrine," or in other words preached a " trial sermon," in the parish church, and the Earl of Morton was present. The Chapter assembled in the Abbey or Priory on the 8th, after a sermon preached by Patrick Adamson, otherwise Constance, whom Bannatyne ignorantly calls Coustlng. He says that a considerable discussion ensued about the election of the " Archbishop," but " in the end the said Rec tor was chosen, notwithstanding that many of the godly ministers were against it, and Mr George Scott, minister of Kirkaldy, took ane Instrument that he condescended [consented] not." John Knox was then in St Andrews, and protested against the election of Douglas, but his secretary has not preserved the docu ment. If the protestation was ever written. On Sunday the lOth of February, Douglas was " inaugurated" In presence of the Earl of Morton. Knox preached the sermon, but refused to assist far ther at the ceremony, and the " consecration" was performed by the lay Bishop of Caithness, Spottiswoode, and Darid Lindsay of Leith. The three sat with Douglas on a seat in front of the 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 109 pulpit during Knox's sermon, and after it was concluded Winram entered the pulpit. He delivered an address to Douglas from the first chapter of St Paul's Epistle to Titus, and then followed the order set forth in the First Book of Discipline for the election of Superintendents. Douglas read his answers to the several ques tions, and Mr William Cock, a Bailie of St Andrews, appeared to represent the people. Douglas denied that he had formed, or In tended to make, any " simonaicall paction ;" declared that he would be " obedient to the Kirk, and that he should usurp no power over the same ;" and that he would " take no more power than the Counsall and Generall Assemblie of the Kirk should prescribe." The lay Bishop of Caithness, Spottiswoode, and Lindsay, then " laid their hands and embraced the said Rector, Mr. John Dou glas, in token of admission to the Bishoprik."* Such was the " consecration" which those three men had the pre sumption to perpetrate at the commencement of this spurious Epis copacy, one of them, the Bishop of Caithness, let it be recollected, never in holy orders, and even Lindsay's ordination is doubtful, at least it is so considered by Bishop Keith. On the Sunday when it was done a poetical satire in Latin was posted on thegateof St Mary's College and on the church door. It was entitled Incommium, but was so general in its aUusions that it annoyed three individuals — Mr Robert Hamilton, Mr WiUiam Skene, commissary of St Andrews, and Mr Archibald Hamilton, each of whom thought It levelled at himself. The part which Knox sustained in this pretended con secration is curious, but if his secretary's stateraent is correct he was not inconsistent. Bannatyne alleges that this " inauguration " was " altogether against the mind of Mr Knox, as he at that time openly spake in pulpit," and " greatly inveighed against such ordour and doings as then were used." This excited the rage of Mr John Rutherford, Provost of St Salvador's College, who openly declared that Knox censured the proceedings because he had not himself been nominated to the See. This was told to Knox, who noticed It on the following Sunday in his sermon, when he declared that " he had refused a greater Bishopric than ever it was, which he might have had with the favours of greater men than ever the other had this Bishopric ; but only that he spake for the discharge * Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 223, 224. 110 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. of his conscience, and that the Kirk of Scotland should not be subject to that order which was then used, considering the Lords of Scotland had subscribed, and also confirmed In Parliament, the order already and long ago appointed in the Book of Discipline."* Dr Cook's observations on the conduct of Knox seem to be legiti mate inferences. After stating that Knox " expressed his disap probation," and refused to " inaugurate " the " new Primate " — a ceremony which neither he, the lay Bishop of Caithness, Spottis woode, nor Lindsay, had any more canonical authority to perform than the stalwart magistrate Mr William Cock — the Presbyterian historian, says — " This opposition proceeded frora various causes. Still desirous that the polity of the First Book of Discipline should not be invaded, he beheld with regret the first attack which was made upon it ; and he was satisfied that the choice of Douglas would be subservient to that robbery, as he usuaUy styled it, of the Church's patrimony, which he had uniformly reprobated. He also dreaded that the consequences which Beza had apprehended would foUow from the introduction of prelacy, and was thus led by his zeal for the purity of the Church not to concur In what raight destroy that purity. That he was not influenced by the Idea that Episcopacy was at variance with Scripture is erident from the communication which he within a few months made to the Assembly at Perth, and from the part in the ceremony taken by the Superintendent of Fife [Winram], one of his confidential friends ."-f- Several of the Bishoprics were speedily fiUed by the leading men among the Reformed preachers, and this novel " Episco pacy," or form of ecclesiastical polity even worse than the Super intendent System, and more objectionable than Presbyterianism, because it was the mere shadow without the. substance, was soon carried completely into operation. Dr Cook pronounces a high eulogium on the proceedings of the Convention or Assembly held at Leith which restored the archiepiscopal and episcopal rank, and led to the " inauguration" of Douglas. " The episcopal poUty," he says, " which issued from the Convention appears to have been admirably calculated for securing an useful and efficient ' Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 256, 257. t Cook's History ofthe Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 187, 188. 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. Ill clergy. It established an excellent system of controul ; it enforced upon ministers the regular discharge of their pastoral duties ; it assigned a peculiar province to all holding benefices ; allotted a moderate provision for their support and comfort, whilst it sub jected the highest dignitaries to restraints which guarded against the indolence or the profiigacy that had disgraced the Bishops under the Popish Establishment." — " But although the Church of Scotland must be considered as having at this time adopted Epis copacy, and although that adoption proceeded upon grounds so rational and so conformable to the principles of the Reformers, the zealous Presbyterians of after times looked back with regret to this part of the ecclesiastical history of their country, and en deavoured very unnecessarily, and in express opposition to the language and proceedings of the Church, to represent the resolu tions framed at Leith as having been rashly made, as having been forced upon the ministers, and as having never received the ex plicit sanction of the General Assemblies — an effect of party zeal not uncommon, but weakening the cause which it was designed to support." These are candid admissions, and a careful investiga tion of the whole circumstances triumphantly refutes the assertions of Wodrow, Calderwood, and other Presbyterian writers, who zealously endeavoured to shew that their Reformed association or society, which they dignify with the name of " The Church^'' was opposed to Episcopacy. The very names of the parties present in the Convention or Assembly at Leith on the 12th of Januaryl571-2, and who are all enumerated in the " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland," present an unanswerable confutation of the Presbyte rian statements. As to the objection that the resolutions at Leith " never received the explicit sanction of the General Assemblies," though such is not the fact, yet if it were it would be a matter of no consequence, for those very General Assemblies, as the meetings were called, were not then legally recognized. Calderwood, Wodrow, Petrie, and other Presbyterian writers, have been satisfactorily an swered by Bishop Sage, in his " Fundamental Charter of Presby tery Examined," as to the opinions adduced from their writings by Dr Cook, and it Is truly a miserable subterfuge to adopt such a mode of treating with contempt the first appearance of this kind of Episcopacy In Scotland after the Reforraation. The objection to it which must occur to the sound Churchman is, that it was 112 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. altogether a vain and futUe system — that it was no Episcopacy at aU, or so only In name — that the " consecration" of Douglas and others by unauthorized men, one of whom was a layman, was dis graceful, outrageous, and most sinful — and that the whole was a poUtical arrangement to serve particular purposes, and introduce a set of men into the Parliaments to represent the defunct and ab sent Prelates of the faUen Hierarchy, assuming their ecclesiastical titles, and pretending to be invested with functions which it was impossible to obtain without consecration from Bishops regularly and canonicaUy consecrated. Episcopacy without the succession is nothing, and differs in no respect from Presbyterianism, for it is the apostolicaUy derived succession which constitutes the Epis copate. Even the people ridiculed the persons " inaugurated" by such men as the lay Bishop of Caithness, "Winram, and Lindsay. They were long known by the very appropriate and significant soubriquet of Tulchan Bishops, derived from a practice then pre valent of stuffing a calf's skin with straw, and placing It before a cow to induce the animal to give milk, which figure was caUed a tulchan — a term derived from a word signifying a model or a close resemblance. The Tulchan Hierarchy was a complete deception, and was merely one of titles connected with personal arrange ments and political expediency, to say nothing of its gross perver sion of the real episcopate and its schismatical profanity. The men who figured in it as Titulars or Tulchans ought never to have been recognized by Keith in his enumeration of the Scottish Bishops. The Presbyterian Calderwood tells a story about Patrick Adam son, the successor of Douglas as Titular Archbishop of St An drews, that disappointed at baring lost the election on the present occasion, or at not then obtaining a Bishopric, he told his audience in a sermon he preached at St Andrews in February 1571-2, the time of the " Inauguration" of Douglas — " There were three sorts of Bishops — my Lord Bishop, my Lord's Bishop, and the Lorits Bishop. My Lord Bishop was In the time of Popery ; my Lord's Bishop Is now, when my Lord getteth the fat of the benefice, and the Bishop serveth for a portion out of the benefice, to make my Lord's right sure ; and the LorcTs Bishop Is the true rainister of the Gospel." It is impossible to ascertain what amount of truth IS to be attached to Calderwood's report of this sarcastic attack on the nobiUty. The same story is recorded by another Presby- 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 118 terian partlzan, who mentions that he was present — that it was the first time he heard Adamson preach — and that the sermon was delivered " the week after the Bishop was made."* It is not likely that Adamson would attempt to compete for the nomination to the Archbishopric with such a man as Douglas, the Rector of the University, and supported by the powerful influence of Morton. One author, of no great authority, thinks It necessary to deny the story by the statement that Adamson was not then in Scotland ;-f- but there is no doubt that he was in St Andrews at the time. Bannatyne expressly mentions that "Mr Patrick Cousting" — a cor ruption of Constance, Adamson's proper surname — preached on Friday, the 8th of February 1571-2, the day on which Douglas was elected, though it is not likely that he would then introduce such pleasantries into his sermon ; but we have other evidence. The General Assembly held at Edinburgh in March 1570-1, "brotherly required Mr Patrick Adamson to enter again into the ministry, in respect of the good gifts that God hath given him, and scarceness of ministers in divers counties. He answered, that he would ad vise with himself and brethren that love him till the next Assembly, and promised them to answer whether he would then enter in the ministry, or withdraw himself alluterly."! Accordingly, in the Ge neral Assembly held in August 1571, his written answer was read, " anent his re-entry to the ministry." It appears to have been in the affirmative, for the " Assembly ordained the commissioners appointed to speak to the Lord Regent's Grace before or at the next Parliament, to take order with the contents of his letter, and to report what they shall happen to do therein to the next Assem bly. || This memorial in Adamson's favour to the Regent was so far successful, that he was granted, before March 1572, -a pension of five hundred merks annually out of the rental of the Parsonage of Glasgow, payable at Martinmas and Whitsunday, " because for his own part he was willing to endeavour himself to the utter most of his power to the service of the ministry, according as it would please the Kirk to call him ; and also, " he would not only be at the Kirk's command to employ his labours, but also would • James Melville's Diary, p. 25. t Mackenzie's Lives of Scottish Writers, vol. iii. p. 365. X Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 193. II Ibid. p. 198, 199. 8 114 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1571-2. be content the said pension be at their pleasure, as any thing pertain ing to the Ku-k."* In August 1572 he was ordered by the Assembly to " enter in the ministry at Paisley at what time the commis sioner of Clydesdale shaU charge him thereto, which the Assem bly desireth to be done with all dUigence, according to the said Mr Patrick's own proniise."-f These facts prove that Adamson was then in Scotland, and was held in great repute by the lead ers of his party, and they are here introduced as connected with a person who was soon to sustain a very prominent place in religious matters, and who was to experience no ordinary persecu tion from his former associates. The resolutions of the Convention at Leith, ratifying the Titular or Tulchan Episcopacy, were reported to the General Assembly held at St Andrews on the Oth of March 1571-2, at which Douglas was present as " Archbishop," though his friend, Robert Hamilton, minister of St Andrews, was appointed Moderator. This offended several of the fanatical party, and, says Bannatyne, . who complains bitterly of some of the proceedings, " things went not as the most godly and upright desired."! No discussion took place on the subject, but a coramittee was appointed, consisting of the titular Archbishop, Superintendent Winram, John Knox, John Craig, Patrick Adamson, David Lindsay, John Craig, John Row, Robert Montgomery, and others of lesser note, to meet in the house of Knox, who was then resident in St Andrews in a very precarious state of health ; and they were enjoined to " con sider and sight [sift] the said articles and conclusions, and what therein they find agreeable to God's word, and to the utility of the Kirk, to report the utiUty of the same to the Assembly" that night or the foUowing day, that " the said conclusions may be in serted in the Register." Nothing farther appears to have been done, but the title oi Archbishop v/ as recognized. Winram resigned his office of Superintendent of Fife ; Patrick Adamson signed the con ditions for which he was to receive the pension of five hundred raerks granted by the Regent out of the Parsonage of Glasgow; and the titular Archbishop, though he offered and promised " to demit aU the offices which might Impede him to execute the office • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 240, 241. t Ibid. p. 245. X Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 227. 1571-2.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 115 of a Bishop," was continued Rector of the University, and Provost of the New College tUl next Assembly, " providing always he be diligent in visitation of his kirk." It appears, however, that Win' ram's resignation was not accepted,forhewas ordered to"use his own jurisdiction as before in the provinces not yet subject to the Arch bishopric of St Andrews, and requested to concur with the said Arch bishop, when he requires him in his visitation, or otherways within his bounds, until the next General Assembly ; and in like manner the Superintendents of Angus and Lothian to continue in their jurisdiction in manner foresaid, without prejudice of the said Archbishop, except by virtue of his commission."* A form of prayer was then in use throughout the parishes, as a certain Patrick Creich, who " for just causes was deprived of all function In the Kirk, was admitted again to read the 'prayer in Haddington kirk if he and the town could agree."-|" On the 21st of April 1572, Christison, minister of Dundee, re ported the arrival of an " Ireland Bischop, called the Bischope of Cashal," in that town. This must have been the titular or Roman CathoUc Archbishop of Cashel, who, in 1567, wounded with a dagger James M'CaghweU, the proper Archbishop of that See, because he would not surrender to him the administration of his province, and effected his escape into Spain. In the foUovring year this Titular and the Titular of Emly were sent by certain confederated rebels in Ireland as their ambassadors to the Pope and the King of Spain, to implore their aid and assistance in res cuing their religion and country from the alleged oppression of Queen Elizabeth. The object of this personage in visiting Scot land is not very clear, but when he appeared in Dundee he was attended by a few servants, and brought a letter of recommenda tion to the magistrates from the zealous and Reforming Earl of ArgyU, who requested them to further him to Flanders, whether he wished to proceed under the pretence of " visiting the schools." Soon after his arrival in Dundee this titular Archbishop was arrest ed by order of the Regent Mar, and his attendants prevented from having any comraunication with him. A packet of letters was discovered In a closet of his lodging by one of the Bailies, which • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 237-242. t Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 227, 228. 116 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1572. was sent to the Regent. In this packet was a Latin commission, regularly sealed, directed to the Pope and the King of Spain, be seeching them to emancipate Ireland from the sway of Queen Ehza beth, and promising to use their exertions to restore the Roman CathoUc reUgion both there and in Scotland. The Regent ordered the Titular to be removed from Dundee to St Andrews, in the castle of which he was confined. It was reported that EUzabeth demanded hira to be surrendered and sent to England, but he escaped from his durance on the 8th of August, early in the morn ing, out of a window, and descended a great part of the wall by means of his bed-clothes, which he cut and formed like a rope; " whether," says Bannatyne, " by negligence of his keepers, whom he had caused drink hard the night before with others in the place till midnight, of by policy and craft, I dare not affirm."* The next General Assembly was held in the Tolbooth of Perth on the 6th of August 1572, and as it raay be viewed as having sanctioned the Titular Episcopacy, its proceedings are of some importance. Erskine of Dun was unanimously chosen Moderator. One of the first decisions was a declaration that the Diocese of St Andrews, whatever might be its bounds, belonged exclusively to the Bishop, and to no other Superintendent, to " visit and plant kirks." The titular Archbishop requested that as the Diocese was extensive, and he was unable to discharge the whole duty person aUy, some of the " godliest and best learned" might be appointed, with whom he could consult about the order of the Diocese. Erskine of Dun, Spottiswoode, Robert Pont, John Craig, and Andrew Hay, commissioner for Clydesdale, were, at the request of the titular Archbishop, associated with him as a kind of " coun cil." They next appointed a committee to revise the " heads and articles concluded at Leith in the month of January last, betwixt ray Lord Regent's Grace, the Secret Council, and commissioners of the Kirk." The most conspicuous persons of this committee were Erskine of Dun, Winram, John Craig, William Christison, John Row, David Ferguson, Robert Pont, David Lindsay. Altogether thirteen were appointed, to consider and report. Two days afterwards the Committee gave in the result of their deliberations, " requiring the whole Assembly to adhere to the same!'' * Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 234, 235, 249. 1572.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 117 The substance of their report was that by the adoption of certain ecclesiastical titles, such as Archbishop, Dean, Chancellor, and Chapter, neither they nor their brethren who convened at Leith Intended any recognition of " papistrie or superstition," but they unanimously wished " rather the said names to be changed Into others that are not slanderous or offensive ; and in like manner protest, that the said heads and articles agreed upon be only re ceived as an interim, until farther and more perfect order be ob tained at the hands of the King's Majesty's Regent and nobility." The Assembly " in one voice" ratified this report. It was also suggested that in future the title Bishop should alone be used ; that as the names Chapter, Dean, Arch-Dean, ChanceUor, were dis liked by numbers, other designations meaning precisely the same should be adopted which would give less offence, such as that the Chapter should be called the Bishop's Assembly, and the Dean the Moderator of that Assembly — that " as to the functions of Deans, Archdeacons, and Chancellors, some be appointed by the present Assembly to try and give in their judgment concerning the said functions, how far they shall extend in particular, and also toward the functions of the Abbots and Priors, and of the interchanging of aU their names to others more agreeable to God's word, and the policies of the best Reformed Kirks." The whole to be reported to the next Assembly, or to the Parliament, If any raeeting inter vened." Knox, who was still at St Andrews In such a state of illness that he signed himself in one of his letters half deid,* was unable to attend the Assembly, but he sent them a short epistle which was entrusted to the care of Winram and Pont. " Albeit," he wrote, " I have taken my leave not only of you, dear brethren, but also of the whole world and worldly affairs, yet, reraaining in the flesh, I could not, cannot cease to admonish you of things which I know to be most prejudicial to the Kirk of Christ Jesus within this realm. Above all things preserve the Kirk from the bondage of the Universities. Persuade them to rule themselves peaceably and order the schools in Christ, but subject never the pulpit to their judgement, neither exempt them from your jurisdiction." • Knox to the Laird of Drumlanrig, 26th May 1572, Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 236. 118 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1572. The meaning of this tirade against the Universities Is not very clear, unless he refers particularly to the state of affairs at St An drews, which might come under his notice during his residence there. Knox continues — " Farther, I have communicated my mind with these two dear brethren [Winram and Pont]. Hear them, and do as ye will answer before God." This refers to a paper which he transmitted with his letter, containing ten Articles which he urged the Asserably to consider and adopt with the sanction of the Regent. He requests that " all Bishoprics vacant may be presented, and qualified persons nominated thereunto, within a year after the vaiking thereof, according to the order taken, in Leith by the comralssloners of the nobUity and of the Kirk in the month of January lasf — ^that no pensions of benefices be aUowed without consent of the legal possessor, the Superintendent, or com raissioner of the district, or " of the Bishops lawfully elected accord ing to the said order taken at LeitlC — that persons nominated Bishops be rejected if they " raake not residence, or be slanderous, or found unworthy either in Ufe or doctrine, by the judgment of the Kirk" — and that " an Act be made, decerning and ordaining aU Bishops adraitted by the order of the Kirk now received, to give account of their whole rents and Intromissions therewith once in the year."* It thus appears that Knox with almost his dying breath ap proved of the resolutions of the Convention of Leith, introducmg and estabhshing the Titular Episcopate subject to the General Assembly ; and yet with the knowledge of this fact Mr Thomas M'Crie, a Dissenting Presbyterian teacher in Edinburgh, of the sect caUed " Original United Seceders," or popularly by the soub riquet oi Old ov New Light Burghers, has the effrontery to mamtain the very reverse. In a series of lectures which he pubUshed, fuU of vulgar abuse, low scurrUity, gross misrepresentations, and miser able anecdotes pretending to be witty, this person the son of Knox's weU known biographer, Dr M'Crie, states, with reference to the " phantom Bishops," as he designates the Titulars—" Still, however, the introduction of these nominal dignitaries threatened the future peace of the Church, and the prospect of the confusions to which it might give rise, embittered the last hours of Knox, " Booke of the Universall Kirke of Scotland, Part First, p. 248. 1572.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 119 whose ' dead hand and dying voice' were raised against the innova tion. Hume of Godscroft informs us that the Reformer rebuked Morton sharply for divers things, but especially for his labouring to set up and maintain the estate of Bishops."* Now, without reference to Hume of Godscroft as an authority, the whole of this as set by Mr Thomas M'Crie, a bitter Presbyterian enemy of the Episcopal Church, is utterly gratuitous. Knox, little more than three months before his death, wrote on the 5th of August 1572, to the General Assembly held at Perth, and among other matters entreated that " all Bishoprics vacant may be presented, and qualified persons nominated thereunto, within a year after the vaiking thereof, according to the order taken in Leith by the commisisioners of the nobility and of the Kirk in the month of January last." In the account of Knox's last moments by his Secretary Bannatyne no " dead hand and dying voice," not a word was uttered against the Titular Episcopate, which he undeniably sanctioned by approving of the Convention in Leith ; and as to what he said to the Earl of Morton, who with Lord Boyd and Douglas of Drumlanrig, visited him on his death-bed a few days before he expired, Bannatyne expressly declares — " What purpose was among them none but themselves knew ."-I- There is no doubt that Knox lived and died, unconscious to himself, in a state of schism, and as such the Pres byterians are welcome to claim him if they please ; but it cannot be denied that he considered the Titular Episcopate as neither sinful nor unscriptural — a fact which Mr Thomas M'Crie ought to have ascertained before he added this to his collected mass of abuse with which his production abounds. In the Articles he transmitted by the hands of Winram and Pont to the Assembly at Perth, " he assented," says Dr Cook, " to the change of polity, for he advised the Assembly to petition the Regent that all vacant Bishoprics might be filled with quaUfied persons within a year after the vacancy had taken place, according to the order taken at Leith ; and he speaks of Bishops lawfully elected in conformity to that order. In the answer returned to him the Assembly informed him that they found his articles both reason- • Sketches of Scottish Church History embracing the Period from the Eeformation to the Eevolution, by the Eev. Thomas M'Crie, author of the " Life of Dr M'Crie." Edinburgh, I2mo. 1841, p. 97, 98. X Bannatyne's Memorialles, p. 285, 286. 120 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. [1572. able and godly."* This answer was signed by Winram, Lindsay, Pont, Row, Spottiswoode, Erskine of Dun, and the " Bishop of Caithness.""!- The Regent Mar died after a severe iUness at Stirling on the 29th of October 1572, though few expected that it would prove fatal ; and the Earl of Morton was elected his successor on the 24th of November, the very day on which Knox died in his house at Edinburgh, He had left St Andrews on the 17th of August, and he was in such a debiUtated state that he did not reach Leith till the 23d. During his last iUness, he was, according to Bannar tyne, who personally attended him, solely occupied In devotional exercises, and In receiving visits from his friends. Among the persons of rank who Interested themselves in waiting upon him, were the Earls of Morton and Glencairn, Lords Ruthven and Lindsay, and the lay Bishop of Caithness. Knox, says Mr Tytler, " was scarcely to be called an aged raan, not having completed his sixty-seventh year, but his life had been an Incessant scene of theological and political warfare, and his ardent and restless intel lect had worn out a frame which at no period had been a strong one." Of such a man as Knox little need be said in the present work. " None," as Mr Tytler observes, " who has studied the history of the times or his own writings, will deny that he was often fierce, unrelenting, and unscrupulous, but he was also disin terested, upright, and sincere. He neither feared nor flattered the great ; the pomp of the mitre or the revenues of the wealthiest diocese had no attractions in his eyes ; and there cannot be a doubt of his sincerity, when in his last message to his old and long-tried friend Lord Burghley, he assured him that he counted it higher honour to have been made the instrument that the gospel was simply and truly preached in his native country than to have been the highest prelate in England." The unfeeling and insolent conduct of Knox towards Queen Mary is one of the many instances of his " fierce and unrelenting " disposition, and his fore-knowledge of the horrid raurder of David Riccio in the presence of his sovereign, which Mr Tytier has completely proved from authentic documents, shows that he was " unscrupulous," • Cook's History ofthe Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 185. t Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 250. 1572.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 121 and that " on many occasions he acted upon the principle, so manifestly erroneous and unchristian, that the end justified the means."* His officious interference with the affairs of individuals excited against him numerous enemies, and raany scandals were cir- lated of which he was the hero. Some of them are recorded by his servant Bannatyne. Knox was interred in the church-yard of St Giles at Edinburgh in the presence of the Regent Morton and several of the nobility. That cemetery, now covered with the buildings erected for the Suprerae Courts of Scotland, then ex tended frora the south side of the church to the Cowgate, and the spot where Knox was buried was long traditionally preserved as having been almost directly in front of the equestrian statue of Charles II. in the Parliament Square. Knox was twice married. His first wife was Marjory Bowes, sometimes called Joane to distinguish her from another sister Margery, the fifth daughter of Sir George Bowes of Stretham, in the county of Durham, Knight Marshal, by whom he had two sons, Nathaniel and Eleazar. It Is singular that Knox apparently took little interest in them, and even perraitted them to be edu cated in the principles of " Prelacy." A short time afterwards a notice occurs in the account of one of the meetings of the Gene ral Assembly, that " Mr Knox had been in England to see his bairnsT In 1566 they went to their mother's relations in England, and were educated at St John's College, Cambridge, their names being entered only eight days after their father's death. Nathaniel, the elder son, died Fellow of St John's in 1580 ; and Eleazar was appointed one of the University Preachers. He was also ad mitted to the vicarage of Great Clacton in E.«sex, died in 1591, and was interred in the chapel of St John's College. Both died without Issue. Knox's second wife was Margaret, daughter of Andrew Lord Stewart of Ochiltree, and sister of James Earl of Arran. By her he had three daughters, respectively named Martha, Margaret, and Elizabeth, who were subsequently married to Presbyterian ministers — Robert Pont, minister of St Cuthberts, James Fleming, and the zealous John Welsh of Ayr. The marriage of Knox to a lady in the rank of his second wife occasioned many jocular * Tytler's History of Scotland, Svo. edit. vol. vii. p. 401, 427-438. 122 THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPAXE. [1572. observations, more especially as the disparity of years was consider able, and the person and manners of the bridegroom were not particularly fascinating, a contemporary describing him as " ane auld blak carle," and very facetiously rankmg the lady among the " pious sisterhood " of her day. She survived the Reformer, and married Sir Andrew Ker of Faldoimside. She received a pen sion of 500 merks, two chalders of wheat, six of barley, and four of oats for the year 1573. The writinsrs of Knox are chiefly poUtical and controversial. Archbishop Spottiswoode aUeges that he was not the author of the work entitled the '¦ Historie ofthe Reformatioun of Religioun within the Eealm of Scotland," which bears his name ;* but the '• supplication " of his servant Bannatyne to the General Assem bly in 1573, places its genuineness beyond doubt. He declared that Knox had " continued and perfectly ended " the narrative to the year 1564 ; — " so that of things done since, nothing by him is put in that form and order as he hath done the former, yet not the less there are certain scroUs, papers, and minutes of things left to me by him, to be used at my pleasure, whereof a part wore written and subscribed with his own hands, and another by mine at his command." He proceeds to state that the '¦ said scrolls are so untacked and mixed together, that they were in danger of being lost If they feU Into hands not accustomed to them, and that as he was unable to do so at his o^ti expense, he requests a " reasonable pension " for his trouble. The sum of L.40 was aUowed him for the purpose, and proper persons were associated with him in the publication of the work. Thus far have we traced the progress of the ecclesiastical polity introduced by the Scottish Reformers as it respects the Superin tendent System, prerious to the establishment of the Titular Episcopate. It was the boast of John Row, one of the most ' " As to the History of the Church ascribed commonly to him," says the Arch bishop, " the same was not his work, but his name supposed to give it credit; for be sides the scurril discourses we find in it, more fitting a comedian on a stage than a divine or minister, such as Mr Knox was, and the spiteful malice that another ex- presseth against the Queen Eegent [consort of James V., and mother of Queen Marv] ; speaking of one of our martyrs, he remitteth the reader to a farther declaration of his sufferings to the Acts and Monuments set forth by Mr Fox, an Englishman, which came not to light some ten or twelve years after Mr Knox's death." History of the Church and State of Scotland, folio, 1677, p. 267. 1572.] THE TITULAR OR TULCHAN EPISCOPATE. 123 prominent of them, that they " took not their example from any Kirk in the world, no, not from Geneva." Independents, Method ists, Baptists, and every sect, however extravagant, set forth similar pretensions, and have the same right to do so as the Pres byterians, because this presumptuous boast of sectarianism, in any form by which it Is characterized, results from the same dan gerous source — the pernicious adoption of private judgment in opposition to ecclesiastical authority in aU ages. It is one of the melancholy examples of men thinking that they ought to run as far as possible from what they are induced to hate. We need not, therefore, be surprized at the unsuccessful result of crude and iU-di- gested schemes, the offspring of private opinions, heated imagina tions, and party resentment, all deeply intermingled with the political strife and animosities of the times. " As the Scottish Reformat tion," it Is alleged in a well known periodical not particularly friendly to the Episcopal Church,* " did not originate in native leaming, so It did not even come recommended to the Scottish people by the learned authority of its propagators. In relation to other national reformers, the Reformer of Scotland was an unlet tered man. ' Compared with Knox,' says a great German writer, ' Luther was a timorous boy;' but if Knox surpassed Luther himself in Intrepidity, even Luther was a learned theologian by the side of Knox. With the exception of MelvUle, who obtained what erudition he possessed abroad, the religion of the people of Scotland could boast of no theologian worthy of the name. Some remarkable divines, Indeed, Scotland has possessed, but these were aU adherents of that Church which for a season was esta bUshed by the wiU of the monarch in opposition to the wishes of the nation. The two Forbeses, to say nothing of Leighton, Burnet, and Sage, were EpiscopaUans. In fact, the want of popular support made it necessary for the divines of that Esta bUshment to compensate by the strength of their theological learn ing for the weakness of their political position." ' Edinburgh Eeview, October 1836, p. 113, 114. 124 [1572-3. CHAPTER V. THE TITULAR BISHOPS — THEIR HUMILIATING POSITION— PEO CEEDINGS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES — THEIR PRESBYTERIAN OPPONENTS. The Earl of Morton was confirmed in the Regency by a Conven tion held at Edinburgh on the 24th of November 1572, which was attended by the Titular Archbishop of St Andrews, the lay Bishop of Caithness, and Bishop Bothwell of Orkney. His first Parlia ment met also at Edinburgh on the 26th of January foUowing. The first act was " anent the true and Haly Kirk ;" and the " lawful Archbishops, Bishops, Superintendents, and Commis sioners of the Dioceses and Prorinces of the Realm," were en joined to proceed vigorously against all the determined adherents of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy, under the penalty of " tynsall." or loss of the fruits of their benefices for one year to the King's use. Another act was passed, prohibiting the " adversaries of Christ's Evangel," by whom were meant the Romanists, from en joying the " patrimony of the Kirk," which the " Archbishops, Bishops, Superintendents, Possessors, or Titulars of Prelacies," and the General Assembly were to enforce. It was also enacted that none were to be considered " loyal and dutiful subjects," if they re fused or delayed to " make their profession of the true religion;" and they were imperatively commanded to " fortify, assist, and main tain the true preachers and professors of Chryst's religion against whatsomever enemies and gainstanders," concluding with a de nouncement of the " cruel decrees of the Council of Trent, which most injuriously is caUed by the adversaries of God's truth the 1572-3.] THE TITULAR BISHOPS, 12^ Haly League." An act was passed regulating manses and glebes, and the parish churches were ordered to be repaired.* It Is aheady stated that the Titular Prelates whom the change in affairs called into existence were Douglas of St Andrews, and James Paton, who was appointed to Dunkeld In 1571, when the See was declared to be vacant by the forfeiture of Bishop Crichton. The name of this Titular occurs in the List of Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers in 1567, as minister of Muckhart, a parish in the south-eastern part of the county of Perth, on the banks of the Devon. John Porterfield was also nominated titular Archbishop of Glasgow in 1571, in which he continued little more than a year, when he was succeeded by Jaraes Boyd, proprietor of the estate of Trochrig, the second son of Adam Boyd of PinkhiU, a younger brother of Alexander Boyd, father of Robert third Lord Boyd, ancestor of the Earls of Kilmarnock. Bishop Keith describes him as " a very worthy person," who " exercised the office of par ticular pastor at the cathedral church, the Barony of Glasgow being then the parish that pertained to that church. Orkney and Caithness were still possessed, the former by Bishop Bothwell, the latter by the lay Titular Stewart. The Titular of Dunblane was not appointed till 1574, in the person of Andrew Graharn, who is styled " preacher of the word of God," and who was the second son of William first Earl of Montrose by his third marriage, as is stated in the Peerage Lists, but in the Acts of the General As sembly he is styled son to Graham of Morphie, a cadet of the Mon trose Family, which Is the correct statement. The presentation of this Titular to Dunblane caused a " difficultie" to the General Assembly held in March 1574^5, he having never been even & preacher, but this objection was overruled, because they had not decided whether it was necessary that all " Bishops," as they styled the Titulars, should first be preachers, and Graham was ordered to be admitted If found qualified. For this purpose he was ordered to " exercise " or lecture on the beginning of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans on a specified day in the Magdalene Chapel, which stiU stands In the Cowgate of Edinburgh, before the " Bishops, Superintendents, and ministers that may be • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 71, 72, 73, 76. 126 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1572-3. present, and especiaUy before the minister of Edinburgh."* Aber deen had no Titular tUl after the death of Bishop Gordon in 1579, when David Cunninghame, minister of St Nicholas in New Aber deen, was appointed. George Douglas, an illegitimate son of Archi bald sixth Earl of Angus, was nominated titular Bishop of Moray In 1573. Brechin was possessed by Alexander CampbeU, of the Ardkinglas faraUy ; and Bishop LesUe of Ross, though one of the overthrown Hierarchy, and absent in England, was undisturbed in his nominal possession of the See, which he retained tiU his death in 1596. No Titular was appointed to Galloway, and none to The Isles after the death of CarsweU, which occurred in 1572, tiU about 1575, when a " Bishop of the Isles" Is recorded as present in the General Assembly held in August that year ;-f- but he is not men tioned by Keith ; and none to ArgyU tiU 1580, when Neil Camp beU, minister of Kilmartin, was nominated. It thus appears that only a few Titulars were considered necessary to represent the defunct Spiritual Estate in ParUaraent. The name of John, " Bishop of Sanct Andrews," occurs several times in the account of the proceedings of the General Assembly held in March 1572-3 at Edinburgh, when several complaints were preferred against him. One of these was by Mr John Brand, rainister of HoljToodhouse, who aUeged that the titular Arch bishop had authorized a Popish priest named Forrest to administer the sacrament of baptism at Swinton in Berwickshire, in riolation of the injunctions of Spottiswoode the Superintendent. Douglas answered that "the foresaid priest had recanted all papistrie in the kirk of St Andrews, and thereafter lie admitted him to administer the .sacrament of baptism." The Titular was farther accused of not risiting the parish churches within Fife for six months past, and " also for not preaching since he was a Bishop." To this he rephed that he " preached in every kirk which he visited by him self at all times, but excused his not risitation since the last As sembly by reason of his sickness." ' Sorae complaints were lodged against the titular Archbishop in the General Assembly held in Edinburgh in August 1573, but • Booke of the UniversaU Kurk of Scotland, Part First, p. 325. t Ibid, p. 331. 1573.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 127 were merely connected with the mode in which he discharged his functions. Paton, the Titular of Dunkeld, was also subjected to an investigation. It was alleged that he " had received the name of a Bishop, but they had not heard that he had used the office within his bounds." He answered that he " had lately received that Bishopric, and that there was a Superintendent continued in that bounds till this Assembly." The other accusations against him were that he had not proceeded against Papists, and par ticularly against John Stewart, fourth Earl of Atholl, who was well known to be a zealous Roman Catholic, and who, with Lords SommerviUe and Borthwick, had strongly opposed the Reformation in 1560 — that he had made a simonaical compact about the profits of his Bishopric with the Earl of Argyll — and that he had voted in Parliament in favour of a certain act of divorce which had been passed In opposition to the sentiments of the General Assembly.* At this meeting Bishop Gordon of Galloway was charged with divers offences, and ordered to make public re pentance in sackcloth three several Sundays in St Giles' church, the College church, and St Cuthbert's church, Edinburgh. The Titular of Dunkeld was peremptorily ordered to visit his Diocese after the Assembly was dissolved, to enforce the act of Parlia ment " against Papists, of what degree so ever they be," and all other criminal persons, and to report at the next meeting. Mean while intimations were given to appoint days for the election of the titular Archbishop of Glasgow, the titular Bishops of Moray, Ross, and Dunblane, and of a " suffragan" for the Titular of St Andrews in Lothian. Commissioners were ordered to be in all provinces where Bishops were not placed — the Parliament was to be petitioned respecting the repairs of those cathedrals used as parish churches, and as the most part of the canons, monks, and friars within the realm had made profession of the " true religion," they were enjoined to serve as readers, -f- The General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the Oth of March 1573-4, was attended by five Titulars of the " phantom Episcopate" — John " Bishop" of St Andrews, James " Bishop" of Glasgow, James " Bishop" of Dunkeld, George " Bishop" of Moray, and • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 270. t lUd. p. 280, 283. 128 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, . . [1574. Robert " Bishop" of Caithness. The proceedings appear to have commenced with the usual complaints against the Titular of St Andrews for neglecting his duty, and he urged his constant excuse that " he had been continually sick." The Titular of Dun keld was again arraigned for not excommunicating the Earl of AthoU and his second Countess, INIargaret, third daughter of Malcolm third Lord Fleming, and successively reUct of the eldest son of the Earl of Montrose, and of the eldest son of the Earl of ]\Iar. This lady was probably the more obnoxious to the leaders of the Assembly because it was generally believed that she pos sessed the power of incantation, and had contrived, when Queen Marj' gave birth to James VI. , to transfer aU the pains of child- labour to a certain dame patrimoniaUy designated Lady Rires. The Titular very naturaUy had no inclination to incur the resent ment of such a near and powerful neighbour as the Earl of Atholl, who then resided in great splendour on his own extensive domain, having at his command a numerous and fearless clan. He admit ted the neglect, and was ordered not only to confess his fault pub licly In the cathedral church of Dunkeld, but to pronounce the sentence of excommunication within forty days, and to report to the Regent Morton, with whom the Earl of AthoU was then at feud. A more serious charge was preferred against the Titular of Moray. He was accused of fornication, which he seems to have admitted, for he alleged that " after admonition given him he had abstained from all cohabitation with the said woman." He was ordered to " purge himself before the Asserably of the said crime," and a committee was appointed to summon the " Chapter of Moray" before them for irregularity In his election. The Titular satisfied a subsequent General Assembly for the " slander" under which he laboured, and was no more troubled on the matter. This Assembly sent a complaint to the Regent Morton, settmg forth that they were much disappointed at the absence of his Grace and the nobility, which was to them " raost dolorous and lamentable," as it caused the non-attendance of many members who " weU cannot be absent from the treating of these things that appertain to the Kirk and policie thereof In Assembly together," and to the " which end the AssembUes are appointed." They in form the Regent that they extended their admonition to aU per sons, of whatever rank, who were then with him, and especially 1574.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 129 the Bishops and " such as are of the rainistry." This may have some reference to a Convention held by the Regent In Holyrood house on the Sth of March, the day before their Assembly met, in which it was declared, that although since the " alteration of re ligion the liberty of the Evangell has been enjoyed in unity of doc trine, yet is there not to this day any perfect policy by laws and constitutions set out, how the Kirk in all degrees shall be govern ed in decent and coraely order, by which sundry inconveniences have followed, and more are like to occur hereafter, if timely remedy be not provided." The Estates nominated a coramission to " con vene, confer, reason, and put In forra the ecclesiastical policy and order of the governing of the Kirk, as they shall find raost agree able to the truth of God's word, and most convenient for the state and people of the realm." The Coramission consisted of John Lord Glammis, Chancellor, the titular Archbishop of Glas gow, Bishop Bothwell of Orkney, the Commendators of Dunferm Une, Newbattle, Deer, and Pittenweem, James MacgiU of Nether Rankeilour, Clerk Register, Sir James BeUenden, Lord Justice- Clerk, David Borthwick, King's Advocate, John Erskine of Dun, John Winrara, John Spottiswoode, Alexander Arbuthnot, Princi pal of King's College in Old Aberdeen, James Lawson, the successor of Knox as mimster of Edinburgh" and David Lindsay of Leith."* They were all present, and were ordered to meet on the 14th of the same month of March in Holyroodhouse, to " draw a form of the said ecclesiastical policy," to be submitted to the Estates at their next convention, and by their advice presented to the Par liament, that the whole, or part of it, may be sanctioned by law. Nothing, however, appears to have resulted from this Commission, at least their proceedings are not recorded. The situation of the Titular Bishops, and the domination over them by the General Asserably, are evident from sundry resolu tions at this raeeting. It was declared that the " jurisdiction of Bishops in their ecclesiastical function " shaU not exceed that of Superintendents, which they previously had and still have," and that, like them, the said " Bishops" shaU be " subject to the dis cipline of the General Assembly as members thereof." The Titu lars were also prohibited from collating to any benefice within the * Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 89. 130 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1574. bounds of the Superintendents without theh- written consent, and even the consent of three " weU qualified ministers" was necessary before appointment to parishes within their own Umits. Erskine, Spottiswoode, and Winram, resigned their office as Supermtendents, and Robert Pont, " in respect that George Douglas Is admitted Bishop of Moray, demitted his office of commissioner" for that Diocese. These detaUs evince the miserable state of ecclesiastical affairs m Scotland at that period, when the Church was extinct, and the instruction of the people, the administration of the sacraments, and the whole clerical functions, usurped by self-constituted preach ers. As to the Titular Episcopate, It was so utterly lifeless, in efficient, and contemptible, that it is astonishing how the men in vested witb It had the boldness to caU themselves, and the pre sumption to consider themselves. Bishops In any sense. Yet that they did so Is evident from their signatures, and their seals, on which their names are paraded as if they had been duly conse crated Prelates, and part of the great succession of the Christian ministry. Much of the deplorable inefficiency of the system which prevailed is ascribed by Presbyterian writers to the conduct of the Regent Morton, who is accused of not only oppressing the people generaUy to gratify his avarice by extorting money, but of refus ing to pay the stipends of the preachers, and even spuming the functions of those personages whom Dr Cook raagnUoquently terms " the venerable Superintendents, the fathers of the Protestant EstabUshment in Scotland."* Whatever truth may be In such charges. It is erident from Morton's conduct that he was dissatis fied with the whole affair; he felt the responsibUity of his situation as the head of the Government, and he was harassed and dis gusted at those innovations in ecclesiastical polity which were continuaUy In agitation In the General Assemblies, sowing the seeds of strife among the peaceable, and airaing at no practicable, InteUigible, or satisfactory arrangement. Such was the state of affairs when Andrew MelviUe made his appearance in Scotland in July 1574. As this Individual's history is zealously pourtrayed by a Presbyterian writer of local note,t ' Cook's History of the Church of Scotland, vol. i. p. 235-241. t Life of Andrew Melville, containing Illustrations of the Literary and Ecclesias- 1.574.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 131 who has set forth aU the said MelviUe's actions and sentiments in the most favourable raanner to serve his own party, it would occupy too much space to enter into biographical details in the present work of his birth, connections, and educational career. It is enough to state that he was born In 1545 at Baldovie, on the,banks of the South Esk, near Montrose, an estate of which his father, who fell in the battle of Pinkie, was the proprietor — that he ac quired the rudiments of the Latin and Greek languages from a Frenchman named MarsUliers, who was patronized In the school of Montrose by Erskine of Dun — that he proceeded to the Uni versity of St Andrews, where his abilities attracted the notice of the afterwards titular Archbishop Douglas then Rector — that he went to France In 1564, and distinguished himself at the Univer sity of Paris, whence he removed to Poictiers, and was appointed Regent in St Marceon's CoUege there — and that he went subse quently to Geneva, and was presented to the chair of Humanity then vacant in that Academy or University. At Geneva he became Intimately acquainted with Beza and other distinguished persons of the Calvinistic school. After an absence of ten years Melville returned to Scotland in 1574, and was " the first," as it is quaintly stated upwards of a century after his arrival, " who kindled the combustions in this Church by introducing the discipline of Geneva among us." This is of course denied by the Presbyterian writers, but the evidence of Its truth, as previously adduced from the Acts of General Assemblies in their " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland," is complete and satisfactory to any unprejudiced inquirer. Wodrow affirras that the Presbyterianisra subsequently Introduced by MelvUle was kept in view in all the measures adopt ed from the Reformation ; but Dr Cook denies this statement, de claring that the said Wodrow is " wrong" in so expressing him self. A more recent Presbyterian writer, Mr W. M. Hethering ton, ex-minister of Torphichen in Linlithgowshire — a person ani- ifaated, like most of the preachers of his views, by the most malig nant hatred towards the Episcopal Church, of the true history and principles of which he is in utter ignorance, raust needs make a ticai History of Scotland during the latter part of the Sixteenth and beginning of the Seventeenth Century, by Thomas M'Crie, D.D., Minister of the Gospel, Edinburgh, Author ofthe " Life of John Knox," Edinburgh, 2 vols. 1819. 132 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1574. simUar flourish to that of Wodrow. He asserts, and most truly, for the fact can be and has been repeatedly demonstrated, that " EpiscopaUans are In the habit of ascribing the decided Presby terian forra of church government in Scotland to the personal in fluence of Andrew MelvUle, who had brought, say they, from Geneva the opinions of Calvin and Beza, and succeeded In Infusing them into the Scottish ministers, who had previously been favour able to a modified Prelacy." Yet in the face of the undeniable fact that such raeetings caUed Presbyteries and Synods were not known or heard of in Scotland for upwards of twenty years after the Reform ation, and notwithstanding the details preriously given of the proceedings of the General Assemblies with which the Titular Bishops were associated, the Presbyterian preacher at Torphichen has the effrontery to say — " The Reformed Church of Scotland was from the beginning, and always has been, so far as she has been enabled to exhibit and act upon her own principles, decidedly opposed to Prelacy, taking neither her creed, her form of govern ment, nor her discipline, from any other Church, but from the word of God alone, and in principle, aim, and endeavour, always essentially and deterrainedly Presbyterian."* A writer in a cele brated periodical flatly contradicts this dogmatical and presump tuous assertion. He observes that after the Reformation, " for nearly centuries Scotland, compared with other countries, may be broadly stated to have been without a Theology," and he aUudes to the Presbyterians, for he explicitly states in the passage previously cited that " some remarkable divines indeed Scotland has produced, • but these were all adherents of that Church which for a reason was estabUshed by the wiU of the monarch In opposition to the wishes of the nation." The reviewer proceeds to the utter annihilation of the Presbyterian preacher at Torphichen's ar rogant declamation about the origin of this schism In the " Word of God :"— " The Reformation in Scotland, and the institution of the Scottish Church, were not indigenous — wete not the conclusion of a native theology. In Scotland the new opinions were a communication from abroad. The polity and principles of the Scottish Church were borrowed — borrowed from • Hetherington's History of the " Church" of Scotland, Edinburgh, Svo, 1842, p. 133, 134. 1574.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 133 Calvin and Geneva ; and it was only one, and one of the least prominent, of the many Calvinist and Presbyterian churches throughout Europe. At the same time It was neither the creature nor the favourite of the Prince.* The truth is, that In Scotland the Church CathoUc became extinct from the Refor mation to 1610, for neither can the lU-digested Superintendent System, with its array of " Ministers, Exhorters, and Readers," nor the miserable Titular Episcopacy incorporated with It, nor the human inventions introduced by Andrew MelvUle under the name of Presbyterianism, nor all three put together, be considered as entitled to any connection with the true and apostolic Chilrch. As to the Titular Episcopacy, even Dr M'Crie, with all his Pres byterian narrowness, rightly observes — " This raongrel species of Prelacy cannot meet the approbation of any true Episcopalian. Though certain eager advocates of primitive order, and the unin terrupted succession of the Hierarchy, have persisted in maintain ing that Episcopacy always existed in Scotland, and In support of this plea have appealed among other things to the transactions at Leith, yet they have generally shewn themselves reluctant and shy in claiming kindred with the Tulchan Prelates whenever their true original and real condition were exposed. And, indeed, how could they acknowledge, as legitimate bishops, men who professed as little of the episcopal power as they did of the episcopal re venues, who were subject to the authority of an assembly com posed of pretended presbyters and mere laics, by whom they were liable to be tried, censured, suspended and deposed, and who, in one word, were utterly destitute of canonical consecration."-f- * Edinburgh Eeview, 1836, vol. Ixiv. p. 112. " All our sovereigns seem to have entertained an aversion to the Presbyterian form of church government, and to have taken every opportunity in their power to subvert it, and to establish the Episcopalian scheme." Aiton's History of the Eencontre at Drumclog and Battle at Bothwell Bridge, 1821, p. 22. t Life of Andrew Melville, vol. i. p. 151. Dr M'Crie is quite right in stating that no true EpiscopaUan ever could claim " kindred with the Tulchan Prelates," whether their " true original and real condition" were " fairly exposed or not." Being " utter ly destitute of canonical consecration," they were, like his " pretended presbyters [though he used the word pretended ironically] and mere laics," intruders into the sacred office, and every act they performed was ecclesiastically invalid. It is distress ing to think of the mockeries seriously practised in Scotland in those times under the name of " the Church," and Bishop Keith is severely censurable for inserting those men in the episcopamsuccession of the Sees in his Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, 134 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1574. It seems that MelvUle was Induced to return to Scotiand by the representations of a certain Andrew Polwart, who was then in Geneva as the companion of Alexander CampbeU, the titular Bishop of Brechin. This is Dr M'Crie's statement, but Dr Cook makes the chief adriser to have been no less a personage than the Titular himself, " who happened to risit Geneva, and convinced that his [MelviUe's] abUities would be of much serrice to the cause of religion in Scotiand, he earnestly requested him to re nounce the situation which he held, and to visit his native land." It is difficult to say where Dr Cook discovered this glowing char acter of the contemptible Titular of Brechin— a mere creature of the Earl of ArgyU, who dUapidated the ecclesiastical patrimony iu the most shameful manner in favour of his patron, and whose sa crUegious transactions in aUenating the church property from 1566 to 1605 are erident from the charters granted by hira preserved among the records of Brechin. MelvUle, however, returned from Geneva with his friend the Titular and the said Polwart. He no sooner arrived in Edinburgh than he was visited by the celebrated George Buchanan, and also by Alexander Hay, clerk to the Privy CouncU, and Colonel James Halyburton, who were commissioned by the Regent Morton to offer hira the appointraent of domestic In structor in his household until a situation became vacant ; but Mel viUe refused the offer, and retired to his brother's house of Baldo vie, where he occupied himself some months in superintending the education of James MelviUe his nephew, afterwards an eminent Presbyterian preacher, who had been in his youth a zealous ad mirer of the sermons of John Knox In St Andrews. MelviUe arrived at Edmburgh in the beginning of July 1574, and Douglas, the Titular of St Andrews, died on the last day Winram assisted at the " inauguration" of John Douglas as Titular of St Andrews, and " was popishly and in consequence episcopally and canonically ordained," and as he held the office of " Sub-Prior of the Abbey, and as such Vicar-General during the vacancy ofthe See," Dr M'Crie innocently asks — " WUl not these two circumstances, joined to the tertium quid of his being a Superintendent, make him if not formaliter, at least virtualiter a Bishop ?" It is really amusing to find a man like Dr M'Crie, of some pre tensions to research, indulging in this frivolous question. Though Winram had held a dozen of ecclesiastical preferments, the whole of them could not constitute him vir tualiter a Bishop. He lived and died a schismatical presbyter, and had as much right to be considered a regularly and canonically consecrated Bishop as Dr M'Crie himself, or any other Presbyterian minister. 1574.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 135 of that month the same year. This caused a vacancy in the Tul chan Primacy at the disposal of the Regent, who appears to have resolved to appoint Patrick Adamson, at that time officiating as one of his chaplains. A serious charge is brought against Melville at this crisis, which, if true, exhibits hira not as the honest and con scientious Presbyterian zealot, but as actuated in his subsequent con duct by disappointed ambition. Though he had refused the Regent's offer to becorae his domestic preceptor from motives which are not sufficiently clear, he was in idle retirement at his brother s house of Baldovie, and it is possible that his vanity might have been gratified by the offer of the Titular preferment, which would have closely connected him with the University of St Andrews, though he may have refused the nomination. The Regent had never publicly intimated who was to be the successor of Douglas in the Titular Primacy, but " it was Mr Andrew Melville's misfor tune that he was neglected, and therefore, in the year 1575, he stir red one Mr Dury to impugn the episcopal order and all imparity."* Such is the accusation, though it is difficult to reconcile it with Melville's avowed principles, which, though sufficiently insolent, were characterized by a kind of blunt sincerity. It must also be remembered that Bishop Sage quotes a letter from MelviUe to Beza, written in 1579, in which the former mentions that for five years he had not ceased to fight against the Titular Episcopacy, shewing that he had never lost sight of his project, and that he must have at least secretly promoted it after his return to Scotland.f A letter was sent by Beza with MelviUe to the General Assembly, recommending his friend for his piety and learning, and stating that the greatest affection Geneva could evince to Scotland was that the former had suffered itself to be " robbed," that the latter might be " enriched." Dr M'Crie also informs us that Beza's letter, and " the report of Polwart and the Bishop of Brechin • Extract from a MS. Narrative, said to be " written by a person of great honour and true leaming," about the " several periods of Episcopacy and Presbytery in the Church of Scotland," in " An Apology for the Clergy of Scotland, chiefly opposed to the Censures, Calumnies, and Accusation of « late Presbyterian Vindicator," alleged to have been written by the Very Eev. Dr Monro, the ejected Principal of the Uni versity of Edinburgh at the Eevolution. London, 4to. 1693, p. 60. f Fundamental Charter of Presbytery examined, p. 217, 218 (P) 136 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1574. spread the fame of his erudition throughout the country." This would not be difficult to do, notwithstanding the questionable honour of a testimonial from such a despicable person as the Titu lar of Brechin and the obscure Mr Polwart, in a country such as Scotland then was, in which the Presbyteri.ans continued for nearly two centuries to be far behind all other national establishments in theological, and consequently in classical erudition;" for as it has been truly observed, tho Presbyterian system^ " was neither the offspring of learning nor of power, and after being long upheld by the nation in defiance of every effort of the Government, It was finally established by a revolution."* This, in plain language, intimates that the whole change of religion in Scotland was ef fected by an iUiterate mob. Beza's letter recommendatory of Melvillo was favourably re ceived in the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 7th of August 1574 ; but he Is only noticed in the proceedings as one of a Committee, consisting of George Buclianan, Jaines Lawson, and Peter Young, described as " pedagogue to our Sovereign Lord,"f appointed to revise the " History of Job, compiled in Latin verse, by Mr Patrick Adamson," and if " found by them agreeable to the truth of God's word, to authorize the same with testimony of their hand wi-It and subscription."! Adamson wrote the above men- • Edinburgh Eeview, 1836, vol. Ixiv. p. 112, 113. t Mr. Peter Young, one of James VI. preceptors, was lay Abbot of Dryburgh, and is described by Sir James Melville as a person of " milder mood" than his colleague Uie " Eight Honourable" George Buchanan, who was lay Abbot of Crossraguel, an ap pointment he received from Queen Mary. " JIaster Peter Young was genteeler, and was lotli to offend tlio King at any time, and used [conducted] himself warily, as a man that had a mind of his own weill by keeping of his Majestie's favour." He was sent to Denmark, after tlie departure of Frederic ll's ambassadors, who came to Scot land in 1585, ostensibly to claim the Orkney and Shetland, and bringing tlie money witli them for their restoration to the Danish crown ; but in reality to inform the Scottish King that Frederic had " twa doch ters, and was willing eitlier to give him his choice of them, or tliat he would accept the ane of them as it should please the fatlicr to be stow, whilk should be the most comely, and the best for his princely contentment."— " Master Peter Young was sent into Denmark to tliank that King and seo his dochters, that he might make report again of his liking them, with a promise that his Majesty should send them or it were lang ane honorable ambassade." Historie of King James the Sext, and Introduction to " Letters to King James the Sixth from tlie Queen, Prince Henry, Prince Charles, Princess Elizabeth," &c. by Sir Patrick Walker, printed for the Maitland Club. Edinburgh, Ito. 1835, p. vi. ix. t Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 310. 1574.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 137 I tioned " History," or poetical version of the Book of Job, and the Tragedy of that Herod who was smote by an angel, also in Latin verse, apparently before 1573, when he narrowly escaped murder at Bourges, in which place he was during the massacre perpe trated at Paris on St Bartholomew's Day, with his pupU MacgiU of Nether RankeiUor. It Is stated in his Preface to his Poem on Job that he was compelled to conceal himself seven months in the house of a publican, who for his corapassion to " heretics" was thrown frora the roof and killed, when upwards of seventy years old. Adarason had sent copies of both Poems to Lyons and Paris to be printed. The ensuing civil wars prevented their publication, and their author recovered one of the copies very accidentally which had been sent to his friend Lambinus at Paris, at whose death Dr Henry Blackwood discovered among his papersboth pieces, and trans mitted them to Adamson, who printed them in 1572, and their appearance secured for him considerable reputation. The opinions of MelviUe, Buchanan, and their coUeagues on Adamson's Poems are not officially recorded, but it may be inferred that it was fa vourable, as in a subsequent Assembly he is included among cer tain persons who are styled " well-beloved brethren" norainated for " reading and answering bUls and complaints." Although, however, Melville was merely appointed one of a committee to revise the Poem of Adamson, and was not present in the Assembly, his merits were not overlooked. It^ was proposed to appoint him Principal Provost of St Mary's College in St Andrews vacant by the death of Douglas, but Boyd, the Titular of Glasgow, sup ported by Andrew Hay, who acted as " commissioner ofthe West," so strongly represented the miserable condition of the University of Glasgow, that Melville was induced to prefer the claims of that seminary, which had suffered severely from the changes caused by the Reformation. He accordingly became Principal of the Uni versity, and by his exertions restored its efficiency as an academi cal institution. The conduct of the Titulars of Dunkeld and Moray was again discussed in this Assembly of August 1574, the former on some of the usual charges, especially for not excommunicating the Earl of Atholl, for which he admitted he could " aUege no lawful excuse," and the latter about the mode of his admission or election by the so called Dean and Chapter to the Bishopric. As the detaUs are 138 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1574. of no particular Interest, It is unnecessary to glance at these and other local proceedings. As a proof, however, that no avowed intention existed of abrogating the Titular Episcopate and intro ducing Presbyterianism, among the articles ordered to be laid be fore the Regent, It was resolved — " Because there are sundry Bishoprics vacant, such as Dunblane, Ross,* and others, that his Grace would take order that some qualified persons be provided thereto with dUigence."f The Titular of Dunkeld was prohibited from administering the " Holy Supper upon week days at the kirks within his jurisdiction ;" and peremptorUy enjoined to ex communicate the Earl of AthoU within forty days, " under the pain of suspension from his said office." The Titular was present, and " interponed his faithful promise ;" but he offended their dig nity by leaving the Assembly on the foUowing day without their permission, for which he was ordered to be " delated at their next meeting." John Brand of Holyroodhouse was threatened with de privation of his office if he delayed to excoraraunicate Bishop Gordon of GaUoway, in the event of that Prelate not " satisfying the Kirk " before a specified day ; and their " loved brethren, Mr Robert Graham, Archdeacon of Ross, and Mr John Robertson, Treasurer thereof," were commissioned " conjunctly ^nd severaUy to pass to the counties of Caithness and Sutherland, and there to visit kirks, colleges, and schools, and other places needful within the said bounds, and in the same to plant ministers, readers, elders, and deacons, schoolmasters, and other merabers necessary for erecting a perfect Reformed Kirk, suspend for a tirae, or sim pliciter deprive such as they shall find unworthy or not apt for their office, whether it be for crimes committed or ignorance ; abolish, eradicate, ajid destroy all monuments of Idolatry ; establish and set up the true worship of God as well in cathedral and col legiate kirks, as in other places within the said bounds, conform to the order taken and agreed on in the Book of DiscipUne."| The proceedings of the next General Assembly, held at Edin burgh on the 7th of March 1574-5, develope the position of the ' Eoss was not vacant, Bishop Leslie being still the Bishop, though not in Scotland ; but he was evidently considered to be no longer the Diocesan on account of his adher ence to the Eoman Catholic Church. t Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 306. X 76td. p.311, 312. 1575.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 139 Titular Episcopate, nevertheless no open attack was raade upon it, though Andrew Melville was present as a member. The titu lar Archbishop of Glasgow was chosen Moderator, and the busi ness commenced with the usual complaint against the Titular of Dunkeld for not excommunicating the Earl of AthoU, to which were added the offence of leaving the last Assembly before It was dissolved, and the old charge of a " simoniacal paction with the Earl of Argyll," who was now dead. He answered the present charge by stating that he had " used admonitions " with AthoU, " who desired some conference of godly and learned men, to the effect he might be resolved in such doubts of religion as pre sently move him, seeing that hitherto he hath not heard preach ing." The excuse for the second was, that being informed of one of his children " deadly sick, who soon after departed, he went in haste out of the town without advertisement of the brethren," but that he was willing to submit himself to the reproof of tho Assembly if the excuse was not sufficient ; and the third charge was met by a general denial. Spottiswoode, Erskine, Winram, Lawson, and Hay, commissioner of Aberdeen, or any three of them, were appointed to convene with the Earl of AthoU, and report his answer to the Asserably. His Lordship was then in Edinburgh, and seems to have endured this intermeddling officiousness with much condescension. With the exception of Spottiswoode, they waited on him during the afternoon of that day, but they made little impression, for they reported that they found him " not fully resolved in sundry heads of religion," and he requested further conference with the parties whom he had already met, and in the meanwhile " promising of his honour that he would assist my Lord Bishop of Dunkeld for punishing of offences within his bounds, and setting forward of his synodal assemblies, and that no slander should be found within his house." This very reasonable declaration, however, was most unsatisfactory to the " Brethren," who sent David Lindsay, minis ter of Leith, and George Hay, the Aberdeen commissioner, with a peremptory order to the Earl to give in his statements in writ ing. They reported that the Earl stiU wished delay and longer time to have " consultation of learned raen to the resolution of difficulties, and what he had promised before of his honour he should keep the same to the least point." The Assembly, " ear- 140 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1575. nestly craving the said Lord's conversion, and wUling to win him by all means possible, that he might be joined to the society of the Kirk," ordered him to have aU his doubts removed before the en suing midsumraer, otherwise both he and his Countess were to be excommunicated by the Titular of Dunkeld. The same Titular had also a slight altercation with his brother Titular of Brechin, who complained that certain expressions uttered by the former in the preceding Asserably about pensions was " a slandering of the nobleman dep.arted, and desired it to be proven." To this the Titular of Dunkeld replied, that " he de clared he was pressed by the said umquhile Earl of ArgyU to do something against his wiU," and this he offered to state in writing, referring the whole raatter to the Assembly. The cool impertinence of the Titular of Brechin on this occasion was only equaUed by his hypocrisy, for no one knew better than he did that the " umquhUe " zealous Earl of Argyll had strong temporal reasons for support ing the Reformation. Two other Titulars were also compeUed to figure in this Assembly. The one was the " Bishop of Moray," and it was to be decided whether he had been lawfuUy chosen, before he could be tried in life and doctrine as a Bishop. Andrew MelvUle, Winram, and two individuals, were appointed to investi gate and decide the point. The other was Andrew Graham, al ready mentioned as nominated to Dunkeld by the Regent Morton. He was ordered to " give proof of his doctrine before the Brethren upon the text appointed by them to him." In the case of the Titular of Moray, Melville and his associates reported that as there was " suspicion conceived by the trial of his doctrine and manners, he gave personally such trial of his doctrine as the short ness of time wiU permit." He was also to " make his purgation of the slanderous crimes whereof he was accused in the Assembly before, without prejudice of the process depending." This de cision, the latter part of which referred to his amour with a certain widow styled Lady Ardross, was considered satisfactory, and the Titular was subjected to an examination, He was asked In what manner he had obeyed the act of the Assembly on the " purgation of slander." He replied that he had presented him self before Douglas, the Titular of St Andrews, " now resting with God," and had obeyed the said act ; but as he could produce no witnesses, the " Brethren " appointed Winrara, Wilkie, rector of 1575.] THEIR HUMILIATING SITUATION. 141 St Andrews, and another, to take his " purgation " in the same manner as he should have done before the Titular and kirk of St AndTews ; and as he was then " under medicine," Andrew Mel ville, Winram, and a third, were appointed to confer with him on matters of religion, and report to the Assembly. The result of this was stated by Winram, who informed the " Brethren " that the Titular was willing again to " purge hiraself," in other words, to do penance if no record of his former submission could be found at St Andrews. Ramsay, Titular of Dunblane, was ordered, after a discussion, which was decided in the affirmative, whether he was eUgible, as he had not been previously a preacher, to deliver an exercise, or trial discourse, in the Magdalene Chapel in the Cowgate of Edin burgh, on the commencement of the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans in presence of certain parties. It raay be inferred that he gave satisfaction, as no further notice Is recorded. An other Titular, Alexander Hepburn, designated " elect of Ross," delivered a trial " exercise " on a prescribed part of the Prophecy of Zachariah, and he acquitted himself in such a manner that " the Brethren with one consent approved the said exercise and doctrine, and praised God for the same." In this Assembly final judgment was given against their former confederate Bishop Gor don of Galloway, who was released frora the degrading sentence of appearing as a criminal in three several churches in Edinburgh, on the condition that he presented himself before the congregation in the church of Holyroodhouse on the following Sunday, and " humbly confess his offences, and ask the eternal God's mercy." Having thus dealt with the Titulars and Bishop Gordon, they enacted that no person was to be admitted a rainister who was ignorant of Latin, except such as after examination " for their singular graces and gifts of God shall be found able by them to use their function without knowledge of the Latin tongue." Decency In apparel was enjoined, and aU dramatic representations founded on the narratives of the canonical Scriptures were prohi bited either on Sundays or other days. A law was ordered to be framed, that " no Bishop be elected to a Bishopric by the Chapter before he give proof of his doctrine before the General Assembly, and trial be taken by thera of his doctrine, life, and conversation ;" and In the raeantime this duty was to be done by the respective 142 THE TITULAR BISHOPS, [1575. Chapters, who were to be aUowed to elect after the Assembly were satisfied. But the most interesting fact Is the foUowmg. A statement was laid before them by Alexander Arbuthnot, bungess of Edinburgh, and Thomas Bassenden, printer and burgess, re- spectmg the pubUcation of an edition of the Bible in English. Messrs Darid Lindsay of Leith, James Lawson of Edinbiu-gh, Andrew Polwart, and George Young, were appointed to rerise the edition, and the Asserably agreed that the printers were to receive L.4 : 13 : 4d. Scots money, or between seven and eight shUUngs sterUng, for eveiy copy sold. The " Bishops, Supermtendents, and commissioners bearing charge within the realm," were ordered to use their influence with the " Lords, barons, and gentlemen of every parish, as also with the whole burghs within the same," to " try how many of them wiU be content to buy one of the said volumes, and wiU advance voluntarUy the said price, whole, or half at the least, in part payment, and the rest at the receipt of their books." Every parish church was ordered to be prorided with a Bible, and the edition was specified to be ready for delivery before the last day of March 1576. Such is the substance of the ai^ rangement respecting one of the first editions, if not In reality the first printed Bible in Scotland,* which was the translation printed at Geneva a few years prerious. The next General Assembly, in compliance with the petition of Arbuthnot, induced the commen dator of Dunfermline, who Is designated the " Lord Abbot," to licence Mr George Young to the " office of corrector," whose charges and expences Arbuthnot stipulated he would himself de fray. As the Regent had issued letters in the King's name, au thorizing coUections to be made as above noticed, the Assembly also granted another part of Arbuthnot's petition, which was to "charge every ordinai-y within his jurisdiction to put the said letters into execution, and make me be paid, conform to the tenor of the same, whereby the godly enterprize of the sarae may take full effect with expedition." * Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 314-330. 1575.1 143 CHAPTER VI. THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. The choosing of Boyd, the titular Archbishop of Glasgow, to be Moderator or President of the General Assembly held in March 1574r5, is a proof that no avowed Intention had been expressed to overthrow the Titular Episcopacy sanctioned by the Convention of Leith. The first grand attack against the Tulchan System, and undoubtedly through it against the canonical Hierarchy every where, was made in the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 6th of August 1575, when Bishop Gordon of GaUoway, and the Titulars of Dunkeld, Brechin, Dunblane, Glasgow, and The Isles, with the Superintendents of Lothian and Angus, are enu merated, and Robert Pont was chosen Moderator. Andrew Mel ville, too cautious to appear personally the originator of the schemes he meditated, had preriously been actively engaged in im pressing some of the leaders in favour of the polity and principles of Geneva ; and wishing that the subject should be introduced as a Scottish emanation, he persuaded Mr John Dury, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, to bring the Presbyterian or Genevan polity before the Assembly. At the very outset of the proceed ings, when they commenced their usual examination of the lives and doctrines of the Titulars, Dury protested " that the trial as Bishop prejudges not the opinions and reasons which he and other brethren of his mind had to oppose against the said office and narae of a Bishop."* This elicited a speech from MelviUe, who pretended to address the " Brethren " as if he had been entirely ignorant that the siib- ' Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 231. 144 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1575. ject was to be introduced. He declaimed in favour of the flourish ing state of what he caUed the " Church" at Geneva, explained the notions of Calrin and Beza, denied the scriptural authority for the episcopal office, which he maintained to be the same as that of ordinary ministers, and urged many of the arguments which the Presbyterians and other anti-episcopal sects advance m favour of their system of parity. MelviUe's speech apparently made considerable impression, and six individuals were appointed to inquire " whether if the Bishops, as they are now in the Kirk of Scotland, have their functions In the Word of God or not, or if the Chapter appointed for creating them ought to be tolerated in this Reformed Kirke V If they had considered the subject in its proper Ught, they would have seen that the " function " or office of the then Titulars had no authority from the Scriptures, or ecclesiastical antiquity, because they were merely nominal Bishops for political or party purposes, unconsecrated, and of no higher authority than their lay preachers, whom they dignified with the title of " ministers," as if they had been canonically ordained deacons and presbyters. The persons appointed to con duct this inquiry were Melville himself, John Craig, then minister of Aberdeen, formerly Knox's colleague at Edinburgh, James Law- son, minister of Edinburgh, David Lindsay of Leith, John Reid of Perth, and George Hay, the commissioner from Caithness. According to Archbishop Spottiswoode, Lindsay, Row, and Hay, were favourable to the " lawfulness of episcopal function in the Church," whUe MelviUe, Craig, and Lawson, were zealous for the Genevan or Presbyterian parity. After various conferences they aU lodged a written declaration, stating that — " They tliink it not expedient presently to answer directly to the first question, but If any Bishop be chosen who has not such quahties as the word of God requires, let him be tried by the General Assemblies de novo, and so deposed." Nevertheless, they condescended to enlighten the " Brethren" on the points wherein they agreed concerning the office of Bishop and Superintendent : — " First, the name of Bishop Is comraon to aU those that have a particular charge, as weU to preach the word as to minister the sacraments, and to execute the ecclesiastical discipline with consent of their elders ; and this is the chief function of the word of God. Also, that out of this number may be chosen some to have power to oversee 1575.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 145 and visit such reasonable bounds, besides his own flock, as the general Kirk shall appoint ; and In their bounds to appoint minis ters, with the consent of the rainisters of that province, and of the flock to whom they shall be appointed ; and also to appoint elders and deacons in every principal congregation where there are none, with the consent of the people thereof, and to suspend ministers for reasonable causes, with the consent of the minister.^ foresaid."* Such was the " deliverance," not so much affecting the theu Titular Episcopate, which was a mere shadow, a miserable and unscriptural substitute, but against the constitution of the Catho lic Church and the episcopal succession generaUy ; and It will be admitted that the said " deliverance " was sufficiently Presby terian, although MelviUe did not " think it expedient to answer directly the first question," which was. If the episcopal function had any warrant In the Scriptures. Archbishop Spottiswoode cen sures the Titulars for not opposing the above declaration, alleging that it was " no wisdom in them to have given a way to such novelties, and have suffered the lawfulness of their vocation to be thus drawn in question ;" but the venerable Primate forgot that their " vocation " was a fallacy, utterly unwarrantable and pre posterous ; and it also appears that some of them, if not the whole, were absent, for although mentioned as present in the Assembly with the " commissioners" and " ministers," it is stated in the record of the second day's proceedings, that — " Because certain of the Bishops and Superintendents compeared not the first day of this Assembly, It was thought good to call [cite] them, and the absents to be noted."-f- The Presbyterian writer Wodrow infers, from the silence of the Titulars, that the Assem bly was unaniraous against the episcopal office, but this Is at direct variance with all the facts and documents, and also with the sentiments expressed in the report to the " Brethren " on the occasion. The Titular of Dunkeld was suspended from his office by this Asserably on several accusations, one of which was the dUapidation of the benefice, particularly " a nineteen year tack [lease] of • Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 343. t Ibid. p. 333. 10 146 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1575. thirty-six chalders of teind victual, at 5s. 8d. per boU, to the Eari of ArgyU," which he Indeed confessed, declaring " that divers times It repented him thereof, and yet, by the grace of God, is mUing to have it reformed, either by favour and good-wiU of my Lord ArgyU, or by process of law, wherein my Lord Regent's Grace had promised to him his assistance." Another complaint was for not excommunicating the Earl of AthoU, his excuse for which was pronounced " frivolous," and intimation was given to the Earl and Countess that If they were not " resolved in the points of religion" before Martinmas, to the satisfaction of John Row of Perth and three or four others, the said Row was to pronounce sentence of excommunication against thera in Dunkeld, assisted by the Superintendents of Angus and Fife, and WilUam Clirlstison, minister of Dundee. MelriUe's friend, Andrew Polwart, is noticed in this Assembly's proceedings as " ordained [enjoined] to serve at Paisley, according to his proraise made to the Bishop of Glas gow." But Mr Andrew proved very unpopular in Paisley, the in habitants insulting him and setting him at defiance ; and in Oc tober 1577, he was " decerned to be free and at liberty, that he may serve where it pleases God to caU him, because " of their con tempt of the discipline, their manifest vices, menacing, and boast ing of him in doing his duty, his labours cannot be profitable to them" [at Paisley]. Bishop Gordon of GaUoway was received Into favour so far that he was aUowed to preach, but he was stiU " suspended from commission of visitation," and he was exhorted " to concur and help the commissioner of Galloway in his visitar tion for keeping good order and disciphne within these bounds." The other matters of which they thought proper to take cognizance were " heresies, witchcraft, blaspheming the name of God, violar tion of the Sabbath-day," and regulations respecting marriages ; but chiefiy gross, licentious, and revolting questions on crimes which it was disgraceful to discuss in any religious raeeting exer cising the high pretensions to which they laid claim. They ap pear also to have been annoyed by the inhabitants of the county of Aberdeen. It was stated by way of complaint, that " the ministers and readers in the country keep certain patron and festival days, and on these days convene, pray, and preach, and foster the people In superstition." To this the commissioner of Aberdeen replied — " That some ministers of the country think it 1576.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 147 lawful, but for his own opinion, he wished it should be taken away by an ordinance of the Assembly."* The next General Assembly was held at Edinburgh on the 24th of April 1576, and .John Row was chosen Moderator. The pro ceedings commenced with complaints and accusations against all the Titulars, with the exception of the so called Bishop of Ross, which were frivolous, factious, and contemptible, evidently origin ating to display a kind of splenetic power. The Titular of Glas gow was " dilated" for not " preaching in the town of Glasgow since he entered in his office, and also rarely preaching, howbeit he was thought diligent in visitation," and for having " no par ticular flock." Three other charges were brought against him, which were even of less importance. Boyd raodestly answered, that " preaching is the good gift of God, which is not equally be stowed on aU, and excused himself that he was not so able, nor so UberaUy gifted with understanding as others ; although it can not be denied but that he preached, especially at Govan and other kirks, and was willing to do his duty." As to the other charge, he contended that " he received no particular flock in the entry of his office, nor no question was moved thereupon ; but if the As sembly think that he should be astricted to a particular flock, he sihould either obey the ordinance of the Assembly therein, or give place to others." The Superintendent of Lothian was accused of " Initiating" the Titular of Ross in the Abbey of Holyroodhouse, though " admonished by the brethren not to do it," and of not frequently visiting his district. He confessed the first, and assigned sickness since January and " evil weather" as his excuse for the second. The Titular of Dunblane was " dUated" for not having " taught since his entry to his office, nor yet makes residence, nor hath a particular flock." The Titular of Moray was also aUeged to have " no particular flock," which he admitted, but Informed them that he was then " under process of homing," or prosecution, which rendered him liable to incarceration, and that he had pre sented hiraself to the Asserably on that occasion solely by a per sonal protection granted by the Regent. But the great attack was against the Titular of Dunkeld for " diminution of the rents of the Bishopric," In the affair of the • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p, 331-347. 148 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1576. lease granted by him to the Earl of ArgyU. After hearing his defence and explanation, they found that he had riolated the act of the General Assembly in March 1569 against " such persons as diminish the rents and fruits of their benefices," and that he had incurred " the penalty thereof, to wit, deprivation from his office, and that which he hath of the Kirk therethrough, so far as lies in their power for ever!'' The Titular took an appeal from this decision to the Privy CouncU. Mr David Lindsay and Mr Patrick Adamson were appointed to intimate the sentence to the Regent. They announced the Regent's opinion on the foUowing day. Morton was justly exasperated at their conduct, after their previous expressions of satisfaction at the result of the Conference of Leith, which they had professed to consider a final adjustment. He admitted that the Titular of Dunkeld had been justly de prived for his offences, and that he " could find no fault therein ;" yet he indignantly requested that " a polity and universal order would be established in the Kirk for such and other proceedings," and adrised that either the agreement at Leith should be recon sidered, or those points in it to which they objected be substituted by others, or to draw out some polity of their own, and submit it to his consideration. In the meanwhile he suggested that they should depute some of their number to answer the Titular of Dun- keld's appeal to the Privy Council. Sundry " honourable men and brethren" were appointed to answer the Regent, among whom were the Titular of Glasgow, Erskine of Dun, Andrew MelviUe, Pont, Lawson, Adamson, and Lindsay. Morton's sug gestion was adopted, and they accordingly appointed provincial committees to draw up " an overture of the polity and jurisdic tion of the Kirk, and uttering the plain and simple meaning of the Assembly therein," and to report their proceedings to the next General Assembly. Among those appointed were the titu lar Archbishop of Glasgow, Andrew Melville, and three others, for the Western counties, to meet and confer at Glasgow on a certain day ; Pont, Lawson, Lindsay, and two others, for Lothian, to meet at Edinburgh ; Winram, for they still recognized him as Superin tendent of Fife, and the Masters of the University of St Andrews, to meet in that city, for Fife ; Erskine of Dun, Christison, Row, and two others, for Angus and Mearns, to meet at Montrose ; and Messrs John Craig, Alexander Arbuthnot, and George Hay, for 1577-] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 149 Aberdeen. It wiU be observed, that in those arrangements they completely neglected the Highlands, Orkney, and Shetland. But this report was not forthcoming at the next General As sembly, and even in the following, held in April 1577, it was acknow ledged that " the matter of the poUty of the Kirk collected by the Brethren is not yet in such perfect form as is requisite, and sundry things largely entreated [discussed], which will be more summarily handled: others requiring farther dilation."* The indignation of the Regent had apparently granted them permission to remodel the ecclesiastical constitution, and MelviUe and his friends were actively engaged in framing the whole scheme of the Presbyterian parity, as delineated in their singular compilation which they pro duced, entitled the " Second Book of Discipline." Accordingly, with one exception, little occurs of public interest in the proceed ings of the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 24th of October 1576, in that of 1st April 1577, or in that of the 25th of October of the same year. The exception now mentioned was the case of Patrick Adamson, whora the Regent Morton nominated titular Archbishop of St Andrews in the autumn of 1576. As this eminent person has been often mentioned in the present work, some notice of his early life may be here introduced. Adamson's proper name was Constance, and he was the son of poor though industrious parents, his father, according to Calderwood, having been a baker at Perth, where he was born in March 1543, The reason for changing his name to Adamson is not stated. Calderwood says that he " assisted as a minister In the first General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland in 1560," and the name of Patrick Constane certainly appears In the Ust of those in St Andrews for " ministering and teaching," men tioned at that meeting, but he is not noticed as personally present. If the Patrick Constane was really Adamson, he was only in his eighteenth year, othervrise the date of his birth is incorrect, but it is probable that the necessities of the times raade the Reforming leaders not very scrupulous about age, and he may in the outset have been merely one of their " readers." It is certain that, after attending some years at the University of St Andrews, he was about 1560 acting as a schoolmaster in a viUage near Cupar, the • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 391, 150 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1577. county town of Fife, and that his great reputation for learning In duced a neighbouring proprietor, Macgill of Nether RankeiUor, to engage him as preceptor to his eldest son, whom he intended to send to France to study civU law. His adventures at Bourges, and the Latin poems he there wrote, are already mentioned, and after his return to Scotland we find him prominent in the General Assemblies, and actively connected with the Titular Episcopate, untU 1576, when he was appointed the head of that spurious and uncanonical order. Adamson was present in the General Asserably held at Edin burgh on the 24th of October 1576, when his nomination as Titu lar by the Regent is thus noticed — " As by the ordinance of the Asserably, Bishops shoidd be tried before thera, before they be admitted by the Chapter," they " require both the counsel and advice of the Kirk herein. The said Mr Patrick being present, answered. That ray Lord Regent's Grace had discharged him to proceed farther in this matter, in respect the said act and ordinance of the Kirk is not accorded on, and therefore he would not meddle farther and make instance therein ; which answer the Kirk thought should be given by the Chapter to my Lord Regent's Grace." The Regent transmitted forty-two questions, concocted, it Is said, at the suggestion of Adamson, to this Assembly, requesting pro per answers at their convenience. This Is alleged to have been a device of the Regent to delay and thwart the details of ecclesiasti cal policy In which Melville and his friends were engaged, at least such is the statement of Calderwood and Wodrow. Many of these questions are on the topics with which the reader Is famihar. A certain number of persons, among whom were Erskine of Dun, Andrew MelviUe, Jaraes Melville, Pont, Row, Lindsay, Craig, Lawson, and Christison, were appointed to " consider the heads of the policy, advice and consult thereupon, and upon the said questions, and to report their judgments thereanent, conceived formally In writing, to the next Assembly." At a subsequent part of the proceedings Adamson's appointment was again brought before them, the so caUed Chapter of St Andrews having delayed the election. He was asked — " If he would submit himself to the trial and examination of the Assembly, and receive the office of a BLshop according to the injunctions of the Kirk ?" This he posi tively declined. Some curious notices occur of the manners of the 1577.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 151 times. The inhabitants of Dunfermline requested permission to act a " certain play not made upon the canonical parts of Scrip ture " on a Sunday afternoon, which was refused, and tho Bailie of Dunfermline was exhorted to " request the town to keep the ordinance of the Assembly." The question was discussed, whether a " minister or reader may tap ale, beer, or wine, and keep an open tavern^'' and it was actually decided that such might be aUowed, only such minister or reader was to be exhorted to " keep deco rum." Interments In the churches were prohibited, and those who opposed this were to be denied privileges until they made " public repentance." Salt-pans, mills, and " other labouring, which draws away innumerable people from hearing the word of God," were ordered to be stopped on the Sundays ; and probably they would have denounced the ebb and flow of the tide, the light of the sun, or any other operation of natu!re. If such had been submitted to their consideration. Sundry statements were reported to the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 1st of April 1577, about the progress of the " poUcie of the Kirk," as concocted by Andrew Melville and his fellow-labourers in that work. Meanwhile, in the case of Adamson, who had now been elected titular Archbishop of St Andrews by the " Chapter" after the meeting of the previous Assembly, he was summoned to appear before this conclave on the charge that he " had entered in the said Bishopric against the acts of the Gene ral Assembly, and usurped the office of visitation within the bounds of Fife, unauthorized by the commission or power of the Kirk, and left his ordinary office of ministry." The " ordiners and inagurers " of Adamson were also enjoined to be summoned, " if need require.' In this year Adamson published a Catechism in Latin verse, in Four Books,* which is said to have been for the use of King James VI. It was so much approved, that both Pont and Law- son wrote very excellent Latin odes in its coraraendation, and it elicited the praise of the learned in England and on the Continent. Adamson seems to have been unmolested during the year 1577, and he was present in the Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 25th of October that year, when he was commissioned by the Regent Morton to lay before them a letter from Queen Elizabeth, intiraat- ' The title is " Catechismus Latino Carmine redditus, et in Libros Quatuor digestus." 152 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1577. ing that a CouncU of the Protestants of Germany was to be held at Madgeburg for establishing the Augsburg Confession, originally drawn up by Melancthon with Luther's approbation, to be laid before the Emperor Charies V. at the great Diet held at Augsburg in June 1530. In this letter the Regent was requested to mform her Majesty if the Assembly " thought mete that any of the leamed ministers shaU repair thither, and who they wiU name to this effect." Eight persons were nominated, the Regent selecting three of them, one of whom was Andrew Melville, but none of them proceeded to Madgeburg, and Morton took no farther Interest In the matter. Adamson, Melrille, and a number of Influential per sons, were appointed to confer with the Regent, if such consultation was necessary, on the " heads ofthe policy andjurisdiction ofthe Kirk read In audience of the whole Assembly, and thought good that the same should be presented to my Lord Regent's Grace." The deliberations of MelviUe and the Presbyterian party were embodied in the production afterwards noticed, entitled, " The Second Book of Discipline," which was approved by the Assembly with only one exception, and this appears to have been the eighth chapter, on " Deacons, and their Office, the last ordinary fimctlon in the Kirk." This production was laid before the Regent for his sanction, and when he received it he promised to appoint some of the Privy Council to meet with Its compUers, but other and more Important matters engaged his attention. The Regent's adminis tration of the government had become unpopular, discontented and ambitious men fawned on the King, then in the dawn of youth, to whom he was misrepresented, and a project was formed to drive Morton from his high office. The Presbyterian party had become his inveterate enemies, and had so often Irritated him by their opposition that he about this very period declared to Mel ville on one occasion — " There never will be quietness in this country till half-a-dozen of you be hanged or banished the king dom." Morton held that the General Assemblies were mere con vocations of the King's lieges, and that it was treasonable for them to meet without his own permission as Regent. The truth of this was abundantly evident in the subsequent century after 1638, and though it has been virtuaUy admitted and practised by the Pres byterian Establishment since the Revolution of 1688, the claims of jNIelville and his party were of a different description. They 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 153 maintained s,jus divinum for their meetings, and their grand aim was to render themselves independent of all civil and secular authority, and to be the sole judges of their own conduct, as well as to be the dictators of that of others. Their pretensions were utterly incompatible with political freedom, and were the old and intole rable usurpations of the Church of Rome under a more odious and unsufferable form. This King James soon discovered to his sad experience, and the tenets which Melville and his associates intro duced and advocated partly caused the ruin of his son. Morton resigned the regency In the beginning of March 1578, and on the 8th of that month the King, though only in the twelfth year of his age, undertook the govemment in person, assisted by a Council selected by himself to manage the affairs of state. Those present at Stirling when Jaraes assumed the sceptre were the Earls of Argyll, AthoU, Montrose, Caithness, Mar, and Eglinton, Lords MaxweU, Ogilvy, Herries, and Invermeath, the titular Bishops of Moray and Brechin, the Commendators of Dunfermline, Cambuskenneth, and Newbattle, Sir William Murray of TuUibar dine, and George Buchanan. Four days afterwards, at another and more numerous meeting, when Morton obtained a formal dis charge from his office of Regent, Bishop Bothwell of Orkney, and the Titulars of Caithness, Moray, and Dunkeld, attended. The King's Council were chosen at a meeting held in Stirling Castle on the 24th of March, at which were present the King in per son, the Earls of Argyle, Atholl, Montrose, Caithness, Rothes, and Glencairn, Lords Ruthven, Maxwell, Herries, Oliphant, Ogilvy, and Invermeath, Bishop Bothwell, and the Titulars of Caithness, Moray, Dunkeld, and Brechin, the Commendators of Dunfermline and Newbattle, George Buchanan, as Keeper of the Privy Seal, and Sir WiUiam Murray. It was then resolved to elect six of the nobility, and three of what was called the " Spiri tual Estate," to " remain together for furthsetting of his Majesty's authority and administration of justice until the next Parliament." The six noblemen were the Earls of Argyll, Atholl, Montrose, and Caithness, Lord Lindsay, and Lord Herries, and the three so caUed " spirituals" were the titular Bishop of Caithness, and the Commen dators of Newbattle and Deer, with whom were associated Alex ander Erskine of Logan. A certain number were selected to " be upon the Council when they were present," or when their " sove- 154 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. reign lord sent for them." These were the Earls of Angus, Mar, Rothes, EgUnton, ErroU, Glencairn, Menteith, Lords MaxweU, Ogilvy, Gray, Invermeath, Bishop BothweU, and the Commenda tors of Dryburgh and Cambuskenneth.* Morton's resignation of the regency was so far favourable to the Presbyterian party, that it enabled them to prosecute their schemes more rigorously, and to become bolder in their demands. Although unscrupulous in his general conduct, and apparently in different to religion, Morton had always supported the Reformar tion, and had materlaUy advanced that ecclesiastical revolution by his powerful influence. He was the opponent of Presbyterian parity, but he supported the titular Episcopacy from worldly, sel fish, and pohtical motives. In the language of Dr Cook — " By his demission the adherents of Presbytery gamed a vast accession of strength, and instead of baring to fear the resistance of a rigo rous Government, they were now certain that the State would be weakened by the formation of parties striving to engross the royal favour, and that amidst the contest of those parties, they might not only steadUy pursue their object, but render concession to themselves essential for the stability of the throne." This disposition was soon manifested in the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 24th of AprU, a few weeks after Mor ton's demission of the regency. Andrew MelviUe was chosen Moderator, and as his party were now predominant none of the Titulars attended. It was resolved that " Bishops, and others bearing ecclesiastical functions, be caUed by their own names, or brethren, in time coming ;" and farther, that " no Bishops shall be elected or made hereafter before the next General Assembly, dis charging aU ministers and chapters to proceed anyways to election of Bishops in the meantime, under the pain of perpetual depriva tion frora their offices, and that this matter be proponed first in the next General Assembly, to be consulted what farther order shall be taken therewith." It was also ordered that no persons shall be coUated to vacant parishes until the next General Assembly, and that even the King's presentation should be resisted. This direct interference with the prerogative of the Crown, and defiance of the Government, was foUowed by the nomination of Pont, Law- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 115-119. 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 155 son, and Lindsay, to revise the copy of the new " Policie" to be presented to the King ; and a certain number were appointed " to concur and convene at such times appointed by the King and Council," in the event of a conference being requested, at which, if such took place, they were to " reason also on the head of the ceremonies, and how far ministers may meddle with civil affairs, and If they may vote in Council or ParUaraent.* This last sub ject of discussion was levelled at the Titulars, who attended and voted at the meetings of the Privy Council. In their usual inquisitorial manner, emboldened by the success ful progress of their cause, they impeached the Earl of Atholl, the successor of Lord Glammis as ChanceUor, who was killed in a street of Stirling in a squable on the 17th of March,-f- the Earls of Caithness and Eglinton, and Lord Ogilvy, as suspected Roman Catholics, and appointed Row and Lawson to admonish AthoU, and Craig and Duncanson to wait upon the others, to induce them to subscribe the " articles of the religion," and to " participate the communion." AthoU and Eglinton escaped the visitation of the " brethren," by having left Edinburgh, but Caithness and Ogilvy readily answered the inquiries. The former requested to " see the articles of religion which he was desired to sub scribe, and he should give his answer ;" the latter declared that he had already done so, and he had communicated, but * Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 404, 408, 409. f This nobleman is said to have been disposed to sanction some of Melville's projects, but, says Crawford, " his main difiiculty was, that Episcopacy could not be suppressed without sinking one of the three Estates of ParUament." He wrote a letter to Beza on the subject of church govemment, in which he says — " Since every Church has its own pastor, and the power of pastors seems to be co-ordinate by the Christian institution, the question is. Whether the episcopal function is necessary for drawing these pastors into a Synod upon occasion, for ordaining pastors and for exercising the censure of the Church ? or whether it is more eUgible that the pastors managing upon terms of equality, and under the check of prelatic superiority, should elect persons into the ministry, with the consent of the patron and people, and likewise be empowered to censure, depose, &c. For keeping on the Bishops we have these two motives — First, the stiff and ungovernable temper of the people ; the dealing with their stubbornness would in all likelihood be impracticable, were it not for the force of the episcopal character and jurisdiction. The other motive isj that by the ancient constitution of the realm nothing can pass in Parliament without the Bishops, who make the said third Estate. Now, to change this usage, and sink this Ihird, would be extremely dange rous.'' Crawford's Lives of the Oflicers of State in Scotland, folio, Edin. 1726, p. 133. 156 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. " if any man doubted his profession, he was content to subscribe the said articles, and to participate the supper of the Lord." The next General Assembly of this year was held at StirUng on the 1 1th of June, probably to be near the King's residence, as we find them appointing a deputation to request the royal presence at one of their meetings. They soon proceeded to give their opinion on the order of " Bishops," and unanimously resolved that the act of the former Assembly " shall be extended for all times to come, ay and until the corruption of the estate of Bishops be al luterly taken away, and that all Bishops already elected be re quired particularly to submit themselves to the General Assembly [of the Kirk] concerning the reformation of the corruption of that estate of Bishops [in their persons], which if they refuse, after ad monitions, excommunication to proceed against them." The Titu lar of Dunblane was so mean as to proffer his submission. A report was given of the manner in which the King had received his copy of the " Policie," and the answer is described as " good and com fortable" — that " not only would he concur with the Kirk in all things that might advance the true religion, but also would be a procurator for the Kirk."* But notwithstanding this denunciation of the episcopal office by the Presbyterian party in their Assembly, the Titular Bishops, with the exception of Graham of Dunblane, attended a meeting of the nobility and other Estates at Stirling Castle on the 12th of June, at the very time the Assembly was convened, and took their places as spirtual peers. At this meeting were the Titulars Adamson of St Andrews, Boyd of Glasgow, Bishop Bothwell of Orkney, Stewart of Caithness, CampbeU of Brechin, Cunninghame of Aberdeen, Douglas of Moray, and Paton of Dunkeld, who are all recorded as if they had been canonically consecrated prelates, and are regularly associated with the nobility, the commendators of the abbeys, and the commissioners frora the burghs, j- This proves that it was the decided conriction of the Governraent at the time that no act was valid without the sanction of the Spiritual Estate, even though re presented by men who were unordained persons, and merely laymen. Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 413, 414. t Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 121. 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 157 All the before mentioned Titulars are repeatedly mentioned with the exception of Aberdeen. Mr David Cunningham, Sub-Dean of Glasgow, was nominated to that See in 1557 by the Regent Mor ton, to whom he had officiated as one of his chaplains. He is de scribed as a " learned man, and of singular good qualities, but the times were so troublesome that he had not the occasion to shew himself, or do any good." An account of his " consecration" is preserved by a contemporary diarist, who was reader of Aberdeen at the time. Bishop Gordon, the last Roraan Catholic Prelate re tained the See, by the interest of his relatives the Huntly Family, till his death on the 6th of August 1577. " On Monday the 11th day of November, the year of God 1577, Master David Cunyng- hame, son to the Laird of Cunynghameheid, was consecrat Bishop of Aberdeen in the kirk by Master Patrick Constance [Adamson] Bischop of Saint Andrews, who made the sermon. Master John Craig, minister of Aberdeen, and Master Andrew Strachan, minister [place not stated] collators, and that in pre sence of the whole congregation of Aberdeen, with others of the country present for the time."* The first Parliament of James VI. , after his assumption of the govemment, was held on the 15th of July following, and among the several Acts passed, those connected with ecclesiastical affairs studiously omit any notice of the bold proceedings of the two former General Assemblies in which the Titular Episcopacy was declared to be abolished, and superseded by the Genevan or Pres byterian parity. The third Act, entitled the " Ratification of the Liberty of the true Kirk of God and religion," consists of only a few lines, declaring that the King, with advice of his Three Estates of Parliament, including thereby the Titular Bishops, ratified and approved " all and whatsomever Acts of Parliament, Statutes, and • The Chronicle of Aberdeen from 1491 to 1593, by Walter Cullen, Vicar of Aber deen, in the " Spalding Club Miscellany," vol. ii. p. 46, 47. In the Editor's Preface it is stated that this account is, " though brief, not without interest, as the only notice which, so far as the Editor knows, has been preserved of the forms used in the instal lation of the Titular Bishops in Scotland between the year 1572 and the year 1606." To this it may be observed, that a much more minute account of such an " instal lation" is given in the " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland," and in Eichard Bannatyne's " Memorialles," which is laid before the reader in a previous part of this volume, in the case of Douglas, titular Archbishop of St Andrews. Adamson seems to have foUowed that form. 158 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. Constitutions passed and made before, agreeable to God's Word, for maintenance of the Uberty of the true Kirk of God and religion now presently professed within this realm, and purity thereof" A commissioner was appointed to visit the Universities, and " re form such things as tended to superstition, Idolatrie, and papistrie," and In this commission were the Titulars Adamson of St Andrews, Boyd of Glasgow, Cunninghame of Aberdeen, Andrew MelviUe, Peter Young, Andrew Polwart, associated with the Earls of Len nox and Buchan, Lord Boyd, and other influential persons. In an Act for visiting the Hospitals, the Titulars are explicitly re cognized as " Bishops." But the most important Act was con nected with the " Book of the PoUcie of the Kirk," or Second Book of Discipline, which had been presented to the King and the Estates for approval by the General Assembly at the instance of the MelvUle party, demanding it "to be confirmed by Act of Par Uaraent, and have the strength of a law perpetually in aU time coraing." This production was read in presence of the Lords of the Articles, but the " raany heads thereof being found of so great weight and consequence, that no resolution nor determination can be presently given therein," yet " our said Sovereign Lord and his Three Estates being most wiUing that the poUcy of the Kirk should be certain and established," appointed twenty-seven persons to compare the " foresaid Book, with certain treaties made before at Leith and Holyroodhouse, concerning the said policy," or any eighteen of them to convene at Stirling on the 18th of August. Among the twenty-seven speciaUy nominated, were the Earls of Lennox and Buchan, and Lord Boyd, frora the Privy Counoil ; the Titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, and Aberdeen, for the " Bishops ;" the Coramendators of Newbattle, Dunfermline, and Deer, for the " Abbots ;" three, one of whom was Erskine of Dun, for the lesser " Barons ;" three for the burghs ; and among those for the " ministry" occur the names of Arbuthnot, Lawson, Lind say, Christison, and Row, as the more conspicuous, with whom were associated George Buchanan, Peter Young, and sundry law yers connected with the Supreme Court.* Andrew Melville ap pears to have been purposely excluded as a person not Ukely to promote harmony at the meeting. • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 105. 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 159 Little is known of the proceedings of the parties appointed to confer on the " Policy," or rather to exaraine the Second Book of Discipline, than the fact they could not agree, the support ers of the rights of the Crown objecting to every apparent Inter ference with Its prerogatives.* Another General Assembly was held at Edinburgh on the 24th of October, for they convened no fewer than three such raeetings In 1578, and the usual discussions ensued. At the request of the Asserably, the Chancellor, Atholl, the Earl of Montrose; Lords Seton and Lindsay, met them, and Mr David Ferguson, the Moderator, harangued those noblemen on the " care and studie the Kirk of God had taken to entertain and keep the purity of the sincere word of God unmixed with the Invention of their own heads." He set forth that as " true reli gion is not able to continue nor endure long without a good dis cipline and policy," his friends had therein employed their " wit and study, and drawn forth of the pure fountains of God's word such a discipline [and policy] as is mete to remain within the Kirk, which they presented to the King's Majesty," by whose com mand commissioners were appointed to confer with certain of themselves, and the whole was again presented to the Lords of the Articles, with a request that the same might be ratified by law, but that as yet they had not succeeded. They therefore en treated their Lordships present to use their influence to procure the sanction of the King and Parliament to the Presbyterian system as developed in their Book of the " PoUcie and Discipline." The noblemen replied In general terms that some of them had openly professed the religion then sanctioned by law some years past, and that they were resolved to maintain the same, but that all other details must be referred to the King and Privy Council. With this answer they were compelled to be content. The Titulars were also the objects of discussion. Adarason was enjoined to " reraove the corruptions of the state of a Bishop in his own person," which meant that he was to renounce his title of Archbishop of St Andrews, under penalty of excommunication. He was absent, but the titular Archbishop of Glasgow, whom they now simply designated Mr James Boyd, attended, and they de- • Another meeting was held in December, of which Caldei-wood gives an account, but it is of no interest, and the result was unsatisfactory. 160 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. manded his " submission." The Titular had resolved to oppose them, and he replied in a written document. " First," he said, " I understand the name, office, and modest reverence home to a Bishop to be lawful, and allowable by the Scriptures of God, and being elected by the Kirk and King to be Bishop of Glasgow, I esteem ray calUng and office lawful. As it respects my execution of that charge committed to me, I am content to endeavour at my uttermost ability to perform the same, and every point thereof, and to abide the honourable judgraent of the Kirk from time to time of my offending by my duty, craving always a brotherly de sire at their hands, seeing that the responsibUity Is weighty, and in the laying [any thing] to ray charge, to be examined by the canon left by the Apostle to Timothy, (1 Timothy iii.) because that portion [of Scripture] was appointed to me at my receipt [in duction], to understand therefrom the duties of a Bishop. As towards my living, rents, and other things granted by the Prince to me and my successors for the securing of that charge, I reckon the same lawful. As to my duty to the suprerae raagistrate, in assisting his Grace in Council or ParUaraent, being summoned thereto, I consider my position as a subject compells me to obey the same, and [that it is] no hurt but beneficial to the Kirk that sorae of our number are at the making of good laws and ordi nances. In the doing whereof, I protest before God I intend never to do any thing but what I believe shaU stand with the purity of the Scripture and a weU reformed country, for a good part of the revenue I enjoy has been given for that cause."* This defence of himself and his order by the Titular of Glas gow, which Dr Cook candidly admits was " moderate and judi cious," was declared to be unsatisfactory, " no answer to the act," and he was ordered to consider the subject and to state the result in the afternoon. This he refused to do, and withdrew from the Assembly, " upon which," says Dr Cook, " a commission was given to Melville, and several of the most zealous of the Presbyterian faction, to urge his subscription to that act which required the complete submission of Bishops to the Assembly." Dr M'Crie denies that his hero Melrille was connected with this commission to persecute the Titular of Glasgow, and alleges that * Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 423. 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 161 Mr David Wemyss, minister of Glasgow, was the " only individual employed in this business." Melville's name does not Indeed appear, and Wemyss undoubtedly gave in the Titular's subscrip tion or submission to the Assembly in 1579,* but Spottiswoode positively asserts the fact, and there is nothing improbable in the Archbishop's narrative, the accuracy of which was well known at the time. To prevent any mistake or indulgence in the matter, they enacted — " That they [the Titular Bishops] be content to be pastors and ministers of the flock. 2. That they usurp no criminal jurisdiction. 3. That they vote not in Parliament in name of the Kirk without permission from the Kirk. 4. That they take not up for the maintenance of their ambition and riotousness the emoluments of the Kirk which may sustain many pastors, the schools, and the poor, but be content with reasonable living according to their office. 5. That they claira not to them selves the titles of the Lords Temporal, neither usurp temporal jurisdiction, whereby they are abstracted from their office. 6: That they rule not above the particular elderships, but be subject to the same. 7- That they usurp not the power of the Presby teries. 8. That they take no farther bounds of visitation than the Kirk committeth to them."-f- This terminated the proceedings of 1578, in which, notwith standing all the exertions, fulminations, and pretensions of the Presbyterian party, the ratification of their " PoUcie" was care fuUy avoided by the Government. It now remains to offer a few observations on this said " Policie," or the " Second Book of Discipline," which was never sanctioned by Parliament, though it has been the great repository of reference by the Scottish Pres byterians In support of their projects and sentiments. This pro duction is of course the theme of extravagant praise by the Pres byterian writers. In Dr Cook's opinion, though he is astonished at the presumptuous claim of the compilers that " the whole of the scheme was not merely agreeable to the word of God, but ex pressly authorised and enjoined by divine authority," and although he considers It at variance with the " very few Incidental Injunc- Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 434. t Ibid. p. 425. 11 162 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. tions which are given by the sacred writers," yet Dr Cook must needs make a flourish in its favour, for he observes — " When we throw out of sight this radical error [that Presbyterianism is of divine authority !], from which so much evil afterwards arose, and examine the Polity upon its own merits, It may be admitted, even by those who turn the principle of divine Institution against it, that there is much In It which is truly excellent, and many proofs of the vigorous and sound views of the persons by whom it was framed." And Dr M'Crie, who, as a Presbyterian Dissenting preacher, was thoroughly imbued with the bigotted prejudices of his sect, maintains that " the Second Book of Discipline was drawn up with great deliberation and care by persons who had studied the subject vrith much attention, and had leisure to digest their views. It is methodically arranged, and the propositions under each head are expressed with perspicuity, conciseness, and preci sion." But this Presbyterian Dissenting Doctor adopts a dif ferent view of its scriptural authority from his Presbyterian Established contemporary. The latter, we have seen. Is " aston ished" at the pretensions of Its compilers, that the book is " agree able to the word of God," or is " expressly authorized and en joined by divine authority," and designates such claim as a " radical error ;" but Dr M'Crie is valiant in its defence : — " Its leading principles," he declares, " rest upon the express authority of the word of God. Its subordinate arrangements are sup ported by the general rules of Scripture — they are simple, calcu lated to preserve order and promote edification, and adapted to the circumstances of the Church for which they were intended. It is equaUy opposed to arbitrary and lordly domination on the part of the clergy, and to popular confusion and misrule. — It is a form of ecclesiastical polity, where practical utility has been pro portional to the purity in which its principles have been main tained. Accordingly, it has secured the cordial and lasting attach ment of the people of Scotland ; whenever it has been wrested from thera by arbitrary violence, they have uniformly embraced the first favorable opportunity of demanding its restoration ; and the principal secessions which have been made from the national Church [the Presbyterian Establishment] in this part of the king dom [Scotland] have been stated, not in the way of dissent 1578.J IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 163 from its constitution, as in England, but in opposition to depar tures, real or alleged, from its original and genuine principles."* Leaving the Presbyterians themselves to reconcUe the different views of Dr Cook and Dr M'Crie, both eminent raen, on the scriptural authority of the scheme of ecclesiastical polity set forth in the " Second Book of Discipline," from the " constitu tion" of which every true Churchman, in the proper sense of that term, must " dissent," the magnUoquent phraseology and confi dent assumptions of Dr M'Crie must be understood and received in a very modified raanner as mere flights of imagination. The laboured defence of Melville, in reply to Archbishop Spottis- woode's narrative, which follows the above-quoted declamatory rhetoric, is a proof that Dr M'Crie felt It necessary to defend his hero, and attempt the refutation of the serious charges, undeni ably true, preferred against him by the Scottish Primate. The public conduct of MelviUe, the Episcoporum Exactor, the Slinger- out of Bishops, which his relative, the other Melville admits In his Diary he obtained as a soubriquet, wiU not stand the test of Impartial investigation, even although " he was on all the com mittees employed in collecting materials for the Book of Polity, and In reducing them into form ;" although " he was present at most of the conferences held on the subject with members of the Privy CouncU and Parliament," had a " principal share in aU the discussions and debates that occurred both in private and public on the articles which were most keenly disputed and opposed ; and subjected himself to great personal fatigue, and expence, and odium, during a series of years which were spent in completing the work, and in procuring its receptIon."-|- These are the mere characteristics of a zealous and indefatigable leader, who is resolv ed to achieve, if possible, a triumph over those frora whora he thinks that he cannot run far enough or oppose when he thoroughly hates them, but have no connection with the real merits of the case. All this aUeged bodily and mental exertion raay be, and often has been, spent in a bad or questionable as in a good cause, and the pride of partizanship or leadership generally Induces men to raake raany sacrifices. The narrative of Archbishop Spottis- * Life of Andrew Melville, vol. i. p. 166, 171, 172. t Ibid. vol. i. p. 173. 164 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. woode, undeniably proved by coUateral and subsequent evidence,* remains unanswered by MelviUe's defenders, and the Presbyterian poUty which he put into forra was a mere human invention or de- rice, or, as Dr Cook caUs it, a " radical error," when claiming as Its warrant the high authority of Scripture. But some of the statements of Dr M'Crie, who may be considered the representa tive of the extreme Presbyterians, deserve a passing notice. He asserts that " the Second Book of DiscipUne has secured the lasting attachment of the people of Scotland," and this Is declared In the face of the weU known fact, that one-half of the people of Scotland know nothing about it, and nine-tenths of the other half never saw the said Book, or feel any interest in its details. Dr M'Crie aUeges that whenever the said Book " has been wrested from them by riolence, they have uniformly embraced the first favourable opportunity of demanding Its restitution." Now, every reader of history knows that when that exploit was achieved, the people were in rebeUion against their lawful sovereign — that the Second Book of Discipline was not even mentioned at and after their Glasgow General Assembly of 1638 ; and if the Presbyterians can exult over the atrocities their predecessors perpetrated at that unhappy period, which led to the murder of their sovereign, they may weU be viewed as the enemies of order and as the de fenders of Insurrection. Dr M'Crie farther boasts that the Second Book of Discipline " is equally opposed to arbitrary and lordly dominion on the part of the clergy, and to popular confusion and misrule " — that " It establishes an efficient discipline in every con gregation," preserving " that unity which ought to subsist among the different branches of the church of Christ," and that " it encourages a friendly co-operation between the civil and ecclesi astical authorities." Yet the Govemment of the rude age in which it was compiled shrank from recognizing In any way this boasted paUadlum, and the history of the Presbyterian Establish ment of Scotland, from 1834 to 1843, is a triuraphant refutation of Dr M'Crie's statements, which are proved to be mere opinions, at variance with dissensions which have occurred, and which threaten a war of extermination between two parties whose feuds and dissensions are unhappily notorious. • History ofthe Church and State of Scotland, p. 275. 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 165 That the Second Book of Discipline contains many fundamental truths Is not to be denied ; but most of sects hold some essential principles in common with the Church Catholic frora which they have separated, and if Protestants choose to deny every funda mental truth which even the Romanists believe, obscured though It may be by their own inventions, they must of necessity altogether reject Christianity. Much, too, is said by the Presbyterian writers about the time and trouble employed in the compUation of the Second Book of Discipline, and of the learning and research it evinces. It is considered a wonderful production — a,magnum opus — a prodigy of theological erudition. But any one who carefully examines It wUl form a much more moderate estimate of its merits. A con siderable portion of it is very nearly the same with the First Book of Discipline, and many parts of it are derived from the outline in the " Form of Prayers and Adrainistration of the Sacraments used in the English Congregation at Geneva, and approved by the famous and learned man John Calvin," printed first at Geneva in 1558.* The Book consists of thirteen chapters, divided into various sections ; but as the Presbyterian system of parity is now well understood, and prevails among Independents, Methodists, and other sects. It is unnecessary to enter into minute details. The whole is a compilation framed on human principles by un authorized men, who interpreted the Scriptures to suit their own principles. It commences by drawing the distinction between civil and ecclesiastical power^ — a distinction in many cases re markably Intricate, and one which has been often made the agent of rebeUion in Scotland, and dogmatical resistance to the consti tuted law. It sets forth a separate and independent power to be vested in themselves, who were to be the sole judges of what is civil and ecclesiastical, and who, under the pretence of discipline, were to domineer over aU magistrates if they transgress in matters of con science and religion. The entire compilation is framed on the assumption, that no other religious system was to be ever tolerated In Scotland but their own. Of course the episcopate is denounced, and the name of Bishop is declared to be synonymous with pastor or minister. The whole platform of Presbyterian polity is deve loped in the institution of Presbyteries and Provincial Synods under This tractate was represented at London in 1643, and comprises, including the title-page and preface, forty quarto pages. 166 THE TITULAR BISHOPS ATTACKED [1578. the controul of the General Assembly. One pecuUarity Is con nected with what they designated the " ordinary caU to enter on the ministry." In the First Book of Discipline the imposition of hands at ordination was declared unnecessary, and ordered to be discontinued. It was accordingly never observed by Knox and the other compUers of that work ; but in the Second Book of Dis cipline it was enjoined to be restored, and always to be practised. It occurs in the eleventh and twelfth sections of the third chapter, entitled — " How the persons that bear Ecclesiastical Functions are admitted to their Offices." They declare that " ordination is the separation and sanctifying of the person appointed of God and his Kirk, after he be weU tried and found quaUfied. The ceremonies of ordination are fasting, prayer, and imposition of hands of the eldership!'' By the word eldership they mean the Presbytery, not the functionaries coraraonly known as elders in Scotland, whose duties and office are defined In the sixth and seventh chapters. And though the Second Book of DiscipUne was, as already ob served, never ratified by law, from about this period may be dated the coinmenceraent of the present system of Presbyterian ordina tion, for the compilers acted upon it in their ovm way, and con sidered it binding on themselves. This, then. Is the sole origin of " ordination " in the Presbyterian Establishment of Scotland, and among the Seceders, Cameronians, and other Presbyterian Dis senters — enjoined by unauthorized raen, and practised by their unauthorized followers. In tracing the history of the Introduction of Presbyterianism into Scotland, we find numerous instances of the melancholy effects of human passions, prejudices, and errors. Although Melville, notwithstanding the assertions of Dr M'Crie, was the first im porter of the Genevan system, it cannot be denied that the seeds of it were sown before his arrival, and that they only required a husbandman like him to take advantage of them as they sprung up, and bring them to maturity. From the framing of the First Book of Discipline down to the corapUation of the Second, a period of about eighteen years, the " contendings " of the Re formed preachers were against the " Pope's Bishops," not against the episcopal order in general, for we have seen that they willingly recognized the Bishops of England as true Prelates, and even ad dressed them as their " Brethren." But we must now view the 1578.] IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. 1 67 MelviUe party as endeavouring to carry out their principles to the utmost extent, not as carrying on a warfare against the mere Titular Episcopate, which in Itself was as worthless as their own, but against the apostolical constitution of the Church, and maintaining a system in which all are masters. And as to their Second Book of Discipline, what after all is it ? A mere stringing together of their opinions about their " Policy," while nothing is mentioned of the doctrines of the gospel, and not a word introduced referring to the great and saving truths of Christianity, in which the people were to be instructed. They left out the " weightier matters " — " temperance, righteousness, and judgment to corae," and contended solely for their own supreraacy, with an arrogance, dogmatism, and presumption, which would not have been tolerated for a moment In any other than a kingdom such as Scotland then was — rent by faction, civil discord, political intrigue, and private hatred. 168 1578.] CHAPTER VII. PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. The unfortunate Titular of Glasgow, consigned to the tender mercies of Mr Andrew MelviUe and others, was now to experience the persecution which Adamson, his brother Titular of St Andrews, had long suffered. MelviUe peremptorUy demanded Boyd's submis sion to the General Assembly, and being then depressed by do mestic grief and bodily suffering he pacified his tormentor by com pliance. The ingratitude of MelvUle in this business, and as mani fested in his general conduct, Is admitted by Presbyterian writers. Boyd, says Dr Cook, " had been his friend and his patron : he had placed hira in the University of Glasgow, and bestowed on him many favours ; but although MelviUe treated him in private with the utmost reverence, he in public revUed him, and he invaded his retirement, when a feeling raind should have regarded that retire ment as sacred." Though Wodrow endeavours to vindicate MelvUle, and, omitting the harsh manner by which he obtained the Titular's submission, rests his defence on the aUegation that Boyd was not the chief instrument of bringing MelviUe to Glas gow — a statement contradicted by the other MelvUle in his Diary — the narrative of Spottiswoode Is too Important to be set aside. " Nothing," says the Archbishop, " did more grieve him [the titular Archbishop Boyd] than the ingratitude of Mr Andrew Melrille, and his uncourteous forms. He had brought the raan to Glas gow, placed hira Principal in the CoUege, bestowed otherwise UberaUy upon him, and was paid for this his kindness with most disgraceful contempt. In private and at the Bishop's table, to 1579.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 169 which he was ever welcome, no man did ever use him with greater respect, giring hira his titles of dignity and honour ; but in the public meetings, where he owed him greatest reverence, he would call him by his own name, and use him most uncivilly." Dr M'Crie's apology for MelviUe's conduct Is raost extraordinary. After stating that " some of these charges are ridiculous and childish, and the rest are false and calumnious," and that " the allusion to Melville partaking of the Archbishop's hospitality is utterly unworthy of a reply," we are favoured with the foUowing " deliverance" in the regular Presbyterian style of the sect to which the author belonged — " What is said as to the episcopal titles is absurd as well as puerile. There was an act of Assembly directing that the Bishops should be addressed by the same titles as other rainisters. In obedience to this act, and in coramon with all his brethren, MelviUe observed the rule in the public meetings of the Church ; but he did not think that the Assembly intended to interfere with the ordinary civilities of life, and accordingly made no scruple of giving the Bishop his usual titles in private intercourse." A more degrading explanation of Melville's conduct could not have emanated even from an enemy. According to this logic he added private insult to public discourtesy, or he chose when at the Titular's table completely to gainsay his avowed principles for the pleasures of appetite. The testimony of Robert Boyd of Trochrig, the Titular's son, to the " inviolable friendship" between his father and MelvUle has nothing to do with the matter. That friendship is admitted ; but the charge against MelviUe is ingratitude and hypocrisy. In the spring of 1579 MelviUe and his party induced the magis trates of Glasgow to meditate the demohtion of the cathedral in that city ; but this is also denied by Dr M'Crie, because the " stateraent rests solely on the authority of Bishop Spottiswoode." " I never," says the Doctor, " met with any thing in the public or private writings of MelviUe, or of any minister contemporary with him, that gives the smaUest ground for the conclusion, that they looked upon cathedral churches as monuments of idolatry, or that they would have advised their demolition on this ground." It will be observed that this is In direct opposition to Dr M'Crie's recorded opinions on cathedrals in his Life of John Knox. As to cathedral churches, the Presbyterian party at that tirae were 170 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1579. not afflicted by such eye-sores ; for the whole of them, with the ex ception of Glasgow and Kirkwall, had been dilapidated by the so called Reformers in the time of Knox. But why object to it be cause it rests " solely upon the authority of Spottiswoode '(" He was Archbishop of the See before his translation to St Andrews, and must have knovrai the history of the affair, which is noticed in aU the local annals of Glasgow, and it Is generally aUowed that the massive structure was saved oiUy by the interference of the in corporated trades, who, when the workmen coUected for the pur pose were marched to destroy the church by beat of drum, " took arms," says the Archbishop, " swearing with many oaths that he who did cast down the first stone should be buried under it." The proceedings of the Presbyterian party in the three General Assemblies of 1578 against the Titular Prelates, and in favour of their own system, attracted the notice of the Government, and In the General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 7th of July 1579, a letter from the King was read, requesting them to main tain the " policy" then protected by the State, and during his minority both to conduct themselves peaceably, and to yield due obedience to their sovereign. His Majesty desired that they would not interfere with matters neither sanctioned by the law nor received in practice, reminding them that the meeting of Par liament was approaching when the whole question of the Church Government would be considered, and intimating that If they persisted in any other course, some among them, " over busy to wish the contrary effects, may find themselves disappointed." The royal letter was pronounced unsatisfactory, and as they chose to set it at defiance, James became from this date, young as he then was, strongly prejudiced against the Presbyterians. They sum moned the Titular of St Andrews to appear before them m Edin burgh " at a reasonable day," to answer various charges, especi aUy his delaying " to remove the corruptions of the state of Bishops in his own person," to which they were the more emboldened by the submission of the Titular of Glasgow, which was produced by Mr Darid Wemyss, subscribed by himself on the 8th of June preced ing. They concluded their proceedings by addressing a long letter to the King, in which, araong other raatters, they intiraated to him the pubUcation of the first printed edition of the Bible in Scotland by Alexander Arbuthnot, from the EngUsh translation made at 1579.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 171 Geneva by " the godly raen of the nation of England for the most part banished from their country for the gospel's cause" — a state ment which sufficiently indicates their sectarian predilections. They contrasted their " days of light, when almost in every private house the book of God's law is read and understood in our vulgar language, and the age of darkness, when scarcely in a whole city, without the cloisters of monks and friars, could the book of God once be found, and that in a strange tongue of Latin, not good, but mixed with barbarity, used and read by few, and almost un derstood and expounded by none ; and when the false-named clergy of this realm, abusing the gentle nature of your Highness' most noble grandsire of worthy meraory [James Y.J, made it a capital crime, to be punished with the fire, to have or read the New Testament, in the vulgar language ; yea, and to make them to aU men more odious, as if it had been the detestable name of a preco cious sect, they were named New Testamenters." They reminded James of the favourable manner in which he had at first received the " Book of the Policie of the Kirk," when he assumed the government, and entreated him to sanction it that their labours might not be lost, " whatsoever hath been bestowed therein." The state of the times Is then set forth — the " manifest corrup tion of our lives in all estates, and licentious and godless living of the multitude, the impurity of some, and wickedness, the cruel and un natural murders, heinous and detestable incests, adulteries, sorcer ies, and many such like enorraities, with the oppression and conterapt of the poor, alraost universal corruption of justice and judgment, and many other evils which overflow this comraonwealth, bear evi dent witness how slender and sraall success hath hitherto foUowed the reformation of religion within this realm." After this very extraor dinary admission of the almost total failure of their teaching and preaching to Improve the people for nearly twenty years, they wander into their usual field of controversy, their dearly beloved Genevan " Policy," which In their opinion was superior to the most fundamental principles of the Church, and request the King to estabUsh it throughout the kingdora, reralnding him of David, Solomon, Jehoshaphat, Josiah, Hezekiah, the " great Constantine," the " gentle Gratian," the " godly Theodosius," and " such others, to be worthy of eternal memory and commendation."* • Booke ofthe Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 441-448. 172 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1579. The effect of this Genevan horaUy on the young King is not stated. This General Assembly was dissolved on the 10th of July, and the ensuing one appointed to be held at Dundee on the 12th of July 1580. The ParUament met at Edmburgh on the 20th of October 1579, and notwithstanding the fulminations of the Presbyterian faction, the Titulars of St Andrews, Orkney, and Brechin, who are styled "reverend and venerable fathers in Christ,'^ attended the first day as spiritual peers. The Titular of Caithness was also present, but as he had now succeeded as sixth Earl of Lennox he Is noticed as such, and he obtained a confirmation of his Infeftment In that Earldom from this ParUament. On the third day of the meeting they were joined by the Titular Prelates of Glasgow, Dunkeld, and Moray, and fifteen of the " Abbots" or commendators were present. The Lords of the Articles were that day chosen, and the parties were the Titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Orkney, the Commendators of Dunferm Une, Newbattle, Deer, Culross, and St Colm, the Earls of Morton, ArgyU, then ChanceUor, Lennox, Montrose, Rothes, EgUnton, Lords Ruthven, Lindsay, and Herries, and nine gentlemen from the representatives of the burghs. On the fourth day of the meet ing, at which the King was present, the six Titulars duly attended. The Estates refused to ratify the Second Book of Discipline, so that MelvUle and his friends were again mortified by its rejection, but they passed two acts, the one " Anent the true and Haly Kirk," and the other " Anent the jurisdiction of the Kirk." The former ratified aU previous acts, and defined the " only true and Haly Kirk of Jesus Christ \rithin the reahn" to be that based on the Con fession of 1560; the latter declared the "jurisdiction of the Kirk" to be that which " consists and stands in the preaching of the true word of Jesus Christ, correction of manners, and adrainistration of the holy sacraments," and that " there is no other face of Kirk nor other face of religion than is presently by the favour of God established within this realm." A committee was appointed to meet at Edinburgh on the 11th of April 1580, and to report to the King and three Estates what " other special points should apper tain to the jurisdiction, privilege, and authority" of the said Kirk. The persons nominated were the Earls of Morton, ArgyU, Rothes, and Buchan, the titular Archbishop Adamson of St Andrews, the Commendators of Dunfermline, Newbattle, Deer, and Culross, 1579.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 173 Erskine of Dun, Spottiswoode and Craig, Lawson and Lindsay, as " ministers," with Alexander Hay, Clerk Register.* It wiU thus be seen that the Parliament considered the Titular Episcopate to be strictly legal, and paid no attention to the re monstrances, petitions, and denunciations of the Presbyterian party. The favourite " Book of Policie," the so much boasted labour of years and display of learning, was not even discussed. This raust have been huraUiating to the pride of MelriUe, who saw his exertions baffled, and his Genevan parity disregarded. An act was passed by this ParUaraent, entitled " Ratification of the Reformation of the University of St Andrews," the object of which was " to visit and consider the foundations, to remove all superstitions and papistry, to displace unquaUfied persons, and plant worthy and qualified in their stead, to redress the form of studies and teaching by more or fewer professors, and generaUy to estabUsh such order in that University as shall most tend to the glory of God, profit of this commonwealth, and good up-bringing of the youth in sciences needful for continuing of the true religion to aU posterity." But in that act the General Assembly was not even mentioned, and it was declared that " the election of quali fied persons [professors] shall from this forth pertain to the Bishop of St Andrews!'' A coramission was appointed, among whom were the King's grand-uncle the Earl of Lennox, who was commendator of the Abbey of St Andrews, Patrick Archbishop of St Andrews, Erskine of Dun, and Winram, who was still designated Prior of Portmoak, authorizing them conjunctly, or any three of them, to take cognizance of the present ministers and members of the said University ."-f- An act was also passed by this Parliament which significantly delineates the morals of the people, and the lamentable failure of the religious instruction as imparted by the Reformed preachers to Improve them. We have seen that the Presbyterian party them selves acknowledged in their letter to the King the " slender and small success whichhithertofoUowed the reforraation of religion with in this realm,"J and It could not be otherwise, when it is recollected that they occupied their tirae in discussions about their " Policie," • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iu. p. 121, 127, 128, 129, 137, 138. t Ibid. vol. iii. p. 178-182. X Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 447. 174 PROGRESS OP PRESBYTERIANISM. [1579. questions concerning marriage, divorce, and other matters of gross indelicacy. The act aUuded to is entitied " Discharging of mar kets and labouring on Sundays, or playing and drinking in time of sermon," but it is fair to state that the practices to which it al ludes had been occasionally matter of complaint in the General Asserablies. It refers to an act passed In the reign of James IV. prohibiting the holding of markets and fah-s on holidays, or within the church or churchyard. This act, which had fallen Into disuse, was ratified and confirmed in the following manner : — " And see ing that the Sabbath days are now commonly violated and broken, as weU within burgh as to landward [in town and country], to the great dishonour of God, by holding and keeping the said markets and fairs on Sundays, using of hand labour, and working thereon, as on the remaining days of the week, by gaming and playing, passing to taverns and alehouses, remaining from the parish kirk in tirae of sermon or prayers on the Sundays," the holding of mar kets on these days, or any other [holiday], in the churches, or within the churchyards, was prohibited under the penalty of con fiscation of the goods for the use of the poor of the parish. All labouring was to be punished by a fine of ten shiUings Scots, or ninepence sterling in the case of a poor person ; and those guilty of gambling, drinking in taverns and alehouses, and wUful absence from the parish church, were to be amerced in the sum of twenty shillings Scots, to be assigned to the poor of the parish, and if they refused or were unal)le to pay the fines, they were ordered to be placed in the stocks, or " such other engine devised for pub lic punishment," for twenty-four hours.* Another act was passed which distinctly recognised the Titular Episcopate. A complaint had been transmitted to the King by the last General Assembly respecting ^the prevalent practice of educating the youth of the upper classes abroad, by which they were in danger of attaching theraselves to the " Pope's Kirk." It was enacted that all such shall obtain the royal sanction for their departure, and within twenty days after their return they were to repair to the Bishop, Superintendent, or commissioner of the Kirk, within whose bounds they resided, and make " confession of their faith according to the true religion established in the realm." • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 138. 1579.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 175 In September 1579, a young nobleman arrived in Scotland who soon became the intimate favourite of the King, and the most amiable of that class of royal companions, but who subsequently encountered the unmitigated opposition and abuse of the Presby terian party on the supposition that he was a Roman Catholic, simply because he had been educated in that system, and was re lated to the House of Guise. This was Esrae Stuart, Lord Aubigny In France, son of John Lord Aubigny, a younger son of John third Earl of Lennox, the grandfather of Lord Darnley, and consequently the great grand-father of the King. James received his accompUshed relative with the utmost kindness, and made no secret of his partiality. He induced his grand-uncle, the Titular of Caithness, to resign the Earldom of Lennox for that of March in October foUowing the arrival of Lord Aubigny, who was created Earl of Lennox, and invested with the revenues of the Abbey of Arbroath, which had devolved to the Crown by the forfeiture of Lord John Hamilton. Lord Aubigny was advanced to the dignity of Duke of Lennox in 1581. This nobleman, either from convic tion or policy, embraced the Reformed religion soon after his ar rival in Scotland, by a public profession thereof in St Giles' church at Edinburgh, participating in the Sacrament, and subscrib ing the Confession of 1560 at Stirling. But this was not con sidered satisfactory by the Presbyterian party, and the rapid advancement of a foreigner afforded them a favourable pretext for exciting a clamour that the King's religious principles would be perverted. Some dispensations frora Rorae, real or pretended, were accidentally discovered, permitting those who held them to swear and subscribe whatever should be required. If they diligently advanced in secret the Roman CathoUc faith. Jaraes, young as he was, perceived the mischief which might be occasioned by these misrepresentations, and caused John Craig, who was now ad mitted as a kind of chaplain to the royal household, to compose a Confession of Faith, to satisfy his subjects that the charges against hira and Lennox were groundless. The original, with all the sig natures, is preserved, written on parchraent, in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh,* and Is entitled " Ane Short and General * It is endorsed — " Covenant subscryved by King James of worthie memorie and his Household, 28 Jan. 1580, sent frome Somer, in France, by Monsieur [name obliter ated] to my Lord Scotstarvet, Aug. 1641." It is printed in the " Booke of the Uni versall Kirk of Scotland," Part Second, Bannatyne Club, p. 515, 518. 176 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1580. Confession of the true Christian Faith, according to God's Word and Acts of our Parliament, subscribed by the King's Majesty and Household, with sundrie others, to the glorie of God, and good example of all men," on the 28th of January, and confirmed at Holyroodhouse on the second of March 1589-90. It chiefly con sists of a fierce tirade against the Pope, and the doctrines, ceremo nies, and practices of the Church of Rome, expressed in the most unmeasured language of vituperation. It was signed by the King, Lennox, Morton, Argyll, Ruthven, and the whole of the Privy Council. The only Titular who subscribed was the ex-Earl of Lennox, who merely adhibits his name, Robert Stewart, omitting his assumed title of Bishop of Caithness. A gentleman named Borthwick adds to his signature " with hand and heart." Two General Assemblies were held in 1580, the one commencing on the 12th of July at Dundee, at which the Laird of Lundie was pre sent as the representative of the King, and the other at Edinburgh on the 20th of October. In the former the usual complaints were brought against the episcopal function in general, and particularly against the Titulars of Moray, Dunkeld, and Dunblane. Graham, the Titular of Dunblane, submitted himself to their authority and direction. The " office of a Bishop" was again denounced, and the Titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Moray, were respectively ordered to appear before a Synodal Assembly, to be held in St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Elgin, on the 18th of August, and If they refused they were to be summoned before the next General Assembly. The Titulars of Brechin, ArgyU, Ork ney, Caithness, and The Isles, were also ordered to attend that Assembly, to " answer such things as shall be Inquired of them." Certain articles were drawn up for the consideration of the King and Privy Council, one of which was that the " Book of the Policie may be established by an Act of the Privy CouncU, until a Parliament be had, at which tirae it raay be confirraed." Esme Earl of Lennox endeavoured to propitiate the Presbyterian party, by addressing a letter to this Assembly, setting forth his gratitude to divine raercy for his safe arrival in Scotland, and that he had been " called to the knowledge of salvation since he came into the land" — that " though he had made an open declaration" to this effect in Edinburgh, and subscribed the Confession of his faith at Stirling, he thought It his duty to " make them a free and humble 1580.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 177 offer of due obedience, and to receive them well In any thing It shall please them," assuring them that he would " always be ready to perform the same with aU humility." In the other General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 20th of October that year. It is recorded that the Titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Moray, did not appear when caUed on the second day. The proceedings on the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and part of the seventh sittings are not recorded, several leaves of the original register having been torn out in 1584. Probably this ex plains the charge preferred against the titular Archbishop Adamson by John Row, that he mutilated the Register of the General Assem bly. Some submission raust have been tendered by the titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, and The Isles, for those of Moray, Aberdeen, Caithness, and Brechin, especially the two latter, were summoned to appear In the next General Assembly, and conform to the ex ample of the others. The same was intiraated to Bothwell of Orkney. Adamson of St Andrews Is mentioned, though not in his titular capacity, as personaUy present. He was nominated to act with several on a matter connected with that University, and also to confer with the King on some of their deraands. Andrew MelviUe was ordered, against his own inclination according to his nephew,* to resign his office of Principal and Professor In the Uni versity of Glasgow in favour of Mr Thoraas Sraeaton, and reraove to St Andrews, " to begin the work of theology there with such as he thought fit to take with hira to that effect." Probably the most important statement in the records of this meeting is the order to divide the kingdom Into Presbyteries, and to report to the next Assembly. MelviUe was admitted to his new office in the University of St Andrews in December that year. He was cordially received by the titular Archbishop, who, says James MelvUle, " resorted to our lessons, and kept familiar friendship with Mr Andrew, pro mising what could lie in him for the welfare of that work. He had taken himself to the University of St Andrews, and taught twice in the week exceeding sweetly and eio quently ."-f" This testi mony, which is that of an avowed enemy, is honourable to Adam son's character. It is even stated that Andrew MelvUle often " James Melville's Diary, printed for the Wodrow Society, Svo. Edinburgh, 1842, p. 83. t Ibid. p. 85. 12 178 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. * [1581. preached for him when he was absent. They were so Intimate that MelviUe borrowed a horse from the Titular, to enable him to attend the General Assembly held at Glasgow on the 24th of AprU 1581, which is an additional proof of Adamson's good nature, for he knew weU that the " platform of Presbytery" was to be ra tified on that occasion chiefly by the Instigation of MelvUle. This General Assembly is noted as the first In which the Pres byterian system, as subsequently knovsTi in Scotland, was develop ed. It was reported that exclusive of the Dioceses of ArgyU and The Isles, the rentals of which had been seized by the Earl of ArgyU after the Reformation, Scotland contained about nine hun dred and twenty-four churches, sorae of which were " pendicles," probably chapelries, and many of them were in ruins. Sundry of the parishes were also declared to be too large for the convenient resort of the inhabitants to the churches. It was proposed to re duce the number of parish churches to six hundred. In every one of which was to be a minister, and the stipends were to be paid as foUows : — One hundred at 500 merks each, two hundred at 300 merks, two hundred at L.lOO, and one hundred at 100 merks, or " somewhat more or less." These six hundred parishes were to be dirided into fifty Presbyteries, twelve, or " thereabouts" to form a Presbytery ; three of those Presbyteries, or " more or fewer, as the country Ues, to make a Diocese ;" a certain nuraber of Presby teries were to form a Synod, and the merabers sent by those Synods were proposed to constitute the General AssembUes. A form of the " Dioceses" and Presbyteries was drawn up In the foUoTOUg order : — Orkney, to consist of the Presbyteries of Ting- waU and KirkwaU ; Caithness — Wick and Dornoch ; Edinburgh — Dalkeith, Edinburgh, LinUthgow, and StirUng ; Haddington, to comprize Haddington and Dunbar; Ross — Chanonrie, Tain, and DingwaU ; Moray — Forres, Elgin, and Inverness ; Banff- Banff, Deer, and KUdrumraie ; Aberdeen — Aberdeen, Inverury, and Kincardine O'NeU ; Angus — ^Dundee, Kirriemuir, and Ket- tins ; Mearns — Berrie and Fordoun ; Dunkeld — Perth, Dunkeld, and Crieff; St Andrews — St Andrews, Falkland, and Dunferm line ; Jedburgh — Chimside, Dunse, Kelso, and Jedburgh ; Peebles — Melrose, Peebles, and BIggar ; Glasgow — Lanark, Glasgow, and Dunbarton; Ayr — Ayr, Irvine, Maybole, and Colmonell; Galloway — Whithorn and Kirkcudbright; Dumfries — Dumfries, 1581.] * PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 179 Penpont, Lochmaben, and Annan ; in all, eighteen Synods or " Dioceses," and fifty-three Presbyteries.* Such was the outline of the Presbyterian division of Scotland submitted to the General Asserably, to enable him to be present at which in proper time MelvUle borrowed a horse from the titu lar Archbishop Adamson. As the time was too limited to take the whole Into consideration, it was unanimously resolved that an experiment should be raade — " ane beginning be had of the Pres byteries Instantly" — and the Presbyteries of Edinburgh, Hadding ton, Dunbar, Chimside, Linlithgow, Dunfermline, St Andrews, Dundee, Perth, Stirling, Glasgow, Ayr, and Irvine, were ordered to be constituted, but to most of them more than double the propos ed twelve parishes were aUotted. A certain number of persons were appointed to see those Presbyteries constituted before the ensuing May, and it is curious to find among thera the names and titles of the Titulars of Glasgow and Dunblane. The only other transaction worthy of notice In this Assembly was connected with their " Policie," or Second Book of Discipline. Having faded to obtain a ratification of it by the King and Parliament, they order ed it to be recorded in their registers, in the " Acts of the Kirk, and to remain therein ad perpetuam rei memoriam, and copies thereof to be taken to every Presbytery." In this position the Second Book of Discipline still continues. The Confession of Faith, already mentioned as signed by the King and Privy Coun cil, was unaniraously declared to be " ane true and Christian Con fession." James Melrille describes it as " most notable," but he aUeges as a reason for not inserting it In his Diary that copies were in the dwellings and hands of aU.-f- The King and the Lords of Secret Council offered no opposition to this new division of the kingdom into Presbyteries, as appears from their declaration on the 9th of May 1581, in which " the King's Majesty, with advice of the Lords of the Secret Council," finding that the spurious ecclesiastical polity would not be perma nent, appointed commissioners to attend to the buslness.j They evidently resolved to carry into effect their own measures, In de fiance of the General Assembly, the Second Book of DiscipUne, " Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 480, 481, 482. t James Melville's Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 87. X Booke of the Universall Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p, 519, 520, 521 . 180 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. * [1581. and the Presbyterian leaders. It was soon apparent that they had no intention of abandoning the Titular Episcopacy. Boyd, often mentioned as the titular Archbishop of Glasgow, died in 1581, and a successor to him was soon found in the person of Mr Robert Montgomery, minister at StirUng, who is accused of con senting to become the tool of the Duke of Lennox, who was to re ceive, for the payment of a smaU aUowance annuaUy, the whole revenues of the Archbishopric. The melancholy downfall and fate of one prominent personage in the drama of those times may be here noticed. The Earl of Morton, during whose Regency, and by whose infiuence, the Titular Episcopate was established, had faUen on the scaffold on the 2d of June that year, the rictim of his own crimes, but chiefly of the hatred of one of the most unprin cipled adventurers of that age, the notorious James Stewart of BothweUmuir, second son of Andrew Lord Ochiltree, whose mother was the only daughter of James first Earl of Arran. This per son, who had served in the Army of the States of HoUand against the Spaniards, and was known by the title of " Captain" Stewart, returned to Scotland in 1579, and baring obtained the favour of James VI. , who appointed him to various offices, he commenced a fierce opposition to the Earl of Morton, against whom he prefer red an accusation before the King In Council, In the Palace of Holyroodhouse, on the 30th of December 1580, of being accessory to the murder of Lord Darnley, the King's father, for which the Earl was tried and beheaded at Edinburgh by the instrument which he is said to have introduced, and weU known as the Maidm. Stewart was a few months afterwards created Earl of Arran, and as such he is often mentioned In Scottish history, though the title was restored to the HamUton Family in 1585, to whom it belong ed. In 1596, when he was unexpectedly attacked near Douglas in Lanarkshire by Sir James Douglas of Parkhead, the nephew of Morton, who had long resolved to avenge the rigorous proceedings against his uncle, and kiUed him on the spot. The titular Archbishopric of Glasgow was thus vacant by the death of Boyd in June 1581, but the See was no more than no minally vacant as it respects the temporalities, aU of which were restored in 1588 by King James and the Parliament to Archbi shop Beaton, who acted as ambassador at Paris, and enjoyed them tiU his death in 1603, having survived the Reformation, from the 1581.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 181 effects of which hc fled to the Continent, nearly forty-three years. The appointraent of Montgoraery as Titular was a very extraor dinary transaction, and on his part sufficiently unprincipled. The See was placed by the King at the disposal of his favourite the Duke of Lennox, who offered it to various preachers, on the con dition of contenting theraselves with an annual pension, and as signing to him the revenues. Montgomery, whose position as minister of Stirling made him well known to the Court, was in duced to comply vrith the terms of the Duke of Lennox, who is accused " by Guisian counsel and direction of having pressed the restoring of the estate of Bishops."* It is admitted by Bishop Keith that " Mr Montgomery gave bond that he should dispone to this Duke and his heirs the income of his See, how soon he should be admitted Bishop, for the yearly payment of L.IOOO Scots, with sorae horse-corn and poultry ."-f- This " vile bargain," as Archbishop Spottiswoode justly terms it, sanctioned by the influ ence of the Court, was a regular declaration against the Presby terian party, and excited much popular clamour. Of Montgo raery personally nothing is known, except that his name occurs as present at several General Assemblies, that he was in the habit of defending the sentiments of MelvUle, and had proposed to censure certain of the preachers who solicited an explanation of the Acts passed in the General Assemblies, which set forth that " the office of a Bishop was not warranted by the word of God." It was now resolved to make another grand attack on the law fulness of the episcopal function, and the alleged simony commit ted by Montgomery, though the disgraceful transaction could scarcely be considered as such, because he was not in holy orders, and could not by any possibility be a properly consecrated Bishop. The General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 17th of October 1581 discussed both subjects. At the opening " the whole Bishops being called, none was present but Dunblane." After arranging sundry of their own affairs respecting the " platt," as they desig nated their scheme of the formation of a certain number of parishes into Presbyteries, a message from the King was communicated to them about the admission of Montgomery, to which they delayed * James MelviUe's Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 118. t Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, edited by Bishop Eussell, p. 261, 262. 182 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1581. an answer, and " charged the said Mr Robert not to depart till this Assembly be dissolved." On the fifth of their sittings certain commissioners from the King wished to be informed on the im portant point affecting the legal constitution of the ParUaments. " If," they asked, " the office of Bishops was to be condemned, to which temporal jurisdiction was also annexed, such as votmg in Parliament, assisting at the Privy CouncU, and defraying part of the taxation, what reason could be adduced to shew that the King could lawfuUy abolish the episcopal estate?" A comraittee of ministers and gentlemen were appointed to consider this question, which " the Asserably thought very weighty and of great conse quence," and on the foUowing day they reported that " after long reasoning that they had agreed thus far, that, touching voting in ParUament and assisting in CouncU, commissioners from the general Kirk should supply the place of Bishops," and that the heritable baUies could " exercise the civU and criminal jurisdiction anent the office of Bishops." This crafty attempt to obtain power and Influence, which was sanctioned by Andrew MelviUe, Pont, and others of the preachers, was favourably received, and the " judgment of their brethren aUowed." In the case of Mont gomery the King declared that he was wlUing to allow them to inquire into his life and doctrine, and Andrew MelvUle three days afterwards produced sixteen charges against him, which he was ordered to answer in " write " on a certain day. Some of these charges are curious, and evince the determination of the Presbyterian party to render Montgomery obnoxious. The first was that In a pubHc sermon at StirUng he discussed the cir cumcision of women, and concluded by stating as his opinion that the operation was performed on the " skin of their forehead." 2. He maintamed openly In Glasgow that the discipUne of the Kirk was a matter of no importance. 4. He aUeged that the [Presby terian] ministers used faUacIous and captious arguments, and were men of " curious brains." 5. That he spoke contemptuously of the Hebrew and Greek languages, and tauntingly asked In what school Peter and Paul graduated. 8. That he had designated the " law ful calUng in the Kirk" and the Second Book of Discipline, " trifles of poUcie." 9. That he had accused the ministers of sedition. 11. That he denied the " doctrine of Christ," who pronounced that the most part are rebeUious and perish. 12. He denied that in 1581.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 183 the New Testaraent the presbytery or eldership was raentioned. The other charges were probably mere inventions of his opponents, and related to private scandals, gossipping conversations, and " negligence In doctrine." MelviUe was enjoined to produce his witnesses In support of the accusations against Montgomery, who had now withdrawn from the Assembly, and could not be found, though sumraoned by Mr Andrew Polwart at the house of a certain WiUiara Montgomery, probably a relative, where he lodged, and also in the Abbey of Holyrood. Eight persons were brought forward by Melville, one of whom was the titular Archbishop Adamson. They were all sworn and admitted, but as Montgomery was still absent, they nominated seven individuals, or any three of them, to examine him, and allowed Melville his own time for farther probation. After various proceedings in the matter, and having received the opinion of the King, to whom the leaders had sent the articles of accusation, that he was " content they had proceeded against hira as a minister," the " Brethren " of the newly constituted Presby tery of Stirling were authorized to summon Montgomery before them, to " try and examine his life and conversation, and accusa tions [to be] given thereanent, with aU possible diUgence," and to report to the Synodal Assembly of Lothian, who were authorized to proceed against him. Meanwhile he was ordered to " continue In the ministry of the kirk of Stirling, and not to meddle with any other office or function in the Kirk, namely, in aspiring [or , attempting] to the Bishopric of Glasgow, against the word of God and acts of the Kirk, or [to trouble or] vex any of his brethren to adrait him thereto, under the pain of excommunication."* In this General Assembly Mr Walter Balcanqual, father of the celebrated Dr Walter Balcanqual, subsequently noticed. Master of the Savoy in 1617 and 1621, and in 1624 Dean of Rochester, pro minently appears. He had attacked the Duke of Lennox in a ser mon a few days before the meeting, and was alleged to have stated that " within these four years papistry had entered into the country, not only in the Court, but in the King's hall, and was maintained by a great champion who is called [his] Grace, and if his Grace would oppose himself to God's word he should have little grace." * Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 546, 547. l84 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1581. This gave great offence to the King and the Court, and a royal complaint was lodged against Mr Walter for his impertinent free dora. In his defence he very craftily declared that the General Asserably were the only competent judges of the Ufe and doctrine of ministers, and that he would submit himself " simply to their godly judgments, always neither being ashamed of his doctrine, nor yet being inclined to give any advantage to his enemies, whose purpose against him he knows in this matter." Farther — " he will only require this condition, that the canon of the Apostle Paul he kept to him, which Is, ' Against an elder receive no accusation, but under two or three witnesses.' " — " Here," quoth Balcanqual, " are the Assembly of the Kirk, as competent judges for him ; here he is ready before your Wisdoms to answer all accusations that shaU be laid against him, and underly your judgments there unto. Let any man, therefore, according to the canon of the Apostle, which In no way you can break, stand up here before you, and say he has any thing to accuse the said Mr Walter of either In life or doctrine." The result may be anticipated. The Assem bly decided that " seeing Mr Walter is ane brother in the ministry, the canon of the Apostle must be kept unto him," and they requested the King to produce witnesses. James declined to embroil himself with men who opposed and insulted him on every occasion, and they unanimously resolved that the sermon " con tained neither error, slander, nor just offence, but solid, good, and true doctrine."* James MelviUe states that after this Assembly the titular Arch bishop Adamson subscribed the Second Book of DiscipUne, or the " PoUcie," at a dinner party in presence of his uncle Andrew Mel viUe and others, " which subscription," he says, " is yet in my uncle's custody." The truth of this may bovdoubted, when we find the same James MelvUle at the very time sneering at " Mr Patrick Adamson, Bishop of St Andrews, a great counciUor in these days," accusing hira of raaintaining, among " many other evU grounds," that " a Christian king should be chief governor of the Kirk, and behoved to have Bishops under him to hold aU in order, conform to antiquity and most fiourishing state of the Christian Kirk under the best Emperor Constantine ; and that the discipUne of • Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 528, 529, 543. 15-81 .] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 185 the Kirk of Scotland could not stand with a free kingdom and monarchy, such as his Majesty's in Scotland."* The Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 24th of October, and the King attended in person. Though the General Assembly's sittings were continued several days afterwards no notice is taken of their proceedings. The Titulars of St Andrews, Orkney, and Brechin, appeared as " spiritual peers" on the fourth day of the Parliament, and were elected Lords of the Articles, with sundry " Abbots" and " Priors," noblemen, and commissioners from the principal towns. On the sixth day of the raeeting all the acts of former Parliaments in favour of the " true Kirk of God and re ligion" were confirraed, but the Presbyterian polity was never mentioned. The Titulars were nominated members of a comraittee to regulate the temporalities of benefices, and an important act was passed relating to patronage — that " all benefices of cure under prelacies shaU be presented by our Sovereign Lord and the lawful patrons in the favour of able and qualified ministers ;" and " in case any shaU happen to be given and disponed otherwise hereafter, decerns and declares the gifts and dispositions to be null and of no avaU, force, or effect." This was foUowed by an act against blaspheray and other " horrible oaths," by which sundry fines, according to the rank of the offenders, were to be exacted, and the poor, who were unable to pay the lowest penalty, which was only eightpence Scots money, were to be put In the stocks or imprisoned. It is curious to find that " prelates" and " beneficed raen in dignity ecclesiastic," are enuraerated among those who were supposed likely to offend, the former of whom were placed In the same rank with the nobility, and were to be amerced four shUUngs ; the latter were to forfeit one shilling.-|- The attendance of Adamson at this Parliament in his capacity of titular Archbishop is thus noticed by James Melville : — " That winter he passed over to a Convention of the Estates, and after he nought Curt [or got no favour at Court] as he looked for, he address ed himself to the ministers of Edinburgh, showing them how that he carae over to Court with Balaara's heart, of purpose to curse the Kirk and do evil ; but God had wrought so with him that he had * James Melville's Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 120, 121. t Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 194, 195, 210, 211, 212. 186 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1582. turned his heart to the contrary, and made him both In reasoning and voting to stand for the Kirk, promising to farther and farther fruits of his conversion and good meaning. Whereat John Dury was so rejoiced that he treated him in [his] house, and wrote over at length to me in his favour. Whereupon I passed down to his castle [of St Andrews] at his homecoraing, and shewed him what inforraation concerning hira I had gotten frora the brethren of Edinburgh, thanking God therefor, and offering hira, in case of continuance, the right hand of society. Whereat rejoicing, he told me the matter at length concerning the great raotions and working of the Spirit. " WeU," said I, " that Spirit is an upright, holy, and constant Spirit, and will more and more manifest itself in Its effects ; but It is a fearful thing to be against him."* As Adamson was not likely to practice upon the creduUty of this gossipping nephew of Andrew MelvUle, his sentiments must be held as exaggerated. With singular inconsistency he records at this very period, and immediately after the above statement, that among the enemies of his uncle at St Andrews, who were the Pro fessors in the University, aU influenced by the " cauldness of Mr Robert Hamilton's ministry," the Provost and Magistrates of the city, and the Prior and his gentlemen pensioners — " the fifth and greatest enemy of all was the Bishop, Mr Patrick Adamson, craftily and quietly concurring with the Court, but always as yet under profession of great friendship, and so raost dangerously seeking his distruction, vrith the utter overthrow of the liberty of Christ's Kirk and kingdom." Melville farther adds, that when Montgomery made a show of submission to the next General Assembly, a certain Mr William Clark, " my predecessor, a wise, godly, and sweet man, said to him — ' It will never be this man that wiU trouble and hurt the Kirk ; but you wIU find that Mr Patrick Adamson will do it, who Is this man's councUlor, and causes him now to yield for the tlme.-f-' " Their next General Asserably, to which the above aUudes, was held at St Andrews on the 24th of AprU 1582, and Andrew Mel riUe was chosen Moderator. The proceedings were of no particular Interest, and, with the exception of sorae local matters, and a - James MelviUe's Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 121, 122. t Ibid. p. 127, 128. 1582.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 187 declaration that the Kirk had power to revoke any thing they were pleased to consider injurious to them, the affair of Montgomery and the Archbishopric of Glasgow was the prominent business. It appears from the original document in the Register of the Privy Council, that the Archbishopric lapsed to the King, and a decla ration in favour of Montgomery, dated at Stirling Castle, 12th April 1582 was issued, to the so called Dean and Chapter of Glasgow, conform to the agreement ratified at Leith in January 1571-2. Certain of the newly constituted Presbyteries were pro hibited from proceeding against Montgomery, and an injunction was issued to some of the neighbouring persons of influence to assist in Instalhng him. But it is both tedious and unnecessary to foUow all the disputes, collisions, and wranglings which now continually occurred between the Court and the Presbyterians, in which the remarkable leniency and moderate conduct of the former present a singular contrast to the bold pretensions, impertinent Interferences, and arrogant dictation of the latter. Nor is the subsequent history of the Titular Episcopate of any importance. It is already observed that it was one of those human expedients which was as destitute of canonical authority as the Presbyterian system, and was, like it, a mere worldly invention, without even Its assumed claims to the authority of Scripture. In August 1582, occurred the celebrated seizure of the per son of King James known as the Raid of Ruthven, frora the cir cumstance of the King's detention in the mansion of Ruthven, now called Huntingtower, the seat of WilUam first Earl of Gowrie, who was deeply Implicated In the transaction — an exploit which James never forgot. The object of it was to take the King out of the hands of the Duke of Lennox and the Earl of Arran, and for a time the conspirators were successful. The Presbyterian party zealously justified the treasonable act, and in the General Assem bly held at Edinburgh on the 9th of October foUowing they unanimously concluded that the conspirators, who had compeUed the King then in their power to grant them a remission, had rendered good and acceptable service to God, their sovereign, and the kingdora, requiring all sincere Protestants to entertain the sarae opinion. James was kept under the restraint of his new keepers untU the foUowing year, when he escaped from their controul. During his detention he was compelled to submit to 188 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [158S. numerous Insolent reproofs, advices, and harangues, by the Pres byterian preachers, who by identifying themselves with the actors in the Raid of Ruthven had attached to their interest an influen tial political party. The Duke of Lennox was compeUed to leave the kingdom without taking fareweU of the King, and he died of fever soon after his arrival at Paris in May 1583. The Presby terians industriously circulated a report that before his death he became a Roman Catholic — ^a falsehood which the King himself pubUcly refuted In an account which he wrote of his favourite's dying moraents, and invited his family to Scotland, whom he in vested with some of the highest offices at his disposal. James MelviUe relates a curious anecdote respecting the death of the Duke of Lennox, which illustrates the malignant feeUngs of the Presbyterians at the time. It appears that the King visited St Andrews about the end of July 1583, after he escaped from the restraint or iraprisonment of the Raid of Ruthven, and the Titu lar Adamson, who had then recovered from a dangerous iUness, preached before him. He contradicted in the course of his ser mon the report that the Duke had died a Roman Cathohc, and produced a document which he affirmed to be in the deceased nobleraan's hand\vriting to the contrary ; but, says MelviUe, " an honest merchant woman, sitting before the pulpit, and spying it narrowly afiirmed it was an account of a four or five year old debt, which a few days before she had sent to him, whereof she got no more payment than the Duke's executors made her."* The iUness of Adamson must not be overlooked, as it is con nected with a tragedy, too common in those times, which was caused by Presbyterian persecution. During most of 1582 he was confined to the castle of St Andrews, in MelviUe's phraseo logy, " Uke a fox in his hole." His physicians either misunderstood his distemper, or could afford him no rehef, and in his distress he took some medicine frora a woraan named Pearson, who resided in the riUage of ByrehiUs in the vicinity' of St Andrews, which was of essential benefit to him. His Presbyterian enemies soon invented a charge of witchcraft against the woman, and he was also accused of using satanic agency to save his life. The woman was examined by the so caUed Presbytery of St Andrews, declared • James MelviUe's Diar}-, Wodrow Society, p. 137, 138. 1583.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 189 to be a witch, and they strangely enough consigned her for execution to the custody of Adamson, who, his enemies alleged, suffered her to escape from his castle. Four years afterwards the woman was apprehended, and tried by a jury composed of inhabitants of St Andrews, Pittenweem, and Anstruther, on the 28th of May 1588. She alleged that a man naraed Simpson her cousin, then deceased, had " told her of every sickness, what herbs she should take to heal them, and how she should use thera, and in special she said that he told her that the Bishop of St Andrews had many sicknesses, as the trembling fever, the palp, the ripples, and the flexus," meaning fever and ague, palpitation at the heart, weakness at the back and the joints, and the flux. Though the particulars of the trial are not recorded, yet the woman was found guilty, and her fate is marked on the ma,Tgin—convicfa et combusta, which intimates that she en countered the common fate of many who feU victims to that miser able delusion, and was strangled and burnt.* Adamson's alleged trafficking with witches Is the prominent theme of the coarse doggrel satire against him, entitled the " Legend of the Bishop of St Andrews."t The eloquence of Adamson before the King at St Andrews In 1583, and a successful disputation in the presence of James with Andrew Melville, secured for hira the royal favour, and he was actually sent Arabassador to Queen Elizabeth towards the end of that year. His conduct In London has been variously represent ed, but he seems to have been received with courtesy and respect by the English Prelates and such of the nobility as were zealous for the Church. Among other matters of importance Adam son was instructed to take " sure cognition of the ecclesiastical pohcy of that country, and to report the same to his Majesty at his return, that he might frame the Kirk of Scotland conform ; but this took no good success, for albeit this [Titular] Bishop was a man of rare learning, and of excellent doctrine In the Kirk, yet his actions and proceedings in life and conversation were no wise correspondent."^ The Presbyterian party were not ignorant of Adamson's Instructions. James MelviUe aUeges that after his * Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland, vol. i. p. 161-165. f Printed in Dalyell's Scottish Poems ofthe Sixteenth Century, vol. ii. X Historie of King James the Sext, published by the Bannatyne Club, 4to. Edin. 1825, p. 205. 190 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1583. arrival in London about Christmas 1583, he gave Queen Elizabeth a most unfavom-able account of the Presbyterian preachers and the " guid noblUtie" their adherents, whUe he represented the Court in the best possible manner : — " He practised with the Bishops for conformity, and gave them dextra societatis ; he dealt for learned preachers to be placed in the best situations of Scotland, knowing weU the best men of the ministry of Scotland were to be displaced ; he wrote very craffcUy to Geneva and TIguria, and sent them pro positions and questions desiring to have their judgment; and finaUy left no stone unturned that might make up for the work of Satan, to besiege and demoUsh the waUs of Jerusalem,"* meaning the Genevan poUty, of which his uncle was the supporter. The propositions or questions which Adarason is aUeged to have drawn up, presented to the " French Kirk," and sent to " Geneva, Tiguria," &c. are inserted In the Diary of Jaraes MelviUe, who says that they were transraitted to him by his uncle, and that the Titular's object In preparing thera was " to raake us and our discipline odious to the Queen and Kirk of England." The pre tensions and claims of the Presbyterians to independence of the ciril power are exposed in nineteen propositions, and the Titular's reply to or " judgment" of them, which James MelviUe declares he " pressed to have confirmed by the leamed doctors and minis ters of God's word In England, Geneva, and elsewhere, for sup planting the Kirk of Scotland," are expressed In the same num ber. The Titular's opinion of the episcopal function is thus stated — " The government of the Kirk does consist in the authority and power of the Bishop, to whora are committed the diocese and prorinces in govemment. — The office of a Bishop is of the apos toUc institution, and most agreeable to the primitive purity of the Kirk of God. — The ordination and ordinary judgment of pastors belong to the Bishop, without whose authority whosoever does presume to the pastoral cure enters not at the door but over the waU. — Doctors have no power to preach but by the appointment of Bishops, neither have they any further power In governing the Kirk. — Seniors or elders of the last sort are not agreeable with the Scriptures, nor ancient purity of the primitive Kirk. Presbyteries to be appointed of gentlemen, or lords of the soil, and others " Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 141. 1583.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 191 associated with the rainisters, are no other but to induce a great confusion In the Kirk, and an occasion of continual sedition." The Titular presented his propositions, which he also sent to the other parties mentioned, to the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London. Andrew MelviUe wrote a reply which he transmitted to Geneva and Tiguria, and his nephew faithfuUy obeyed his injunc tions respecting Adamson's propositions. — " As my uncle directed me," he says, " I made the business known at home, and informed all the good brethren of his proceedings and sent copies of his articles abroad throughout the country."* The cause of Adamson's failure in England ought not to be over looked. The Presbyterian preachers approved and defended the treasonable Raid of Ruthven, and some of the more conspicuous of their number were suramoned in the auturan of 1583 before the . King and Privy CouncU to retract their opinions, and to express their willingness to live peaceably without annoying the Govern ment. Some security was necessary for the conduct of those rest less individuals, whose religious harangues abounded with allusions to the political parties of the time, and were neither scrupulous nor corapliraentary in their aUusions to the King. This was the raore necessary, as a Convention of the Estates held in the same year had declared all those concerned in the Raid of Ruthven to have been guilty of high treason, ordered the act approving of their conduct when the King was in their hands to be expunged from the records, and resolved to support the royal authority in prose cuting them vrith the utmost rigour. One of those summoned be fore the King and Council was Andrew Melville, to answer " anent certain speeches uttered by him frora the pulpit," says his nephew, " seditious and treasonable." He attended with sorae of his friends, one of whom was Robert Bruce, a preacher who after wards caused James an Infinitude of trouble ; and after various discussions it was resolved that " Mr Andrew, for his irreverent behaviour before his Majesty and Council, should be put inward In the Castle of Edinburgh during the King's wiU." MelviUe's friends, who were weU aware of his uncivil conduct and rash statements, were now afraid, as his nephew asserts, that If he were " once fast, he would not be released again unless it were for the scaffold," • Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 143-154. 192 PROGRESS OP PRESBYTERIANISM. [1584. seriously consulted about his safety. They were informed that the place of his confinement was changed to Blackness Castle on the south side of the Frith of Forth, a " foul hole," says his nephew, " kept by Captain James' men," as he designates the Kmg's favourite already mentioned as the Earl of Arran. This informa tion was confirmed by the appearance of a macer In the house of Lawson, with whom MelviUe had dined, who got access after the repast, and served the said MelviUe with a warrant to enter him self within the Castle of Blackness before the end of twenty-four hours. MelvUle professed to receive the citation respectfully, but he fled from Edinburgh that night, and on the foUowing day reached Berwick, narrowly escaping from a band of Arran's men who had left the city a very short time previously to seize him on the road.* This occurred in February 1583-4. Andrew Melville proceeded from Berwick to London, where he . remained till November 1585. In the English metropolis he used every exertion to oppose Adamson, by vilifying his character and misrepresenting his conduct, and he scrupled not to become inti mate with and prejudice several of the Bishops ; for we are told that " the banished ministers of Scotland had certified some of the Council and Prelates of England hereof, so that the man [Adam son] was the less regarded in his negotiations."-f- The Titular's position In England is more charitably represented : — " There seems to be no reason to doubt that the two things he principally laboured were the recommending the King his master to the nobUity and gentry of England, and the procuring some support for himself and the episcopal party in Scotland, which was then in a very low state. In each of these designs he had as much success as the situ ation of things at that time, and his own unlucky circurastances, would aUow ; his revenues were far from large, and his skUl in managing them very Indifferent. His enemies took occasion from thence to represent hira as an extravagant man, and a great dila pidator ; his friends with more humanity and truth said that he had spent too much time about other sciences, to be weU skilled in economy."! One singular statement connected with Adam- * James Melville's Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 141-144. t /fcid. p. 205. X Biographia Brittannica, vol. i. p. 26. 1584.] PROGRESS OP PRESBYTERIANISM. 193 son's residence in London is that he, though unordained and a mere layman, was permitted to officiate in London, and it is al leged, on the authority of his son-in-law Wilson, that " by his elo quent preaching he drew after him such a concourse of people, and raised In their minds such a high idea of the young King his mas^ ter, that Queen EUzabeth forbade him to enter the pulpit during his stay in her dominions."* This extraordinary assertion has in duced some to infer that he entered into holy orders in England, for which no evidence can be brought forward. If It is true, it Indicates a singular laxity on the part of those who admitted Adamson to officiate. The flight of Andrew MelviUe Into England excited the indig nation of some of the prominent leaders of the General Asserably, who denounced the Court in their sermons, and excited the fana ticism of the people. A proclamation was issued by the King, de claring that the retreat of the hero of the Second Book of Disci pline was voluntary, and that there was no intention to proceed against him, but those declarations were not regarded. The great object of the Presbyterians was now to domineer over the civil power, and to exercise a complete independence in all matters which they considered themselves entitled to discuss. It was accordingly re solved to adopt some stringent measures to keep in subordination a body of men who, by their unlicenced phraseology and extraordi nary demands, were publicly Insulting the Governraent. The Parlia ment met at Edinburgh on the 19th of May 1584, to which Adam son was suraraoned frora England, and his narae appears first on the list as " Archbishop of St Andrews," followed by the Titulars of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, Orkney, Dunblane, ArgyU, and The Isles, as representing the Spiritual Estate. Thirteen "Abbots" or Comraendators were present, and araong the nobUity was Ludo- vlck second Duke of Lennox, who had succeeded his father Esme In 1583. The Titulars of St Andrews, Dunkeld, Brechin, Orkney, and The Isles, and eleven ofthe titular Abbots, were associated with those of the nobility and commissioners of burghs chosen as the Lords of the Articles, and the King presided in person. The first act was a ratification of the " liberty of preaching the true word of God, and administration of the Sacraments, in purity and * The authority cited is " Vita Pat. Adamson, etiam Dedicat. Oper. per T. Wilson." 13 194 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1584. sincerity, according to the Confession of the Faith received and authorised by Parliament In the first year of his Majesty's reign." The second act estabUshed the King's supremacy over aU Estates and subjects within the kingdom, which was directly leveUed at the pretensions of the Presbyterians ; and the third act ratified the authority of the Three Estates of Parliament, thus expressly sanctioning the Titular Episcopate. This was foUowed by another act prohibiting all jurisdictions not approved by Parliament, and all asserablies and conventions held without the King's special Ucence. Another act Uraited the preachers to their " own charges and vocation," and they were not to Intermeddle with matters un connected with their functions. A very significant act, which could not faU to be understood, ordered aU to be fined or per sonaUy punished who uttered " slanderous and untrue calumnies against the King's Majesty, his CouncU, and proceedings, or to the dishonour and prejudice of his Highness, his parents, progenitors, crown, and estate." This latter was intended to reach those of the Presbyterian preachers who were constantly In the habit of raiUng at Queen Mary, the King's mother, in their ha- rangiies. The Raid of Ruthven was denounced, and those concerned were ordered to be punished for high treason. An act was passed disinheriting the posterity of the Earl of Gowrie, who, though ordered to leave the kingdom, notwithstanding the pardon granted to him for the Raid of Ruthven by the King on the 23d of De cember previous, was found Ungering at Dundee, apprehended, and carried to StirUng, where he was tried for high treason on the 28th of May, and decapitated the same day. Another act was passed authorizing the titular Bishops, and such other commis sioners as were to be norainated, to reforra the Universities ; and a long act " annuUed the pretended excommunication against Mr Robert Montgomery," for which he had petitioned, setting forth that as he had " faithfuUy traveUed In the ministry of the EvangeU since the Reformation of the reUgion, and being a pastor almost the space of twenty-two years bypast, it pleased our Sovereign Lord graciously to bestow upon the said Mr Robert the Arch bishopric of Glasgow, then vacant by the decease of umquhUe Mr James Boyd of good meraory," but that he had been " in a pre tended manner excommunicated by Mr John Davidson, minister at LIbberton kirk," by a pretendedly a,lleged commission from the [1584. PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 195 General Assembly to that effect, " in defiance of the order of the King and Privy Council to the Presbyteries of Edinburgh, Dal keith, and Linlithgow, and " aU other Presbyteries, Elderships, General and Synodal AssembUes."* Those were the principal acts which had a special reference to the Presbyterian agitation. About the same tirae Adamson obtained a comraission under the Great Seal, by which he, as " Archbishop of St Andrews," was authorized to exercise within that Archdiocese aU the powers which belonged to the former canonicaUy consecrated Primates, by " himseff, his deputes, and commissioners. In all raatters ecclesi astical," and " under his Highness to caU and convene synodal assemblies of the rainistry within the Diocese, for keeping of good order, maintaining true doctrine and reformation of manners, to give admission and coUation of benefice to persons qualified, either presented by the lawful patrons or by the King, to depose persons unqualified, and unable in life and doctrine for discharging of their cure," with many other powers, commanding aU " faithful and true subjects to yield unto the said Patrick Archbishop of St Andrews due obedience."-]- The preachers knew well that acts opposed to their Presbyterian discipline and polity would be submitted to and ratified by the ParUaraent, and Mr David Lindsay of Leith, probably the most moderate and concUiatory of the fraternity, and who was in favour with the King, was sent to solicit that nothing would be done pre judicial to their system. He was accommodated for his Inter ference with a residence in Blackness Castle. Some of them next attempted to appear in the Parliament with a remonstrance, but they were unable to obtain admission. The Privy Council, de termined to assert their authority, and suspecting that abundance of sedition would be uttered in the sermons on the ensuing Sunday, enjoined the Magistrates of Edinburgh to silence those of the preachers who offended, and even to remove them forcibly from the pulpits, which the civic authorities promised to do after the acts were proclaimed in the usual forra. The preachers took ad vantage of this Interval to denounce the Parliament, and Pont and Balcanqual attended at the proclamation of the statutes at " Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 290. et seq. t Calderwood's History, in which the entire document is inserted, p. 161, 162. 196 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 1584.] the Cross, and protested against them in the name of what they caUed the " Church." For this boldness Mr Pont, who, though a preacher, was stUl a Judge in the Supreme Court, and whose duty it was to see that the laws were obeyed, was deprived of his judicial office, and retired immediately from Scotland, though he retumed a few months afterwards with the Earl of Angus and his party, and resumed his ministerial duties. Mr Balcanqual and Lawson consulted their safety by flight to Berwick, and a letter was sent to them by the influence of the Court, in reply to a communica tion, afterwards noticed, which they had addressed to their con gregations, that they were " decerned by their parishioners to be unworthy shepherds to govern a flock, but rather as ravenous wolves ; and this was subscribed by the hands of the principal Magistrates for the time."* James Melrille accuses " Captain James," or Arran, who was then Lord Chancellor, of saying, that " If Mr James Lawson's head was as great as a hay-stalk, he would cause it to lop from his neck."-|- MelvUle's nephew, James Melville of St Andrews, Patrick GaUoway, Row's successor at Perth, and two others of less note, also fled to England, and John Dury of Edinburgh was banished to the North of Scotland. The two Melvilles, Balcanqual, and Galloway, retumed to Scotland on the foUowing year, but Lawson died in London in October 1584. The adherents of the fugitive Presbyterians inimediately excited the old clamour of Popery against the King, to which an answer or declaration was considered necessary by the Government. An explanation was written by Adamson In the name of the King, denying that his Majesty was inclined to Popery, and maintain ing that his sole object was to adjust the ecclesiastical polity. But this moderate and constitutional statement of the King's Inten tions was obstinately rejected by the adherents of the fugitive preachers, who wrote letters to their friends in Edinburgh soon after their arrival at Berwick. Those letters, the substance of which is preserved by Calderwood, professed to explain the " rea sons" for the writers withdrawing themselves " for a time" from the kingdora. They aUeged that " cruelty" was Intended against them and their friends by " wicked men, raost assuredly through Historie of King James the Sext, printed for the Bannatyne Club, p. 205. t Diary, Wodrow Society, p. 167. 1584.J PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 197 the councUs of that Man of Sin the Antichrist of Rorae, and his supporters, as well in this country as forth of the same" — and that " the whole discipline [was] violently plucked out of the hands of them" — raeaning themselves — " to whom Christ Jesus hath com mitted the spiritual government, and given into the hands of those who have their calling of the world, and of men, not of God ; Assemblies discharged [prohibited] and excommunication made null by them who have no power to bind and loose." Lawson and Balcanqual wrote a raore lengthy epistle, which chiefly consist ed of coarse, insolent, and indecent invectives against the episco pal office, evidently dictated under the excitement of violent pas sion and resentment. Their letter seems to have been addressed to the Magistrates and Council of the city, who by the persuasion of a certain Henry Nisbet, described as a " favourer" of the Duke of Lennox, but more probably, as Dr Cook admits, " afraid of Ir ritating Govemment," transmitted the invective to the King. A reply, which Adamson is accused of vn-iting by the command of James, was ordered to be sent in the name of the Magistrates and " kirk " of Edinburgh, denouncing the fugitives for their conduct, and expressing the hope that his Majesty will soon provide thera with " good and pious pastors!'' The Presbyterian writers allege that this was signed by the Town Council and the " kirk" of Edinburgh chiefly by the influence of Arran and his brother Colonel Stewart, who came from Falkland Palace in Fife, where the King was then residing, several times to the city for the pur pose — that " sorae yielded, some refused, and therefore were troubled for receiving, reading, and concealing the letter which the ministers sent to the [Town] Council and [Kirk] Session of Edin burgh, before the King and his Council had seen it" — and that " few had subscribed from their heart, no, not four or five of their old enemies." The fugitives replied to this answer, addressing only those who signed the document condemning their conduct, defending theraselves from the accusations urged against them, but written in a milder mood than their previous fulminations.* An adjourned meeting of the Parliament was held at Edinburgh on the 20th of August, at which the King was present, and the Titulars of St Andrews, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Aberdeen, with ' Calderwood's History, p. 156, 159. 198 PROGRESS OF PRESBY''TERIANISM. [1584. the " Abbots" of Lindores and Balmerino, and the Priors of Blantyre and Pittenweem, attended on the " spiritual" side. On the third day the Lords of the Articles were chosen, among whom were Adamson of St Andrews, Montgomery of Glasgow, and the other Titulars of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, and Brechin, with nine of the lay Abbots. Calderwood asserts that " an act was made at this Parliament, that aU ministers, readers, and masters of Col leges, should corapear within forty days, subscribe the act of Par Uament concerning the King's power over all Estates, spiritual and temporal, and submit to the Bishops, their ordinaries, under pain of losing their stipends, with certification that they should not be heard afterward." But in the original act nothing is said about the forty days. It was enjoined that aU the before men tioned persons were to subscribe the foUowing obligation — " We, the beneficed men, ministers, readers, and masters of CoUeges and schools underwritten, testify and faithfuUy promise by these our hand-writings [signatures,] our humble and dutiful submission to our Sovereign Lord the King's Majesty, and to obey with aU humility his Highness' acts of his said late Parliament [of 20th May], and that according to the same we shaU show our obedi ence to our ordinary Bishop or commissioner appointed, or to be appointed, by his Majesty, to have the exercise of the spiritual jurisdiction in our Diocese."* This act was the cause of a scene before the Privy CouncU which is described by Calderwood. Mr John Craig, John Brand, and other Presbyterian ministers, were cited for " controuUng" or refusing to obey the late acts of Parlia ment. " Because," replied Craig, " we wiU object to any thing repugnant to God's word." The Earl of Arran started to his feet, and exclaimed — " Thou art too pert : I wiU shave your heads, pair your naUs, cut [off] your toes, and make you an ex ample to aU who rebeUed against the King and his CouncU." The recusants were ordered again to appear before the King at Falkland on the 4th Septeraber. On that occasion a vio lent altercation ensued between Craig and the Titular Adamson in the royal presence. In reply to a severe observation by Arran, Craig said — " There have been as great men [as thou art], and set up higher, who have been brought low." This was an erident " Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 347. 1584.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 199 aUusion to at least the fate of the Earl of Morton. " I shall make of thee," retorted Arran, " a false friar a true prophet ;" and he ironically sunk on his knee, saying, " Now I ara hurabled." " Nay," observed the Presbyterian, " mock the servants of God as thou wilt, God will not be mocked, but shaU make thee find it In ear nest, when thou shalt be cast down frora the high horse of thy pride, and [be] hurabled." Calderwood, according to the practice of his party, considered this as a prophecy of Arran's fate a few years afterwards, when he was kiUed on horseback by Douglas of Parkhead for his concern in the trial and execution of his uncle the Regent Morton. The result of this appearance before the Privy Council was that Craig was prohibited to preach In Edin burgh, and Adarason was appointed to officiate In his stead. But the titular Archbishop experienced a very indifferent reception according to the Presbyterian historian, for at his first appear ance in the pulpit of St Giles' church almost the whole congrega tion rose and retired. Adamson continued to officiate sometirae In Edinburgh, where he encountered considerable opposition frora the rabble, and his enemies circulated many false and scandalous libels against him, to ruin his reputation, and raake him odious to the citizens. The Presbyterian party descended so low as to in duce sorae of their adherents to raake a noise at the church door, by beating it with sticks, to disturb the titular Archbishop whUe he was in the act of preaching; and Calderwood raentions two of those worthies who thus acted one day whUe he was at prayers, for which they were cited, but avoided a suitable punishraent by a retreat into England — the common resort of all descriptions of offenders and disaffected persons at that period. The threat of deprivation contained In the act of Parliament was not without a very salutary effect. Numbers of the preach ers, afraid of a reduction of their stipends, signed the decla ration of obedience, among whora were Craig, Brand, Mr John Duncanson, and Mr Andrew Sirapson of Dalkeith. They pretended that their subscription was not " sought to be an allowance either of the acts of Parliament or of the state of Bishops, but to be a testimony of their obedience to his Majesty, and that they would submit to aU his laws and acts of Parliament so far as they agreed with the word of God." The position of those persons ex plains their compliance. Craig and Duncanson were " preachers 200 PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. [1584. to the King's domestics," Brand was minister of Holyroodhouse, the cautious Mr Andrew Simpson was " pastor " of Dalkeith, and the representatives of the Regent Morton were his neighbours. Courtly and baronial influence, therefore, had its due effect on those pliable orators. IntelUgence of this defection reached the fugitive ministers ; and Patrick GaUoway wrote a long exhortation and remonstrance at Berwick, whieh he sent both to those who had subscribed, and to those who " refused." The contents of this production by a man who several years afterwards deserted his Presbyterian associates, and died a rainister of Edinburgh during the estabUshment of the Episcopal Church in 1624, may be easily inferred from such expressions as the following — that the Bishops had sold God — the "beggarly Bishops and their clergy" — " the per sons that ye have presently subscribed obedience unto are infamous vile raen, not only of the base sort araong the people, as were the priests of Jeroboara, but most dissolute and scandalous in their life." After several statements of a similar violent nature, Adam son Is singled out in particular as " a Bishop to whora he cannot give a condign epithet, and he was sure a thousand could not ex press his vices, as they and all the world can witness ;" and that they could testify against the vices of the age, " seeing your new erected Popery, and naraely your famous Ordinary the Arch bishop, to whom ye have bound your obedience, is altogether festered and overgone with them." Mr Galloway farther com plained that some " not only subscribed themselves, but also, hke desperate pert folks, destitute of Christian charity, traveUed to seduce and infect others, and betrayed those who were constant by dilating thera to the persecutor." This choice epistle con cludes — " As for Patrick, called Archbishop of St Andrews, though it were lawful to us to render obedience to Bishops, yet can we not submit ourselves to him nor to his injunctions ; as he for just causes is lawfully suspended from all function and office of the Kirk by decree of the General Assembly, which hitherto he hath never sought to be retreated." The only observation of impor tance made by this future Court flatterer, who managed his sub sequent affairs so prudentially that his son was created Lord Dun keld,* was that the " Bishops " whora he denounced had their Mr. Patrick GaUoway married, as his second wife, Mary, daughter of Mr. James Lawson, the successor of Knox, as " minister" of Edinburgh, and repeatedly noticed in 1584.] PROGRESS OF PRESBYTERIANISM. 201 " power and authority frora the Court, and could nor dared to do any thing without special coraraand or leave of it." This was strictly true of the Titular or Tulchan Bishops in the reign of James VI. before his accession to the English crown, and thus the Church and true religion suffered in those years of sectarian and seditious agitation, when the Presbyterian preachers refused to obey any laws which were disagreeable to themselves, or were not ratified by their General Asserablies. the preceding narrative. Their son. Sir James GaUoway, was Master of Requests to James VI. and Charles I., a Privy Councillor, and conjunct Secretary of State with Sir WiUiam Alexander, first Earl of Stirling, in 1640. He was created Lord Dunkeld in 1645. Mr. Patrick Galloway's connection with the Episcopal Church after' 1610 is noticed in the proper place. 202 [1584.5. CHAPTER VIIL KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. Although King James had got rid of some of his raost trouble- sorae theological and political opponents by their fiight into En gland, where, especiaUy those of thera at Newcastle, they associated with the noblemen exiled for their connection with the Raid of Ruthven, he still had difficulties to encounter. The leaven was left behind among the people who had delighted in the harangues and tirades of the fugitive Presbyterian preachers, and many were strongly Interested in their favour. A party of the nobility and gentry, sorae of whora cared little abstractly for Presbytery, es poused their cause, principally to obtain political power, and to oppose Arran, now Lord Lieutenant of Scotland, and the Court favourites. The acts of the Parliament of 1584 coimected with ecclesiastical government, for the doctrines of the gospel seem to have been viewed as of minor importance by the Presbyterians, excited dissatisfaction. To allay this discontent, and to give to the lieges a proper explanation of the Acts of ParUaraent, Adam son drew up a Declaration in the King's name, which appeared in the month of January 1584r5. This document, setting forth the whole questions in dispute, consisted of a nuraber of heads, or, as they are caUed, " Intentions." The claims of Presbyteries and the pretensions of General Asserablies to supreme Independent jurisdiction, the Raid of Ruthven, which became as much a reUgi ous as a political enterprize, the episcopal office, and raany other matters, were temperately discussed. Calderwood comments on this Declaration, and c oncludes it by the following tirade against 1584-5.] KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS. 203 the Titulars, in allusion to his favourite system of presbyterian parity : — " Of aU the Bishops in Scotland, granting that govern ment were lawful, who is able to discharge the burden ? Are not three or four of these Bishoprics already reduced to such a state, that the poor minister would not take the place for a simple sti pend ? The Bishop of Dunkeld is an old doting Papist : the Bishops of Brechin, Dunblane, Orkney, Caithness, and the rest, as meet for that purpose as I am for singing a solemn mass. What can men look for in the Bishop of St Andrews, a juggler, a hoUyglass, a drunkard, a vUe epicurean, afiirraing that thing to be treason this year which with tears he subscribed the last ?"* But notwithstanding these false and scandalous libels against the Titulars in general, and Adamson in particular, the Declaration written by the latter in the King's name, though it exasperated the Presbyterian faction, was applauded by reasonable raen, and when pubUshed at London in February following, it secured many friends to James in England, while it greatly Increased Adamson's reputation. It Is preserved at length in a historical work of undoubted authority, -f* and it shews the real cause of the hatred cherished towards the Titular of St Andrews by the Pres byterians, while it Is a faithful delineation of their insolent conduct to King James, and the domineering sway they exercised over the people. Calderwood furiously assails the historian for preserving this document, with an " odious preface of aUeged treasons pre fixed unto it," in the " Chronicle of England," and concludes by a rabid bravado : — " Our Kirk was ever careful, and especiaUy at the same time, to entertain the amity between the two nations, and deserved no such indignity at their hands ; but let such a lying libel lie there, as a blur to blot their Chronicles." In the beginning of 1584-5, a farther subscription to the acts of the Parliament was still urged upon the preachers, who were to appear before the titular Bishop or Coramissioner appointed to exer cise spiritual jurisdiction, and a comraittee was appointed to receive the signatures. This comraittee consisted of the Titulars of St Andrews, Glasgow, Aberdeen, ArgyU, The Isles, Peter Watson, styled parson of Fllsk in Fifeshire, Robert Graham, Archdeacon " Calderwood's History, p. 172-181. t Thinn's Continuation of HolUnshed's History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 438. 204 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1585. of Ross, James Hannan, ChanceUor of [the Bishopric of] Orkney, and three gentlemen, one of whom was Erskine of Dun, with whom were associated certain noblemen and others as assistants. The rage of the Presbyterians at the defection of their old friend Erskine is sufficiently Indicated by Calderwood's statement — " In deed, John Erskine, Laird of Dun, soraetime Superintendent of Angus, proved a pest in the North!'' Adamson is alleged to have suggested this committee. If the advisers of James had com manded the respect of the people, he had now a favourable op portunity to carry out his plans, and effectively sUence his Presby terian opponents. The more riolent of the latter were fugitives in England, and the meetings of the General Asserably, the certain source of turmoU and discord with the Government, were sus pended, as that debating convention was not held tiU May 1586. But James was still under the Influence of Arran, whose acts of cruelty and oppression were notorious, and whom the exiled no bUity had resolved to remove from the royal presence. Into the political transactions of those tiraes, however, it would be out of place in the present work to enter, as this part ofthe narrative Is sole ly connected with the Titular Episcopate, which was now hastening to its close. The downfall of Arran was effected ; this unprincipled favourite was deprived of his honours, and driven into humbled retirement, and the exiled nobility were restored to favour. Soon afterwards, the Parliament was held at Linlithgow on the 1st of December 1585, at which the King was present. On the first day of the meeting, the Titulars of St Andrews, Dunkeld, and Orkney, took their seats, and were chosen among the Lords of the Articles. The Titular of Brechin's name occurs on the roll at the third day of the meeting. The Titulars of St Andrews and Orkney were nominated members of the Privy Council, but no acts connected with religion or ecclesiastical matters were en acted In this ParUament, If we except the very first, entitled " an act against the authors of slanderous speeches or writings," which was levelled against the Presbyterian preachers, to stop their Impertinent, personal, and scandalous tirades in their ser mons, denouncing aU and sundry who offended them, or who had the boldness to think differently. A meeting of the Presbyterian preachers was held at Linlithgow about the same time, which, by Calderwood's account, was very discordant. Those whom he caUs 1585.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 205 the " sincerer sort,'' which raeans the more violent, insisted that the acts of 1584 should be repealed, and the " Discipline" esta blished by law. They had made known their demands to the nobUity, who sent them to the King, but James met them with the epithets of loons, snakes, and seditious knaves, which he applied to them. Mr John Craig made an angi-y invective before the King and the Estates against a certain Mr James Gibson, who had denounced in a sermon at Edinburgh the " subscribing rainis ters," of whora he was the principal, and also attacked the " peregrine rainisters," as he designated the fugitive preachers in England. A serious schisra was threatened, but at last the King desired them to submit to him their written objections to the acts of which they complained. They prepared a document, which was presented to the Parliament, but it is not mentioned in the records. This paper is designated " Animadversions conceived upon the Acts of Parliament raade in the year 1584," and professed to review all the statutes then enacted. They complained, among other aUeged grievances, that their " liberty" was so far invaded that they were restricted to " preaching and ministration of the sacraments," and that they could not exercise at their caprice, or when it suited their purposes, " the power of binding and loosing, which is called the power of the keys of the kingdom of Heaven," and " excommunication to be pronounced against the disobedient." The act ratifying the King's supremacy over all persons in the realm was declared a grievance, and they brought forth their old aUegations against the episcopal office, and the " corruption of the ecclesiastical estate" before the Reformation, aUeging that the Roman Catholic Prelates " had no lawful function in the Kirk of God." They considered it a special hardship, and invasion of their pretended claims to spiritual Independence and jurisdiction, that they were not to be aUowed to hold assemblies and conven tions without the King's " special Ucense and commandraent," which they declared an infringeraent of their privileges. They were pleased to admit that those ought to be deprived of the function of the ministry and revenues if they committed " any offence worthy of deprivation," but the act, they alleged, exempted certain persons " who have vote in Parliament," referring to the Titular Bishops ; and "as to the voting in Parliament, who they ought to be that should have place there, we have declared 206 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1585. before," reminding the King of their very modest proposal that sorae of their own party should sit as " spiritual persons " in the ParUaraent. They even admitted that ministers should " use no other function, judgraent, nor office, which may abstract thera frora the same," and confessed that " if It be simply meant the act is very good ;" but they cunningly insinuated that the King's adrisers were evidently attempting to burthen him, being only " one person," with a " function and jurisdiction both in civU and ecclesiastical matters ;" and they put forth their former claim that " the office-bearers and ministers of the Kirk " ought to represent the ecclesiastical Estate in Parliament," so far as that is " one of the three Estates." Though ministers, they said, ought not to meddle with civU matters, yet on this occasion they aUowed It " so far as they are lawfully caUed by the prince, and are able to discharge the same." This was in compliment to their friend Mr Robert Pont, the said Mr Pont whUe a " minister," also acting as a Judge in the Court of Session, or Supreme Civil Court. Pont resisted the Intended censure of his forraer vocation, contrary to the opinion of Andrew and James Melville, and others, but according to Calderwood, " it behoved thera to bear with him, in respect of the apparent division and schism which was Uke to arise other wise ; but this was clearly conderaned afterwards." They com plained of the coramission to " Patrick caUed Archbishop of St Andrews and other Bishops," which authorised thera to " put order to aU matters and causes ecclesiastical, to risit the kirks, and state of the ministry, to reform colleges, receive presentations, and that they only may give presentations ;" and concluded by beseeching the King to revoke the act annulling the excommuni cation of Mr Robert Montgomery, the titular of Glasgow. They added a supphcation, praying to be restored to their " livings, places, and offices, frora which they were displaced by the said acts, and to their stipends as well bygone as to corae." The King, who is said by Calderwood to have now disclaimed the Declaration written by Adamson, drew up an " Interpretation" of the acts of 1584, in which he explained and defended them in a very able manner, replying to their objections to each act. It Is curious to learn the opinions of James VI. on the episcopal office at this period of his life, when he was not twenty years of age. " My Bishops, who are one of the three Estates, shaU have power 1585.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 207 as far as God's word and example of the Priraitive Kirk wUl per mit, and not according to the Man of Sin's aborainable abuses and corruptions. But I cannot enough wonder where ye find that rule or exaraple either in God's word, or any other Reformed Kirk, that some ministers by commission from the rest ought to be one of the Estates of Parliament. Well, God purge your spirits from ambition, and other indecent affections for your call ing, and give you grace to preach in all huraility his word and truth. As to the 'discharge of Assemblies, they are not simply discharged, but only ordained that they should be holden with my special license. — To end this my declaration, I intend not to cut away any liberty granted by God to his Kirk. I claira not to rayself to be judge of doctrine in religion, salvation, heresies, or true interpretation of Scripture. I allow not a Bishop according to the traditions of men, or Inventions of the Pope, but only according to God's word ; not to tyrannize over his brethren, or to do any thing of himself, but with advice of his whole diocese, or at least with the wisest number of them, to serve him for a council, and to do nothing [by] him [self] alone, except the teaching of the word, ministration of the sacraments, and vot ing in Parliament and [Privy] CouncU. Finally, I say his office is solum i-!ri?-x,om7v ad vitam, having therefore some prelation and dignity above his brethren, as was in the Primitive Kirk, my intention is not to discharge any jurisdiction in the Kirk that is conform to God's word, not to discharge any Assemblies, but only those that shaU be holden without my license and councU's. My intention is not to meddle with excomraunication, neither claira to myself or my heirs power in any thing that Is mere ecclesiastical, and not ahx/fofov, nor with any thing that God's word hath simply devolved in the hands of the Kirk. And to conclude, I confess and acknowledge Christ Jesus to be Head and Lawgiver to the same, and whatever person doth arrogate to himself, as head of the Kirk, and not as mem ber, to suspend or alter anything that the word of God hath only remitted unto them, that man, I say, committeth manifest Idola try, and sinneth against the Father, in not trusting the word of the Son ; against the Son, in not obeying him, and taking his place ; against the Holy Ghost, the said Holy Spirit bearing con trary record to his conscience. Thus much for ray declaration, as far as shortness of time would permit, wherein whatsoever I have 208 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1585-6. affirraed I wUl offer myself to prove by the word of God, purest Ancients, and modern Neoterics, and by examples of the best Re formed Kirks ; and whatsoever I have oraitted for lack of time I remit first to a convention of godly and learned men, and next to a General Assembly, that by these means a godly poUcy being settled, we may uniforraly arm ourselves against the common enemy, whom Satan, feeling the breath of God, maketh to rage in these latter days."* This admirable reply was dated 7th December 1585, and was signed by the King, but there is reason to conclude that it was re- rised by Adamson. The raore riolent of those " amiable" Pres byterian preachers, enraged at not obtaining their demands, re sorted to their usual practice of inflammatory epithets In their sermons, for which one of them, Mr James Gibson, was rewarded with a corapulsory domicUe in the castle of Edinburgh ; and two of them, named Howison and Watson, are mentioned as already in prison, the latter having very charitably compared the King to Jeroboam, and making his Majesty even worse than that Scripture personage. But the majority of the preachers thanked the King for his Declaration, and suggested that the whole matter of eccle siastical policy should be referred to " sorae of the raost learned and godly" in the kingdom, and " if need be, with consultation of the best Reformed Kirks in other countries." In the meanwhUe, or till the next meeting of Parliament, they requested permission to hold their ordinary assemblies, and to administer discipline in their own way, as before the passing of the acts, promising to give an " account to God, his Majesty, and CouncU," and not to disturb the kingdom. They farther entreated that all ministers and masters In colleges or schools should be restored to their situations, that Howison and Watson be set at liberty, and that " the Bishops use nothing but that which they were in use of before the making of the foresaid acts." Balcanqual, in riolation of these stipulations, preached a ser- raon before the King in St Giles' church at Edinburgh on the 2d of January 1586-7, in which he furiously assailed the episcopal office. James, at the conclusion, rose from his seat and " re buked" the preacher, telling him that he " would prove that there • Calderwood, p. 193-196. 1586.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 209 should be Bishops and spiritual magistrates endowed with autho rity over ministers," and " Mr Walter undertook to prove the contrary." About the sarae time a conference was held between some of the more moderate of the preachers and a deputation of the Privy CouncU, and various articles were admitted as the fun damental principles of future arrangements. It was agreed that the " name of a Bishop hath a special charge and function an- tiexed to It by the word of God — that his election shall be by a presentation directed to the General Assembly, from whom he shall receive his admission " — that the Bishops were to be recognized as the moderators or presidents of the Presbyteries within their dioceses — that by the advice of these Presbyteries, and with the concurrence of the raajority, they were to admit or deprive minis ters, and receive presentations to parishes — that they were to re side and discharge the pastoral office at particular churches, and yet were to visit within their own Dioceses, though amenable for their morals and doctrine to the General Assemblies. New Pres byteries were to be constituted, and Synods held twice in the year. The meeting of the next General Assembly was fixed on a specified day. It was agreed that the " jurisdiction of the Kirk consists in doctrine, ministration of the sacraments, exercise of discipline, and correction of manners by excommunication, and usual censure of the Kirk, as Ukewise absolution from the same." The Kirk was considered at liberty to inquire into cases of " heresy, apostacy, witchcraft, idolatry, frailty in the flesh, blasphemy, perjury, usury, abusing of the sacraments, breaking of the Sabbath ;" and that other offences were to be visited with " censure," although the civil magistrate either punished or pardoned the perpetrators, such as " slaughter, open disobedience to parents, murthering of children, and such like." The Titular Montgomery of Glasgow was to ap pear before the next General Assembly, and be " reconciled to the Kirk;" the enlightened Mr Watson was to fulfil his proraise to the Laird of Largo in Fife when he was liberated frora durance, and apologize in " open pulpit" for his corapliraentary comparison of King James to King Jeroboam ; and the subdivision of Dioceses, causes of deprivation, and voting in Parliament, were referred to an other conference to be appointed by the King, to be held In Holy roodhouse ten days before the meeting of the General Asserably ; but It does not appear that this second conference took place.* • Calderwood, p. 197, 1.98, 199. 14 210 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1586. Although nothing satisfactory could be expected from conditions, the most important of which was to make the " Bishops" re sponsible to such a convention as the then General Assembly, the violence of Mr Andrew MelviUe completely defeated any farther adjustment. In the month of April 1586, the Provincial Synod of Fife was held at St Andrews, and was opened by the other Melville, who repeatedly attacked the Titular Priraate, and dwelt upon the " corruptions of the human and satanical Bishopric." Adamson was present, and an accusation was preferred against him, but he retired from the Presbyterian conclave, and by the exertions and Influence of the worthy Mr Andrew a sentence of excommuni cation was issued against him. The Moderator, who was no friend to Adamson, refused to pronounce the sentence, which, however, was wiUingly done by a certain Mr Andrew Hunter, Presbyterian preacher in the parish of Carnbee, a few miles distant. The Titular appealed to the King and to any lawful Assembly, and retaliated by excoraraunlcating the two MelvIUes and sundry of their associates. But this procedure of the Titular was of httle avail, as Mr Andrew had stirred up the people against him. That apostle of disorder convened an audience In St Mary's CoUege, and the Titular was informed that the oration might possibly In duce the rabble to maltreat him. He took refuge in the steeple of the church, and was afterwards escorted in safety to the Castle of St Andrews by his friends. Calderwood, who relates this affair In the most disgusting and Indecent manner, pretends that a hare unexpectedly raade its appearance on the street, and ran before the Titular towards the Castle ; and that the people caUed the aniraal the Bishop''s witch. The King was exasperated at Andrew MelvUle's conduct in this transaction, which resulted from the fiercest malignity, and Dr Cook even admits that it " is Impos sible to offer any satisfactory justification ;" but the Court thought it prudent in the meantime not to Interfere. The General Assembly met, after an interval of two years, in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, on the 10th of May 1586. The King sent Walter Stewart, coramendator of Blantyre, the Lord Privy Seal, and his former preceptor, Mr Peter Young, to inform the conclave that, " being occupied In great affairs, he could not that day give his presence," and coraraanded them to adjourn in the afternoon to the Chapel-Royal of the Palace of Holyroodhouse, when " he would propone his mind to thera." The " Brethren" 1586.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 211 accordingly resorted to the Chapel-Royal, where the King took his seat at the end of a table, and the persons present were accommo dated with " forms." James delivered a speech, in which he told them that he had acceded to their request, and called this Assembly, for two reasons — the one to contradict " certain evil reports blown and spread abroad of him by sorae of his own subjects, both within his realm and without, that he had made defection from the true reUgion ;" and the other, " for remitting of the ministers of the Kirk to a judgment concerning the discipline of the Kirk," adding that " he purposed to establish that throughout his realm which by conference araong thera should be found raost agreeable to the word of God." Ml Robert Pont, who sat as Moderator of the last As sembly, doled out some flattering reply — " Sir," he said, " we praise God that your Majesty, being a Christian Prince, hath honoured our Assembly with your own presence, and we trust your Majesty speak eth without hypocrisy." Mr David Lindsay of Leith was chosen Moderator from a leet of four, the King voting first for hira. They met in the Tolbooth on the following day, when the Privy Seal, Mr Peter Young, and Sir John Maitland of Thirlestane, Lord Secretary, appeared as commissioners from the King, and requested an answer to the question — " Whether the Bishops might have pre-eminence over the brethren. If not jurisdiction, yet ordinis causa ?" The reply was — ¦" It could not stand with the word of God ; only they raust tolerate it, in case it be forced upon thera by the civil power." New Presbyteries were ordered to be constituted, and the towns for the meetings of the Provincial Synods fixed. At a subsequent sederunt it was oracularly laid down as indisputable, that " there are four offices ordinarily set down to us by the Scripture, to wit. Pastors, Doctors, Elders, and Deacons,''^ and to this quadruple gradation of functions was added — " The name of a Bishop is not to be taken [as it hath been] in papistry, but Is comraon to all pastors and rainisters ;" yet they subsequent ly admitted that some " ministers" might be entrusted with su perior powers under the controul of the General Asserably, and subject to Presbyteries. The King, in his frequent comraunica tion with them, insisted that " Bishops," or those who were In vested with the superintendence sanctioned by the Conference, should be amenable exclusively to the General Assembly, and not to Presbyteries. This was at first refused, but when they were 212 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1586. informed that if this was not conceded nothing farther would be granted, the majority consented that " the trial and censuring of such pastors as the General Assembly shaU give commission to visit, shall be in the hand of the said Assembly, or such as they shaU depute, until farther order be taken" by the sarae. It was agreed that " Bishops" should be Moderators of the Presbyteries within their bounds, with the exception of St Andrews; yet sundry " ministers" were empowered to summon the said " Bishops" be fore them, and to examine the accusations against them, and the General Assembly was to pronounce sentence. The case of the Titular of St Andrews, and the farcical " ex communication " of him by the Synod of Fife at the instigation of Mr Andrew MelvUle, came before this Assembly. Although the fulraination in itself was utterly contemptible, as proceeding from a body of unauthorized men such as a Presbyterian Synod must ever be, it is evident that it caused much annoyance to Adamson. This is explained, when it is recollected that the titular Archbishop was very poor, and that the violent proceedings of his enemies against him had a very serious effect on his limited pecuniary means and his domestic necessities. The Kinff interested himself also in the matter, and gained over a party in his favour. The threat which the King held in terrorem over them was one of those alarming announcements not particularly pleasant even to zealots. It was distinctly declared by the royal comralssloners to the Mo derator, that nothing would be conceded to the " Kirk" unless the Titular was restored ; and Maitland, the Secretary of State, posi tively assured the conclave that if this was not done, the whole " polity " of the Presbyterian system, as far as sanctioned, would be overturned, the stipends of the preachers would be arrested, and the Titular would be " set up to preach in Edinburgh, speak to the contrary who would."* Alarmed at this most effectual mode of bringing them to reason, they offered to absolve the Titu lar, if he would, in a written document, declare solemnly that he never professed, or intended in any way to claim, a superiority over other ministers or pastors, or aUowed the sarae to have authority in the Scriptures, or if he had ever done so to acknowledge that he was in toor-Vthat he would agree to apologize for his " im- * Calderwood, p. 212. 1586.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 213 perious" conduct in the Synod of Fife, and " promise good be haviour in time to come"— -and that he would claim nothing more than what the Scriptures warrant, and was allowed by the late Conference, and submit his life and doctrine to the General As sembly " without any reclamation, provocation, or appeUation therefrora in all tirae coming." With this the Titular was so weak as to comply, or probably his circumstances were such as to render a reconciliation on such humiliating conditions unavoidable. The sentence of " excommunication" was recalled, though a protest was entered against its revocation by Mr Andrew Melville and two worthies of equally implacable disposition, who invoked the " Almighty, his holy angels, and saints here convened " on the subject.* The state of the Titular's income may be inferred from the circumstance, that after his " absolution " from the " excom munication," the King and Council authorized him to lecture in theology in St Salvador's CoUege, St Andrews, twice every week, in addition to the ordinary discharge of his pastoral duties to a " particular fiock "—an appointment which he probably would not have obtained while he was under the ban of the worthy Mr Andrew MelvUle. It Is some consolation to know that this man before he died experienced some of the miseries which his implacable temper and turbulent fanaticism inflicted on the unfortunate Titular. But his persecuting hostility to Adamson was now represented to the King in the strongest manner, and the amiable Mr Andrew was peremptorily ordered to leave St Andrews, and rusticate in the shires of Forfar, Kincardine, and other counties north of the Tay, under the pretence that he was to " confer with Jesuits, and reduce them to the true religion, so far as in hira lay." Jaraes Melville would probably have had the pleasure of accompanying his uncle in his perambulations, but he happened to be confined by a fever, and he was allowed to remain at St Andrews, being a person compara tively harmless, and incapable of doing any mischief in the ab sence of his relative. The real object of Mr Andrew's removal to the north of the Tay was to ensure some degree of peace to Adam son in the discharge of his duties. But MelviUe, who well knew the purport of the Council, soon tired of his mission to the sup posed " Northern Jesuits," and induced some of his friends in the • Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 645-663. 214 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1586. University to petition the King for his royal permission to return. This was granted in the month of August foUowing by the in fluence of the Master of Gray, on the express condition that Adam son was not to be molested, and that he was to be treated with respect. The Titular and Mr Andrew continued their lectures in their respective CoUeges during the ensuing winter ; but if we are to credit the zealous Mr Calderwood, the " sincerer sort both of the town and of the University repaired to the College [St Mary's], and heard Mr Andrew and Mr Robert Bruce, whose mouth God opened at that time, and raade scruple to hear the Bishop, not withstanding his absolviture in the late Asserably."* The old Presbyterian leaven respecting the " poUcy " effervesced in the Synod of Merse, or Berwickshire, at a raeeting of that fra ternity after the Assembly. They affected to be greatly annoyed by an aUeged report that they of the " ministry of Scotland are divided touching the policy and governraent of the house of God, which was spread and increased by subscribing a letter presented by the King's Majesty to a nuraber of them In the rainistry, and by mistaking the simple and sincere meaning of the subscribers of the same." They denied that there was any such difference of opinion among them, and declared that the only true and scrip tural government of what they were pleased to call the " House of God, agreeing with the blessed Institution of his Son, the only Head of the same," was that exercised by " rainisters, elders, and deacons, particular assemblies of kirks. Presbyteries, Provincial and General Assemblies, as was before May 1584." They farther pretended that what they had subscribed contrary to that prin ciple was raerely an " obligation of obedience to the King's Ma jesty, and so many of his Highness' laws as were agreeable to the word of God aUenarly, according to his Majesty's own declaration to them by word and writ (that his Highness would press them no farther) before the said subscription ; no way aUowing of that tyrannical supremacy of Archbishops and Bishops over ministers, nor of the laws which directly repugn the word of God, as namely, the second, fourth, and twentieth acts of Parliament [of 1584] ; as also the act annulling Mr Robert Montgomery's excommunica tion, or any other act made to that effect." This specimen of • Calderwood, p. 213. 1586-7.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 215 Presbyterian sophistry was aUowed to pass unnoticed as harmless and contemptible. Calderwood says It was signed by thirty Individuals, and he gives the names of four of those Jesuitical quibblers who were alive in 1631,* yet who must have conformed for at least twenty years to the alleged " tyrannical supremacy of Bishops and Archbishops" In reality — the mere shadow of which, as it respects the Titular Episcopate, they had denounced in 1586. In the beginning of 1586-7 occurred one of those numerous exhibitions In which the Presbyterians delighted to indulge, evinc ing the bitter hatred which they cherished towards their sovereign. The fate of Queen Mary was drawing to its close, and the scaffold of Fotheringay Castle was to release the unfortunate Queen from a long, severe, and unjust captivity. The very pious and chari table " kirk session" of Edinburgh refused to enjoin their minis ters to pray for the Queen, or even for the preservation of her life, though anxiously requested by the King, after the sentence of death was pronounced against his mother. As the Presbyterian writers carefuUy conceal the real facts of this case, a chronicler of the time has preserved an account of the King's visit to St GUes' church on the 3d of February, the day he had appointed for solemn prayer in behalf of the unhappy Queen. He had merely requested all " Bishops," ministers, and office-bearers, to mention her distress in their public prayers, and commend her to God in the form ap pointed, which was " that it might please God to Uluminate her with the light of his truth, and save her from the danger wherein she was cast." On this occasion the King expected that Adam son was to preach, but to his astonishment when he entered the church he found that the " rainisters had perched up in the pulpit a young feUow, one John Cowpar." The King exclaimed befpre the congregation — " Master John, that place was designed for another, yet since you are there do your duty, and obey the charge to pray for my raother." Cowpar replied that he would speak solely as the Spirit of God should direct him, and imraediately coraraenced an exteraporaneous prayer, in which he aUuded to Queen Mary under the name of Jezebel, and other scriptural epithets. The King * Those worthies were John Smith, minister at Maxton ; George Johnston, minister at Ancrum ; WUliam Meffan, or Methven, minister at Fogo ; and James Deas, minister at Ettleston. Calderwood, p. 213, 214. 216 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1587. ordered hira to desist, at which the pious Mr John vociferously exclairaed — " This day shall bear witness against you In the day of the Lord. Woe be to thee, 0 Edinburgh, for the last of thy plagues shall be the worst !" He then came down frora the pulpit, and left the church foUowed by all the women. In the raidst ofa con siderable noise which this disgraceful and irreligious conduct ex cited among those who remained, Adamson went into the pulpit, and delivered an eloquent and appropriate discourse, which was heard with satisfaction by the weU disposed part of the congrega tion.* Calderwood states that the ministers of Edinburgh refused to pray for the Queen, neither " could the King move his own ministers, Mr Craig and Mr Duncanson to supply their places ;" but this is contradicted by Archbishop Spottiswoode, who asserts that " Mr David Lindsay at Leith, and the King's own ministers, gave obedience." In the afternoon, Mr Cowpar, Mr Balcanqual, and Mr Watson of Jereboara notoriety, were summoned before the Council for their insolent speeches. Calderwood alleges that they were sent to Blackness Castle, a statement also contradicted by Archbishop Spottiswoode, who says that Balcanqual and Wat son were merely prohibited from preaching in Edinburgh, but that Mr Cowpar was allowed to cool his zeal in that state prison.-f Although the Titular of St Andrews was " absolved" from his " excomraunication," the Presbyterians could not cease from an noying him. A General Assembly was held at Edinburgh on the 20th of June 1587, and Lord Maitland of Thirlstane, now Lord Chancellor, ancestor of the Earls of Lauderdale, and Walter Stewart, coramendator of, afterwards first Lord Blantyre, attended as the King's commissioners. Andrew MelviUe was elected Moder ator. Adamson was again threatened with censures for absence from the Asserably, and for not delivering up the Register of the " Books of the Assembly" unless by the King's comraand, though he confessed that he knew where they were deposited. Lindsay and Duncanson were ordered to form a " supplication" to the King to that effect. It was farther reported to the Assembly that sundry of the " Brethren" had caused Adamson to be put to the horn, as It is called In Scotland, or outlawed by a civil process before the Court of Session, for " non-payment of their stipends ' Moyses' Memoirs, p. 115. t This individual was the elder of William Cowpar, the eminent Bishop of GaUoway. 1587.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 217 assigned to thera ;" and a " grievous complaint" was also entered, " of the slander that he lies at the horn, for not furnishing two gallons of wine to the communion." It was alleged that such " slanders" induced several not only to withdraw from his serraons, and frora his administration of the sacraments, though it was admit ted that others resorted as usual, but that there " appears some division which should be redressed." The King's commissioners, however, interfered, and declared that the circumstance of the Titular " lying at the horn" was a civil raatter with which the Asserably had no concern ; but it was decided in their usual manner, in a general sense, that it " is slanderous to a Christian to resort to the [serraons and other] exercises foresaid of one whom they know to be at the horn, and suspended from all function of the rainistry." They appear to have proceeded no farther against the Titular of St Andrews In this Assembly, but they ordered pro ceedings against those of Glasgow, Dunkeld, and Aberdeen, the last of whom was accused of an act of immorality. Towards the conclusion of the Assembly the King sent certain articles for their acceptance. It was demanded that " if any controversy be concerning the Bishop of St Andrews, it be reasoned in his Majesty's presence" — that the Bishop of Aberdeen [Cunningham] be not intruded in his jurisdiction and living, but the same to be exercised by himself, because the alleged slander, whereby he was condemned before, is insufficiently tried and removed" — -that James Gibson and John Cowpar* " acknowledge and confess their farther offences and slanders against his Majesty, and satisfy therefore as he shall think good, or otherwise be deprived from aU function in the Kirk" — and that the Titular of Glasgow be " received without farther ceremony to the fellowship and favour of the Kirk." Evasive answers were given to the King's first, second, and third articles ; and as it respected the fourth, they declared that they would be guided in their treatment of the Titular of Glasgow pre cisely by the King's proceedings against the worthy Messrs Gibson * The reader is already familar with Cowpar's conduct before the King in St Giles' church. His companion Gribson had the hardihood to state in a sermon that the King himself has been the real persecutor of the Kirk, and that " as Jeroboam, for erecting of idolatry and permitting thereof, was the last of his posterity, so he feared if he [the King] continued, he would conclude [or be the last of] his race." — Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 709, 710. 218 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1587. and Cowpar — " They shall dispense with Mr Robert Montgomery In some ceremonies used In repentance. In case they find his Ma jesty wiUing to remit somewhat of the rigour of his Majesty's satisfaction craved of the two brethren by whom they find his Highness offended."* In this Assembly Mr Robert Pont produced a presentation from the King to the Bishopric of Caithness, vacant by the death of the Earl of March, formerly Lennox, previously mentioned as the lay Bishop or Titular of Caithness, who was the uncle of James. Mr Pont stated in the Asserably, to prevent any one in future from " slandering his person," that " for some loss and hurt done to him In his trouble, after divers suits given into the Exchequer, at length this presentation, without procurement of him, was put in his hand ; and if the living might be enjoyed with safe conscience, and without slander of the Kirk, desired their judgments thus far also, being of mind resolved in the matter that he would agree to be minister of Dornoch, and to take visitation according to the comraand of the Kirk, and for his office and charge enjoy the liv ing only." But Mr Pont was not aUowed to accept the preferred titularship. His brethren sent a letter to the King on the 28th of June, In which they ludicrously asserted that they acknow ledged Mr Pont " to be already a Bishop according to the doctrine of St Paul," and that he was " qualified to be pastor or rainister of the kirk of Dornoch, or any other kirk to which he may be legally called, as also to be a commissioner or risi- tor within the bounds of Caithness ;" but " as to that corrupt estate or office of thera who have been terraed Bishops heretofore, we find it not agreeable to the word of God, and It has been con deraned in divers other Assemblies ; neither Is the said Mr Robert wUling to attempt the same In that manner.-|- The next ParUaraent met at Edinburgh on 8th of July, at which the King presided, and the Titulars of St Andrews, Aberdeen, Orkney, Dunkeld, and Brechin, with thirteen of the commendators were present. The Titulars of St Andrews, Dunkeld, and Orkney, were chosen among the Lords of the Articles on the first day of the raeeting. Mr David Lindsay of Leith, by order of the • Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part First, p. 6D9, 700, 701. t Ibid. p. 696, 697, 698. 1587.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 219 " Brethren," protested on behalf of the Presbyterian party, or, as they now always called themselves, the " Kirk" — that " none be suffered to vote any thing in the name of the Kirk but such as have function in the Kirk, and who shall have coramission of the Kirk to the effect foresaid."* The first act passed on the fourth day of the meeting was a declaration of the King's " perfect age," having then attained his twenty-first year, and the second was a " ratification of the liberty of the true Kirk of God." Acts were passed against Roman Catholics and their books ; the Titulars of St Andrews and Dunkeld were again placed In the Privy Council, but no notice whatever was taken of the General Assemblies or of the Presbyterian party, notwithstanding the protest of the future Bishop of Ross, that " no Prelate, Bishop, Abbot, or Prior [com mendator], should have vote In Parliament but only such as bear function in the Kirk, by preaching of the word and administration of sacraments, hoping by this protestation that the rest of their plat [scheme] should have had the better success ; but the same was given Ught ear unto for that time."-f- One curious clrcura- stance occurred in this ParUaraent, which was strangely com pletely overlooked by MelviUe and his associates. This was the restoration of James Beaton, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, to the teraporalities of his See, though he had resolved to remain in France, and a protestation was lodged for the widow of the former Titular Boyd, that such " benefit and restitution" in favour of Archbishop Beaton was not to be " hurtful or prejudicial to her and her bairns, anent their rights and titles of whatsomever lands or possessions of the patriraony of the Archbishoprick of Glasgow, or otherwise."! An act was also passed in favour of the Titular of St Andrews, ratifying the pension of L.600 Scots and four chalders of oats to Patrick Adamson's son, of the thirds of the Archbishopric, for " diverse great considerations and sums delivered at his Majesty's coraraand," which pension was confirmed by the King and three Estates in the Parliament held at Linlith gow. This explains a singular transaction illustrative of the un scrupulous conduct of the Government in seizing church property, and by which the Presbyterian ministers were completely outwitted * Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 428. f Historie of King James the Sext, (Bannatyne Club,) p. 232. X Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 471. 220 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1587. in a project devised by theraselves against the Titulars. We are told by the contemporary writer, that they devised the foUowing plan : — " Because the Prelates had great rents that appertained to the Kirk by good right, and they did no service or function there in, but lived at their pleasure, and the said Bishoprics and Prela cies had certain temporal lands annexed unto them, whereby either [aU] of them are called Lords ; for these two causes the [Presby terian] ministers esteemed their Estate so odious, that they preached much against them, and besides all this they esteemed their own ordinary stipends so little and ill paid, and therefore derised to put into the head of the Prince [King James] that these tem poral lands could not, nor should not, justly appertain to the Pre lates, but rather to the Crown. This purpose was communicated to Secretary Maitland, who at this Parliament [of 1587] was established Chancellor, in whom they trusted that he would con vey all things to their intent[ion] ; and therefore they wished him to persuade the King that the feu maUs [duties paid to superiors] of the temporal lands of Prelacies should be annexed to the [Presbyterian] ministers' stipends. But he inforraed the King directly in the contrary, affirraing that it was necessary that the temporal lands of Prelacies should be annexed to the Crown, to enrich the same, which was then at small rent. And he [Maitland] considered well that offers would be made by every possessor, who would bestow large [sums of] money to obtain the gift thereof to himself heritably ; and that the King was frank in granting lands as he might be persuaded, being facile of his nature, and thereby he thought to make gain of a part of the offers to be made, as it fell out indeed ; and therefore he caused the Lords of the Articles to be sent for to the King's Palace [Holyroodhouse] where he hiraself, the Prior of Blantyre, and the Justice-Clerk BeUenden, persuaded them to grant that all the mails [duties] of Prelacies should hereafter appertain to the King and his crown. And be cause the King would deal UberaUy with them, he promised that how much their mails should extend to, so much they should have allowed back again of the thirds of their benefices wherewith the ministry was accustomed to be paid, whereunto they were not only persuaded, but were compelled to grant unto, before they came furth from the Palace. And this was so privately ended, that the [Presbyterian] ministers neither knew thereof, nor yet 1587-8.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 221 suspected the like fraud to be wrought against them." The writer admits that If the Chancellor's scheme of investing those lands had been effected, it would have been of great pecuniary advantage to the King and his successors, but " the only profit and commodity that were obtained the Prelates got It, for whereas before they were called men of benefices, now they are called temporal lords, like to the rest of the common [lay] sort."* The excitement caused by the threatened invasion of the Spanish Armada, during which King Jaraes was quietly exercising his theological acquireraents by writing a comraentary on the Apoca lypse, occasioned a General Assembly to convene by the royal comraand at Edinburgh on the Oth of February 1587-8. Mr Robert Bruce, who was sorae tirae afterwards installed rainister of Edinburgh at the request of the Assembly, was chosen Modera tor. A " remedy" was taken into consideration for purging " this land of papists and idolaters," and a strong determination was recorded, that " the laws of the country without delay be execute against aU Jesuits, seminary priests, idolaters, and maintainers thereof." They indulged in their usual tilt with the Titular of St Andrews, who had offended them by collating a Mr Andrew Allan to the parish and benefice of Leuchars near St Andrews, vrithout consent of the Presbytery and his assessors ; for collating Mr Patrick Thomson to the parsonage and parish of Flisk, on the Fife side of the Tay in the same manner ; and for presenting a boy of eleven years of age to a certain vicarage not mentioned, which was a benefice of cure, " expressly against the act made by his Majesty and General Assembly." Adamson obeyed their cita tion, and declared that in the case of Leuchars he collated with the advice of the majority of his assessors— that Mr Jaraes Mar tin, and Messrs Jaraes and Robert Wilkie, specially consented thereto, and produced a written docuraent dated the 20th of the previous raonth of April to that effect. Wilkie and Martin de nied the Titular's statement, and It was resolved farther to inves tigate the matter. As to Flisk and the vicarage, Adamson answered — " That both the one and the other were done before the Act of Conference, and that the Bishops of St Andrews are bound to the Earl of Rothes by an old Indenture." This answer • Historie of King James the Sext (Bannatyne Club), p. 231, 232, 233. 222 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1587-8. appears to have exasperated his enemies, who at the next meeting found that he ought to be deprived, but before pronouncing sen tence they deemed it prudent to inform the King of their pro ceedings in the Titular s case. Nothing is recorded of the result. But the great discussion was about the Roman Catholics. Messrs Robert Pont and Jaraes MelvUle drew up " the humble suit of the Kirk," which was ordered to be presented to the King by Pont, Andrew Melville, Patrick GaUoway, Peter Blackburn, and David Lindsay. It consisted of fulminations " against Jesuits and other papists," two of the principal of whom they mentioned by name — Mr Jaraes Gordon and Mr William Crichton, who, they said, were then in Edinburgh ; — demanding that they might be imprisoned till they were sent out of the country in the first ships, and if they returned without the King's license, that " the law shall be executed against them to death, without any farther pro cess." Certain country gentlemen and other " excommunicated papists " were requested to be suraraoned before the King and Privy Council, and the penalties of the acts of ParUament en forced against them. It was farther demanded that all who are " culpable of apostacy or papistry shall in no way be suffered," or pardoned, " and generally, that aU nobleraen whatsoever, known raaintainers of Papists, or enterprizing any thing against the true religion, shall either be put presently in ward or exiled [from] the country."* • The Roman Catholics, both at that time, and subsequently after the establishment of the Episcopal Church, made strenuous efforts, by taking advantage of the feuds engendered by the Presbjrterian preachers, their extraordinary pretensions, and open resistance to the Sovereign, to regain the ascendancy in Scotland. " The Priests and Jesuits who had now (1587) arrived in Scotland to promote the designs of the King of Spain were Scotsmen, and some of them nearly allied to several of the Noblest FamUies in the kingdom. Among the Jesuits was Mr. James Gordon, uncle of the Earl of Huntly, and Mr. Edmund Hay, brother of Sir Peter Hay of Megginch m the Carse of Gowrie, aUied to the Family of Erroll. Mr. Edmund Hay was a man of great learning and knowledge. Professor of Civil and Canon Law, and Eector of the CoUege at Douay. His brother. Sir Peter Hay of Megginch, was father of George the first Earl of Kinnoull, also father of Peter Hay of Kirkland, of whom the present Family of Kinnoull are descended. The Earl of ErroU at this time was Francis Hay, ninth Earl, a young nobleman of great promise, who had succeeded to the estate and honours in 1585. Mr. Edmund Hay, in his assiduity to make conversions, had too much influence with the Earl, and gained him over to the zealous profession of the Eoman Catholic religion, in which, notwithstanding what he suffered in his person and 1587-8.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 223 This was foUowed by a long document, entitled " Griefs of the Kirk," presented to the King on the 20th of February 1587-8, in which it was set forth, that it was " an exceeding great grief to all such as have any spunck [spark] of the love of God and his Kirk, to see Jesuits, seminary priests, and other teachers of papistry and error, so long suffered to pollute this land with idol atry, corrupt and seduce the people, and spread abroad their per sonable doctrine." The Presbyterians complained that instead of being punished according to the laws, such persons were In " spe cial credit, favour, and furtherance at Court, in Session [the Su preme Court], to burgh, in land, throughout the realm. In all their affairs ; and on the other part, to behold the true word of God con temptuously despised by the great multitude, his holy sacraments profaned by private, corrupt, and unlawful persons, the discipline of the Kirk disregarded, the ministers and office-bearers within the same Invaded, struck, menaced, and shamefully abused, thera selves beggared, and their farailies shamefully hungered." They then proceed to describe the state of the districts, and If their own accounts are correct, it is evidently proved that they shamefully dis regarded the improveraent of the people by their seditious quarrels with the Court, and their wranglings about their humanly devised " policy" of Presbyterian parity. In the south about Dumfries, several ladies of rank, and a number of gentlemen, are mentioned as " papists, apostates, maintainers, and professed favourers of Jesuits " — no " resorting to hear the word— no discipline — super stitious days kept by plain command, and controlling of the deacons of the crafts [masters of the incorporated trades] — all supersti tious riotousness at Yule and Pasch [Christmas and Easter] — no kirks planted sufficiently." The North is represented in a fearful state, chiefly by the Influence of the Earl of Huntly and sundry gentlemen — the town and neighbourhood of Aberdeen so completely occupied by the Romanists that " few or no honest men are In the estate, he continued till his death, July 14, 1631. The Priests and Jesuits, the time they remained in Scotland, had great success in converting several persons to Popery, and of consequence to favour the invasion of England by the Spaniards." Perth MS. Eegisters in Advocates' Library, Ediuburgh, vol. ii. under date November 1587. " Though the King gave no encouragement to the invasion of England by the Spaniards, but on the contrary took measures to defeat it, yet did he use moderation in executing the penal laws against Papists for sundry political reasons." 224 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS (1587-8. whole country" — that Cunningham, the titular Bishop of Aber deen, compeUed his future successor, Mr Peter Blackburn, to " desist frora risitation," by authority of the King's letters— that several of the " rainisters and readers " had been expelled from the parish churches, and that certain " chief and principal kirks " were " destitute altogether of pastors and provision [preaching]." As it respects Ross, the coraplaint was that Bishop LesUe, the celebrated defender of Queen Mary, had been restored to the See In the last Parliament ; several persons are noticed as " contemners of the sacraments" — that there is a " great coldness among all, both gentlemen and commons, since the Jesuits had liberty to pass through the country in the time of the Earl of Huntly's lieutenancy" — and that " the kirks are everywhere demohshed and ruinous, which is a grief through many parts of the land." In Caithness the Earl of Sutherland, his Countess, and retainers, are specially denounced — " very few ministers there, and all destitute of provision." In Mearns and Angus, now Kincardine and Forfar shires, Patrick Lord Gray, and a number of gentlemen and inferior persons, are mentioned either as " under process of excommunication," or " excomraunicated" as " reasoners against the religion, defenders of papists, and receivers of Jesuits" — as " reasoners against the truth in every place," or as " trafficking in sundrie places to undermine the gospel, and blasphemously railing against the word and rainisters thereof," besides acts of violence of which they are accused. In the quiet and decent county of Fife It is represented that there Is " no resorting to the kirk In raany places" — that " the kirks are ruinous and destitute of pastors and provision in many places" — that there is " super stitious keeping of Christmas, Easter, and other holidays — that the Abbey of Dunfermline was given to the Earl of Huntly, who brought with him thither " flocks of papists, Jesuits, and excom municated papists" — and that the titular Archbishop Adamson " continues to give collation of benefices to unworthy persons." In Lothian sundry papists and seminary priests had been " set at liberty without any punishraent or satisfaction of the Kirk" — that raost of the parish churches in the vicinity of Dalkeith are " des titute of pastors and provision," into which " papists flock and resort" — and that " sundry of the rainisters are bereft of their stipends by annexation," particularly the worthy Mr Andrew 1588.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 225 Simpson, pastor of Dalkeith, whose stipend had been assigned to the neighbouring Abbot of Newbattle. In Berwickshire and Roxburghshire, after singling out Lord Home, Lady Minto, Lady Fernihirst, Lady Riddell, and various priests. It is stated that " the haill people are readie to revolt [from the Evangell] because they see the Prince careless thereof as they say" — that there are " many superstitious pilgrimages and keeping of holidays" — and that " the greatest part of the kirks want ministers, and the word altogether vilified by the gentlemen of the county." No rainister is resident In the town of Lanark, though It was then the " chief town of the shire." In Stirlingshire the " Sabbath Is everywhere abused and profaned ; the kirks ill planted ; scarcely three have ministers ; superstitious pilgrimages to Christ's well, fastings, fes- tlves, bonfires, girdles, carols, and such like." At Dunblane the Titular Bishop " restored, and lately corae here, accorapanied by a stranger. Frenchman or Italian, supposed by many probable ap pearances by men of great judgment to be employed here in some strange turn ; his coming hath encouraged all suspected papists, and brought the simple In great doubts, for by his authority he draweth all with him in the old dance ; the ministers are hereby despised and troubled in their livings, and the kirks ruined and desolate."* As it respects Glasgow, then little better than a vil lage, though a royal burgh, the Abbot of Paisley and sundry of the citizens are mentioned as " receivers of Jesuits," and the " ministers are disappointed of their livings" or stipends. At the town of Dunbarton " the Laird of Finlry [Graham] hath seduced the chief there, and stolen away the hearts of the coraraons by banqueting at Yule [Christraas], continuing three days, during which time aU papistical ceremonies were used. Moreover, there are great rumours of suspicion of [celebrating] raasses In many places in the county [of Dunbarton, then called Lennox], which have engendered in the hearts of the people contempt of the word and ministers, who, when they began to deal with them in disci pline, contemptuously despise the same, proudly menace thera, and boast thera in their faces. There are in Lennox twenty-four kirks, and not four rainisters araong them all." At Ayr, " persons re- * A mistake probably occurs here respecting the proper individual to whom the above remarks apply. 'Ihe titular Bishop of Dunblane, Andrew Graham, was noted for his truculent conduct towards the General Assembly. 15 226 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1588. fuse to communicate, pretending frivolous feuds." They next set forth that " the great dissoluteness of life and manners, with the ugly heaps of aU kind of sin lying In every nook and part of this land, is most heavily regretted and deplored ; for what part of this land Is there that is not with a spot overwhelmed with abusing the blessed name of God, with swearing, perjury, lies, with profaning the Sabbath-day, with raarkets, gluttony, drunkenness, fighting, playing, dancing, &c. ; with rebelling against raagistrates and the laws of the country ;* with blood touching blood, with in cest, fornication, adulteries, and sacrUege, theft, and oppression, with false witness ; and finally, with all kind of impiety and wrong 2 Lastly, what heart touched with a spark of natural humanity or godly charity can unbleedlng behold the miserable state of the poor, wandering in great troops and companies through the country without either law or religion f'-f- Such was the state of Scotland as represented to King James by those self-constituted preachers of the " true religion " who desig nated themselves the only " rainisters of the Evangel," and such were the effects of the Reformation nearly thirty years after John Knox had excited the enthusiam of a pious and grateful populace to put the forraer " rooks" to flight, and throw down their " nests." By the adralssion of those " pruners of the Lord's vineyard," aU their endeavours to bolster up a " Kirk," which was their own hand-work, were unsuccessful ; nor could it be otherwise when it is recollected that MelvUle, and the other turbulent disciples of Geneva, prepared in their Second Book of Discipline a kind of le gislative creed and poUcy of their own invention for the multitude of their erring feUow-subjects. This General Assembly concluded Its proceedings by appointing two fast days to be universaUy held on the first and second Swndays of July; araong the reasons assigned for which are " the defection of raultltudes from the truth," " the coldness of all," and the " abundance of aU kind of Iniquity." In July and August 1588, the supposed Invincible Armada of Spain was dispersed, and a series of storms effected what the valour * This complaint is rather amusing, when it is considered that the Presbyterian preachers set the most conspicuous examples of sedition, disobedience, and insubor dination. t Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 715-724. 1588.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 227 of man might have with difficulty achieved. The Presbyterian party in Scotland were relieved from their apprehensions, yet they deemed It expedient to keep up the clamour respecting the al leged increase of Jesuits. Their next General Assembly convened at Edinburgh on the 6th of August 1588, when the unfortunate Titular of St Andrews was again the object of their malignity. He had been censured, and deprived of his " comraissionry" by the forraer Assembly until the present was held, and as they omitted no opportunity of harassing him, they took advantage of an occurrence to evince their personal antipathy. George sixth Earl of Huntly, the sarae nobleraan who in 1591-2 kiUed the Earl of Moray* at Du nibristle in Fife and burnt that mansion, raarried, in 1588, Lady Henrietta Stuart, eldest daughter of Esme first Duke of Lennox. He applied to the preachers of the " Presbytery of Edinburgh" to have the ceremony performed, but they refused unless the Earl subscribed the Confession of Faith already mentioned. As the marriage could not be conveniently delayed, Adarason by coraraand of the King officiated, and solemnized the nuptials on the 21st of July. The Titular's conduct was brought before this Assembly at their third sitting, and he was summoned to appear before them on the 12th of the month ; and in the meanwhile Andrew Mel ville, Robert Bruce, and John Duncanson, were directed to " crave of the Earl of Huntly subscription to the Confession of Faith." The Titular on the 11th sent a certificate of his inabUity to attend frora sickness, which In some degree disappointed them, and they decided that " although they find the testimonial not al together sufficient, they gave comraission to the Presbytery of Edin burgh to summon him to compear before them at such conve nient tiraes as they think expedient, to answer for the action con tained in the said summons, and for such other complaints and accusations as shaU be in particular given in against him." They authorized the said " Presbytery" to call before them " papists and apostates, who shaU happen to resort to Court," araong whom are mentioned the Earl of Huntly and Robert [sixth Lord] Seton, and to proceed against them.-f- * Eldest son of Sir James Stewart of Doune, and known in history as the Bonnie Marl of Moray. He married Lady EUzabeth, elder daughter of the Eegent Moray, and in her right assumed the title of Earl of Moray. t Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 731—738. 228 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1589. At the opening ofthe General Assembly held on the 17th of June 1589, James MelviUe was chosen Moderator. On the 20th Kmg James delivered a speech, and " promised to hold hard to disci pline," for which the Assembly " by the mouth of the Moderator rendered his Majesty humble thanks for the beginnings he had made in suppressing the enemies of religion." The proceedings of this meeting are very briefly recorded, and it Is only noticed here as connected with Adamson. The " Presbytery of Edinburgh" reported, that as the Titular had not appeared to answer for soleranizing the Earl of Huntly's raarriage, they " deprived him frora aU functions in the Church" for contumacy, which the Assem bly ratified, and " ordained it with other sentences that were re corded against him to be pubUshed In all the churches." The year 1589 is noted in the domestic Ufe of King James by his marriage to the Princess Anne of Denraark. It was celebrat ed in Denraark in the raonth of August, the Earl Marischal being proxy for the King; but a succession of storms, superstitiously be lieved at the time to have been raised by the agency of witches in Haddingtonshire, for which several of them were burnt at the ' stake, retarded the arrival of the royal bride. Impatient to see his consort, and informed that the Princess had been driven back by a violent gale, James compelled the Magistrates of Edinburgh to furnish hira with a secure ship, and he sailed frora Leith for Denmark on the 22d of October. The Duke of Lennox, and Francis Earl of Bothwell, nephew of the notorious Earl of Both weU, and subsequently a sore thorn in the King's side, were con stituted by James his Lieutenants of the kingdom during his absence ; and it is singular that, notwithstanding BothweU's turbu lence, he on that occasion conducted himself with great propriety, and so discharged the duties entrusted to him conjunctly with Len nox, that greater peace and harmony pervaded the kingdom than had been known for years. James was married in person at Upsal, and did not return with his Queen tUl 1590, when he landed at Leith on the 1st of May. Even the turbulent disciples of Calrin were quiescent, though the rebellious leaven was too deeply in corporated with their systera of polity not soon to ferment in some way or other. In their General Assembly held at Edinburgh on the 3d of Febmary 1589-90, they resolved that a fast should be observed every Su/nday tiU the King's arrival, and a fierce pro- 1590.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 229 clamation was issued against " Jesuits, papists, and seminary priests." A former bond for " maintaining the true reUgion," the Confession of Faith, and an act of the Secret Council in favour of both, which were to be subscribed de novo, were ordered to be printed. Nothing, however, occurred of importance till after the return of James with his Queen, who was crowned on the 17th of May in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood, Messrs Robert Bruce, David Lindsay, Walter Balcanqual, and the King's " own rainis ters," assisting at the ceremony. It is said that the scruples of the Presbyterian ministers, who aUeged that the ceremony of unction was unscriptural, were overpowered by the King, who threatened to get one of the Titular Bishops to officiate if they refused. The next General Assembly was held at Edinburgh on the 4th of August 1590, when Mr Patrick Galloway was chosen Moderator. In the list of names occur several who held the episcopal function when the Church was established after the accession of King James to the English Crown, and Calderwood carefully records them. After recording that an " act" was passed for subscribing the " Book of Policy," or Second Book of Discipline, by " whoso ever hath borne office in the ministry within the Kirk of this • realm^ or presently bear, or shaU hereafter bear office, therein" — the zealous Mr Calderwood states — " Sorae rainisters that were at this Assembly, notwithstanding this act, raaking defection after ward, either accepted Bishoprics, or aspired to the sarae, viz. Mr NeU Carapbell, after[wards] Bishop of Argyll, Mr Peter Black- burne, after Bishop of Aberdeen ; Mr George Gladstanes, after [Arch] Bishop of St Andrews ; Mr James Nicolson, after Bishop of Dunkeld ; Mr WiUiam Cowpar, after Bishop of Galloway ; Mr David Lindsay, after Bishop of Brechin ; Mr John Spottiswoode, after [Arch] Bishop of [Glasgow and] St Andrews ; Mr Patrick Lindsay, after Bishop of Ross ; Mr George Graham, after Bishop of Orkney." The aspirants to the episcopal office he enumerates thus — " Mr Robert Pont, Mr Robert Cornwall, Mr Thomas Buchanan, Mr Archibald Moncrieff, &c."* The only raatter of general Iraportance was an arausing speech delivered by no less a personage than King James — at least it has been alleged that • Calderwood, p. 257, 258. Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 762-766. 230 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1590. he SO expressed himself. The Moderator [Galloway] proposed three articles to the King for his approval — 1. That the " liberties of the Kirk" should be ratified ; 2. That the laws should be en forced against " Jesuits, papists, seminary priests, abusers of the sacraments ;" 3. That every parish church should have a " suf ficient pastor and a sufficient liring." The King repUed, that in all Parliaments the very first thing done was to " ratify the liberties of the Kirk" — that they knew well his sentiments respecting " Papists and Jesuits" — and that as to the " provision of kirks," he had only his own portion, for many others were connected with them as patrons, but he requested the Assembly to appoint the Moderator, and Messrs Bruce, Lindsay, and Pont, to wait on the Council, and confer with them on the subject. This was done, and now came the royal oration. — " The KIngwiUedthe ministers to purge themselves, and to be impartial In their own cause. It was his duty, he said, as well to see them reformed as it was theirs to urge him and the nobility to reform themselves. In no point was he so ear nest as In this. In end, his Majesty praiseth God that he was born in such a time, as in the end of the light of the gospel to such a place as to be King in such a Kirk, the sincerest Kirk In the world. ' The Kirk of Geneva,' said he, ' keepeth Pasch and Yule [Easter and Christmas]. What have they for thera ? They have no Insti tution [scriptural authority]. As for our neighbour Kirk of Eng land, It is an ill said mass in English, wanting nothing but the liftings. I charge you, my good people, ministers, doctors, elders, nobles, gentlemen, and barons, to stand to your purity, and exhort the people to do the same ; and I, forsooth, so long as I enjoy my life and crown, shall maintain the sarae against aU deadly.' The Assembly so rejoiced, that there was nothing but loud praising of God and praying for the King for a quarter of an hour."* It must have been ludicrous to have seen the Presbyterian conclave so employed, lifting up their devout hands and eyes, groaning and singing at this ebuUition of royal puerility. Their writers have carefuUy paraded it in their favour, and retorted it on the King, when in subsequent times he thought and acted differently. It Is of course noticed by the very impartial Mr Neal to gratify the English Puritans, and by others of his principles. Even Dr Cook * Booke ofthe UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part Second, p. 771. 1590.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 231 must bring a charge against Archbishop Spottiswoode, that the Priraate " uncandidly suppressed the conclusion." This refers to the sneer at the Liturgy of the Church of England, of which the King probably knew little or nothing, and of which ignorant Pres byterians in raore enUghtened times often express the same opinion. But how can it be proved that Archbishop Spottiswoode " uncan didly suppressed the conclusion ?" He was present and heard the speech, and not the zealous Mr Calderwood, on whose authority it chiefly rests, for he did not appear in public life till 1604, when he became minister of Crailing in Roxburghshire. Ac cording to the Archbishop's report of the royal speech, the King made no allusion to the Church of England at all, and the " conclusion" which the Primate is accused of " uncandidly sup pressing" may as likely have been a gratuitous addition of Mr Calderwood on the authority of some of his friends, who in too raany instances proved in after times that they were very capable of Indulging in such liberties to serve their party purposes. But admitting that the King really so expressed himself, it was not the only inconsiderate observation which he uttered during his life, though he is entitled to a greater share of political sagacity and dis- • cemment than the Presbyterians have at any tirae awarded to hira. At this time the life of the Titular of St Andrews was drawing to a close. Harassed by poverty, persecution, and bodily infirm ity, he had lingered out a truly uncomfortable life. In 1590, Adarason published the Laraentations of the Prophet Jereraiah in Latin verse, which he dedicated to the King, and erabraced the opportunity of coraplaining to Jaraes of the tyrannical treatment he had experienced from the Presbyterian party. Jaraes Melville, in the condensed report of the eccentric serraon which he deliver ed in his own ludicrous vernacular at the meeting of the General Assembly in August that year, from 1 Thess. v. 12, 13, alleged that Adamson was then engaged in writing a work entitled Psyllns against the Presbyterian discipline, and this very amiable and charitable pruner in the vineyard of the Genevan polity thus edi fied the " haill brethren" present : — " We had lurking within our own bowels a poisonable and venemous Psyllus — a warlock, I war rant you, so poisoned by the venom of that old serpent, and so altered in his substance and nature, that the deadly poison of the viper is his familiar food and nurture, to-wit, lies, falsehood, raaUce, 232 KING JAMES VI.'s CONTENTIONS [1590. and knavery, who has been long hatching a cockatrice egg, and so finely instructed to handle the whistle of that auld enchanter, that no Psyllus, Circe, Medea, or Pharmaceutrie, could have done bet ter. This is Patrick Adamson, false Bishop of St Andrews, who at this tirae was in raaking of a book against our discipline which he entitles Psyllus, and dedicates to the King, the epistle-dedlcar tory whereof is in my hand, wherein he shows his purpose to be to suck out the poison of the discipline of the Kirk of Scotland, as the Psylli, a venemous people In Africa, suck out the venom of the wounds of such as are stung with serpents. But I trust in God (said I) he shall prove the fool as madly as did those silly Psyllis, of whom Herodotus in his Melpomene writes, that they perished altogether in this manner — when the south wind had dried up all their conservars and cisterns of water, they took coun sel all in a mind to go against It in arms for avengement ; but coming among the deserts and dry sands, the wind blew highly and overwhelmed thera with sand, and destroyed thera every raan. Such, I doubt not, shall come of this obstinate, malicious fool [Adamson] while he intends not only to stop the breath of God's mouth, but also to be avenged upon it, because it has stricken him so that he is blasted therewith, and dried up, and made void of heavenly life. But alas ! my brethren (said I), if ye would do that which I think ye both might and should do at this time, to-wit, to ratify and approve that sentence of excoramunication most justly and orderly pronounced against that venemous enemy of Christ's king dom, as I am assured it Is ratified in the heavens, as clearly may appear by the effects thereof, no less than In the days of Ambrose, when Satan sensibly possessed such as were delivered to him by excommunication, he [Adamson] would feel better his miserable folly, and be won again to Christ, if he be of the number of iM elect. The which if ye do not, my brethren, by a sore experience not long since past before, I may foretell you a thing to come, if God In mercy, for Christ's sake, stay it not, that ye wiU find and feel yet more perniciously the reserved poison of that PsyUus in brangling [shaking or menacing] the discipline of the Kirk, and punishing our undutiful negligence."* This atrocious and disgusting addi-ess, delivered by the rabid " James MelvUle's Diary (Wodrow Society), p. 281, 282, 283. 1590.] WITH THE PRESBYTERIANS. 233 nephew of Andrew Melville, is a fair specimen of the raode of preaching in which the Presbyterians indulged against their oppo nents, and after such a specimen of Calvinistic blasphemy and personal hatred, we need not be surprised at the odious calumnies, falsehoods, and Infamous libels, continually uttered against one of Adamson's canonicaUy consecrated successors to the Scottish Primacy — Archbishop Sharp. MeanwhUe the unfortunate Titu lar published, about the end of 1590, a translation of the Apocar lypse in Latin verse, which he also dedicated to James ; but neither this learned production, nor some affecting Latin verses written during his deepest distress, and addressed to the King, procured for him any corapassion and favour. According to Calderwood, the King, finding the Titular to be no longer useful to hira, and " vexed with complaints upon Mr Patrick Adamson lying regis tered at the horn," became " so ashamed of him," that he raost ungenerously deprived him of the smaU revenue he obtained frora the Archbishopric, and granted the rents to the Duke of Lennox. This reduced the unfortunate Titular to such a state of poverty, in addition to his bodily sickness and mental suffering, that, if we are to credit the aforesaid James MelviUe, he Wjas necessitated to apply to his relentless and inveterate enemy Andrew Melville for pecuniary relief. That person, probably feeling some compunc tion for his conduct, visited him, and now very generously sup ported him and his faraily for several months, until permanent assistance could be procured for hira. Although labouring under severe bodily disease, his mind agonised by conteraplating the necessities of his faraily, surrounded by personal enemies, and abandoned by the King, for whose interests he had sacrificed his worldly comforts, his opponents, while thus humiliated as low as they could wish him to be, neither spoke nor wrote of him with compassion. The following observations of James MelviUe illus trate this statement — " But he had feigned so often sickness," says this sour Presbyterian, " that none believed him till he was brought t, appointed him to be minister at the church of Bothkennar [in Stirlingshire]. He was translated to Perth, October 5, 1595. At his admission to Perth he received imposition of hands from Mr WiUiam Rhynd, minister of KinnouU, Mr Archibald Mon crieff, minister of Abemethy, and Mr James Herring. Mr Patrick GaUoway preached the admission serraon. His stipend at that tirae was only 400 merks, and L.20, with his house ; but he was afterwards presented to the parsonage of Perth, and had the par sonage teinds, though his colleague, Mr John Malcolm, was an older man, and had been settled at Perth five years before him. Noveraber 1, 1602, Henry Balneaves and WilUara Jack made 1614.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 325 their public repentance in their own seat.s in the church after ser raon, for raaking a libel against Mr WiUiara CoNvpar and Henry Elder, town-clerk. The libel contained — ' As King David [1. of Scotland] was a sore saint to the crown, so are Mr Cowpar and the clerk to this poor town.' An act of Council was made against the two burgesses, that none of thera should bear office or get honourable place in the town thereafter." This libel probably originated in the Gowrie Conspiracy, as Perth was the scene of that singular tragedy. Bishop Cowpar and Mr John Malcolm, his colleague, happened to be absent from Perth on the 5th of August, when that daring treason was perpe trated, which corrects an error in Cant's annotations on the local metrical history of Perth by Henry Adarason, that Mr William Cowpar, observes Mr Scott, " along with one of the BaiUes harangued the people of the town iraraediately after the unhappy ' affair, in order to quiet the insui-rection of the people, and to per suade them of the real danger the King had escaped." Mr Cow par also in a sermon which he preached at Perth, Augu.st 10, de clared that when he first heard of the affair he supposed thc Earl had suffered innocently. Mr Cant likewise was mistaken when he represented Mr Patrick Galloway as at that time one of the ministers of Perth, for Mr GaUoway had resigned his charge, and became one of the King's chaplains a long time before. The Lord's Day imraediately after Gowrie's unhappy affair, Mr Cowpar preach ed in the church of Perth, forenoon and afternoon, on the conver sion of Zaccheus.* In the forenoon, after speaking of ' the neces sity of applying for divine grace, which can only change the heart of sinners,' he proceeded to say — ' And especially let us seek it at this time, that now we abide not in the hardne.ss of our heart, when the Lord both by his word and works Is so fast calling for repentance, and I think among aU the works of God that serve to humble us, this last miserable event that fell out among us, [the Gowrie Conspiracy,] is one of the first. I know there are many • Mr. Scott states his authority for this fact : — " There is presently [in 1775] in the possession of Mr. Cant, a manuscript book, containing several sermons preached by Mr Cowpar when minister at Perth. The book bears that it is in the hand-writing of Donald Gregor, who probably copied it from Mr Cowpar's own manuscripts. It be longed once to George Adamson, who has wrote on the last leaf — ' George Adamson aught this book, Perth, December 7, 1620. Lord, I have loved the habitation of thy house, the place where thine honour dweUeth.' " 326 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1614. of you that think of it as I did myself when I heard first of it. I thought indeed he [Gowrie] had suffered as an Innocent, and what grief then it wrought In me my own conscience beareth me record. The loss of no earthly creature went never so near my heart, and the first thing that ever chUled my affection towards hira was an appearance that he had gone beyond the compass of godliness, which made rae then say these words to my people — ' I know,' I said, ' It is light that must first satisfy your discontented minds, and therefore [raay] the Father of light send light.' " Mr Scott ob serves — " What Mr Cowpar caUs ' the Earl having gone beyond the compass of godliness,' relates to the Earl being infected with the weak and criminal creduUty of those times with regard to pre tended prophecies and the use of enchantments. That he was so infected seems to be incontestible." It appears that Bishop Cowpar was seven or eight years at Bothkennar before he was removed to Perth. " In a short ac count of his own life," says Mr Scott, " which he wrote about two years before his death, he states — ' Two or three days before [he saw Perth, or heard of his appointment to be minister there] did the Lord give me sorae signification of It ; but I understood it not till the event did teach rae. For In my thoughts in the night there seemed a raan to lead me by the hand to a little pleasant city, in a plain vaUey on a river's side, having some banks lying at the shore thereof ; as indeed it had the first tirae that after this I was brought to it. Such a sight got I of it In that vision as after wards I saw with my eyes. He led me a long time up and down the streets of that town, from one to another, and at length carried rae over the water to a hill, and led rae up unto It by raany turn ings and windings frora one earth to another, very near unto the top thereof. Then did I awake, ray face looking to the south west. This made an impression on my raind which I never forgot. Let no man here impute to me the superstition either of Papists or Anabaptists. I know there is no revelation now of doctrine, or new article of faith to be sought out In dreams. The Lord hath spoken once for aU unto us by his Son in his Word, but that the living Lord, who sleeps not, can give warnings to the souls of his servants when their bodies are sleeping, no raan acquainted with his working I trust wiU deny.' " Mr WiUiara Cowpar," continues Mr Scott, " was undoubtedly 1614.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 327^ one of the raost pious raen and eloquent preachers of his time. His writings, which are still in the hands of many, shew his singu lar piety, his clear knowledge, and soundness in the faith. They would have been much more extoUed in his own country, if he had not in the latter part of his life accepted a bishopric. He con tinued in the rainisterial work at Perth about nineteen years, preaching five times in tlie loeek, and labouring both publicly and privately to suppress all manner of vice, and to turn souls to his Lord and Redeemer." In 1 611 he raarried a daughter of a gentle raan named Anderson ; and was consecrated Bishop of GaUoway at Glasgow on the 4th of October 1612, which is another proof that the date 1614 of Bishop Hamilton's death by Keith is incor rect. Bishop Cowpar was also appointed Dean of the Chapel- Royal of Holyroodhouse. His popularity in Perth is proved by the following notice in the Kirk- Session Register, under date 23d October 1615 — " Compeared Alexander [Lindsay] Bishop of Dun keld, and George [Grahara] Bishop of Orkney, declaring that they had commission of the Archbishop of St Andrews [Spottiswoode] to intimate to the [Town] Council and [Kirk] Session of Perth, that WiUiam, Bishop of Galloway, by occasion of the affairs of office of bishopric, could not serve the cure of minister any longer in this burgh ; desiring thera, therefore, to give sorae persons in leet to raake choice of [one] to supply his place. Whereunto the Session answered, that they were grieved frora their hearts at his transportation, and they hoped that he would return again to occupy his own place ; and In expectation thereof they would not as yet give any persons in leet ; yet nevertheless the said Bishops, [as] coraraissioners, desired to make note that they had done their coraraission." Bishop Cowpar was succeeded as minister of Perth by Mr John Guthrie, subsequently one of the ministers of Edin burgh, and Bishop of Moray. Bishop Guthrie was adraitted or Inducted as rainister of Perth by the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow.* JMr Scott farther observes that Bishop Cowpar " published during his life raany excellent treatises, which after his death were collected and reprinted at London. Before he joined in the raeasures of the Court, which he began to do in 1600, by taking * Mercer's Clironicle, under date February 1617. It is added — " Within the kirk of Perth — Dr Barclay preached." (P28 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHUBCH. [1614. the side of the King In the affair of the Earl of Gowrie, there was not a more popular man in the kingdora. But when he accepted a bishopric all his former friends of the Presbyterian party were exceedingly offended, and treated him with the most unremitting severity as an accursed [!] apostate. He preached, and wrote, and spoke rauch, in his own vindication. He made frequent ap peals concerning his own sincerity, and declared that he had got more light than before conceming the proper raanner of church governraent. He was told by way of answer that it was very true he had got more light, for now he had two great candlesticks upon his table, whereas he had only one small candle before. His nerves were weak, and he was naturaUy inclined to melan choly. — On the whole we must say that the town of Perth was highly favoured in having so long the enjojrment of Mr Cowpar's ministry. It might have been happier for himself if he had con tinued to be minister there aU his life, and refused to accept a bishopric, but at the sarae time it was extremely rash In any person to judge hardly of him on that account, especiaUy consider ing how variable and unsettled the raode of church govemment had been all along from the Reformation ; and though his temporal peace was much hurt by his change of station, yet that change has been a means made use of by Providence for making his valuable writings more circulated through the island, and more generaUy read than they otherwise would have been. Such as delight in evangelical doctrines, and at the same time love that they should be handled in a clear, lively, and experimental manner, especially such as feel their need of the refreshments of the gospel, wUl find much satisfaction in Bishop Cowpar's Works. It is but a sraall part of their praise to say that they abound with exaraples of the best eloquence." Such is the candid stateraent of a Presbyterian rainister respect ing this truly erainent raan, and we shall now attend to his recorded raeraoir of hiraself, written on the 1st of January 1616. After aUuding to his younger years, when he was " trained up with the wrestlings of God," he states that when he was eight years old he was sent frora Edinburgh by his parents to the graramar school of Dunbar, where he continued till his twelfth year, and made great progress in his elementary education. In his thirteenth year he entered the University of St Andrews. " There," he says. 1614.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 329 " I made not such progress in knowledge as I had dono in my other studies, either raine age not being capable of it, or my wise and merciful Father not thinking it expedient for me. Yet even there was the seed of grace still working in me, inclining me to a careful hearing and penning of sermons and theological lessons, as I could have occasion to hear them. — Having passed my course at St Andrews, at the age of sixteen years I retumed to my parents In Edinburgh. I was pressed by thera to enter into sundry sorts of life I liked not, for ray heart stUl inclined to the study of the Holy Scriptures. Whereupon I resolved to go into England, where I evidently perceived the Lord going before me, and pro viding for me at Hoddesdon, within eighteen miles of London. My mean portion which I had being all spent (I speak it to his glory that cared for me) in that same place, that sarae day I was desired by our kind countryraan, Mr Guthrie, to assist hira In the teaching of a school, with whom I remained three quarters of a year. But after did the Lord lead me farther, for having occasion to go to London, without ray knowledge or any suit of raine I was called to the service of a leamed divine, Mr Broughton,* unto the which, with the good wUl of Mr Guthrie, I entered, and there reraained about a year and a half, daily exercised under him in the study of theology. To him, under God, and some other learned divines of that city, do I acknowledge myself bound for those beginnings of knowledge I then received. " In the nineteenth year of ray life I returned again to Edin burgh, where having the advantage of being with my brother, -|- then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, I still continued in the same study, and at length was required to give a proof of my gift privately, which I did in the new church in presence of Mr Robert Pont and Mr Robert Rollock, with sundry others of the rainistry. Then, after that, I was required to teach publicly in the new church on a Sabbath in the afternoon, and the next week I was cora raanded to teach publicly in the great church [St Giles] in time of * This was Hugh Broughton, a celebrated divine of the Church of England, who was born in 1549, and died in 1612. He was distinguished for his knowledge in Hebrew and Eabbinical learning, and the author of many theological works. f This was Mr John Cowpar, noticed in the preceding history of the Titular Episco pate, who intruded himself into the pulpit of St Giles' church in Edinburgh and in sulted King James, but was compelled to give place to Adamson of St Andrews on that occasion. 330 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1614. * a fast, on a Thursday In the afternoon. Thus did the Lord train me up, and these were the beginnings of my ministry, which I recount to the praise of His grace who counted me faithful, and put me into his serrice. " A Uttle after that, in the beginning of my twentieth year, there ensued a General Assembly of the Church at Edinburgh, and by their authority was I sent out and appointed pastor of Bothkennar, for that church had been desolate ever since the Reforraation, and the people had given in their supplication to the Asserably for a pastor. This calling of God and his Church I erabraced, and went unto thera, where I found the desolation so great, that except the walls, which were ruinous also, neither door, nor window, nor seat, nor pulpit, nor any part of a roof was there at aU ; yet It pleased God to give such a blessing to the ministry of his word, that their hearts thereby were stirred up cheerfuUy to build the Lord's house, which most wiUingly they fully resolved within half a year, not content to build their own part of the house, but the choir also, which of due should have been done by the parson. Neither content to have built it only, they adorned It vrithin and without not inferior to any other church of such quality round about. This was my first external seal and confirmation of my calling to the ministry. In this service I remained seven or eight years, subject to great bodily infirralties by reason of the weakness of the soil in winter, and the unwholesorae waters there of.* And here did the Lord first begin to acquaint me with his terrors, and the Inward exercises of sundry temptations, so that between these two ray life was wasted through heaviness. Yet I bless the Lord for it. It was unto me like the Wilderness of Midian to Moses — a school of temptation whereby I learned daily " The parish of Bothkennar, on the south side of the Forth, though during Bishop Cowpar's incumbency little better than a mere waste, and often flooded by the Forth and its tributary the Carron, has been long under fine cultivation, and is part of the luxuriant and fertile Carse of StirUng, the surface diversified by orchards. Yet agri culture was not neglected in the district in ancient times, for even in the fourteenth century its yearly feu-duty paid to the Crown was 26 chalders, besides six chalders to the Abbey of Cambuskenneth. It is stated of the parishioners of Bothkennar that they were so much attached to the Episcopal Church after the Eevolution, " that they kept their minister, Mr Skinner, a most worthy man, from 1688 till 1721, and had he not then resigned his situation, it is probable he would have died among them in the full possession of his ministerial functions." New Statistical Account of Scot land — StirUngshire, p. 203. 1614.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 331 more and more to know Christ Jesus, gathering sorae store of knowledge there by inward exercises and outward studies, which the Lord afterwards called rae to give out in more public places In his church. The necessity of Increasing disease forcing me to be • think of a transportation, the purpose of my raind was to another [parish] church iraplanted in the south, sorae eight miles west from Edinburgh, but the Lord still continued his calling, and drew rae another way northward. For at the sarae tirae there intervened a General Assembly of the Church at Perth. There was I nomi nated, and with consent of the Assembly and people was I written for to that ministry, as the letters of both, sent to me out of Perth with my dear brother Mr Patrick Simson,* yet extant, do bear. Thus did the Lord clear my way before me, and lead me where I thought never to have gone. " After this, three or four days, as I said, returned Mr Patrick Sirason from the General Assembly at Perth to Stirling, and de livered the letters from the Assembly and the town containing my calling to that rainistry. The town shortly after sent their com missioners to transport myself and family. There I continued doing the work of God for the full space of nineteen years. How I did carry myself In ray open conversation, living araong thera not as one separated from thera, but raixed myself in all their fel lowships, as a comfort to the best and a wound to the worst in clined sort, this age wiU not want living witnesses to record it. My diligence In like manner In the ministry was not only on the or dinary days but on others, which I voluntarily chose thrice a week in the evenings, to-wit, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday, for a preparation to the Sabbath, for on those days they had no preach ing in the raorning. It would have done a Christian good to have seen those glorious and joyful assemblies, to have heard the zealous crylngs to God among that people, with sighings and tears, melting hearts, and mourning eyes. It is not vain glorying. I abhor that. Not I, but His grace in me. Why shall It offend any raan that I eat the fruit of my labour, and that my conscience this day enjoys the comfort of my former painfulness and fidelity ? My witness is In heaven, that the love of Jesus and his people made continued preaching my pleasure, and I had no such joy as in doing His * Minister of Stiriing, about twelve or fourteen mUes west of the parish of Bothkennar. 332 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1614. work. Some witnesses also I want not to remain, for albeit my charge was to teach five times in the week, yet this was raore, that I penned thereafter whatever I preached, whereof sorae are al ready extant ; others, by God's grace, if the Lord spare my days, shall come In their time. And in outward charge what care I had to see the house of God thus honoured, and the welfare of that people every way, there are monuments standing to me after I am dead." Bishop Cowpar, after alluding to his personal experience on religious matters, thijs describes his reasons for accepting the epis copal office : — ^" Now, about this time God had opened to me a door, and caUed me to the charge of the churches in GaUoway, in the north-west part of this kingdom ; for being named with others by the General Assembly, of such as they thought meet to be preferred to the episcopal dignity, whereof I ever acknow ledged myself not worthy, and recoraraended by the fathers of our Church, it was his Majesty's pleasure to present me to that bene fice due to the office whereunto the Church had called me. God knows this was done without ray knowledge or seeking directly or indirectly, for I could have been contented all my days with a pri vate life, resolved to give honour and obedience to such as were in those places, after that it was once established by order in our Church, and I had considered the lawfulness, antiquity, and neces sity for it among us. Here was I neither guilty of ambition, nor of any precipitate embracing of it, for between the date of his Majesty's presentation and my acceptation there intervened eighteen weeks. Yet as the calling to this work was greater than any other whereto I had been led before, so the greatest opposition was there made to rae by raen whose lying libels and carnal contradic tions caused rae to spend raore tirae unprofitably than I had done before since ray entry to the ministry. The Lord forgive them, and me also, where in the manner of my answering I have been sharper than becarae Christian meekness. For as to the matter itself [the episcopate], unfeignedly I followed my light. I esteem it a lawful, ancient, and necessary govemment. I see not nor have I read of any Church which wanted it before our time ; only the abuses of it by pride, tyranny, and idleness, have brought it into misliking. From these evils I pray the Lord preserve his servants [the Bishops] that now are, or hereafter shall be called to 1614.J PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 333 these places. But there is no reason why a thing good in Itself should be condemned or rejected for the evil of abuse, for no good thing at all would be retained in the Church ; and in this calling, how I have walked, and what ray care was to advance the gospel there [in the Diocese of Galloway], I trust I shall not nor yet do want witnesses. In this [episcopal] estate I now live, my soul alway in my hand ready to be offered to my Ged. Where or what kind of death God hath prepared for me I know not, but sure I am there can be no evil death to hira that liveth in Christ, nor sudden death to a Christian pilgrim, who, as Job says, ' every day waits for his change.' Yea, many a day have I sought it with tears, not out of impatience, distrust, or perturbation, but being weary of sin, and fearful to fall into it. Concerning those who have been my enemies without cause, and charged rae with raany wrongful iraputations, from which my ccmscience clears me, excus ing me of those things, love of gain and glory, and such like, whereof they accused me, the Lord lay it not to their charge. I go to my Father, and seek His blessing to them, to rectify their judgments and moderate their affections with true piety from faith and love." Such was the eminent individual of whora Mr Calderwood, in the spleen of his malevolence, says — " After he had accepted the bishop ric he set forth an apology in print, to purge himself of covetous ness and ambition, and gave reasons wherefore he changed his mind ; but he was so vexed with answers that he cast some of them into the fire, and would not look upon them. None was more forward in the purer times against the estate of Bishops, none now raore frank for the corruptions of the time. After he had got the bishopric he maketh not residence in Galloway, but In the foot of the Canongate [near the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh], that he might be near the Chapel-Royal, where he preached as Dean, neglecting his Diocese, where he ought to have preached as Bishop, if his office had been lawful." A curious no tice is recorded of his zeal in the discharge of his public duties in the Perth Kirk-Session Registers. Under date June 24, 1616, it is stated that the " officer" or beadle is " ordered to have his red staff in the kirk on the Sabbath days, therewith to waken [rouse] sleepers, and to remove greeting bairns [children crying] furth of the kirk." This seeras to have been an old habit also of 334 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1614. the citizens of Edinburgh, and Mr Scott inserts under date August 24, 1600, an extract frora one of Bishop Cowpar's manuscript ser mons, with which he coraraenced on the afternoon of that day, in St GUes's church, containing a reproof to the congregation for sleeping. " Before," said the Bishop, " we begin to speak to you, there is an Irapediraent we raust reraove, which, if it occur, wiU both hinder us frora speaking, and you from learning, and that is your infirmity of sleeping, whereunto at this time usuaUy ye are subject. A preacher, you know, hath irapediments enough in himself to hinder from teaching, suppose he have none of his people ; for Satan is ready, standing always at the right hand of Joshua to resist hira. Such, therefore, among you as are Chris tians, I bind you with the law of conscience to refrain from sleep ing, and such among you as are civilians, let common courtesy be an awe-band to you, remembering that It is no point of cirility to sleep in the house of God." As Bishop Cowpar Is subsequently noticed in a prominent man ner, the attention of the reader Is now directed to public affairs, and here the Presbyterians may be left in silence for a short time, and the proceedings of those of the other extreme — the Roman Catholics — noticed at sorae length. Notwithstandmg the total extinction of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy In Scotland after the Reformation, its supporters were frora tirae to tirae Indefatigable in their exertions to regain their ascendancy araong the people. Persons designated " Jesuits and seminary priests" in the public records traversed the kingdom in all directions, defying the se vere Acts of Parliament against thera, and practising both pub licly and privately the rites of their religion. During the reign of King Jaraes, before and after his accession to the English Crown, seldom one year elapsed without rumours of new conspiracies of the Jesuits against his life, or against the Church of England. It appears from state papers, histories, and other records, that about 1614 a new attempt on the part of Spain and its auxiliaries was meditated, and which was only frustrated by the early detection and execution of sorae of the nuraerous eraissaries of the Jesuits. One of the raost extraordinary prosecutions was that of John OgUvie, otherwise Watson, son of Walter Ogilvie of Dmm. Tn the month of November 1613, he returned to Scotland, after an absence of twenty-two years, for the purpose of propagating the 1614.J PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 335 Roman CathoUc faith. Ogilrie was evidently one of those enthu siasts who scrupled not, regardless of his life, to embark in any daring and dangerous plot. In the beginning of October 1614, he was apprehended in Glasgow, and brought before Archbishop Spottiswoode, on the charge of having " seduced sundry young men of the better sort of the people, and saying mass in sundry places within the town." Several of his converts were also seized, and a few of them imprisoned in Dunbarton Castle. On the 5th of October, Ogilrie and five indlriduals were examined at Glasgow before Archbishop Spottiswoode, Bishop Boyd of Argyll, Lords Fleraing, KUsyth, and Boyd, the Laird of Minto, Sir George El phinstone, Provost of the city, and three of the magistrates. The five prisoners swore that they had only known OgUvie a very short time, and with one exception that they had attended once or oftener the celebration of mass in private houses. Ogilvie admit ted that he was the son of Walter OgUvie of Drum — that he had been abroad twenty-two years — ^that he had studied at certain Roraan Catholic CoUeges on the Continent, and had received the order of priesthood at Paris — that he had arrived in Scotland in Noveraber 1613, and after a residence upwards of six weeks he had proceeded to England, but retumed in May 1614 — that he was " ane of the ordinary Jesuits," and raaintained that the Pope's jurisdiction extended over the King's dominions In spiritual mat ters, for which he declared that he was ready to die. About the beginning of Noveraber, Alexander Gladstanes, Arch dean of St Andrews, son of the forraer Archbishop, apprehended another Jesuit naraed Moffat in St Andrews, who was brought be fore the Privy Council on the 10th of December, and Imprisoned in the Castle of Edinburgh. Ogilrie was also brought to Edinburgh, and exarained by Archbishop Spottiswoode and sorae of the Privy Council. As a complete statement of the cases had been trans mitted to the King, the Archbishops and the Bishops were ordered to proceed rigorously against the parties implicated, and all avow ed or suspected Jesuit priests, resorters to, and resetters of, the same, wherever they were found. Sirallar instructions were also sent to the Privy CouncU. The great act of cruelty which they committed in Ogilrie's case was the method they adopted to in duce hira to confess. He was allowed such food as barely sus tained life, was not perraitted to sleep for several nights, and when 336 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. he felt inclined to repose, the raost discordant noises and beating of dmms commenced, till the unfortunate man becarae delirious. What share the Bishops had in sanctioning this torture does not appear, but if the Presbyterians should adduce this as an instance of gross cruelty, which it certainly was, they ought to remember that they contended for the death of every one who professed the religion of the Church of Rome. Ogilvie was taken back to Glasgow, and tried before the Pro vost and Magistrates, in presence of Archbishop Spottiswoode and sorae of the Privy CouncU, on the 28th of February 1615, for " declining the King's authority, aUeging the supreraacy of the Pope, saying and hearing raass," and other then recognised offences. The noblemen and gentlemen who were present with the Arch bishop were James second Marquis of Harailton, Robert, caUed in the account of the trial printed at Edinburgh by Andrew Hart In 1615, Earl of Lothian, but evidently Sir Robert Kerr of An- crura, created Earl of Ancrum in 1633 ; Lords Sanquhar, Flem ing, and Boyd ; and Sir Walter Stewart, Depute BaUie of the regality of Glasgow. The prosecution was conducted by Mr WiUiam Hay of Bare, Coramissary of Glasgow, substitute for Sir WiUiara Oliphant of Newton, the King's advocate. During the prerious examination Ogilvie had retumed answers to five questions, connected with the power of the Pope to excommunicate kings who are not of the Roman Church, whether it is lawful to raurder a prince so ex communicated and deposed, and whether the Pope had power to absolve subjects from their oath of allegiance. To aU the ques tions he gave evasive replies, founded on his answer to the first, which was, that " he thought the Pope of Rome judge to his Ma jesty, and to have power over him in spiritualibus. If the King be a Christian." At the trial, after the indictment was read, OgUrie was distinctly informed by the prosecutor — " You are not accused of saying mass, nor of seducing his Majesty's subjects to a con trary religion, nor of any point touching you in conscience pro perly, but for dechning his Majesty's authority against the laws and statutes of the land, and for raaintaining treasonable opinions such as we of this realm have not heard by any avowed. The statutes mentioned in your indictraent make it treason not to an swer the King's Majesty, or his CouncU, In any raatter which shaU 1615.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 337 be demanded. You, being examined by my Lord Archbishop of Glasgow, and other honourable persons adjoined to hira by his Majesty's special commission, refused to answer various inter rogatories proposed to you by their Lordships, and at the same tirae professedly avouched the Pope of Rome's jurisdiction, which by the laws of the country Is raany years since plainly discharg ed. Therefore have you incurred the penalty contained in the statutes, and the same ought and should be executed upon you." The statutes or acts of Parliament enumerated in the indictment were then read to Ogilvie, as were also his previous evasive answers. He was then called for his defence, and it raust be adraitted that his reply was not calculated to operate much In his favour. " First," he said, " under protestation that I do no way acknowledge this judgraent, nor receive you, that have that commission there pro duced, for my judges, I deny any point laid against me to be treason ; for if it were treason, it would be treason in aU places and in aU kingdoms, but that Is known not to be so. As for your acts of Pp^rliament, they are raade by a nuraber of partial men, the best of the land not agreeing with them, and of matters not subject to their forum or judicatory, for which I wiU not give a rotten fig. Where I am thought an enemy to the King's Ma jesty's authority, I know none other, authority he hath but that which he received from his predecessors, who acknowledged the Pope of Rome's jurisdiction. If the King will be to me as his predecessors were to mine, I will obey and acknowledge him for my King ; but if he do otherwise, and play the runagate [renegade] from God, as he and you all do, I wUl not acknowledge hira more than this old hat." The unfortunate enthusiast, who expressed these opinions in a state of riolent excitement, was here Interrupted by Archbishop Spottiswoode, who reminded him that the charges were very serious to him as affecting his life — that to raU at the King's authority, or the judges appointed by the royal commission, was useless — and that considering his ecclesiastical profession it was scandal ous. The Archbishop farther advised Ogilvie to recall his former answers, or " If he were resolute to maintain them, to do It with reason, and in a moderate sort — he advertised him withal to be more temperate in his speeches concerning his Majesty, other wise he would not be licenced there to offend." Ogilvie repUed 22 338 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. that " he would take the advertisement, and speak more coolly, howbeit he would never acknowledge the judgment, nor think they had power to sit on his life. — And for the reverence I do you, to stand bare-headed before you, I let you know it is ad redemptionem vexationis, et non ad agnitionem judicii!^ The fifteen jurymen were then chosen, among whora were Sir George Elphinestone of Blythswood, Sir Thoraas Boyd of Bonshaw, Sir James Edmonstone of Duntreath, Muirhead of Lawhope, Crawfurd of Jordanhill, Mackerrel of Hillhouse, and Hugh Ken nedy, Provost of Ayr. Ogilvie was permitted to chaUenge any of them, but he replied, that " he had one exception for them aU ; they were either enemies to his cause or friends ; if enemies, they could not be admitted upon his trial, and if they were his friends, they should stand prisoners at the bar with him." The Jury were then sworn, and the indictment read to them, when the following dialogue ensued. " I wish these gentlemen," said Ogilvie, " to consider weU what they do. I cannot be tried or judged by them, and whatsoever I suffer here is by way of Injury, and not of judgraent. I am ac cused of treason, but have done no offence, and I wIU not ask mercy." " This is strange," observed Archbishop Spottiswoode :" " You have done no offence [you say], and yet you are come into his Majesty's kingdora, and you have laboured to pervert his Highness' subjects. Both of these are against the law. In this have ye not offended V — " No," said Ogilvie, " I carae by com mandment, and if I were even now forth of the kingdora I should return ; neither do I respect anything, but that I have not been so busy as I should in that which ye caU perverting. I hope to come to Glasgow again, and to do more good in it. If all the hairs of my head were priests, they should aU come into the kingdom." " And do you not," inquired Archbishop Spottiswoode, " con sider It a fault to go against the King's coraraandraent, especiaUy in this point of discharging you his kingdora ? If a king have any power within his kingdora, it seems he may rid himself and his country of those with whora he is offended, and It savours great rebeUion to say otherwise." — " I am a subject," repUed Ogilrie, " as free as the King is a king. He cannot discharge me if I be not an offender, which I am not." He was asked for what offences 1615.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 339 the King could " discharge " or banish him, and he answered — " In the cases of theft and murder." — " All this while," said the Archbishop, " you do not answer the points of your indictment. Why do you decline his Majesty's authority, and refuse to give your opinion anent the Pope's power in deposing kings, and loosing subjects from their oaths of allegiance ? And when it is asked you If it were lawful to slay the King, If deposed and ex communicated by the Pope, the very thought of which any loyal subject would abhor, why do you not simply condemn it as unlaw ful ? For if you do not condemn it, you shew yourself of the opinion of the rest of your sect, who in their books maintain that it is both lawful and comraendable to slay kings. If the Pope's comraission go forth once for it." — " For the declining of the King's authority," replied Ogilvie, " I will do it stiU in raatters of religion, for with such raatters he hath nothing to do ; neither have I done any other thing but that which the ministers did at Dundee. They would not acknowledge his Majesty's authority In spiritual matters more than I ; the best rainisters of the land are still of that raind, and if they be once wiU continue so." " You are mistaken," said Archbishop Spottiswoode, " both in the place and matter ; for it was not at Dundee, but Aberdeen, where some ministers meeting to a General Assembly, contended not against the King's authority, but that the Assembly called to that place and tirae could not be discharged by his Majesty's coraralssloner. Neither should the fact of a few, taken at the worst, be esteemed the deed of the whole. These have been punished for their offences; some of thera have confessed their error, and have been graciously pardoned by his Majesty. All good rainisters profess otherwise, and our religion teacheth us to acknowledge his Majesty [as] our only supreme judge In all causes. The King is keeper of both Tables [of the Mosaic Law], and his state obliges him not only to the ruling of his subjects in justice, and preserving equity araong them, but even to maintain religion and God's pure worship, of which he should have principal care. Your raaster the Pope hath not only denied this authority to kings, which God giveth them, but usurpeth to himself a power of deposing and klUing when he is displeased. And it would be the less worthy of notice if the Pope's usurpation had gone no farther than your books ; but you have entered, by this pretended right. 340 PEACEFUL STATE OP THE CHURCH. [1615. the throats of the greatest kings, as your practice upon the two last Henrys of France bears witness. You are not able to lay such imputation upon us or our profession, which teaches that, next unto God Almighty, all raen are bound to fear, serve, and honour their sovereigns. But what answer you touching these de raands ? Hath the Pope power to depose the King ? Or Is it murder to klU him, if he is deposed by the Pope ?" " I refused before," said Ogilvie, " to answer such questions, be cause in answering I would acknowledge you [as] judges in con troversies of reUgion, which I do not. I vriU not cast holy things to dogs." " And is it," asked the Archbishop, " a point of faith that the Pope raay depose his Majesty ? Or do you think it a controversy in religion whether his Majesty, whom God save, may be lawfully killed or not!" " It is," replied OgUvie, " a question among the doctors of the Church, and many hold the affirmative, not improbably. A Council hath not yet determined the point ; and if It shall be concluded by the Church that the Pope hath such power, I will give ray life in defence of it ; and if I had a thousand lives, I would bestow thera that way if they will make an article of faith of It." He was here urged to state his own opinion, and he declared that " he would not say It was unlawful, though he should save his life by It." He proceeded to discuss the aUeged supre raacy ofthe Pope, and observed — " If the King offended against the Catholic Church the Pope raight punish him, as well as a shepherd, or the poorest feUow In the kingdora. In abrogating the Pope's authority the Estates of Parliament had gone beyond their hmits and the King, in usurping the Pope's right, had lost his own." As to the oath of aUegiance, Ogilvie declared — " It was a damnable oath against God and his truth, and it is treason to swear it, be cause it brings the King's person and state in danger. Since this kingdom was Christian, the Pope's supreme power was always ac knowledged. This being cast off, as we see in the acts of your Pariiaraent, against all reason and conscience, and subjects [are] forced to swear to a raatter so unlawful, what marvel that attempts and dangerous courses be taken against him ? But if the King would rehnquish his usurpation upon the Pope, he raight live with out fear as weU as the King of. Spain, or any other Christian prince." He concluded by alluding to his own services, and those of other Jesuits for the King, and said — " Neither Bishop, 1615.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 341 nor minister, nor aU the Bishops and ministers in his Majesty's kingdoms, had done or could do the like." Ogilvie proceeded In this language, not very polite either to the King or the judges. Archbishop Spottiswoode then spoke. " Gentlemen, and others who are named upon the assize," said the Archbishop, " though I intended to have said nothing, and to be merely a witness of the proceeding, I have been forced by his [the prisoner's] proud and impudent speeches soraewhat to reply, and must with your patience say a little more. It is this same day two-and-twenty weeks past that this prisoner fell into my hands, and since that time he hath had leisure to think enough what course was fittest for hira to take for satisfying his Majesty, whora he had offended ; neither hath he wanted counsel and advice, the best that we could give hira. Besides, he hath found on our part nothing but courteous dealing, and better entertalnraent than, I must now say it, he hath deserved. My own hopes were that he would have followed another course than I see he has taken, and not stand to the answers which he made to those demands which were moved unto him by his Majesty's commissioners, and you have seen. But if his answers at the first were treasonable they are now so little better, as in all your hearings he hath uttered speeches most detestable, raade a commentary worse than the text was, and shewed himself to carry the mind of an arrant and des perate traitor. You perceive he obscures not the King's Ma jesty our sovereign in all his speeches, preferring the Pope to his Majesty ; and, which is more intolerable, affirmeth the King's Majesty to have lost the right to his kingdom by usurping upon the Pope. He will not say it is unlawful to kiU his Majesty ; he saith It Is treason for subjects to swear the oath of allegiance ; and meaneth so much in his last wotds as the King's Majesty's life and estate cannot be secure except he render himself the Pope's vassal. Thus hath he left you little to do except that his Ma^ jesty's pleasure, the ordinary form be kept with him, you would never need once to remove. All his speeches have been so stuffed with treason, that I am sure the patience of the noblemen and others here present hath been much provoked. In all that he hath said I can mark only two things alleged by him for the Pope's authority over kings — the words of our Saviour to St Peter, Feed my sheep ; and the subjection of kings, especially of 342 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. our kings, since the kingdom became Christian, to the Pope. For the words of our Saviour, how Uttle they serve his purpose I have no need to tell you. To feed the sheep of Christ is not, I hope, to depose kings from their states, nor to inflame the hearts of subjects against princes, much less to kiU and despatch them. We are better taught than to be deceived with such glosses. St Peter never made that sense of those words, and teacheth us a very different doctrine in his First Epistle, fifth chapter, second and third verses. I will not spend time with such purpose. Only this I must say, that whatever was St Peter's prerogative the Pope of Rome hath nothing to do with It ; for he cannot be St Peter's successor who hath forsaken his doctrine, and gone against his practice directly, both in that and other points of Christian faith. And for the antiquity of his usurped power, I raay say justly that Master Ogilvie Is not well seen in antiquity, or he speaketh against his knowledge, when he saith that this power of the Pope was ever acknowledged by Christian kings. The Bishops of Rome for raany years raade no such claira, neither did eraperors nor kings ever dreara of such subjection. Long It was ere the Pope of Rorae carae to the height of comraanding kings, and not tiU he had oppressed the Church under the pretext of St Peter's keys, bearing down all the Bishops within Chrlstendora, which baring done, then he raade his invasion upon princes, and that by degrees. The histories of aU ages raake this plain, and the re sistance he found by kings in their kingdoras testifieth that they never acknowledged his superiority. Of our own, howbeit, as we lie far frora his seat, so had we less business and fewer occasions of contradiction, yet I can raake it appear in divers particulars, when any question fell out anent the provision of Bishops and Archbishops to their places, the Bulls of Rorae were so little re spected, as the King's predecessors have always preferred and borne out their own choice, and the Interdictions raade upon the reahn by these occasions ; not without some imputation of weak ness to the See Apostolic, have been recalled. The superstitions of Rome were amongst us last embraced, and vrith the first, by the mercies of God, shaken off. Whatsoever you boast of your anti quity. It is false, both in this and all the other points of your profession, which I could prove if this time or place were fitting. But to you of this jury I have this only raore to say, that you are 1615.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 343 to inquire upon the verity of the indictment whether such and such as are alleged to be committed by him have been so or not. You have his subscriptions which he acknowledgeth. You hear him self, and how he hath treasonably disavowed his Majesty's autho rity. It concerns you only to pronounce as you shaU find verified by the speeches that you have heard and the testimonies produced. For the rest the justices know sufficiently what to do, and will serve God and his Majesty according'^ to the commission given them." The Jury returned their verdict by Sir George Elphinestone of Bl}i,hswood, unanimously finding the unfortunate Jesuit guilty of treason, and he was sentenced to be hanged and quartered. Arch bishop Spottiswoode asked him if he wished to say anything. "No my Lord," repUed Ogilvie, " but I give your Lordship thanks for your kindness, and will desire your hand." " If," replied the Archbishop, " you will acknowledge your fault done to his Majes ty, and crave God's and his Highness' pardon, I will give you both hand and heart, for I wish you to die a good Christian." " Will I be allowed," asked Ogilvie, " to speak to the people V " If you will declare," said the Archbishop, " that you suffer according to the law justly for your offence, and crave his Majesty's pardon for your treasonable speeches, you shall be licenced to say what you please, otherwise you ought not to be permitted." Ogilvie simply replied — •" God have mercy upon me !" He then exclairaed loudly — ^" If there are here any secret Catholics, let them pray for me ; but the prayers of heretics I will not have." This tragedy, under the form of law, was concluded by the exe cution of Ogilvie, and the only part of the sentence remitted was the quartering of his body. He met his fate three hours after the verdict was given, but his bodily infirmities or his fears were such, that after his devotions it was necessary to support him on the scaffold. He died professing his firm belief in the faith for which he may be said to be a martyr, but his wretched fate seems to have excited little sympathy. Even the Presbyterian party ex pressed no compassion Calderwood coolly observes — " He had small courage when he came to the scaffold, died heartless and comfortless, could not comraend himself to God at the minister's desire, but did it after the desire of the hangman." This extra ordinary trial is not recorded in the Books of Adjournal, but was 344 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. reported by the commissioners and their assessors to the Privy Council.* The death of Archbishop Gladstanes occurred in the castle of St Andrews on the 2d of May. Calderwood has sharaefully tra duced his raeraory, by recording all the false and Infamous scandals against him. Archbishop Spottiswoode describes him as " a man of good learning, ready utterance, and great invention, but of an easy nature, and induced by those he trusted to do many things hurtful to the See, especially In leasing the titles of his benefice for many years to come ; esteeming, which is the error of many churchmen, that by this raeans he would purchase the love and friendship of raen, whereas there Is no sure friendship but that which is joined with respect. — He left behind hira in writing a de claration of his judgment touching matters then controverted in the Church, professing that he had accepted the episcopal func tion upon good warrant, and that his conscience never did accuse him for any thing done that way. This he did to obviate the rumours which he foresaw would be dispersed after his death, either of his recantation, or of some trouble of spirit that he was cast into, for these are the usual practices of the Puritan sect, whereas he ended his days most piously, and to the great comfort of aU the beholders." Archbishop Gladstanes was the first patron of the celebrated Alexander Henderson, then a zealous advocate of the Episcopal Church, and presented that Individual, who is sub sequently noticed, to the parish of Leuchars, about five miles west of St Andrews. Araong Henderson's other acts of truculent sub serviency at this period, he wrote a flattering dedication to the Primate. A Presbyterian writerf very gratuitously vilifies the memory of Archbishop Gladstanes, whom he describes "at his first start in pubUc life schoolmaster at Montrose, and had been minister in several parishes before his settlement at Arbirlot near Arbroath." " Vain and pedantic," continues this writer, " obse quious to one class, and overbearing to another, Gladstanes was frora his temper, his office, and the spirit of the times, any thing but acceptable to the raass of the people." Again — " Gladstanes was odious in the estiraation of the whole peasantry of the dis- * Pitcairn's Criminal Trials, vol. iii. p. 330-354. t Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, by John Alton, D.D. minister of Dol phinton, p. 90, 91. 1615.] PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 345 trict." These statements are mere opinions, although aU this aUeged unpopularity Is not surprizing If what this writer alleges Is true, that " Fife was truly said by Gladstanes to be the most seditious province in the kingdora." It Is singular that no Presbyterian his torian can possibly give an irapartial representation of the acts and character of the men of that age. The Archbishop was honour ably interred In the church of St Salvador's CoUege at St Andrews on the 7th of June, and Bishop Cowpar of Galloway preached the funeral sermon, which unfortunately is not in the edition of his Works. Calderwood indulges his usual scurrility in reference to that sermon, describing It as " full of vile fiattery and lies, for which he was derided by the people." That writer farther insinuates that the funeral of the Archbishop was a mere ceremonial : — "a canopy of black velvet was carried above the coffin by four men, and yet the corpse was not In the coffin, but buried soon after his death ;" but on this Mr Scott observes — " Indeed, if the body was not suf ficiently embalmed, the long delay of the funeral raight render such a precaution necessary."* Archbishop Gladstanes must have been in considerable favour with King James, if Calderwood's rumour is true that his Majes ty " bestowed ten thousand merks upon his burial," though he also states that the Archbishop was In debt L.20,000 Scots at his death. Of his famUy or descendants Uttle is known. His son, Alexander Gladstanes, the Archdean of St Andrews, is already mentioned. He studied at the University of Cambridge. Previous to 1612 his father had continued to officiate as first minister of St Andrews, but in that year the Archdeanery was separated from the Archbishopric by act of Parliament, and Alexander Glad stanes, though he had entered on the study of theology only three years before, was appointed the Archdean and first minister. He held that situation tiU 1638, when he was deprived, but his con duct seeras to have been for some years very reprehensible, with out taking Into account the Presbyterian libels and charges against him. In Deceraber the very year of his father's death, Archbishop Spotiswoode exhorted hira " to follow his calling and behave himself with greater gravity," and not to be " a company bearer with comraon folks in drinking." -f- A daughter raarried John Lyon, son • Perth Eegister of Deaths, MSS. Advocates' Library at Edinburgh. t Wodrow's Biographical Collections, printed for the Maitland Club, Glasgow, 4to. 1834, vol. i. Part Second, Notes, p. 546, 547. 346 PEACEFUL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615 of Sir Thoraas Lyon of Auldbar, the second son of John seventh Lord Glararais, who is known In Scottish history as the Master of Glammis, one of the principal agents in the seizure of James VI. at the Raid of Ruthven in May 1580. There was no Issue by this marriage, and the estate of Auldbar devolved to his relative John, second Earl of Kinghorn, father of the first Earl of Strath- more, a Peerage joined with the Earldom of Kinghorn In 1677- Another of the Archbishop's daughters married John Wemyss of Craigton, who was Commissary of St Andrews, and some time Rec tor and ChanceUor of the University. A curious letter is stUl preserved, dated St Andrews, 23d September 1612, addressed to the King by Archbishop Gladstanes, recommending this son-in- law to be a judge in the Scottish Supreme Court in place of WU liam MelviUe, Commendator of Tongland, fourth son of Sir John MelvUle of Raith, and brother of James MelviUe of HaUiiU, author of the celebrated " Memoirs," a complete edition of which was printed by the Bannatyne Club, and of Sir Robert MelviUe of Mur docairnie, created Lord MelriUe. The Commendator sat on the Bench by the title of Lord Tongland, and on this particular occasion some arrangement was to be raade with his Lordship, who was to retire from the Bench in favour of Commissary Wemyss, but this was never effected, as Sir Gideon Murray of Elibank was ap pointed an ordinary Lord in 1613. The letter aUuded to is only signed by the Archbishop, the whole of it being the autograph of his son-in-law, though " whether the Archbishop dictated the let ter, or whether AVerayss prepared it himself, and got his father- in-law's signature, cannot now be ascertained, but in either way the extreme modesty and coolness of the would be judge him self recording his own merits are highly amusing."* An " apph cation by John Wemyss to James VL, to be appointed a Lord of Session" is also preserved, vrithout date, but supposed to be at least anterior to 1619. Commissary Wemyss was subsequently appointed a Judge in the Suprerae Court, took his seat on the Bench by the title of Lord Craigton, and was afterwards knighted. A grand- daughter of Archbishop Gladstanes, named Elizabeth or Elspet Gladstanes, was married in 1632 to Dr George Halyburton, They were the parents of Dr George Halyburton, born In 1635, and consecrated Bishop of Brechin, afterwards translated to Aber deen, in which See he continued till the Revolution of 1688. ' Analecta Scotica, Second Series, Edinburgh, 1837, p. 348, 349, in which the letter is printed. 1615.] 347 CHAPTER IV. INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH — ARCHBISHOP SPOTTISWOODE REMOVED TO ST ANDREWS — CHANGES IN THE BISHOPRICS THE SEE OF ORKNEY — THE HIGH COMMISSION — GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ABERDEEN A CATECHISM, LITURGY, AND BOOK OF CANONS, ORDERED TO BE PREPARED — A CONFESSION OF FAITH APPROVED. Archbishop Gladstanes was succeeded in the Primacy by Arch bishop Spottiswoode, who was translated from Glasgow much against his inclination. He had evinced his munificence by repair ing the Cathedral church and episcopal castle of that See, and he first commenced the lead roof of the former. During his connection with Glasgow he exerted himself so successfully, that much of the Presbyterian disaffection had vanished in that Diocese. He entered St Andrews on the 3d of August 1615, accompanied by numbers of noblemen and gentlemen, and preached a sermon on the 5th, which, according to Calderwood, was a Saturday. The ceremony of his installation was performed on the following day in presence of most of the suffi:-agan Bishops and a crowded congregation, after a sermon by Bishop Cowpar of Galloway on Titus ii. 7. 8. This very excellent sermon, which is dedicated to Lord Sanquhar, is in the coUection of Bishop Cowpar's Works, and the object of it Is to explain the duties of a good Bishop. The translation of Archbishop Spottiswoode to St Andrews rendered the See of Glasgow vacant, and Bishop Law was removed thither from Orkney in the beginning of September. He was suc ceeded in Orkney by Bishop Graham of Dunblane. Adam Bel- lenden, rector of Falkirk, son of Sir John BeUenden of Auchnoul, Lord Justice-Clerk, was norainated to the Bishopric of Dunblane, and was consecrated at St Andrews about the close of the year. 348 internal state of the church. [1615. If we are to believe Calderwood, who records these appointraents with disgusting Indelicacy, BeUenden was for some tirae a " vehe ment opponent against Bishops," but now he was not ashamed to " accept that mean Bishopric [aUuding to the weU-known poverty of the See of Dunblane] to patch up his broken lalrdship of Kin- nocher." He records that on the 26th of November, Archbishops Spottiswoode and Law, after a serraon by Bishop Cowpar in the Chapel-Royal of HoljToodhouse at Edinburgh, took the oaths of aUegiance — " renouncing aU foreign authority, teraporal or eccle siastical, and did horaage for their Archbishoprics upon their knees" before the noblemen who represented the King, and in pre sence of sundry of the Nobility, the Lords of the Privy CouncU, the judges, and a large concourse of spectators. Some notices may be here appropriately inserted respecting the reraote Bishopric of Orkney during the episcopate of Archbishop Law, before his translation to Glasgow. From the Reformation to the nomination of Bishop Law in 1605, religion in the Orkney and Shetland Islands had been miserably neglected. The connec tion of Bishop Bothwell was little more than nominal. Apostatiz ing frora bis sacred calling, he merged the episcopal function into those of a civil judge and courtly politician. He procured various leases of the Earldom of Orkney, all the lands of which had reverted to the Crown in 1544, at the death, without issue, of James Earl of Moray, illegitimate brother of James V., by whom they had been conferred on the Earl. Lord Robert Stewart, who had exchanged the Abbacy of Holyroodhouse with Bothwell for the Bishopric of Orkney, had enjoyed as a tenant, with some interruptions, the episcopal lands and also those of the Earldom for a number of years. The new possessor was equaUy regardless of the spiritual Interests of the people, contenting himself, after the first Introduction of Presbyterianism, with merely keeping the choir of the cathedral church of St Magnus In repair. Lord Robert was created Earl of Orkney in 1581, and thus obtained the rank and property of the St Clairs, the forraer Earls. He was the father of his successor Patrick, the second and only other Earl of this illegitimate descent of royalty. Earl Patrick succeeded his father in 1600, and among his other erections he built what is still known as the EarVs Palace, near the south side of the cathedral church of St Magnus, in the 1615.] internal state of the church. 349 iraraediate vicinity of the Bishop's Palace. After the noraination of Bishop Law to the See, the King, In Febmary 1605, granted a renunciation of the episcopal revenues, though they were still enjoyed by the Earl, who by a contract with Bishop Law con tinued to possess the Bishopric. Nevertheless this arrangeraent, though so far favourable, was prejudicial tothe Earl, whose extortions to defray debts contracted by his extravagance were unbounded, and Incited hira to the grossest oppression. Bishop Law was well aware of the raiserles inflicted by him, and the crimes of which he was guilty, but afraid of openly quarrelling with such a des perate person, a mutual contract was formed, by which the Bishop agreed to resign to the Earl the lands and revenues of the See during his incurabency for the payraent of a specified annuity, and the buUding called the New Wark ofthe Yards, or Earl's Palace, as a residence. But this agreement, advantageous to the Earl, was soon terralnated. The people were still grievously plundered, and petitions were sent to the Bishop, who transmitted them to the King and Privy Council. Negligent, if not corrupt, as the Privy Council of that period often was, the Earl's conduct could no longer pass unnoticed for his infamous cruelties and raiseries perpetrated against the unoffending inhabitants of Orkney and Shetland. He was apprehended, and committed prisoner al ternately to the castles of Edinburgh and Dunbarton. On the 2d of August 1610, he was brought to trial for high treason and oppression of the Islanders.* His crimes are enumerated in the indictment from 1590, during the lifetime of his father, to 1610. The Earl was accused of holding and detaining the servants of certain gentlemen " in irons, stocks, close prison, and firmance, divers days and weeks, usurping thereby [our] royal authority, and bereaving our lawful subjects of their native liberty due to them, in their free passage and traffic, under our peace and protection, through all parts of our native kingdom by sea and land." In particular the said Earl, " leaving no sort of extraordinary op pression and treasonable violence unpractised against the said in habitants of Orkney and Zetland at the tiraes specially above rehearsed, at the least in divers of the years and raonths afore said, had corapelled the raost part of the gentlemen's tenants of ' AU the documents are printed in Pitcaim's Criminal Trials of Scotland, vol. iu. p. 81-87, 308-327. 350 INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. the said counties of Orkney and Zetland to work to him aU manner of work by sea and land. In rowing and saUing his ships and boats, working in the stone-quarries, winning and bearing furth thereof stones, and red furth thereof; lading his boats and shaUops with stone and lime, and loosing the same ; building his parks and dykes, and all other sorts of servile and painful labour, without either meat, drink, or hire." Though the trial was delayed, the Earl was detained in close custody. An otherwise candid Presbyterian writer on the history of Orkney attempts at this stage of the business to throw odium on Bishop Law. It is stated that the Bishop " collected the grounds of complaint, digested and procured accusations for the Privy Council and other corrupt courts of law in Scotland ; plied the cupidity of James by the prospect of a forfeiture of the Earldom to the Crown ; and fed his insatiable vanity by the most abject and ludicrous flattery."* But aU the Bishop's raovements in the matter, on the contrary, entitled him to the greatest commenda tion, and he was only discharging his duty by representing the sufferings of the people Inflicted by an infatuated and ambitious individual notorious for his crimes. It farther appears that he had other and more daring projects In view. In addition to his oppression of the inhabitants he had resolved to constitute himself in dependent of the Scottish Crown, and this induced him to commit many acts of riolence and insult to the Government, which were treated with reraarkable leniency, considering the summary man ner in which justice was often dispensed in those times. Even after he was in custody his cruel disposition was manifested by the con duct of his agents in the islands. The most effectual check to his career was the sequestration of his revenues, and withholding from him aU supplies except what was necessary for his bare maintenance as a state prisoner. Though under such restraints he nevertheless continued to defy the power of the King and the Privy Council of Scotland. He sent his IUegitiraate son Robert Stewart to " upUft bygone rents " and other dues, that he raight procure raoney to bribe his guards. He also instructed his son to use every exertion to obtain possession of the castle of KirkwaU and fortalices * Notes on Orkney and Zetland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. Sheriff-Substitute of Orkney. Edinburgh, 1822, vol. i. p. 46. 1615.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 351 belonging to him, which the Government had seized, trusting to his own ingenuity to escape from Dunbarton Castle. It is to be observed that both Orkney and Shetland were then governed by Danish law, which the Earl andhis deputies had most iniquitously applied. In a letter from Bishop Law to the King, dated Edinburgh, November 17, 1608, his Lordship prominently notices " the raany great and continual complaints of his Majesty's poor distressed subjects in these Lsle.?," and his " Christian com passion of their miseries." On the 6th of Deceraber that year the King WTote to the Privy Council on the same subject, enjoining them to compel the Earl to appear before them on the 2d of March following, with intimation that if he refused, as he had long defied the former proclamations of the Pri%'y Council, they would be " assisted both by sea and land for the punishing of his rebeUion." About this period he had mortgaged his estates to Sir John 7\jnot, which the King redeemed by purchase, and took possession of the Earldom and all its castles. In 1611 a rumour was circulated that the Earl was to be set at liberty, and allowed to return to Orkney. Bishop Law, in a letter to the King dated the 2d of May that year, states — " Your Majesty wiU be pleased to consider his natural disposition, his former practices, his neces sity, who cannot uphold his estate now without some wrongs done to Sir John Arnot or me, or else to the poor oppressed people." In that year proclamations were issued prohibiting the Earl, who was again tried in 1610 and 1611, and his deputies, from exercis ing any jurisdiction, abolishing the Danish laws in the islands, sanctioning the appointment of Henry Aitken by the Bishop to be commissary, and strictly enforcing obedience to the Bishop. Various other proclamations appeared frora time to time, and one in October 1612 annexed the Earldom to the Crown. In 1611 the Earl produced answers to the " pretended" complaints against him by the inhabitants of Orkney and Shetland, which had been drawn up by authority of Bishop Law. In 1614, the Earl, exasperated at his iraprisonment, induced his IUegitiraate son to proceed to Orkney, levy his rents, exercise his jurisdictions, and take possession of his castles. In all this he was to a certain extent successful, but it is ascertained that he was favoured by the unpopularity of the Sheriff. George, fifth Ear! of Caithness, between whom and the Earl of Orkney a rooted 352 INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. hatred had long existed, put down this insurrection, aud executed the ringleaders, though he was induced to Interfere in it by the basest purposes. He was prevented from demolishing the cathe dral of St Magnus solely by the spirited resistance of Bishop Law, who would not suffer him to throw it down. On the 1st of February 1615, the Earl of Orkney was tried before the High Court of Justiciary at Edinburgh for " rebeUion, tyranny, and op pression, high treason," and other crimes. The Jury consisted of the Earls of Glencairn, Winton, Perth, Lothian, and TuUibardine; Lords Scone, Sinclair, Herries, Torphichen, SerapUl, and Kilmaurs; and four private gentlemen. The Earl was unanimously found guUty, and sentenced to be beheaded at the cross of Edinburgh two days afterwards, his faraily attainted, and aU his property for feited to the CrowTi. By the intercession of some of the ministers in Edinburgh the execution was delayed to the sixth of February, and on that day he was beheaded. Calderwood relates that although he was a person of courtly raanners and poUshed address, he was " so ignorant that he could scarce rehearse the Lord's Prayer." His iUegitiraate son and associates, with only one exception, were tried and executed about the sarae tirae. In those days the transi tion from the justice court to the scaffold was often remarkably brief. The tyrant Earl of Orkney was nevertheless the favourite of the Presbyterians, whose historians aUege that his execution was a " judicial murder." They accordingly IrapUcate Bishop Law in the whole matter, and we are gravely told that " the removal of the Earl would at aU events free the See from his grants of it, and promotion to the Archbishopric of Glasgow was In fact the reward ofthe Bishop's services."* In the whole proceedings not the slight est Intiraation occurs to warrant this stateraent, and the conduct of Bishop Law appears throughout to be that of one who advo cated the cause of the oppressed. As it respects revenue the See of Orkney was richer than the Archbishopric of Glasgow, and even at the Revolution of 1688, when the Church was supplanted by the Presbyterian Estabhshraent, and the episcopal rents seized by the Crown, the income of the Bishopric of Orkney was L.1366, whUe that of Glasgow was L.1294. After the execution of the Earl of Orkney, the Earldom and the Bishopric were separated, • Notes on Orkney and Zetland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol. i. p. 46. 1615.] . INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHURCH. 353 the " Palace of the Yards," Including the edifice erected by the Earl, was annexed to the See, with a condition that the King's Lieutenant, when in Orkney, was to be accommodated In It ; and from August 1615, when Bishop Graham succeeded Bishop Law, to 1688, the Earl of Orkney's palace was the episcopal resi dence. The crown charter in favour of the Bishop and his Chap ter was issued on the 4th of October 1614, and infeftment was taken on the 14th of November. A complete and entire separa tion was effected between the Earldom and the Bishopric ; lands in certain ofthe island parishes were " confirraed and mortified" to the Bishop and his successors, reserving the legal rights of the udal- lers, or feuars; and " the whole lands, whether of old called king's lands, bishop's lands, udal lands, or kirk lands, were conveyed In superiority, modified in as far as udaUers were concerned, to the Bishop, together with the holmes, skerries [little islands and rocks], and aU parts and pertinents belonging to the lands." The parsonage and vicarage teinds which formerly belonged to the Bishopric, or to any other dignity, were dissolved from the Crown, and were declared the property and patrimony of the See, with the provision that the Bishops were to " plant" churches in the seve ral parishes, and provide a sufficient stipend to each of the incura bents. FinaUy, as it respected the ecclesiastical temporalities of this remote Insular Diocese, confirmed by the episcopal charter, as It Is caUed, of 1614, the " Bishop and his successors were con stituted patrons of aU the vicarages within the Islands, lands, and bounds of Orkney and Zetland. A right and jurisdiction of sheriff and bailie was vested in the Bishops within the Bishopric territory, with the authority of commissary over' Orkney and Zet land ; and power being given to appoint sheriffs and bailies, the inhabitants of the Bishopric were exempted frora the jurisdiction of the earldora functionaries ; and all rights of patronage, if there were any, within the bounds of the said Bishopric, were annulled, to the effect that they, and all the lands, rights, and jurisdictions, might reraain with the Bishops as their patrimony and privilege for ever. — That [episcopal] charter is therefore now the standard by which all future grants of the earldom estate fall to be tried, and in as far as they are inconsistent with it, and the possession which followed upon it, in so far such grants may fairly be held nuU and Ineffectual."* • Notes on Orkney and Zetland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol. i. p. 138, 139, 140. 23 354 INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHURCH. [1615. Bearing the insular Diocese of Orkney and Zetland under the jurisdiction of Bishop Grahara, we find the Presbyterian writers carefully narrating that the High Court of Commission was re modeUed in December, and the previous two courts were united, though it appears that subsequently Archbishop Law was em powered to institute one in his Diocese. The odium of this Court of Commission is throvm on the Scottish Bishops, but it ought to be recollected that, however objectionable the Court was, some thing like It was necessary at the time, and, moreover, that many of the nobility, clergy, and gentry, were equally implicated. The High Comraission authorized the members, or any five of them, to suraraon before them all persons " within the Provinces of St Andrews and Glasgow, and Dioceses of the same, being offenders either in life or religion, whora they find any way to be scandalous ; and especiaUy resetters and Intercommuners with Jesuits, semi nary and raass priests, or excoraraunicated Papists, sayers and hearers of mass, recusants, and not comraunicants. Incestuous and adulterous persons ;" and the Court was armed with very sum mary powers to Imprison all such as were found " guUty and impenitent, refusing to acknowledge their offence ;" also, to excom municate thera, and to censure or deprive those Incumbents of parishes who refused to enforce the judgment of the Court. It farther appears that the High Court of Commission could exercise a kind of censorship over the press. Calderwood relates that Arch bishop Spottiswoode, soon after his translation to St Andrews, held a Court there on Tuesday, the 8th of August 1615, when Mr John Malcolm, Bishop Cowpar's coUeague at Perth, appeared to answer a charge against hira. He had printed at Middleburg that year a Comraentary on the Acts of the Apostles, and in his Epistle Dedicatory to King Jaraes he demanded that the Presby terian preachers not permitted to return to Scotland after the Con ference at Hampton Court Inl606, for maintaining that the General Asserably held at Aberdeen in 1605 was lawful,* should be re caUed. He was accorapanied by a nuraber of his parishioners, and Even Mr Scott, in the Perth MS. Eegisters, admits that Malcolm expressed him self to the King with " some freedom ;" in other words, in the style of dictation pecu liar to the foUowers of Mr Andrew MelviUe. " But at the same time," says Mr Scott, " he shews a sincere affection to his Majesty, and to the real interests of his Govem ment. He owns that his conscience was reluctant in complying with some of the King's commands with regard to the Church, and that his reluctance was a cause why he had not been more distinguished with the King's favour." 1615.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 355 subscribed a document, which was transmitted to the King. Mr Calderwood's subsequent observations, recorded with his usual scandal, are arausing. He designates Archbishops Spottiswoode and Law as " two pretty foot-ball raen." They are " the only two Archbishops In Scotland, and have now, as we used to say, the ball at their foot. They were both near the point of sus pension in the purer [Presbyterian] times for the profanation of the Sabbath ; now they have power to suspend, deprive, imprison, fine, or confine, any minister in Scotland. Out of preposterous pity they were spared then, but now they spare not the best and the most blameless." Mr Calderwood had good reason to denounce the High Court of Coramission, as it will be subsequently seen that he was compel led to appear before It in presence of the King. In the mean while the Court reached a very different personage. This was the Earl [first Marquis] of Huntly, previously mentioned, who was summoned before the Court on the 12th of June 1616, and who had been formerly noted for his zealous attachment to the Roman Catholic faith. He and the Earl of Errol had defeated the roya/l forces, consisting of 7000 men under the Earl of Argyll, at Bel- rinnes, or Glenlivet, in 1594, and this battle was the result of their refusal to renounce the Papal Church, or remove out of the king dom, after their treasonable correspondence with Spain. Huntly was committed to Stirling Castle in 1606, from which he was liber ated In December 1610, on his engagement to subscribe the then Confession of Faith and make satisfaction to the Church, with which he had been before involved for his slaughter ofthe " Bonnie" Earl of Moray at Dunibristle House In Fife, in February 1591-2. On the present occasion he had prohibited his retainers frora at tending the serraons of particular rainisters, and was also under sentence of excommunication. The Marquis was committed to the Castle of Edinburgh for refusing to sign the Confession of Faith, or give any kind of satisfaction ; but after an imprison ment of three days he was set at liberty by the Lord Chancellor Dunfermline. His Lordship, who was a great favourite with King Jaraes, appears to have been suraraoned to Court ; and as the Scot tish Bishops were enraged at the Earl of Dunferraline for releasing him In defiance of the dignity and authority of the High Court of Comraission, they sent Bishop Forbes of Caithness to complain to 356 INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. [1615. the King. The Marquis was recommended by James to the In structions of Archbishop Abbot, the English Priraate, who was so far successful. The excommunication was now the only difficulty, and as it could only be removed by the Church which inflicted it, the Bishop of Caithness, in narae of the Scottish Bishops, though apparently without any authority frora thera, consented ;* and Archbishop Abbot accordingly absolved the Marquis frora the ex comraunication at Lambeth, on the 7th of July 1616, In the pre sence of Dr Jones, Archbishop of Dublin ; Dr King, Bishop of Lon don ; and " divers others ;"-f- his Lordship immediately afterwards receiving the Communion. Archbishop Spottiswoode and the Scot tish Bishops were indignant at Archbishop Abbot's Interference in a sentence pronounced or confirraed by thera, and reraonstrated with the King on the subject. James defended the act in a long letter to Archbishop Spottiswoode, to whom the English Primate also wrote an explanatory epistle, both of which were satisfactory. It was accordingly stipulated that the Marquis, who had now returned to Scotland, should petition the General Assembly when held at Aberdeen, acknowledge his offence, proraise to educate his children in the Protestant faith, in the profession of which he was hiraself to continue, and be again absolved according to the forra of the Church of Scotland. Huntly's friend, the Earl of Errol, who had also been excoraraunicated nine years before, was absolv ed about the beginning of 1617 by some of the Bishops at Perth. In the beginning of July occurred the death of Bishop Black burn of Aberdeen after a lingering Illness. He was succeeded by Bishop Alexander Forbes of Caithness, minister of Fettercairn In Kincardineshire, who was unanimously elected by the Chapter. The successor of Bishop Forbes in the See of Caithness was John Abernethy, minister of Jedburgh, the pastoral charge of which he continued to retain. The translation of Bishop Forbes to Aber deen, and the appointment of Bishop Abernethy to Caithness, are here noticed by anticipation, as neither occurred till after the * Bishop Forbes, according to Calderwood, denied this in the General Assembly held at Aberdeen in August 1616, when the matter of Huntly's absolution and the conduct of Archbishop Abbot were discussed. " It was still alleged upon him," says Calderwood, " and he was threatened with deposition from his Bishopric, but his de position turned to greater preferment, for he was preferred before all other com petitors to the Bishopric of Aberdeen not long after this Assembly." t Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury to Archbishop Spottiswoode of St Andrews, in the latter's " History ofthe Church and State of Scotland," p. 528. 1615.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 357 General Assembly held at Aberdeen in August. Calderwood mentions a circumstance, under the title of " doctors Inaugurat," which he evidently considered of some importance. " Upon the 29th of July, Mr Robert Howie, Mr Peter Bruce, Mr James Martin, Principals of the three Colleges of St Andrews ; Mr Patrick MelviUe, Mr John Strang, Mr Theodore Hay, and Mr David Barclay, were inaugurate Doctors at St Andrews. This novelty was brought in among us, without advice and consent of the [Presbyterian] Kirk. Dr Young was the chief director in that action." It is said that " the first hint given about making Doctors of Law and Divinity Is to be found in Archbishop Glad stanes' letter to the King, dated September 1607. He requests the order and form of making them, ' to encourage our ignorant clergy to learning.' " According to the same authority — " It was now introduced, that the rainisters might In all things be conform ed as much as possible to the English usages ;"* and yet the author of this statement, a minister of the Presbyterian Establish ment, was himself complimented with and accepted the degree of " Doctor of Divinity" not long after the publication of his work. At the present day both the Established and Dissenting Presby terian preachers in Scotland are covetous of the " novelty," which is evident from the number of them on whom it has been conferred both by the Scottish Universities, and by academical institutions in the United States. On the 13th of August the General Assembly was held at Aber deen. The Archbishops, all the Bishops, and others qualified to attend, were present, and the King, by his letter appointed Arch bishop Spottiswoode to preside as Moderator, the Earl of Mon trose representing the Sovereign. The reasons for convening this Assembly seera chiefly to have been the spread of the Roman Catho lic religion in the northern counties, and the necessity of devising measures In full convocation to correct and reform abuses. The zealous Presbyterian writers allege that this General Asserably was defective, because it was not constituted according to the " practice of their Kirk." The first day was observed as a fast. The learn ed Patrick Forbes of Corse preached in the morning, Archbishop Spottiswoode in the forenoon, and William Forbes, afterwards the • Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, by John Alton, D.D. minister of Dol phinton. Edinburgh, Svo. 1836, p. 96. 358 INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHURCH. [1616. first Bishop of Edinburgh, in the afternoon. Numbers of the nobUity and gentleraen, the Lords of the Privy CouncU, and other dignitaries, were present. Calderwood sarcastically states that " the first four days were spent in preaching, renewing old acts, and making some new [ones], against Papists, as If no acts had been made against Papists before at AssembUes or Par- Uaraents ;" but in his opinion this was done purposely to pro tract the time, that those parish ministers who came from the southem counties, and who were aUeged to be disaffected to wards the episcopal order, might voluntarUy withdraw to their several parishes, and unanimity would thus be secured. Some very stringent resolutions were passed against the Roraan Catholics, and the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow were authorized to proceed rigorously against thera in the High Court of Commis sion. The absolution of the Marquis of Huntly by the Arch bishop of Canterbury, the King's letter on that subject, and the petition of the Marquis, were discussed ; and on the last day of the Assembly he was absolved from the excommunicaton, after solemnly declaring that he, his famUy, servants, and retainers, would " abide by the true religion professed within this realm, and allowed by the laws and acts of Parhament." A new Confes sion of Faith, which, Dr Cook admits, " displays the utmost moderation," was prepared and ratified, and ordered to be uni versaUy received in aU the parishes. Mr Patrick Galloway and Mr John HaU, ministers of Edinburgh, and Mr John Adam son, minister of Libberton, near that city, were authorised to com pile a Catechism, " easy, short, and compendious," for the in struction of those who presented themselves as communicants. They were enjoined to have the Catechism completed before the 1st of October, that It may be printed with the King's licence, and no other was to be permitted throughout the kingdom.* GaUo way, Adamson, Hewat, and another, were also empowered to form " an uniform order of Liturgy, or Divine Service, to be set down to be read in aU kirks on the ordinary days of prayer, and every Sabbath-day before sermon, to the end [that] the common people may be acquainted therewith, and by custom raay learn to serve God rightly ."¦)• The holy communion was ordered to be adminis- * Dr Alton, in his " Life and Times of Alexander Henderson," p. 97, states that the new Confession of Fmth and Catechism were proposed by Mr A. Hay. t This Liturgy was never prepared, and uo Liturgy was ordered for general use tiU 1616.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 359 tered four times In the year In the cities and towns, and twice in the rural parishes, one of which tiraes was to be on Easter Sun day ; and all persons who refused or neglected to communicate once in the year were to be fined in terms of the act of Parliament. To promote uniformity of discipline in the Church, a Book of Canons was also ordered to be compiled frora the records of forraer Asserablies, and where these were defective, frora the ancient Canons of Councils and ecclesiastical convocations. This work was coraraitted to Archbishop Law of Glasgow, and Mr WiUiam Struthers, rainister of Edinburgh, and after the Canons were ratified, the King was to be petitioned for their approval and ratification. The College of St Mary's in St Andrews was enjoin ed to be maintained exclusively for the study of theology, and as the revenues were smaU, it was ordered that every Diocese shall sup port two students, or according to the extent of the Diocese, so that twenty-six students would be always at that College, the half of thera to be the sons of poor incurabents, and to be presented by the respective Bishops. The sacraraent of Baptism was en joined, in terms of the acts of the General Asserably held at Holy roodhouse on the 10th of October 1602, to be administered to aU children whose parents made confession of their faith, with " this extension and addition, that baptism shall no way be denied to the infant when either the parents of the infant, or any faithful Christian In place of the parents, shall require the same to the Infant ; and that the sarae be granted any tirae of day, with out any respect or delay till the hour of preaching." The parochial Incumbents were ordered to keep accurate registers of baptisms, marriages, and deaths ; and the King was to be requested to sanc tion them as legal eridence of the facts recorded. A commission was given to a specified number. Including the two Archbishops, aU the Bishops, and seventeen of the clergy, to meet at Edinburgh on the 1st of December, and " there to take order with the dilapi dation of benefices, and to set down solid grounds how the pro- 1637, when it was followed by the most disastrous results. Although GaUoway, Adam son, Hewat, and a Mr Erskine, are mentioned by Calderwood as the individuals authorized to prepare the Liturgy, as stated in the text, a biographer of Archbishop Spottiswoode alleges, that it was chiefly committed to WiUiam Cowpar, Bishop of Galloway. It is possible that a mistake here occurs. The Bishop of Galloway and Mr Patrick Gallo way were contemporaries, and both usually resided in Edinburgh, the former as Dean of the Chapel-Eoyal at Holyroodhouse, and the latter as one of the ministers of that city. 360 INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHUBCH. [1616. gress of that mischief might be stayed ; and to decree eome means to recover and restore the state of those benefices which by Iniquity of time hath been lost, and if need be, to caU and pursue before them those who have made the dilapidations." A copy of all the acts of this important General Assembly was transmitted to the King by Archbishop Law of Glasgow and Bishop Lindsay of Ross, and the royal sanction was solicited. Jaraes approved of the proceedings, but he objected to the act respecting the rite of Confirraatlon, which he aUeged, was expressed In a confused raanner, and sent several regulations which he ordered to be inserted in the intended Canons. Some of these regulations were afterwards known as the celehraitedFive Articles of Perth. But the Scottish Bishops perceived the alarra which would be excited under the peculiar circumstances by Incorporating those regula tions. They firmly represented to James that the parties prepar ing the Canons were exclusively Uraited to the acts of former General Assemblies, and to ancient Canons of Councils of the Church ; and that nothing could be inserted which had not been proposed and sanctioned at Aberdeen. The King was satisfied with this explanation, and in the raeantime withdrew his proposed regulations. If Mr Scott's view of the proceedings of this Assem bly is correct, the results were singular and interesting. " An act," he observes, " was made by this Assembly concerning the cate- chlring and confirraing of children by Bishops. Report of this act being made to the King, he framed five Articles, which he sent to the Bishops, desiring them to be added to the Canons of the ' Church. Two of these Articles, after they had been new modeUed by the clergy in Scotland, were admitted by the Assembly of St Andrews in 1617 : but the King being much dissatisfied, all the Articles, as they had been proposed by hira, were at last admitted by the Assembly at Perth in August 1618."* The Injunction In this General Assembly, to prepare a form of prayer for general use in Divine Service, may be considered the first Iraportant public intimation of the introduction of such a form. Dr Cook appropriately observes — " In the Scottish Church there had been frora the Reformation certain forms of prayer which it was lawful to use, but every minister was at liberty to depart from these, and to substitute such prayers as he thought * Perth Kirk-Session Eegisters, MS. vol. i. 1616.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 361 the circurastances of his congregation required." To this it raay be added, that the use of a Liturgy does not necessarily preclude the substitution of such prayers after the service of the Church. Dr Cook thinks that, as it respects this particular act of the Aberdeen General Assembly, the " design of this new regulation was to take away this liberty, and to introduce, as in England, a Liturgy invariably to be repeated." It Is probable that such was the ultimate design, but it is not sufficiently apparent ; and ex perience shews us that even the use of the Liturgy in the Church has not deprived the clergy of the Uberty of extemporary prayer. If they have any Inclination to indulge in that practice. Calderwood generally observes that this General Assembly passed what he calls many " dangerous acts, besides dangerous commissions for setting down a new Liturgy, a new Catechism, and a new Book of Canons for the church discipline, and to revise the Confession of Faith presented to this Assembly, which was penned by Mr John Hall [of Edinburgh] and Mr John Adarason [of Libberton], and derised of purpose to thrust out the Confession of Faith subscribed and sworn by all Estates." But it really did not abrogate the Confession to which he alludes as ratified by Parliament ; and though it was ordered to be subscribed " in special by all persons that bear office in the Church," it was most probably intended, from its minute details, to be the great test of renouncing the Roman Catholic faith, for we find that the Marquis of Huntly subscribed it when he was absolved from the sentence of excommunication. This Confession, which Is a document of sorae length, asserts the attributes of God, the fall of man, the corruption of human nature, and the redemption of the world by our Saviour. It denies unauthorized traditions, excludes the Apocryphal Books as inspired, maintaining the authority of the Holy Scriptures, the divinity of Jesus Christ as the Eternal Son of God, and the union of his divine and human nature constitut ing him God and man in one person. The following extract, con taining upwards of a third of this Confession, explains the senti raents of the Scottish Bishops and clergy of that period on some of the vital principles of Christianity. The reader will at once perceive how far they agree with the Articles of the Church of England. The whole Is Inserted by Calderwood in his History. " We believe that God hath appointed his word and sacra- 362 INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHURCH. [1616. ments, as instruments of the Holy Ghost, to work and confirm faith In man. We believe that the word of God ought to be taught, and the sacraments administered, and all divine service, as praying and praising. In aU languages known and understood by the people. We believe that the sacraments are certain visible seals of God's eternal covenant, ordained by God to re present unto us Christ crucified, and to seal up our communion with him. We believe that the sacraraents are to be ministered only by them who are lawfully called thereto by the Kirk of God. We believe that the sacraraents have power to confirm faith and confer grace, not of themselves, or ex opere operate, or force of the external action, but only by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost. We believe that there be only two Sacraments appointed by Christ under the New Testament — Baptism and the Lord's Supper. We beheve that Baptism is necessary to salvation, if it can be orderly had, and therefore that not the want of it but the contempt of it doth damn [condemn]. We believe that Baptism sealeth up unto us the remission of aU our sins whereof we are guilty, either before or after our baptism. We believe that Baptism is to be ministered simply with the ele ment of water, with the rite of dipping, washing, or sprinkling, in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, according to Christ's institution, without other eleraents or sacraraental rites devised by raan. We beUeve that the Lord's Supper Is to be given to aU communicants under the elements of bread and wine, according to Christ's institution. We believe that the elements of bread and wine are not transubstantiate, or changed in[to] the substance of the body and blood of Christ, but that they are sacraments of his body and blood, thus changing their use, but not their substance. We beheve that the body and blood of Christ are truly present in the Holy Supper, and that they are truly exhibited ' unto us; and that we in very truth do participate of them, albeit only spirituaUy and by faith, not carnaUy or corporally. We believe that the Lord's Supper is a commeraoration of the sacrifice of Christ, which, once offered, did fully expiate our sins. With this one sacrifice, once offered, we are fuUy content ; neither do we seek any other expiatory or propitiatory sacrifice. But as for sacrifices of praise and thanksgivings, the sacrifice of a contrite heart, alms, and charitable deeds, these we ought daily to offer as 1616.] INTERNAL STATE OF THE CHURCH. 363 acceptable to God in Christ Jesus. We beUeve that the sacrifice and raerit of Christ is not appUed to us by the work of the sacrific ing mass priest, but by that faith which is wrought in our souls by the Holy Ghost, whereby the sacrifice and merit of Christ is applied to us; and being applied to us,becoraeth our satisfaction, atonement, and merit. We believe that the souls of God's chUdren, which depart out of this present life in the faith of Jesus Christ, after the separating from their bodies immediately pass to heaven, and there rest from their labours to the day of judgment, at which time they shall be united to their bodies to enjoy life everlasting with Christ. Likeas the souls of the wicked pass iraraediately to hell, there to reraain until the day of judgraent, which day, being conjoined with their bodies, they shall sustain the judgment of ever lasting fire ; and, besides these two, a third place for souls we do not acknowledge." The Confession then declares that there Is " an holy, catholic, or universal Church"^ — that the " true mem bers of this Church are only the faithful" — that It is " one," and that " out of it there is no remission of sins" — that " this Kirk is partly triumphant in heaven, partly raUitant on the earth" — that " the whole militant Kirk on earth Is divided into many and divers particular Kirks, which are visible and conspicuous to the eyes of men" — that " only those particular Kirks are pure which continue in the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, according to the holy canonical Scriptures, worshipping God purely, and minis tering the sacraments according to the same" — and that " these be the marks whereby a true Kirk on earth raay be discerned and known." The Confession then declares that religious worship is only to be given to God " according to his own wUl revealed in his word" — denounces all " wiU-worship, aU invocation of saints or angels, all worshipping of images, crucifixes, rehcs, and all other things which are beside the true God" — and acknowledges the duty of obedience to and praying for " kings, princes, and ma gistrates." It concludes^" We believe and constantly affirm that the Church of Scotland, through the abundant grace of God, is one of the most pure Kirks under heaven, both in respect of truth in doctrine and purity in worship ; and therefore with all our hearts we adjoin ourselves thereto, and to the reUgion publicly professed by the King's Majesty and aU his true subjects, and authorised by his Majesty's laws ; promising by the grace of God 364 INTERNAL STATE OP THE CHURCH. [1616. to continue therein to the end of our Ufe, according to the Articles which are set down ; which, as we believe with our heart, so we confess with our raonth, and subscribe with our hands, understand ing thera plainly as they are here conceived, without equivocation or mental reservation whatsomever. So may God help us in the great day of judgment!'' Such Is an abstract of this Confession of Faith, of which a Presbyterian declares that It and the Catechism " were correct enough as to doctrine, but altogether corrupt as to discipUne ;"* but the truth Is that the Confession contains no allusion whatever to the discipline and government ofthe Church. Even as to doc trine, though it is on the whole a very adrairable compendium, it contains some objectionable points. Considering the age in which It was composed, and the parties concerned, it as a whole well deserves Dr Cook's encomium, that " In so far as it relates to the constitution of the Church it displays the utmost moderation." Calderwood, who omits no opportunity to vilify the Church, In forms us that Mr WiUiam Struthers, in a sermon preached at Edinburgh on the 27th of August, was loud in condemnation of the proceedings of the Aberdeen Assembly ; and Bishop Cowpar of Galloway advanced similar sentiments. " But little credit," he aUeges, " was given to any of them, for the one was a Bishop, and the other a pensioner, that is, a soldier hired or waged to maintain their course." It was at this tirae usual for the General Asserablies, or their committees, to recommend persons to be ministers in the principal towns. This Asserably at Aberdeen passed an act to the effect that as " the provision of leamed, wise, and peaceable raen to be ministers at chief burgh towns In vacant places, such as Edin burgh, Perth, Aberdeen, Banff, and other places vacant, Is a most effectual raean to root out Popery, and perpetuate the profession of true religion, it is therefore ordained that the burgh towns be provided with the most leamed, wise, and peaceable men that may be obtained." • Alton's Life and Tiraes of Alexander Henderson, p. 97. 1617.] , 365 CHAPTER V. KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND IN 1617 — PROCEEDINGS DURING HIS VISIT — ITS EESULTS — GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT ST ANDREWS — STATE OF THE ASSEMBLY — ELEVATION OF PATRICK FORBES OP CORSE TO THE BISHOPRIC OF ABERDEEN. The year 1617 was memorable for the visit of King Jaraes to Scotland, and particularly to his native city of Edinburgh. Due preparations were ordered for the King's reception. It was found necessary to repair Holyroodhouse and its Chapel-Royal, in which Bishop Cowpar officiated as the Dean. It was Intended to orna ment the interior of that venerable edifice by some gilt and carved work in wood, consisting of statues of the Apostles ; and an organ was intended to be placed in the gaUery above the west or grand entrance. Some of the citizens, Incited by the Presbyterian party, actually thought that such ornaments were so many inti mations of the introduction of the Roman Mass, and even Bishop Cowpar was infected by the unnecessary alarm. Archbishop Spot- ^ tiswoode and several of the Bishops signed a letter of reraonstrance, prepared by Bishop Cowpar, to the King on the subject, and the ornamental decorations were omitted, though the Priraate re garded the clamours of the people as altogether groundless. The King censured their contracted views, and intimated to them that some EngUsh doctors In his train would enUghten them on these matters. James left London for Scotland on the 15th of March, reached Berwick on the 11th of May, and entered Scotland on the 13th of that raonth. Araong the dignitaries of the Church of England who accorapanied the King was the learned Dr Lancelot Andrewes, then Bishop of Ely, celebrated as one of the translators of the 366 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. authorized version of the Bible, and the future Archbishop Laud. James was welcomed at Dunglass Castle, at that tirae the seat of the first Earl of Home, a few mUes east of Dunbar, on the borders of the counties of Haddington and Berwick, and a Latin speech was delivered by Alexander Home, supposed to be the rector of Logie, and second son of Patrick Home of Polwarth. This castle of Dunglass was the last roof in Scotland under which James slept before entering England in 1603. On the 14th of May the King visited the mansion of Cavers In Roxburghshire, and on the 15th he arrived at Seton, the seat of the Earl of Winton, within twelve mUes of Edinburgh. On the 16th James entered his native capital by the West Port, or gate, where he was received by Sir WiUiam Nisbet of Dean, Lord Provost, the Magistrates, and Town-Council, attended by an immense concourse of spectators. Those who are famiUar with the localities of Edinburgh, and know the route by which George IV. in 1822, and Queen Victoria in 1842, entered the city, wiU be amused to know that James proceeded along the mean and narrow aUey called the West Port, then through the Grassraarket, up the curious steep street, now alraost removed, known as the West Bow, and down the Lawnraarket, High Street, and Canongate, to the Palace. It Is proper to state that the King halted in his progress at St Giles church in the High Street, which he entered with his retinue, and heard a sermon preached by Archbishop Spottiswoode. King James had other motives for visiting Scotland than what he called his " salmon-like instinct" once more to see his native kingdora, although In his letter to the Privy Council, dated Newraarket, 15th December, he assigns that as the " main and principal motive" of his Intended journey. He states that he would " hear and redress" grievances. If " any there be, as could not otherwise be redressed without his own presence ;" but he declares that he would not sanction " any alterations or reformations In the government either ecclesiastical or ciril." A letter from Secretary Lake, dated at Edinburgh, June 6, 1617, to Sir Dudley Carleton, while the King was in the neighbourhood of Dundee on a " hunting journey," gives sorae explanation of the repair of the Chapel-Royal at Holyrood. " We are fixed for a tirae to this city tiU the ParUaraent be passed, which beginneth on the 17th of this month. In the meanwhile his Majesty is in consultation, by way 1617.J KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 367 of preparation towards his ends — that is, to procure better main tenance than the ministry [clergy] here hath, and sorae conform ity between this Church and ours in England in the public service, whereof of the first it Is hard to guess, so many great men are In terested in the tithes. Towards the other his Majesty hath set up his Chapel here In like manner of service as It is in England, which is well frequented by the people of the country."* On the 8th of June, which was the festival of Whitsunday, Bishop An drewes preached before the King In the Chapel-Royal on St Luke iv. 18. 19. The discourse, which is on the " sending of the Holy Spirit," is the tenth of the Bishop's " Ninety-Six Serraons" pubUsh ed by direction of Charles 1., under the care of Archbishop Laud, and of Dr Buckeridge, successively Bishop of Rochester and Ely. On that festival the comraunion was of course administered, and the Presbyterian writers assert that it was the first time since the Reformation when it was given kneeling, according to the order of the Church of England. Calderwood relates that the Earl of Dunferraline [Lord Chancellor], Secretary Sir Thoraas Harailton, the Clerk Register, Sir George Hay, afterwards first Earl of Kin nouU, the Earl of Argyll, Archbishop Spottiswoode, the Bishops of Ross, Dunblane, and Brechin, and sundry others, were araong the comraunicants. Bishop Cowq)ar of Galloway at first refused, but " continued not long in that raind." The King ordered the Marquis of Harailton, and the Earls of Mar and Glencairn, who were in the Chapel-Royal, but left it before the celebration, to coramunicate on the following Sunday, with all the Bishops and noblemen who were then in Edinburgh. On that day Mr Wil Uara Struthers, one of the ministers of the city, preached before the King, and " observed the English form in his prayer and car- riage."-f- The other clergy of Edinburgh acquiesced in what Mr • Calderwood states — " Upon Saturday the 17th of May, the English Service, sing ing of choristers, and playing on organs, and surplices, were first heard and seen in the Chapel-Eoyal." •f Mr Struthers was by no means consistent in his principles. At the time of the meeting of the Parliament in the ensuing June, Archbishop Spottiswoode states that " Mr William Struthers, one of the ministers of Ediuburgh, did unhappily break out in his sermon upon these matters, condemning the rites received in the Church of England, and praying God to save Scotland from the same. This was reported to the King by some of the English Doctors that were his hearers, and he became greatly in censed." History ofthe Church and State of Scotland, p. 531. Mr Struthers' signa ture in Greek is affixed to eighteen hues of Greek verses, one of the " several Poesies" 368 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. Calderwood is pleased to call " this Innovation, or bad example." A letter written on the 21st of June by Mr Chamberlain to Sir Dudley Carleton contains the following notice : — " Our Church men and ceremonies are not so weU allowed of, the rather by an accident that feU out at the burial of one of our guard, who died there, and was buried after the English fashion ; and the Dean of St Paul's [Dr Valentine Carey, Master of Christ's CoUege, Cam bridge, and afterwards Bishop of Exeter] preaching, desired aU the assembly to recommend with him the soul of their deceased ^ brother unto Almighty God, which was so ill taken that he was driven to retract it openly, and to confess he did It in a kind of civility, rather than according to the perfect rule of dirinity. Another exception was taken to Dr Laud [at that tirae chap lain to Bishop NeUe, afterwards Archbishop of York, and with that Prelate attendant on the King,] putting on a surplice when the corpse was to be laid in the ground. So that it seems they are very averse from our custoras, insomuch that one of the Bishops [Cowpar of GaUoway], Dean of the Chapel there to the King, refused to receive the communion with him kneeUng."* It would be out of place in the present work to narrate aU the compUmentary speeches and the progresses of King James In Scotland In 1617. The events connected with the Church are those which are here chiefly given. The Scottish Parliament, which was sumraoned on the 27th of May, raet on the 13th of June, but the great muster of the Bishops, Nobility, and represen tatives of the burghs, was on the 17th.-f- The two Archbishops, and all the Bishops, with the exception of Bishop Cowpar, the so caUed lay abbot of Crossraguel, the Duke of Lennox, the Marquises of Hamilton and Huntly, fourteen Earls, three Viscounts, twenty- four Barons, the Officers of State, and the coraraissioners for all delivered to James at Dunglass Castle on his way to Edinburgh. He also contributed to the " Eisodia Edinburgensium," which welcomed Charles I. to Edinburgh in 1633, and died that year. In 1627 he quarrelled with Mr James Eeid, one ofthe Professors in the University of Edinburgh. Mr Struthers took upon him to declare, in censure of an expectant, that " Philosophy was the dishclout of Divinity J" Mr Eeid noticed this vulgar expression in his public thesis, and characterized it as " salsum et rigidum nimis." Nichols' Eoyal Progresses of James I. vol. iii. p. 306, 369. * Nichols' Progresses, Processions, and Magnificent Festivities, of King James the First, &c. London, 4to. 1838, vol. iu. p. 344. t Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iv. p. 523, 524. 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 369 the counties and royal burghs, appear on the parliaraentary roll as present. Archbishop Spottiswoode preached a sermon in St Giles' church at the comraenceraent of the proceedings, after which the raerabers retired to their place of meeting, and the King delivered a long address explanatory of his views and wishes. " His Ma jesty," says the writer of a letter to the celebrated Bacon, then Lord Keeper, " the first day, by way of preparation to the subject of the Parliament, made a declaratory speech, wherein he ex pressed himself what he would not do, but what he would do. The relation is too prolix for a sheet of paper, and I am promised copy of it, which I will bring myself unto your Lordship with what speed I may. But I may not be so reserved as not to tell your Lordship that in that speech his Majesty was pleased to do England and Englishmen much honour and grace ; and that he studied nothing so much, sleeping or waking, as to reduce the bar barity (I have warrant to use the King's word) of this country unto the sweet civility of ours ; adding further, that if the Scottish nation would be as docible to learn the goodness of England as they are teachable to limp after their ill, he might with facility prevail in his desire ; for they had learned of the English to drink healths, to wear coaches and gay clothes, to take tobacco, and to speak neither Scottish nor English." The Lords of the Articles were the two Archbishops, the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, Dunblane, and Orkney, eight noblemen, eight Officers of State, eight coraraissioners for the counties, and eight for the burghs. This peculiarity of the Lords of the Articles in the Scottish Par liaments seems to have excited the notice of the writer of the letter above quoted. " The whole Assembly, after the wonted manner, was abstracted into eight Bishops, eight Lords, eight gentleraen knights of the shires, and eight lay burgesses for towns; and this epitome of the whole Parliament did raeet every day in one room to treat and debate of the great affairs of the kingdom. There was exception taken against some of the lower house, which were returned by the country, being pointed at as men averse in their appetites and huraours to the business of the Par Uaraent, who were deposed of their attendance by the King's power ; and others, better affected, by the King's election placed in their roora."* It is generally stated, and especially by the • Nichols' Eoyal Progresses of King James I. vol. iu. p. 347, 348. 24 370 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. Presbyterian writers, that a very serious opposition was threatened to sorae of those whom the King, in the exercise of his preroga tive, naraed as Lords of the Articles, and that In consequence he threatened even to dissolve the ParUament. Calderwood mentions the " Laird of Dunnipace," whom the King would on no account aUow to be one of the Lords of the Articles, because his conduct at the Linlithgow Assembly had been particularly offensive. This " Laird" was coramissioner or meraber for Stirlingshire, and his coUeague the " Laird of Keir" was substituted in his stead. The opening of the Pariiaraent was attended with considerable display, but the conclusion of that day's meeting was somewhat different. If Calderwood's account is correct : — " The King and the Estates came not out of the Parliament House before ten hours at night, and went down to the Palace In great confusion, some riding in their robes, others walking on foot, and the Honours [RegaUa] were not carried as before." The correspondent of Lord Bacon Informs his Lordship — " The greatest and weightiest articles agitated in this Parliament were specially touching the Kirk and Kirkmen, and the aboUshing of hereditary sheriffs to an annual charge ; and to enable justices of the peace to have as well the real execution as the title of their places. — For the Church and commonwealth his Majesty doth strive to shape the frame of this kingdom to the method and de grees of the government of England, as by reading of the several acts It may appear. The King's desire and travaU therein, though he did suffer a raoraentary opposition (for his countrymen wUl speak boldly to him), hath in part been profitable. For though he hath not fully and complementally prevaUed In aU things, yet he hath won ground in raost things, and hath gained acts of Par Uaraent to authorize particular coraraissioners to set down orders for the Church and Churchmen, and to treat with sheriffs for their offices by way of composition."* This and other contemporary evidence, in connection with the proceedings of the Parliament, undeniably prove that the great raass of the people of Scotland were at the time utterly indifferent to Presbyterianism, and pas sive to any system of church government. This is substanti ated by the very nature of the acts of this Pariiaraent, in refer ence to the Episcopal Church as then estabUshed, which King * Nichols' Eoyal Progresses of King James I., vol. iii. p. 346. 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 371 James would have found It impossible to pass if any violent ex citement had existed among the people on the subject. But no serious opposition was offered to Episcopacy, and it Is to be recol lected that the following and other acts of subsequent Parliaments were passed by the whole nobility of the kingdom, most of them In consequence of their hereditary jurisdictions of great power and influence, and also by the representatives of the counties and the burghs. The first act of this Parliament regulated the order for the elec tion of Archbishops and Bishops to vacant Dioceses. It was en acted that the King should grant " licence to the Dean and Chap ter of the cathedral kirk of the See to convene themselves for electing another Archbishop or Bishop in place of the former incumbent ; and the said licence being expede, an edict shall be affixed upon the raost patent [public] door of the cathedral kirk, requiring and charging the Dean and Chapter of the said kirk to convene themselves for choosing of a Bishop to the same who shall be devoted to God, and to his Highness and realm profitable and faithful ; who being convened, the Dean of the said Chapter, with so many of them as shaU happen to be assembled, shall pro ceed and choose the person whom his Majesty pleased to norainate and recommend to their election, he always being an actual minis ter of the Kirk, and shall elect none other than an actual minister to be so nominated and recommended by his Majesty as said Is ; after the which election, testified under their seals and subscrip tions, his Majesty's pleasure is to give his royal assent thereto ; upon the which assent, and his Highness' mandate to be directed to a competent number of Bishops within the Province where the benefice lies, the person elected shall be consecrated and received in his function by the rites and order accustomed ; and the said consecration being made, his Majesty's pleasure is to dispone to the person elected the temporality of the said benefice, with all privileges, honours, and dignities, belonging thereto."* The second act of this Parliament authorized the " restitution of Chapters" — ^that " all the Deans and other members of the cathedral kirks within this kingdom shall be restored to their manses, glebes, rents, and other patrimony belonging to them; and to that effect his Majesty, with advice of the said Estates, dissolves " Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iv. p. 529. 372 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. from the Crown and patriraony thereof, the foresaid manses, glebes, rents, and duties, formally annexed, to the effect the same may be hereafter enjoyed and peaceably possessed by the ministers that are and hereafter shall be provided thereto." The act was declared not to affect " feus, leases, pensions, and other rights lawfully made of whatsomever manses, glebes, lands, and teinds of any part of the said chapter kirks, to the parties having right to the same ;" and also it was not to prejudice the lay patrons of their " patron ages granted to them by the King's Majesty, with consent of the Titulars for the time, albeit the same be not ratified in Parliament, which shall nowise be prejudged by this present act," The special exemptions were the Priory of St Andrews erected into a temporal lordship in favour of Ludovic, Duke- of Lennox, and his heirs ; the " house and place," or palace, of Hamilton, with the " orchards, yards, and hail pertinents of the same," in so far as they belonged to the Deanery of Glasgow, but tljien held of his Majesty by his " loving cousin" Jaraes, Marquis of Hamilton ; the city of Edin burgh, as connected with its " Hospitals, CoUege, and Ministry ;" and the University of St Andrews. And inasmuch as the Prior of St Andrews was anciently Dean of the Archiepiscopal Diocese, but the Priory had been constituted " ane temporal living and lord ship," the Chapter of the Diocese was ordered to consist of twenty- four incumbents, who were collectively to " have the administra tion, doing, and performing of the affairs belonging to the said Bishopric, and for the weal of the said cathedral kirk." The right to elect the Archbishop was vested in the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, Dunblane, Ross, Moray, Orkney, and Caith ness, the Principal of St Leonard's College, the Archdean and Vicar of St Andrews, and the Vicars of Leuchars and Cupar-Fife ; the Bishop of Dunkeld to be in all time coming Vicar-General for convening the electors. The right of election to the Archbishop ric of Glasgow was vested In the Bishops of Galloway, Argyll, and The Isles, and the greater part of the Chapter of Glasgow ; the Bishop of Galloway to be convener of the electors.* In addition to this act for reviving the Chapters of the Dioceses, that the Bishops raight be elected according to the ancient raode, another was passed " anent the plantation of Kirks." Dr Cook justly describes this as " a raost wise and just law fraraed for the • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iv. p. 529, 530. 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 373 maintenance of the clergy, and for the plantation of churches, by which such salaries were allotted to the ministers as guarded them frora the poverty to which they had long submitted." A commis sion was granted to the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, Dunblane, and GaUoway, " eight persons nominate for the clergy and pre lates," and in case of the decease of any of them, to the Bishops of Brechin, Orkney, Argyll, and Caithness ; to eight of the nobi lity ; and to a similar number of the representatives of the counties and burghs. The parties nominated in this commission were authorized to examine the state of the teinds of each parish, and In all cases where those teinds were sufficient for the purpose to assign to the incumbents as the minimum five chalders of victual, or five hundred merks, exclusive of manse and glebe ; and as the maximum eight chalders, or eight hundred merks. Grain was then valued at about seven shillings a boll. Dr Cook cites Bishop Burnet, who states, in reference to this act, that " considering the plenty and way of living in Scotland it granted a very liberal provision to the clergy." The sixth act of this Parliament, entitled " anent furnishing of necessaries for ministering of the Sacraments," ordained that " all the parish kirks within the kingdom be provided with basins and layers for the mipistration of the sacrament of Baptism, and with cups, tables, and table-cloths, for the ministration of the Holy Communion," the incumbents, or their heirs and executors, to be responsible in cases of loss ; the whole at the expence of the parishioners. The Abbey of Fearn in Ross-shire was annexed to the Bishopric of Ross ; that of Crossraguel In Ayrshire, and the Priory of Monymusk In Aberdeenshire, to the Bishopric of Dun blane ; the Priory of Ardchattan, on the shore of Loch Etive In ArgyUshire, and the Abbey of Iona or IcolmkiU, In the He brides, were annexed to the Bishopric of The Isles ; and the parish churches of Kilbride and Renfrew were annexed to the University of Glasgow. Considerable indecision was evinced by the Bishops to some of the acts of Parliament, and a number of ministers, who were more or less warped by the Presbyterian notions, viewed the mode of electing them as an Infringement of the powers of the General Assembly. The King requested a statute to be passed, enacting 374 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. that " whatsoever conclusion was taken by his Majesty, with the adrice of the Archbishops and Bishops, In matters of external poUty, should have the power and strength of an ecclesiastical law." This was opposed by the Bishops, and the King consented that it should be thus expressed : — " That whatsoever his Majesty should determine In the external government of the Church, with the advice of the Archbishops, Bishops, and a competent number of the ministry, should have the strength of law ;" which was approved of by the Lords of the Articles. James wished to demolish the pretensions of the General Assemblies, which he had too much reason to dread from his past experience. Upwards of fifty Presbyterians and semi-episcopal preachers drew up a protest against this law, which they deUvered to Hewat, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, to present to the King. Hewat, who as the titular Abbot of Crossraguel, had a seat in Parha^ ment, went to Holyroodhouse for that purpose, where he was op posed by Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was enraged at the ex pressions in the document, snatched It from the hands of Hewat, and tore it in pieces. The noise of this altercation brought the King undressed from his apartraent to inquire the cause. The Archbishop strongly censured Hewat, who felt abashed in the pre sence of James ; and the King, to avoid any pretence of agitation, ordered the biU, though approved by the Lords of the Articles, to be expunged. But the conduct of the protestors was not aUowed to pass un noticed after the dissolution of the Parliament. Simpson, who had subscribed the document as their clerk, was summoned before the High Commission, and was committed to the Castle of Edin burgh for not producing the list of those who signed the original paper, aUeging that he had given It to another individual. This was no other than the Presbyterian writer Calderwood, who was in consequence summoned by warrant of Archbishops Spottiswoode and Law to appear before the High Court of Commission at St Andrews, on the charge of " attending a mutinous assemblage, and of retaining in his possession a seditious protest concocted there in, and of inducing others, to sign it, in contempt of God, and of the allegiance which he owed to the King." Simpson and Hewat were cited at the same time. The account of Calderwood's examination in St Andrews is very 1617. 1 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 375 characteristic. The King in his progress through Fife, proceeded from Falkland Palace to the seat of the Primacy, and entered St Andrews on the 10th of July. He was received with complimentary addresses in Latin from the Town and the University, the latter re presented by Dr Peter Bruce the Rector. On the 11th he heard a sermon preached by Gladstanes, Archdean of St Andrews ; and on the 12th a dissertation in theology conducted by Mr David Lind say, then minister of Dundee, was held in the parish church before the King, who revived the practice of conferring acaderaical de grees, which had been discontinued by the Puritan faction ; and on the authority of a mamdamus Dr John Young, the royal chaplain, created several Doctors of Divinity, among whom were WiUiam Forbes, first Bishop of Edinburgh, and John Strange or Strang, subsequently Principal of the University of Glasgow. James had resolved to deal with Calderwood and his friends in person, and was present when they appeared before the High Court of Commission ; but before they were caUed the King addressed the Court — " We took," he Is reported to have said, " this order with the Puritans of England. They stood out as long as they were de prived only of their benefices, because they preached still, and lived upon the benevolence of the people weU affected to their cause ; but when we deprived them of their office many yielded to us, and are now become the best men we have. Let us take the like course with the Puritans here." The three were then brought into the Court. Hewat adhered to his protestation, was deprived of his office of preacher, and confined to Dundee ; but it appears that he soon conforraed, and contented himself with living on the limit ed revenues of the Abbey of Crossraguel. Calderwood alleges that " his voice would not serve him to teach any longer, and therefore he was content to be removed Yrom the ministry for some honest cause." Simpson attended only the first examination, and sent a letter in Latin to the King pleading bodily infirmity, and yet ad hering to the protest which was delivered by Archbishop Spottis woode. It contained an offensive expression, and he was brought to St Andrews in custody, deprived, and confined to Aberdeen. The discussion between the King and Calderwood, who gives an ac count of the exaralnation of Hewat, is characteristic. Calderwood was urged — " Cometo the King's will ; you will find it best ; andhis Majesty will pardon you." " That which we have done," observed 376 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617- Calderwood, " was done with deliberation." James now began hisinquiries. Addressing Calderwood, he asked — "Whatraovedyou to protest f " An article," was the reply, " concluded among the laws ofthe Articles." " But what fault was there in it ?" demanded Jaraes. " It cutteth off our General Asserablies," repUed the Presbyterian." The King here inquired how long Calderwood had been a preacher, and then said — " Hear me, Mr David. I have been an older keeper of General Assemblies than you. A General Assembly serveth to preserve doctrine In purity frora error and heresy, the Kirk frora schisra, to make confessions of faith, and to put up petitions to the King In Parliament; but as for raatters of order, rites, and things indifferent in Kirk poUcy, they may be concluded by the King, with the adrice of Bishops and a choice number of rainisters. What Is a General Asserably but a con vened number of ministers ?" "Sir," replied Calderwood, "it should serve, and our General AssembUes have served, these fifty-six years, not only for preserving doctrine from error and heresy, but also to make canons and constitutions of all rites and orders be longing to the Kirk. As to the second point, as by a corapetent number of ministers may be raeant a General Asserably, so also raay be raeant a fewer number of ministers than can make up a General Assembly." The King here chaUenged him about some words in the protest. " Whatsoever was the phrase of speech," replied Calderwood," we raeant nothing but to protest that we would give passive obedience to your Majesty, but could not give active obedience to any unlawful thing which would flow frora that article." '• Active and passive obedience !" exclaimed the King. " That is," said Calderwood. " we will rather suffer than practise." " I wIU teU thee, man," replied James, " what Is obedience. The centurion when he said to his servants, to this man. Go ; and he goeth ; and to this man. Come; and he cometh; that is obedience." " To suffer. Sir," observed Calderwood, " is also obedience, how beit not of the same kind ; and that obedience also was not abso lute, but limited, with exception of a countermand from a superior power." " Mr David," here observed Lord Binning, the Secretary, " let alone ; confess your error." " My Lord," was the reply, " I cannot see that I have committed any fault." " WeU, Mr Calder wood," said the King, " I will let you see that I am gracious and favourable. That raeeting shall be conderaned before ye be con- 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 377 demned ; all that are in the file, shaU be filed before ye be filed, provided ye will conforra." " Sir," repUed Calderwood, " I have answered my libel. I ought to be urged no farther." " It is true, man, ye have an.swered your Ubel," observed Jaraes, •¦ but consider I am here ; I may demand of you when and what I wUl." " Surely, Sir," rejoined Calderwood, " I get great wrong if I be compeUed to answer here In judgment to any more than ray libel." " An swer, Sir," exclaimed the King, " ye are a refractor ; the Bishop of Glasgow your Ordinary, and the Bishop of Caithness, the moderator of your Presbytery,* testify ye have kept no order. Ye have repaired neither to Presbyteries nor Synods, and in no wise conform." " Sir," said Calderwood, " I have been confined [to his parish] these eight or nine years, so my conforraity on that point could not be weU known." " Good faith !" observed James, " thou art a very knave. See these self-same Puritans — they are ever playing with equivocations. If ye were relaxed, wdU ye obey or not I" " Sir," answered Calderwood, " I am wronged, in that I am forced to answer questions beside the libel ; yet seeing I must answer, I say. Sir, I shall either obey you, or give a reason wherefore I disobey ; and if I disobey, your JMajesty knows I am to be under the same danger as I do now." " That is," said the King, " to obey either actively or passively." Calderwood repUed — " I can go no farther." He was then removed, but he was afterwards called in, and the conversation was resumed. He was threatened to be deprived, and prohibited from preaching, but he persisted in declining the authority of Archbishop Law, and stated that " as long as his body is free he would teach, notwithstanding this sen tence." Calderwood's behariour was such that even according to his own statements he had very few sympathizers among the audience. Calderwood states that James Cranstoun, son of William first Lord Cranstoun, the chief proprietor of Crailing Park, became sure ty that he would leave the kingdom. Lord Cranstoun and himself petitioned the Privy CouncU for farther time to arrange his affairs, and that " he might have leisure to lift up the year's stipend where in he served." To secure this share of worldly goods he accom- * This was Bishop Abemethy, who still retained his parochial incumbency, and officiated as minister of Jedburgh. The Presbytery mentioned is that of Jedburgh, within the bounds of which is the parish of Crailing near the town of Jedburgh. 378 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. panied Lord Cranstoun to CarUsle with a petition to the King that he might be again " confined within his parish." James sarcastically said to Lord Cranstoun, who urged the danger of a voyage during the winter — " As for the season of the year, if he [Calderwood] be drowned in the seas he raight thank God that he had escaped a worse death." The King would give no other definite answer than that he would consult the Bishops. A petition was next sent to the Pri^'y Council, but they also refused to Interfere, and referred it to the Bishops, who declared they would do nothing unless they had a personal conference with him. His own narrative proves that he suffered for his absurd obstinacy, and that, considering the temper of the times, he was leniently treated. The conference was held in the residence of his Diocesan the Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishops of Ross, Caithness, and Orkney, were present. Calderwood brought with him the very inconsistent Mr WUliara Struthers, who, with the other minis ters of Edinburgh implicated in the protest, had saved liimself by conforming, and two gentlemen named Cranstoun, as his witnesses. The Bishops promised to Intercede for hira on three conditions — 1. To confess that he had offended the King, and crave pardon. 2. To resort to the meetings of his Presbytery. 3. To attend Synods. He refused to agree to the first. When urged by Arch bishop Law to attend the Synods, he was told that he would have " liberty to vote and reason, but he must not quarrel every thing." His neighbour at Jedburgh, Bishop Abernethy of Caithness, said to him — " Corae and say. Hie sum, and then do as you please." " That hie sum^'' was his reply, " is the question." " We wUl not enter into dispute," said Archbishop Law, " yet I would hear wherefore ye wIU not agree to attend the Synods." Calderwood replied that it was because their " Diocesan Synods were but episcopal visitations, not councUs properly so caUed ; and howbeit councUs, yet not free councUs, In respect that the Bishop had power over every minister in the Synod apart frora the Synod, was raoderator in respect of his episcopal office, was not account able to the Synod, and there were no ordinary General Assem bhes to take order with thera." The interview terminated with an advice from the Bishops to " adrise better answers." Another effort was made by Lord Cranstoun, but the Bishops were resolved not to yield too rauch to this dograatical Presbyterian. They 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 379 replied that his answers ought to have been different — that he raust confess his fault and resort to the raeetings of Presbyteries and Synods, and sorae of them contended that he ought to pro mise to conform ; moreover, that he should solemnly declare that he would not " write against the estabUshed order of the Kirk." It was farther stipulated that his replies must not be called answers to the articles proposed by the Bishops, but offers to the Bishops. " My Lord," said Patrick GaUoway, in whose house this application was made, addressing Lord Cranstoun, " I wUl sura up in two words all that he should do. Let hira confess simply that he hath offended the King, and promise conforraity." As Calderwood was ordered to leave Scotland at Michaelraas In 1617, Lord Cranstoun sent another petition for his " confineraent within his parish" till the last day of the ensuing April, the Bishops having written to the Archbishop of St Andrews, who was then at Court, in his favour. The Privy Council again refused to interfere, aUeging that it concerned the Bishops, and that whatever they did in the raatter would be sanctioned. The Bishops consented to aUow him twenty days after the return of Archbishop Spottiswoode, if the King would not postpone his departure till April. When the Archbishop arrived about the end of September he declared that the King would allow no one to speak to him on the subject, and that when any of the English clergy congratulated him on his return from Scotland his common reply to them was — " I hope you will not use rae so irreverently as one Calderwood did in Scotland." Calderwood seems to have been much annoyed at this royal observation, and he observes that this was not the first of the Archbishop's " fictions." He was eventually obliged to retire to Holland from 1619 tiU after the death of King Jaraes, though he mentions that he visited Scotland In 1624, but his companion Simpson subraitted, and was restored. During the King's visit to St Andrews, after the dissolution of the Pariiaraent, a meeting of the Bishops and about thirty-six of the influential ministers was held in the chapel of the castle, the then archiepiscopal residence. James was present, and addressed them in a speech, in which he took occasion to inform them that as they had resolved In their last General Assembly for " gather ing the acts of the Church, and putting them in form," he had 380 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. " desired a few articles to be inserted — one was for the yearly commeraoration of our Saviour's greatest blessings bestowed on mankind, viz. his Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit ; another for the private use of both Sacraments in urgent and necessary cases ; a third for the reverent administration of his Holy Supper ; and a fourth for catechizing and confirming young children by Bishops." The King then reminded thera of their excuses for not Inserting these articles, which he accepted at the time, and he complained of the offensive protest which foUowed. He thus concluded ; — " But I wIU pass that araong raany other wrongs I have received at your hands. The errand for which I have now caUed you is to hear what your scruples are on these points, and the reasons. If any you have, why the same ought not to be adraitted. I raean not to do any thing against reason ; but on the other hand, ray deraands being just and religious, you raust not think that I will be refused or resisted. It is a power Innated, and a special prerogative, which we that are Christian Kings possess, to order and dispose of external things in the polity of the Church, as we by the advice of our Bishops shall think most fitting ; and by your approring or disap proving deceive not yourselves. I wIU never regard it unless you bring me a reason I cannot answer." Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was present, gives an authentic account of this conference. The rainisters entreated the King to think favourably of them as good and loyal subjects, and to permit them to debate those matters among themselves. This was granted, and they retired to the parish church. After a discussion of two hours they appeared be fore the King, with a petition that a General Assembly inight be held, in which the above articles would be discussed and sanctioned. The King asked — " what assurance he might have of their consent ing';" They declared that the Assembly would jleld to any reasonable deraand of his Majesty. " But if it fall out otherwise," said James, " and the articles be refused, my difficulty shall be greater, and when I shall use ray authority in establishing thera they wiU caU me a tyrant and persecutor." They exclaimed that none would be so insane as to express themselves In that manner. " Yet experience," said the King, " tells me it may be so ; there fore, unless I be raade sure I wiU not sanction an Assembly." Mr Patrick Galloway here suggested that Archbishop Spottis- 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. .381 woode should be responsible for the conduct of the ministers, but the Primate declined, alleging that he had been deceived by them, and that they had violated their promises during the meeting of the Parliament. " Then," said GaUoway, " If your Majesty wiU trust me, I will become security for the rainisters." The King consented, and a General Assembly was ordered to be held at St Andrews on the 25th of November. The King soon afterwards returned to England through the western counties. He proceeded to Stirling, Glasgow, and Pais ley, visited the Marquis of Hamilton at Hamilton : on the last day of July arrived at Sanquhar Castle, now a picturesque ruin on a high bank overlooking the Nith, and then the residence of Wil Uara seventh Lord Crichton, created Viscount Ayr in 1622, and Earl of Dumfries in 1633 ; and on the following day he was en tertained at Drumlanrig, the seat of Sir William Douglas, after wards Earl of Queensberry. On Monday the 3d of August James entered Dumfries, and there heard a farewell sermon preached by Bishop Cowpar, which Archbishop Spottiswoode says " made the hearers burst out into many tears." On the 4th of August the King arrived at Carlisle on his journey southwards, and thus ter minated his progress in Scotland. On the 5th of October the Diocesan Synod of Fife was held at St Andrews, and the commissioners or members to the Gene ral Assembly were elected. All the Diocesan Synods through out the kingdom were held in that month for the same purpose. Calderwood, as usual, styles this a " corrupt course which the Bishops had in hand," and alleges that " there was no freedom of election ;" but he assigns no adequate reason. He merely states that in the Diocesan Synod of Fife some were nominated as mera bers of the General Asserably who " raisliked the episcopal go vernraent," and the Archbishop very naturally exercised his in fluence and authority to prevent their election. On the 4th of November the meeting of the General Assembly was proclaimed to be held on the 25th, and in Calderwood's opinion " this inti mation was not timeous, nor sufficient ; seven Dioceses, as we are informed, were not present, and that through default of timeous warning, which is another exception against this Assembly." But admitting this to be the case, the state of the weather in Novem ber, in a country such as Scotland then was, without pubUc con- 382 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. veyances of any kind, and the roads, If they deserved to be caUed roads. In the most wretched condition, would be a sufficient excuse for the absence of any of the members residing In remote districts, especially at discussions on matters which had been often before them. On the appointed day the General Assembly met at St Andrews.^ Calderwood says that the Earl of Montrose was the King's Com raissioner, but that his Lordship feU sick, and sent a letter to the Privy Council to that effect a few days before the day of meeting. The letter was shewn to Archbishop Spottiswoode, who answered that nevertheless the " King's service must not be neglected ;" and David Lord Carnegie, afterwards Earl of Southesk, Lord Binning, Secretary of State, Sir WiUiam Livingstone of KUsyth, father of the first Viscount Kilsyth, Sir WiUiara Oliphant of New ton, Lord Advocate, and the Treasurer-Depute, or any three of thera, were appointed by the Privy Council to supply the place of the Earl of Montrose ; yet Archbishop Spottiswoode states that Viscount Scone and Lord Binning were the King's Coraraissioners. Calderwood farther alleges that Archdean Gladstanes preached on the raorning of the first day of the meeting, but the Archbishop declares that he " made the exhortation " himself, and he men tions the subject of it — that he " deduced the story of the Church from the time of the Reformation, and shewed that the greatest hindrance received by the Church proceeded frora the ministers themselves." The Archbishop states that " It seemed at first matters should have gone weU ; for the first two days there was much calm ness, and the reasoning very formal and free." The discussions were almost exclusively about the articles proposed by the King to be adopted by the Scottish Church, But the " calmness" of this General Assembly was only apparent. The Presbyterian leaven was stUl deeply infused, and the members agreed to admit and sanction only two of the articles, viz. the private adminis tration of the Eucharist, and the one entitled " a more reverent manner of receiving the Lord's Supper ;" and though they en cumbered the articles thus ratified with several exceptions. It was a wonderful advance to the recognized principles of the Church. The opinion of the General Assembly on those articles wiU be best ascertained from the manner in which they were sanctioned, 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 383 which Calderwood states he found in the " clerks' scroUs," for " by reason of the shortness of the time, sudden convening of the Assembly, absence of many Dioceses and Coraraissioners from sundry Presbyteries, the articles were rather remitted to farther inquiry than any thing perfectly concluded." " At St Andrews 1617, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland thus decided, affirmed, and sanctioned — First, if any good Christian visited with long sickness, and known to the pas tor, by reason of his present infirmity, to be unable to resort to the church for receiving the Holy Coraraunion ; or being sick, shaU declare to the pastor upon his conscience that he thinketh his sickness to be deadly, shaU earnestly desire to receive the sarae In his house, the minister shaU not deny the same, so as lawful warning be given to him at the least twenty-four hours before ; and that there be six persons at least of good religion and conversa tion, free of lawful Impediment, present with the sick person to receive, who must also proride a convenient place In his house, and aU things necessary for the minister's reverent administration thereof, according to the order prescribed in the Church. Second, to remedy the irreverent behariour of the vulgar sort, it is found mete by this Assembly that the minister shall in the celebration give the elements out of his own hand to every one of the com municants, saying, when he giveth the bread — Take, eat, this is the body of the Lord Jesus Christ which was broken for you ; do this in remembrance of Him ; and that the minister exhort them to be thankful. And when he giveth the cup — Drink, this is the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ shed for you ; do this in remem brance of Him ; and that the rainister exhort them to be thankful. And to the end the minister raay give the sarae more commo diously, he is, by adrice of the raagistrates and honest men of his session, to prepare a table at the which the same may be conve niently ministered, and shew a humble and religious behaviour in the receiving of the same." Respecting the other Articles, espe ciaUy the " days of the Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension of our Lord, and the descending of the Holy Spirit," it was agreed, after " long reasoning," that as " a great number of coraraission ers from Synods, burghs, and gentlemen, in respect of the season of the year, distance of the place, and shortness of the advertise ment, could not be present," and some who attended had scruples 384 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617- on the points proponed, are not fully resolved In some of them, to " refer the same to another General Assembly, which was to be convened by petition to the King." The result of this General Asserably irritated the King, though it ought to have had a contrary effect, for the adoption of even two of the articles was really a great victory gained over the opponents of the Episcopal Church. James ought to have been aware of the condition of the Scottish nation at the time. The aristocracy were fierce, proud, tyrannical over their dependents and retainers, and many of thera, even the higher Nobility, ill educated; whUe the people generaUy were extreraely ignorant, superstitious, credulous, and bigotted. The discussions and dis putes on church government from the Reformation to that period had engendered rauch political and doraestic mischief; yet the mass of the people were passive in the matter, and little excite- raent existed araong thera in favour of Presbyterianism. The Bishops were not personally unpopular, nor was the episcopal office obnoxious, inasmuch as the Bishops for the most part con tinued to exercise their functions as parish ministers. An inter view with them at their respective residences was considered by raany of the young raen attending the Universities as of some Importance, and we have an instance of this in the case of Robert Baillie, Principal of the University of Glasgow, who subsequently became a zealous Presbyterian, and who In 1620 completed his philosophical course at that University. He and a few of his com panions during that year made an excursion to some of the princi pal towns in Scotland. They proceeded to Kilsyth, Stirling, the windings or Links of the Forth between Stirling and Alloa ; there after to Perth, Scone, and Dundee, where, says Baillie — " We saw the Bishop of Brechin and Dr Bruce." From Dundee they went to St Andrews, visited the " kirk, castle, port, three Col leges, Abbey," conversed with some of the Professors; and at Dair sie, nearly seven miles frora St Andrews, they had an interview with Archbishop Spottiswoode. As to the articles which the Ge neral Assembly at St Andrews adraitted. It would be unnecessary to discuss their propriety, expediency, and conformity to Primitive usage. Many Presbyterians in Scotland lament the rigidity of their systera which precludes the adrainistration of the Lord's Supper, even In their own way, and according to their own 1617.] • KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 385 and according to their own notions of that Sacrament, to the aged, the sick, and the dying in private houses. On the Oth of December the King wrote a letter to the Arch bishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, expressing his dissatisfaction at the proceedings of this General Assembly. James commanded Archbishop Spottiswoode, by deputy in St Andrews, and person ally in Edinburgh, and Archbishop Law in Glasgow, to celebrate divine serrice and preach on the ensuing Christmas Day ; and en joined them not to allow the stipends to be paid to any of the parish Incumbents who refused to comply. In a postscript it was added — " So many Bishops as you can get warned in time to preach at their Sees on Christmas day, urge them to it. Thus much in haste for this time ; after two or three days ye shall hear further from us." The King added with his own hand — " Since your Scottish Church hath so far contemned my clemency, they shaU now find what it Is to draw the anger of a King upon them." This threat, though most imprudent and unnecessary, was a serious matter. On the 11th of December the King wrote to Archbishop Spottiswoode Individually, and stated his objections to the con ditions by which the Assembly at St Andrews had restricted the administration of the communion to the sick and dying in private houses. " Concerning the communion allowed to sick persons," said the King to the Archbishop, " besides the nuraber [six per sons] required to receive vrith such patients, and a necessity tying them upon oath to declare that they truly think not to recover, but to die of that disease, they are yet farther hedged in with a necessity to receive the sacrament, iii case aforesaid, to be minis tered unto them In a convenient room, which, what it importeth we cannot guess, seeing no roora can be so convenient for a sick raan sworn to die as his bed ; and that it were injurious and in- huraan from thence in any case to transport him, were the room never so neat and handsome to which they should carry him." The King next objected to the expressions about a " table" to be prepared for the administration of the communion in the parish churches. " Truly in this," he declares, " we must say that the minister's care and coraraodious sitting on his tail hath been more looked to than that kneeling which, for reverence, we directly required to be enjoined to the receivers of so divine a sacrament ; neither can we conceive what should be meant by that table, unless 25 386 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617" they raean to raake a round table, as did the Jews, to sit at and receive it. In conclusion, seeing either we and this Church here must be held Idolatrous on this point of kneeling, or they reputed rebellious knaves in refusing the same, and that the two foresaid acts are conceived so scornfully, and so far frora our meaning, it is our pleasure that the same be altogether suppressed, and that no effect follow thereon." The Privy Council received a letter from the King at the same time, " for inhibiting the payment of stipends to any of the rebellious rainisters, refusers of the said articles, either In burgh or landward, till they shew their con formity, and the same was duly testified by the subscription of the Primate and ordinary Bishop." This alarmed numbers of them, . and those of Edinburgh in particular earnestly requested Arch bishop Spottiswoode to preach in that city on Christmas Day in obedience to the King's order, and to exert his Interest for the rest. The Archbishop complied, and was enabled to obtain a warrant for setting aside the order to prohibit payraent of the stipends until the behaviour of the rainisters was " tried in the particular Synods, and their disposition for accepting the articles." In the meanwhile, on the 14th of December, Bishop Alexander Forbes of Aberdeen died at Leith. Calderwood records his death with his usual scurrilities, which are unworthy of notice. He was succeeded in the See by the learned and celebrated Patrick Forbes of Corse, mentioned In the earlier part of this narrative. Calder wood inserts a long letter written by Forbes of Corse to Arch bishop Spottiswoode on his appointment to the Bishopric, and poUtely designates him a " hypocrite." — " It is known very well," he says, " that he undertook not the rainistry tiU Bishoprics were In bestowing, and that he could find no better raeans to raend his broken lalrdship." These accusations have no foundation in truth. On the contrary, Forbes was proprietor of the valuable estate of Corse in Aberdeenshire ; and it is undeniable that he " undertook the rainistry" frora conscientious zeal for religion when he was ad vanced in Ufe. " I never preached the gospel for worldly gain," he says in his letter to Archbishop Spottiswoode, " nor to this hour have made any gain of that sort, whereby my reward Is before me, and I hope my Lord shaU hold my heart stiU fixed on him." In this letter, which Is dated at Keith, 16th February 1618, he was anxious to decline the Bishopric, and this is Calderwood's sole 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 387 authority for his charge of hypocrisy against one of tho most learned and pious raen of his age, who while residing on his estate as a private gentleraan did raore to maintain religion in his locality than a phalanx of such raen as David Calderwood. Bishop Forbes Is deservedly ranked araong the Illustrious indi viduals whom Scotland has produced. " There was one Patrick Forbes of Aberdeenshire," says Burnet,* " a gentleman of quality and estate, but much more eminent by his learning and piety than his birth or fortune could make him. He had a most terrible calamity on him in his own family, which needs not be naraed. I do not know whether that or a more early principle determined him to enter into orders. He undertook the labour of a private cure in the country, upon the most earnest Invitations of his Bishop [Blackburn], when he was forty-eight years old, and discharged his duty there so worthily that within a few years he was promoted to be Bishop of Aberdeen, In which See he sat seventeen years. It was not easy for King James to persuade him to accept of that dignity, and many raonths past before he could be induced to it, for he had intended to have lived and died in a more obscure corner. It soon appeared how well he deserved his promotion, and that his unwillingness to it was not feigned, but the real effect of his humi lity. He was in all things an apostolical man; he used to go round his Diocese without noise, and but with one servant, that so he might rightly be informed of all matters." The personal detaUs to which Burnet refers may be briefly stated. Bishop Forbes was the fifth in lineal descent frora Pa trick Forbes, third son of James second Lord Forbes, who was also the progenitor of the Baronets of Cralgievar in Aberdeen shire and the Earls of Granard in Ireland. The Bishop was born in 1564, and received the rudiments of his education under Thomas Buchanan, then schoolmaster of Stirling, the nephew of the cele brated George Buchanan. He studied philosophy at Glasgow under Andrew MelviUe, and foUowed him as his pupil in Hebrew and theology when he reraoved to St Andrews. His progress was so reraarkable, and his conduct so unblaraeable, that he was solicited to become a Professor in that University ; but he was summoned home by his father, who urged hira to settle as a country gentleman, and he soon afterwards married Lucretia, a daughter • Preface to Life of Bishop BedeU, 1685. 388 KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. [1617. of Spens of Wormiston, an ancient family in Fife. He lived in retirement for sorae time near Montrose, and at the death of his father in 1598 he removed to the family seat of Corse, In the now united parishes of Leochel and Cushnie. The castle of Corse, now roofless and ruinous, though a great part of the walls Is still standing, is raentioned by Monipennie, in his " Brief Description of Scotland" appended to his Abridgement of the Chronicles, in 1612, when it was the Bishop's family residence, as one of the strongest in the district of Marr. Over the lintel are the date of its erection in 1581, and the initials, W. F. and E. S., intimating the Bishop's father, William Forbes, and his raother Elizabeth, daughter of Alexander Strachan of Thornton, the head ofthe an cient faraily of the Strachans. In this sequestered castle Bishop Forbes, as his Latin biographer, Dr Garden, quaintly observes, cultivated his books and his fields, regularly perforraing divine serrice to his doraestics on Sundays. His learning, piety, and unwearied zeal were well known, and in the then destitute reli gious condition of that quarter of the kingdom, where th'e people were without Instructors, he was repeatedly urged to perform the duties of a preacher in 1605, and we have seen how he explain ed his conduct in a letter to King Jaraes. Bishop Blackburn often entreated him to become the minister of his own parish, but he steadily refused, aUeging as a reason his sense of the import ance of the priestly office, and the state of the times. On a re presentation, however, made to Archbishop Gladstanes, who was opposed to lay preaching, an order was issued that he should desist unless he took ordination. Forbes accordingly returned to his former practice of family worship, and attended the parish church as a private individual. About 1612, the minister of Keith, in the adjoining county of Banff, a pious and worthy man, in a fit of raelancholy made a fatal attempt on his own life. He had no sooner inflicted the wound than remorse seized him, and he sent for Forbes, to whose devout instructions he listened with peniten tial edification. With his dying breath he entreated him to un dertake the pastoral charge of the parish, to which, under circum stances so peculiar, he consented, and was ordained by Bishop Blackburn. The suicide of his friend the rainister of Keith is pro bably the " terrible calamity" noticed by Burnet. His appoint ment to the See of Aberdeen obtained the sincere approbation of 1617.] KING JAMES IN SCOTLAND. 389 all classes of the people, and soon after his promotion he was made Chancellor of King's College and University, which he raised from neglect and desolation to a most flourishing state, repairing the buildings, increasing the library, reviving the professorships of Divinity, Canon Law, and Physic, and procuring the addition of another professorship in Theology. Such was this great ornament of the Episcopal Church of Scotland — a man of the greatest pru dence, integrity, and piety, clear genius, solid judgment, invincible fortitude, and remarkable constancy of mind. That the Scottish Bishops of that period were active, zealous, and exemplary, in the discharge of their duties, is farther proved by Burnet, who gives a description of one who was a contempor ary of Bishop Forbes. This was Bishop Boyd of ArgyU, already raentioned as proraoted to that See in 1613. " Another of our late Bishops was the noblest bom of all the order, being [illegitimate] brother to the Lord Boyd, that is one of the best families in Scot land, but was provided to the poorest Bishopric, which was Argyll, yet he did great things in it. He found his Diocese overrun with Ignorance and barbarity, so that in many places the name of Christ was not knovm, but he went about that apostolical work of plant ing the gospel with a particular Industry, and almost with equal success. He got churches and schools to be raised and endowed everywhere, and lived to see a great blessing on his endeavours, so that he is not so much as named in that country to this day but with a particular veneration, even by those who are otherwise no way equitable to that order. The only answer that our angry people in Scotland used to make when they were pressed with such instances was that there were too few of them ; but sorae of the severest of thera have owned to me, that if there were many such Bishops they would become Episcopal."* • Preface to Life ofBishop BedeU. 390 [1618. CHAPTER VI. THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND FIVE ARTICLES OP PERTH — BISHOP cowpar's DEFENCE OF THEM — THE CONTROVERSIES WHICH ENSUED — CONDUCT OF HENDERSON — FATE OF THE RECORDS OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLIES. On the 26th of January 1618 Archbishop Spottiswoode convened a raeeting of the Bishops and clergy who were In Edinburgh at the time,* in that part of St Giles' church long locaUy designated the Little Kirk. The Primate read the King's letter, in which was stated his Majesty's expectation that aU the Bishops and the clergy there assembled would sanction the Five Articles, and if the latter refused, they were to be suspended from their ministerial functions, and their stipends withheld. The clergy answered that they would consult their brethren, and " do what in them lay to give the King satisfaction." Calderwood affects to doubt the authenticity of the King's letter, but his suppositions are frivolous and unworthy of notice. Two days afterwards a proclamation was pubhshed at the Cross of Edinburgh enjoining the observance of the five great comrae- morations of the Church, viz. Christmas Day, Good Friday, Easter, Ascension Day, and Whitsunday. AU manual labour was pro hibited, and those who refused to conform were ordered to be punished as rebeUious persons. A few days before the ensuing Good Friday, the Lord Provost and Magistrates received a letter from the King enjoining thera to see that the day was properly observed. On the Wednesday before Good Friday the procla raation was again raade at the Cross, and on Good Friday the " The 26th is Calderwood's date, but Spottiswoode says the meeting was held on the 29th. 1618.] THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AT PERTH. 391 Magistrates sent the officers throughout the city to prevent trading or labour of any kind. Sermons were preached in all the churches, and Bishop Cowpar officiated in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood house before sundry of the Privy Council and the Nobility. On Easter Sunday the Holy Communion was administered kneeling by several of the Bishops in those churches which were considered the temporary cathedrals, and by the Bishop of Galloway in the Chapel-Royal, where some of the Officers of State and nearly forty persons communicated kneeling. In obedience to the King's command the Officers of State again communicated on Whitsun day. It appears that the Chapel-Royal was then provided with an organ. The King granted his licence authorising the General Assembly on the 10th of July, and on the 3d of August the Archbishops, Bishops, Ministers, and others, were summoned to attend by pro clamation at the Cross of Edinburgh. As the proceedings of this General Assembly are prominently noticed by all the Scottish historians, it is unnecessary to enter into minute details in the present narrative. On the 25th of August the Assembly was opened at Perth, Lords Binning, Scone, and Carnegie, appearing as the King's Coraraissioners, attended by the Earl of Lothian, Lords Ochiltree, Boyd, Crichton of Sanquhar, Sir Gideon Murray the Depute-Treasurer, Sir WiUiam Oliphant, Lord Advocate, and a number of gentlemen as assessors. The only Bishops absent were those of Argyll and The Isles, and Calderwood asserts that those Dioceses, as also those of Caithness and Orkney, sent no " coramissioners," or representatives. In accordance with an in timation given in St John's church on the previous Sunday, the first day of the meeting was observed as a fast, and two sermons were preached, the one in the moming by Bishop Forbes of Aber deen from Ezra vii. 23 ; the other' in the forenoon by Archbishop Spottiswoode from 1 Cor. xi. 16, which occupied two hours in the delivery, and was afterwards printed, probably by the authority of the Archbishop, by Bishop Lindsay of Brechin in his account of the proceedings of the Assembly. Calderwood states that the arguraent raaintained by Bishop Forbes was, that "nothing should be done nor determined in the Church by any superior power whatever but that which is according to the commandment of the Almighty King ;" and that the Archbishop defended ceremonies in 392 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. general, and the Five Articles in particular, though he solemnly declared that they were sent to him without his knowledge, and that they were not intended to be proposed to the Church, but to be Inserted among the Canons then in preparation. This account of the Archbishop's Sermon is very correct, as appears from a perusal of it as published by Bishop Lindsay, and the whole is a learned, elo quent, and masterly composition. It is founded on the text already cited — " But if any raan seera to be contentious, we have no such custora, neither the churches of God," and the Priraate opens with a general discussion on religious cereraonies to be observed in the Church. " My Lords and Brethren," he began, " the business for which we meet here is known to you all, namely, to take resolution in these Articles, which we are required to admit in our Church by that power unto which we be all subject." He then elucidates the Five Articles, deducing the judgment of what he caUs the " best Reformed Churches touching Articles ;" and denies most explicitly that they " come by the suggestion of some of the En glish Church, or of ourselves at home," referring in proof to the King's declaration in the chapel of St Andrews in 1617, wherein he stated that " neither the desire he had for conforming his Churches [of England and Scotland], nor the solicitation of any person, but his zeal for God, and a certain knowledge that he could not answer it In that great day If he should neglect his duty." In a subsequent part of his discourse the Archbishop says — " I, therefore, in the presence of Almighty God and of this honourable Assembly, solemnly protest that without my know ledge, against my desire, and when I least expected, these Articles were sent unto me not to be proponed to the Church, but to be inserted among the Canons thereof, which then were Ingathering ; touching which point I humbly excused rayself, that I could not insert araong the Canons that which was not first advised by the Church, and desired they raight be referred to another considera tion." The Primate adds — " So as I spake before, I would, if it had been in my power, most wiUingly have declined the receiving of these Articles ; not that I did esteera them either unlawful or inconvenient, for I am so far persuaded of the contrary as I can be of any thing, but I foresaw the contradiction which would be made, and the business we should fall into. Therefore let no man deceive himself. These things proceed frora his Majesty, and are 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. 393 his own motions, not any other's." He concluded by reminding the Assembly — " The kingdora of God consists not in them [the Five Articles], but in righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. Away with fruitless and contentious disputings. Remember the work we are sent for Is to build the Church of God, and not to destroy it ; to call men to faith and repentance ; to stir them up to the works of true piety and love, and not to make thera think they have religion enough when they have talked against Bishops and ceremonies." The business of the Assembly now commenced. A long table was placed in St John's church, with seats for the Bishops, noble men, and other members, and at the head of it a cross table, with chairs for the King's Coraraissioners and the Moderator. Arch bishop Spottiswoode took the chair as Moderator, and when a feeble attempt was made to urge an election by a Mr George Grier, minister of Haddington, the Archbishop replied that the Assembly was convened within the Umits of his own Diocese, and he would allow no one to occupy his place. The King's letter was then presented by Dr Young, Dean of Winchester, by birth a Scotsman. It began with a statement that he had at one time fully resolved not to allow any more General Assemblies for " or dering things concerning the policy of the Church," on account of the conduct exhibited in the former Assembly at St Andrews. It is a document of considerable length, arguing the whole matter, and abounding with expostulations. Archbishop Spottiswoode then rose, and after stating that the Five Articles now to be sub mitted were not his suggestion, for he considered them inexpedient at the time, yet he knew the anxiety of the King on the subject, and warned them of the consequences both to the Church gene rally, and to themselves individually, if the Articles were refused. " I know," he observed, " that when sorae of you are banished, and others deprived, you will blame us, and call us persecutors ; but we will lay all the burden upon the King, and if you call him a persecutor all the world will stand up against you." The Arch bishop then asked the Dean of Winchester If he had any inclina tion or authority to raake known his sentiments. The Dean ad dressed the Assembly In a long speech, compliraenting the King on his intentions, and exhorting thera to conformity. After the Dean concluded his speech, some objections about the raode of 394 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. voting and other minor details were repelled by the Archbishop. The Primate then nominated a large number of the nobility and gentry, aU the Bishops, and thirty-seven doctors and ministers, who were to form a " Privy Conference," and who met in the afternoon to discuss the Five Articles. On the foUowing day the Assembly met at eight In the morning, and the Five Articles were again debated. Another meeting was held in the afternoon. On the moming of the ensuing day Bishop Cowpar preached a sermon on Rom. xiv. 19, after which was the last sitting. Archbishop Spottiswoode now urged the Assembly to conforra. He refuted sundry scandals and misrepresentations which had been industriously circulated by malicious persons, and de clared his conriction that " there was neither man nor woman, rich nor poor, in Scotland, some few precise persons excepted, who were not only content, but also wished the order of ki^eeUng [at the Communion] to be received, of which he had good proof and experience in his own city of St Andrews, and in this town of Perth since he had come hither." The Archbishop then raen tioned the circumstance of a pamphlet having been found In the pulpit at Edinburgh, charging the Bishops with attempting to in troduce the Roman Catholic religion ; but in reply he maintained that " ceremonies make not separation betwixt us and the Roman Church, but their idolatry, which if the Romanists would forsake, they would raeet them midway and join with them." Before the calling of the roll the King's letter was again read. The Presby terian party attempted to lirait the right of voting purposely to exclude certain persons ; but Archbishop Spottiswoode would not aUow this proposal, and declared that " if aU Scotland were there present they should vote." The vote was then taken, and the Five Articles were ratified by a great majority. After some routine business the Assembly was dissolved. On the 21st of Oc tober the Articles were sanctioned by an act of the Privy CouncU ; and the King's proclamation to that effect was published at the Cross of Edinburgh on the 26th. The Five Articles of Perth were, as already stated — 1. KneeUng when receiving the Holy Coraraunion ; 2. The administration of the Holy Communion to the sick, dying, or infirm persons in their houses in cases of urgent necessity. 3. The administration of Baptism In private under similar circumstances. 4. The Confir- 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OP PERTH. 395 mation of the young by the Bishop of the Diocese. 5. The obser vance of the five great commemorations of the Christian Church — the " Birth, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending down of the Holy Ghost." The second is expressed in the sarae words as the first of the two Articles admitted by the General Assembly held at St Andrews in the previous year respecting the private administration of the Communion, with merely a few verbal altera tions, and the nuraber of persons to be present and coraraunicate was limited to three or four Instead of six. The Five Articles were ordered to be read and enforced in aU the parish churches throughout the kingdora, and proclaraations were published enjoin ing obedience and conforraity at the market cross of all the prin cipal towns. Yet such was the opposition of some of the Presby terian party to these primitive and catholic coraraemorations of the great events connected with human redemption, that the order was in many cases disregarded, which caused considerable distractions, especiaUy in Edinburgh. Mr Scott states as his opinion that " the Presbyterian party would have willingly accepted some of the Articles on condition of being relieved from the rest ;"* but he does not specify those of thera which they would have sanctioned. The only one of thera which the less rigid of the Presbyterian ministers in Scotland since the Revolution in 1688 adopt, is the administration of Baptism in private houses, whether the Infants are in ill health or not, and this was probably forced upon .them by necessity. As to the others It is well known that many Presbyterians in Scot land are convinced that there Is soraething harsh and deficient in their system, which denies the administration of the Coraraunion, even in their own way, to the sick, the dying, and the aged, in pri vate houses. -f- The raajority raay probably still object to kneeling at the administration of the Coraraunion, Inasrauch as they will not allow kneeling at public prayers. Many of thera also have no ob jections to the rite of Confirraatlon In Itself, and not a few now ' Kirk-Session Eegisters of Perth, MS. vol. i. f Mr Scott, in his MS. Extracts from the Kirk-Session Eecords of Perth, comment ing on the Five Articles of Perth, says — " With regard to private Communion I have heard of a late instance of its being given by a minister of our [Presbyterian] Church in the south part of Scotland. The Presbytery to which he belongs have not inflicted any censure upon him, nor does it seem to be the resolution of the church judicatories in general to take any notice of it." 396 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. think that the five great commemorations of the Church ought to be observed. In short, a very different feeling pervades Scotland on many of those raatters, which even those who adhere to the Cove nanting fanaticisra ca,nnot deny. Intercourse with England, a better systera of education, and other causes, might be assigned for the softening of the old rehgious and bigotted prejudices. It was not to be expected that the Five Articles would be admit ted everywhere without opposition, yet on the whole they were received in many places If not with approbation at least with tacit consent. Much in these cases depended on the degree of personal respect in which the minister of each particular parish was held by the people. Mr Scott Informs us of the raanner of their recep tion at Perth, which corroborates the statement of Archbishop Spottiswoode in the General Assembly. A meeting ofthe kirk-ses sion was held on the 5th of March 1619, present Mr. John Guthrie and Mr John Malcolm, ministers : — "Proposition being made, if they [the kirk-session] will agree and consent that the Lord's Supper be celebrated in the burgh conform to the prescription of the Act of the General Assembly raade thereanent last holden at Perth or not, riz. that the ministers give the wine and bread with their own hands to the comraunicants, and that they [the com municants] be humbled on their knees, and reverently receive it ; and being voted, all agreed in one that the celebration thereof be made according to the said act!'' " The order of the [administra tion] of the Comraunion," observes Mr Scott on this extract from the Kirk-Session Register, " seems to have been as follows: — The tables were placed In the choir or east part of the church. The communicants were to enter In the morning by the south door, where, to add to the solemnity, and to do honour to the occasion, several of the Magistrates and others were to stand In due form with their elders. The communicants were there to give their tokens [or tickets of admission] along with their alras, and then to pass either directly to the tables, or to seats In the choir allotted for thera. Such as were not to comraunicate, at least on the first day of the coraraunion, were to enter the church by the north door, and were there to give their alras. After the consecration of the elements the minister, foUowed by the bearers of the bread and wine, was to go through the tables, giving, as he went along, the elements with his own hands to each of the communi- 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. S97 cants kneeling ; after which they who Had coraraunicated would depart from the table, and be succeeded by such as were next to comraunicate." Mr Scott refers to the conduct of many persons in Edinburgh about kneeling at the tables. " Even some of the ministers," he observes, " did not at first conform, but adminis tered the sacrament to the people sitting. There was, however, no such opposition, at least from the kirk-session at Perth."* Calderwood says of Bishop Cowpar, In reference to the sermon he preached during the sitting of the General Assembly at Perth, that " he set at nought the ancient [Presbyterian] order of the Kirk sometirae highly coramended by hiraself, and extolling his own new light, presuraed to catechize those who might have cate chized him." This is expressed by Calderwood in his usual strain of party raalevolence. " As the Five Articles," says Mr Scott, " were the subjects of rauch controversy, and as the arguments against them are frequently to be met with in the histories of that period, it wUl be doing justice to the ancient kirk-session and people of Perth to take notice of what was then said on behalf of those Articles, and which determined many good raen to subrait to the observation of them." Bishop Cowpar's sentiments are here presented to the reader, as they are not generally known even in Scotland. They are worthy of perusal as illustrating the feelings of the time on the subjects he discusses. His observations are entitled — " The Bishop of Galloway's Answers to such as desire a resolution of their scruples agaipst the Acts of the last Assembly holden at Perth in the month of August 1618 — mercy, grace, and peace, be unto aU them that love the Lord Jesus." " We are commanded by St Peter to give a reason of the faith which Is in us, and so wiU I. No good Christian differs one frora another In any article of faith, for our Belief [the Creed] is a short compend of the Scripture ; and I have preached all the Articles thereof ; I beUeve all. As for Papists, where they differ from us see what I have professed in my writings pubUshed in print, and I am resolved to die in the sarae raind. What that is they raay per ceive by the '- Seven Days' Conference betwixt a Cathohc Chris tian and a Catholic Roman, and by the Threefold Treatise upon " Extracts from the Kirk-Session Eecords of Perth, vol. i. MS. in Advocates- Library, Edinburgh. 398 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. the eighth 1 chapter to tjie Roraans." Bishop Cowpar refers to others of his printed works for his opinions, and proceeds — " As for these needless controversies that raake divers voices araong us, I say sorae are conscientious with little knowledge ; these I love. Others are contentious, with less knowledge ; these I pity, wiUing them always to remember that to thera who are contentious and obey not the truth, unrighteousness shaU bring Indignation and wrath, Rom. ii. 8 ; yet I wish to them mercy, and Ught to IUumi nate their minds. " Of Days. — In my mind no King on earth, no Church, raay raake an holy day ; only the Lord who made the day hath that prerogative, and He hath sanctified the seventh day. Yet either a Christian king, or a Church, may separate a day by preaching, and that either ordinary, as we have Tuesday, or extraordinary, for fasting and humiliation ; or for solemn joy and thanksgiving. This is and hath been ever the lawful practice of our Church, and continual, who at such tiraes hath commanded cessation from or dinary trades both before and after noon, that so the people might frequent the assembly. I hope [there is] no other purpose by our prince's proclamation, whereat so many are offended ; and if any cause of offence be. It is to be amended with hurable supplica tion, not with rebellious contradiction. " Brightraan on the 11th of the Revelation* records that the day whereon Queen Elizabeth carae to the crown after the Marian per secutions was observed with an anniversary or yearly sermon, even by those who in that country are enemies to episcopal government, of which number himself is one. So we have preaching and pub lic rejoicing [on] the fifth days of August and November-f- for that double deUverance of our gracious sovereign, whom may the Lord long continue a comfort to his Church. And I am sure we have greater cause to rejoice at the remerabrance of Christ's Nati vity, albeit Herod and Herodian in upper Jerusalera were against it, when angels, heavenly soldiers, and saints redeemed, were sing ing in Bethlehem, Glory be to God in heaven, and peace to men • Thomas Brightman, an EngUsh Puritan, bom at Nottingham in 1557, and died in 1607, was the author of several works published after his death . The one fo which Bishop Cowpar refers is his " Analysis et Scholia in Apocalypsin." t The latter is the weU known Gunpowder Plot Day. The former commemorated the Gowrie Conspiracy, which was ordered to be kept, and was observed during the ¦ reign of James. 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. 399 on earth ! I wiU rather sing with the one than startle without cause with the other. " 0 ! but this is not the day of His nativity. I answer. Let it be so. It Is not the day but the benefit we reraeraber, which no good Christian will deny should be done. Sure It is He was born, died upon Good Friday, and the third day He rose ; the fortieth day thereafter He ascended ; ten days after His ascension He sent the Holy Ghost, which frora His resurrection Is the fiftieth day, called, Acts ii. 2. the Pentecost. AU this Is according to the ar ticles of our faith expressly set down In Scripture, and why, then, do men make such scruple to remeraber our Lord's Nativity on such a day as Christian Catholics in all ages have remembered 2 " But here they say, we remeraber His nativity every day. I an swer, this Is like that presumption of the young man who spake to Christ in the Gospel—' All these,' saith he, ' I have done from my youth.' He spake out of ignorance, affirming he had done the thing he did not. And so do they. I appeal to their own con sciences how many days of the year will pass wherein they do not so much as think of His nativity \ But if it were as they say that they remember His nativity every day, why make they it strange to remember It on this day also ? " Yet, say they. Ye remember it this day more than another ! I answer. And why not 2 Every good Christian hath his own days chosen by hiraself, some for fasting, some for thanksgiving for par ticular benefits. What a private Christian may lawfuUy do, ye make It unlawful for a Christian Church to do, especially where we go in the communion of saints with all the Reformed Churches in Europe. In France, in the Protestant Church, their raost notable preachers give the communion on that day, as did also the Primi tive Churches throughout the world, as testifieth St Augustine in his Epistles 1.18th and 119th. So did our own Scottish Church also for eight hundred years, before It was polluted with Papistry, as I have proved In my forenamed Conference, whoso likes to read It. " But, say they. We have no coraraandraent in the Word to do It. I answer. Let thera distinguish betwixt that which is substan tial and real in religion, and that which is circurastantial and ritual. A point substantial raust have an express warrant in the Word commanding It ; for that which is circumstantial, it is suf- 400 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. ficient if it be not against the Word, it being left to be ordained by ecclesiastical authority. As, for example, to preach In season and out of season is a substantial point; for it we have an express command In the Word. What day of the week ordinary preach ing should be beside the Sabbath, that is circumstantial, and left to the decision of the Church, who by the same authority that, they may ordain preaching [on] such a day of the week, raay also or dain preaching such of the mouth in a year. Again, he that sins openly shall be openly rebuked. This is substantial In religion, and we have an express command for it. But to set him on a pil lar three days, or raore, or fewer, is circumstantial, such as our Church without doing wrong to the Word of God hath deter mined. I acknowledge It to be a good order, and wiU any of these men condemn it because it is not an express coraraand in the word 2 Marriage Is honourable araong aU men, [and] for man and woraan to join without marriage is fornication. This is substan tial, and hath the warrant of the Word. But that first they must be three days publicly proclaimed, is circumstantial, done by the Church for good order, which I acknowledge sufficient, because It is not against the Word. " Yule Day, say they, was cast out of our Church. I answer, what they caU Yule Day I know not ; but a day reputed for the day of Christ's nativity, and observed for the remembrance there of, that I know. I find no ecclesiastical law standing in all our books of Assembly to the contrary. But if it have been cast out, yet a thing not against the Word of God upon good considerations may be brought in again, albeit it had been left out. Instances of this I might bring frora the Church of Geneva ; one I bring from our own. Since baptism not upon a preaching day was cast out by act and practice, and yet is now received again, why may not preaching of Christ's Nativity, Passion, Resurrection, Ascension, and sending of the Holy Ghost, or such days, be received again, albeit It had been cast out 2 We were weU, they say, before ; and what needs this innova tion 2 I answer. Conformity with the ancient and recent Re formed Churches require It, except we wiU be singular. Besides this, the question here Is betwixt a prince and his people. They will be nourished In the humours, not remerabering that a Chris tian prince is also to be regarded, who finds himself bound in con- 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. 401 science to see duties in religion performed. What is evil in their eyes seemeth good In his. And here the debate falling betwixt their will and his about a raatter not against the word of God, let any unprejudiced raan give a sentence who should be foUowed. " Of a Baptism to be administered in due time and place. — Now for Baptlsra, our coraraission Is to baptise without limitation either of time or place, decency alway both for tirae and place being observed. So far as may be, where the public order of the Church is not conteraned, Baptlsra should not be refused. It is not, they will say, necessary to salvation. I grant that I abhor the blind and merciless sentence of Papists, that infants dying without bap tism go to any house of hell. But although it were not necessary to the chUd's salvation, who wUl deny that it is necessary, at least a probable help of the parent's faith 2 For our Lord hath not ordained it in vain. Where, then, a Christian parent desires it to his child, either upon a preaching day or other day, with what warrant a preacher can deny it I know not. " Of Private Communion. — The same is ray judgraent of Private Communion. Here are two words [which] would be well under stood. Private, I caU it In respect of the public asserably, not of a private person ; Communion it is, in respect of many Christians partaking in it. Where a man hath been a reverent hearer of the word in the public assembly, and a reverent and careful receiver of the sacrament there, if God suspend him by sickness frora doing that duty, raay we not sit beside hira and corafort him by the Word 2 May we not pray for him and for ourselves even in a private faraily 2 And why also may we not give to him, and take to ourselves, the seals of the covenant of mercy 2 The particular precepts hereof, both for the person and place, I take not upon me to determine, but leave It to the wisdom of the preacher. " Of Kneeling at the Communion. — The hardest point of all is kneeling at the Holy Communion, which is the more misliked because It was and yet is abused by Papists to idolatry. That vile error of transubstantiation and worshipping of the bread my soul abhorreth it, but it is hard to condemn a thing lawful in Itself because It hath been abused. For what is so good that hath not or raay not be abused 2 ShaU not St Paul bow his knees to the Father of the whole famUy in heaven and earth, God the Creator, 402 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. because Idolaters bow their knees to the creature 2 He was not so scrupulous. " If I should condemn sitting at the table, I should do wrong to my mother Church — ^the Church of Scotland. If I should condemn standing, I should do wrong to that sister Church of France which hath stood for the truth to the blood. If I should condemn kneel ing, I should do wrong to the Church of England, glorious with many crowns of martyrdom, and raany other Churches also. I like weU that raodest judgment of Peter Martyr, who thinks any of these, sitting, standing', or kneeling, lawful. Our Church has deterralned that kneeling seeras the raost reverent forra for receiving so great a benefit ; and the rude gesture of raany of our people In many parts of the land requires that they should be led to a greater reverence of that holy mystery, and taught that by humble kneel ing we shaU at length be brought to a joyful sitting with Him for ever. " But here it will be objected to me that our Lord and his disciples sat at the table. I answer, that the Evangelist saith, that as He sat at the table He took bread, and gave thanks. This seemeth to note the time of the institution, to-wit, after He had done with the natural and paschal supper, not the gesture. For why 2 St Paul, describing aU that is essential in the sacrament, makes no mention either of sitting, standing, or kneeling : yet he says — ' What I have received of the Lord, that I delivered unto you.' If he received it, and delivered it not, he was not faithful, which I abhor to think. If he delivered It not, then surely he received it not. " This [kneeling] Is the soundest and most safe course. It keepeth all the Reformed Churches free from doing against the Word of God, for we raust think that St Paul knew certainly the mind of Christ. Such as are conscientious, let thera ponder this well. The contentions I ara not able to satisfy. If the ex pediency be set aside, and the question be only of the lawfulness, ray arguraent stands yet unanswered. Whatsoever spiritual bene fit I raay lawfully seek on my knees with supplication, that same I raay lawfully receive on ray knees with thanksgiving. But I may lawfully with supplication seek salvation by Jesus on ray knees ; therefore I raay lawfully receive it [the coraraunion] on my knees. 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. 403 They answer nothing who say, I raay not kneel to any idol, for to Christ I kneel, praising Him when I receive the holy symbols, exhibiting the instruments of his body and blood ; and it is mad ness either to make them Idols, as the Papists do, or to caU thera idols, as the malcontents do. " I have opened my mind according to my light. To thera that ask. Where was the light before ? ray answer Is, remember what is said of our blessed Lord, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to loose — ' He increased in wisdom,' Luke ii. 52. Shall it then be an imputation to his silly, weak, unworthy, and infirm servants, that they increase in wisdom and grow in knowledge as they are commanded 2 Such as are contentious I leave tumbling in the turaultuous thoughts of their perturbed minds, raging like the waves of the sea, foaming, and casting out their own dirt and shame. For me, I rest in the peace of ray God through Jesus Christ, which, blessed be God, I enjoy. A sore famine of the Word of God Is at hand, for the loathing of manna and murmur ing against Moses and Aaron. There may be bread, but God wiU break the staff of It. Preaching of the Word in many parts, but vrithout life or power. Prattlers and lying libeUers, Papists, or Atheists, I comraend thera to the raercy of God, that they raay be brought to repentance. Let thera read these words of our Saviour — Matt. vii. 6. ' Give not that which Is holy unto dogs, neither cast ye your perils before swine.' Be not of that number, If ye mind to enter into the heavenly Jerusalem. I wIU have nothing spoken here extended to peaceable and truly religious Christians, of which number God hath a flourishing church both In this town [Edinburgh] and in other parts of the land. The Lord Increase them ! The Lord grant peace to his ovm Jeru salem, and have mercy upon us, that we may prevent these and other Imrainent judgraents upon great and small by unfeigned repentance !" Mr Scott observes on the preceding passages, that Bishop Cowpar " has said what may shew us that he and others were not rashly to be condemned who submitted to the Five Acts of the Perth Assembly. — With regard to the confirmation of chUdren, Bishop Cowpar In his defence takes no notice of It ; and Indeed it was unnecessary to say any thing in its defence, considering the 404 THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY [1618. Inoffensive manner In which it had been expressed in the Act of Assembly."* The preceding extracts, though not unobjectionable In a few passages, are chiefly interesting as being part of the discourse which he preached in the Chapel-Royal of Holyroodhouse on the first Christmas Day after the meeting of the Perth General Assem bly. Calderwood says — " Mr William Cowpar preached upon Christraas Day in the Abbey Kirk. Many resorted to hira out of curiosity, because he promised to give thera resolution that day for observing of holidays. He was so Irapertinent and frivolous In his arguments that he was mocked." The reader will now per ceive the audacity of this Presbyterian's assertion that the excel lent Bishop of GaUoway's " arguraents" were " Impertinent and frivolous." The General Assembly at Perth was attended by the afterwards noted Alexander Henderson as a " coraralssloner" for the Presby tery of St Andrews. He had been previously attached to the Epis copal Church, but he had now aUied hiraself to the Presbyterian party. The Presbyterians allege that he was converted to their cause by hearing a serraon frora Mr Robert Bruce of Kinnaird, a man of great abUities, who had long been a violent oppo nent of King James, and repeatedly dictated to his sovereign in such an arbitrary and offensive manner, that It was at length found necessary, in 1621, to coramit him to Edinburgh Castle for a few raonths ; and he was afterwards banished to Inverness, where he continued till the death of the King in 1625.-f- It was on a sacrament occasion, in a parish " soraewhat distant frora Leuchars," when Henderson heard Bruce preach the sermon which is said to have converted him to Presbyterianism ; but It is well known that his introduction to Leuchars parish was raost unpopular. It is adraitted that he was Irritated by the neglect of Archbishop Spottiswoode, who after he becarae Primate had not thought hiraself bound to pay the future charapion of the National Covenant any particular attention. " Gladstanes' death in June 1615," says Henderson's biographer, " reraoved frora his • Extracts from the Kirk-Session Eecords of Perth, MS. Advocates' Library, Edinburgh. t This banishment to a particular and distinct town, far from friends and acquaint ances, was no slight punishment in those days of bad roads, no conveyances, and no post-offices, while corresponding by letter was difficult and even dangerous. 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OF PERTH. 405 mind any personal feeling of restraint which gratitude to his patron might have engendered ; and the studied indifference with which Spottiswoode treated the son and protegees of his prede cessor could not fail to wound their pride, and disappoint their prospects."* This is a most important admission, and consider ably militates against the conscientious motives of Henderson. Yet he was not altogether neglected, for one of the very last acts of the Perth Assembly was to sanction the removal of " Mr WUliam Scott and Mr Alexander Henderson " to Edinburgh ; and though Calderwood alleges that " the Bishops meant no such thing in earnest," merely because the appointment did not then happen, Dr Alton confesses that " there is not even the slightest hint as to what actually was the cause why Scott and Henderson were not translated at this time, but it Is probable that the choice merely was made, and that Spottiswoode refused to concur." In the Records of the Synod of Fife, Oth AprU 1619, the following notice occurs — " Mr Alexander Henderson has not given the Communion according to the prescribed order, not of contempt, as he deponed solemnly, but because he is not fully persuaded of the lawfulness thereof. He is exhorted to obedience and con forraity." Henderson and two of his friends published a paraph- let by subscription, entitled the " Perth Asserably," in which they atterapted to show that the Five Articles were inconsistent with Scripture, and that the Assembly was illegally constituted and conducted. After this, till about 1630, he appears to have resided quietly in his parish of Leuchars. In 1620 Archbishop Spottis woode published In London the only work he is known to have printed in his lifetime — a small historical treatise in Latin entitled, " Refutatio LibeUi de Regimine Ecclesise Scoticanse," dedicated to the Prince of Wales, afterwards Charles I., and signed Jo. Fani AndrEjE Archepiscopus. It Is an answer to a tract of Calder wood, who replied in 1621 in a scurrilous production which he designated, " VIndicise ejusdem Epistolse contra Calumnias Johannis Spotsvodi Fani Andrese Psuedo-Archiepiscopi," which was after wards subjoined to his " Altare Damascenum." Bishop Lindsay of Brechin published in 1621 his " True Narration of the Proceed ings in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland holden • Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, by John Alton, D.D. Dolphington, p. 92. 406 THE general ASSEMBLY [1618. at Perth 25th August 1618, with a Just Defence of the Articles therein concluded against a Seditious Pamphlet" — ^referring to Calderwood's - tract. It was printed in London by " WiUiam Stansby, for Ralph Rounthwait, dwelUng at the signe of the Golden Lion in Paul's Church-yard," and Is dedicated to the " Reverend and Godly Brethren the Pastors and Ministers of the Church of Scotland." The Bishop of Brechin's " Narration" caused the reply written in Latin by Calderwood, under the name of Edwardus Didoclavius, entitled " Altare Damascenum," of which a translation was published, with the title — " The Altar of Damascus, or the Pattern of the English Hierarchy and Church Policy obtruded upon the Church of Scotland," which also appeared In 1621, and was considered by his party unanswerable. The original Latin edition was published in Holland. King James, according to Presbyterian authority, was much annoyed by the pubhcation of Calderwood's work. He was found very melan choly one day by an English Bishop, and when asked the cause, he replied that he had just read the " Altar of Daraascus." The Bishop desired the King not to vex himself about the book, for it would be answered. " Answer that, man !" James is made to say : " How can ye 2 There is nothing in it but Scripture, reason, and the Fathers." Such Is the anecdote, and whether true or false certain it is that every argument in Calderwood's production has been a thousand times answered and refuted. This General Asserably at Perth in 1618 was the last held in Scotland till the raemorable one at Glasgow in 1638. It is to be re gretted that no records are known to exist of the particular proceed ings at Perth, or of the General Assembly held at St Andrews in the previous year, except what is preserved by Calderwood in his " History." The original records of all the General Assemblies entitled the " Booke of the Universal Kirk of Scotland," extending to three volumes, which were laid on the table of the Glasgow General Assembly in 1638, and attested as genuine, found their way Into the possession of, or were entrusted to, Alexander second Lord Balcarras in 1652, probably during his Lordship's residence with his family In St Andrews that year, when he was In close cor respondence with Charles II. They were afterwards concealed by a private individual tUl 1677, when they were placed in the hands of Bishop Paterson of Edinburgh, afterwards Archbishop of Glas- 1618.] AND FIVE ARTICLES OP PERTH. 407 gow, who retained thera till the Revolution in 1688. After the Revolution sorae of the voluraes and papers were entrusted to a son of the former clerk of the General Assemblies after that of 1638. This was Secretary Johnston, who lent some of them to his cousin Bishop Burnet, and others of thera to the noted George Ridpath, who had undertaken to write a history of Scottish affairs. The three volumes previous to 1638 were obtained by the Honour able and Right Reverend Bishop Archibald Campbell, son of Lord Niel Campbell, and grandson of the eighth Earl and first Marquis of ArgyU, who, like Secretary Johnston's father, was executed as a traitor. The Presbyterians allege that Bishop Campbell obtain ed possession of the books surreptitiously, but this they were never able to prove. In 1733, Mr William Grant, afterwards a judge In the Court of Session by the title of Lord Prestongrange, cor responded with Bishop Campbell for the surrender of the books, but too large a sura of money was demanded, and even that sum the Bishop declared he would not accept till the books were to be published under his own exclusive superintendence. " While the negotiation was In progress," says Principal Lee of Edin burgh, frora whose statement these detaUs are abridged, " Mr Campbell, as he had sometimes threatened to do, took a step which was intended to put the books for ever beyond the reach of the [Presbyterian] Church of Scotland, by entering Into a deed or covenant with the President and Fellows of Sion College, with whom he deposited them." In 1828 and subsequent years the General Assembly raade great efforts to obtain possession of the books, and had some disagreeable altercations with the Fellows of Sion College, who refused to give them upon any terras, but were wiUing to aUow a transcript. It was at length resolved to petition Parliament on the subject. On the 2d of May 1834, the Assists ant-Librarian of Sion College was sumraoned by a Coramittee of the House of Coraraons, and ordered to produce the books. On the Sth they were inspected by competent persons from Scotland, who attested their authenticity. The books were unfortunately left in the House of Commons, and perished in the great fire which destroyed both Houses of ParUament on the foUowing 16th of Oc tober. Those curious records of Scottish religious turmoil were thus irrecoverably lost. 408 [1618. CHAPTER VII. THE OBSERVANCE OF THE PERTH ARTICLES — DEATH OF BISHOP COWPAR — ECCLESIASTICAL ARRANGEMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS — MEETING OF THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT — ITS PROCEEDINGS — CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. Some weeks after the raeeting of the Perth General Assembly, Archbishop Law held Diocesan Synods at Glasgow and Peebles, in which considerable opposition was raanifested to the Five Articles. On the last day of Noveraber the Archbishop wrote to his " reverend and well-beloved the Moderator and Brethren of the Presbytery of Ayr," Imploringly and affectionately beseeching them to conformity. " I do by these presents," he said, " com mand you aU, and every one of you, to make due and lawful pre monition to your parishioners to assemble and convene themselves the said 25th of December next to corae at your several parish kirks, and there by public preaching, prayer, and thanksgiving, to worship God, and praise him for the inestimable benefit of the birth and Incarnation of his Son." The Archbishop proceeded to warn them of the consequences of their contumacy, which Involved deposition from their parishes, and intimated to them the pain it would Inflict upon himself to be compelled to adopt extreme mea sures ; " but," he concludes, " hoping better of you, and that ye wiU in holy wisdom and due obedience conform yourselves to that which hath so much lawful authority, and will prove so profitable, I comraend you to the grace of God." Thc effect of this letter, which the Archbishop would doubtless circulate throughout his whole Diocese, is not stated. Some days before the 25th of Deceraber the King addressed a letter to the ministers of Edinburgh to observe the injunction of the General 1618.] OBSERVANCE OF THE PERTH ARTICLES. 409 Assembly, and preach on that day. Calderwood states that only two of the parish churches of the city were open, In which Mr Patrick Galloway and Mr WiUiam Struthers officiated, and he assails those otherwise very Inconsistent persons. If we take Into account their previous career and sentiments, in the most opprobrious and vulgar manner. Galloway is designated a " vain-glorious raan." Bishop Cowpar preached in the Chapel-Royal, and the reader is already familiar with the substance of his sermon. On the 10th of Febru ary three of the citizens were suraraoned before the High Corarais sion, accused of opening their shops during the time of divine service, sauntering before their shop doors, dissuading the people from resorting to the churches, and denouncing the observance of Christmas Day. They apologized for their conduct, and were dis- raissed with an adraonition to be more cautious in future. The sentiments of the Presbytery of Perth, which Includes a large tract of country now divided Into twenty parishes, exclusive of the city of Perth, may be inferred from tbe following extract from the manuscript Kirk-Session Records :— " Alexander Lind say, Bishop of Dunkeld, as moderator of the Presbytery of Perth, acquainted the Presbytery, February 24, 1619, that it was his Majesty's will that the statutes of the General Assembly holden at Perth In the raonth of August last be kept in all points, and especially in the ministration of the Comraunion, and keeping of the preaching days mentioned in the said acts of Assembly. A letter was produced to the Presbytery, March 10, 1619, sent by my Lord Archbishop of St Andrews, the tenor of which was : — ' Loving Brethren — I have understood that, notwithstanding the intimation raade to you of the acts of our late General As sembly, and a desire that ye should have conformed yourselves In preaching all this last Christmas in your kirks of the matters per tinent to that day, divers have disobeyed, and not only forebome to practice as you were commanded, but also In your sermons and exercises sought occasion to conderan the proceedings of the As sembly, which in a Kirk well constituted is not tolerable. The evUs hereof, and our care to prevent them, have brought us in this last raeeting which we have kept at Edinburgh to appoint that warning should be given by every Bishop to the Exercise [Presby tery] within his Diocese for a precise keeping of these acts In tirae coming, especiaUy for giving Comraunion on Easter Day in the 410 THE OBSERVANCE OP [1619. form prescribed by kneeling, and the observance of the Passion Day, Easter Itself, Ascension Day, and Pentecost, by a thankful commemoration of the benefits [which] the Lord our God vouch safed us thereon in Christ Jesus. According to the whUk ordi nance I have thought meet to make warning unto you, that none should pretend excuse, or deceive himself by a conceit of forbear ing and oversight though he transgress, seeing, beside the danger of schism in this nonconforraity, we are coraraanded by his Majesty to suffer that none raay bruick [enjoy] the ministry that do not obey to the practice of the same, as we will be answerable upon our own dangers and the loss of our places, which we have in greater regard than to choose to lose them by our negligence ; and as I think ye wiU esteera soraewhat more of your ministry than to be deprived, or lose the exercise thereof for disobeying in matters of Indifferent nature. Howbeit if any will upon wilful pretext scorn, let hira be assured upon notice hereof, to be caUed before the Coramission, and discharged frora henceforth of his minis try. And trusting this shall be sufficient either to work obedience with you, or to discharge myself to those that wiU not, I commit you to God. You must direct your ministers to think in due time after what order these may best be done, and to prepare that all things may be with the conforraity and greatest decency that is possible In your coramunions. Edinburgh, 16th February, 1619.' " On the day before the date of this letter the Church sustained a severe loss by the death of Bishop Cowpar at Edinburgh in the fifty-third year of his age. Mr Scott candidly observes — " Calder wood in his History has coUected together several stories to the Bishop's disadvantage, tending chiefly to shew that he was rigor ous in exacting the revenues of his Bishopric, and that therefore he bore too great a love to the world. But it is with the utmost caution that stories propagated in the times of party heat and ani mosity should be admitted, and it Is weU known that the revenues of the Church in general, and of the Diocese of GaUoway in parti cular, had been dilapidated In the raost shameful manner — an eril which from the Reforraation to the present time has been felt, and loudly complained of."* We have another Presbyterian tes timony in favour of Bishop Cowpar from a local writer, who con- * Kirk -Session Eecords of Perth, MS. 1619.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 411 fesses that Calderwood's " observations respecting individuals must be received with caution. That Cowpar was both an amiable and pious man can hardly be denied, for though he changed his opi nions on religious subjects, and espoused the cause of Episcopacy, yet he is said by impartial observers always to have exhibited a laudable moderation, and an undeviating attachment to the best interests of Christianity."* Calderwood accuses Bishop Cowpar of various acts of neglect, extortion, and oppression, which it was impossible he could commit even if he had been Inclined, while his public and private character is a coraplete refutation of the charges paraded against hira. He aUeges that in the course of the seven years during which Bishop Cowpar held the See of Gal loway he " extorted" not less than L.8,333 sterling. A greater falsehood never was invented even by Presbyterian raalignlty. The Bishopric of Galloway was, like Brechin and Dunblane, long proverbial for its poverty, and after the Revolution of 1688, when all the revenues of the Scottish Archbishops and Bishops were seized by the Crown, the rental of this very Bishopric of Galloway as enjoyed by John Gordon the then Bishop, was only L.228, 12s. sterling. The sum of L.8,333 sterling, or L.100,000 Scots money, which Bishop Cowpar is accused of " extorting," was not in cir culation in one half of the Lowland counties. Calderwood asserts " that Bishop Cowpar had never ability to go up to the pulpit after his Christmas sermon." It is generaUy stated that he died of what Is expressively called a broken heart, and this Is to a certain extent admitted by Archbishop Spottis woode. After noticing the refutation of the falsehood that the Synod of Dordrecht In Holland, convened to repress the Armi nians, had condemned the Five Articles of Perth, the Primate says of the Presbyterians — " They ceased not by their libels and pam phlets to Injure the raost worthy raen, and araong others the Bishop of Galloway, whora they vexed so with their papers, that he, taking the business more to heart than was needful, feU into a sickness whereof he deceased In the beginning of the sarae year. An excellent and ready preacher he was, and a singular good man, • The History of Galloway from the Earliest Period to the Present Time, in two vols. Kirkcudbright, 1841, vol. n. p. 27, 28, said to be written by Mr WUliam Mac kenzie, in 1843 inducted aS EstabUshed Presbyterian minister of Skirling in Peeblesshire. 412 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1619. but one that affected too much the applause of the popular. The good opinion of the people is to be deserved. If it may be had law fully, but when It cannot be obtained (as who is he that can please all men and at aU times 2) the testiraony of a well Informed conscience should suffice." The authentic account of the last illness and death of Bishop Cowpar cannot fail to be read with interest. " Among the same papers," say the editors of his works," we found three short medi tations, whereby he comforted himself when he found his death approaching, written also with his own hand, and bearing date the 7th of December 1618." They then state—" This faithful servant of God, who from the time of his entry Into the ministry had always shewed hiraself diligent and faithful in his calling, notwithstanding that his sickness grew daily upon hira, was no way deficient in his duties of ordinary preaching,* taking great pains also to perfect his work upon the Revelation, which he had begun, and desired greatly to finish it before his dying. Besides which studies the grief he received from the backwardess of unruly spirits in giving obedience to the Articles concluded in the late [Perth] Assembly, and ratified by authority, to the great disturbance of the peace of the Church which he laboured carefully In all his life to procure, did hasten hira not a little into his end. In the beginning of Ja nuary 1619, his infirmity increasing, he was compelled to keep at home, and not go any raore abroad. Yet as his weakness did per mit he gave himself to revise his writings and dispose of his worldly affairs, that he might be ready for his passage, which every day he expected. Some ten days before his departure, having his mind freed from all earthly business, he raanifested a great contentraent he had in his approaching death. The Wednesday before, which was the 10th of February, the Bishops and some other brethren being assembled at Edinburgh for certain affairs of the Church, took occasion to meet In his house because of his sickness, which he took most kindly, and continued with them that whole afternoon, giving wholesome advice in matters propounded ; and shewed hiraself as * It is previously stated that when Bishop Cowpar was minister of Perth, in addition to his sermons on Sunday he preached every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday even ing, and on the forenoon of every Tuesday or Thursday. Mr Scott (MS. Kirk-Session Eecords) states that his " excellent and pious commentary on that devotional part of Scripture, the 119th Psalm, was delivered by him in the course of his evening lectures on the week days," 1619.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 413 pleasant and jocund in speeches as ever before. Howbeit, even then he signified to thera that his death was drawing near, and declared his raind somewhat disposedly conceming his successors. The days following, he kept with all that came to visit him in most holy and divine conferences, expressing a great willingness to exchange this life for that better. Upon Monday, which was the 15th day of February, at one o'clock in the afternoon, feeUng his strength and spirits to decay, after he had conceived a raost heavenly prayer in the corapany of those that were with hira, he desired to be laid in bed (for the days before he arose always, and walked or sat in his charaber), which being done, after he had commended himself to God, he took some quiet rest ; after which he spake not many words, but those which he uttered, shew his raeraory and other senses to have been perfect, his tongue only falling hira ; and in this sort, about seven of the clock at night he rendered his soul to God in a most quiet and peaceable manner. His body the 18th of February was Interred, according to his own direction, in the church-yard called the Greyfriars' at Edinburgh, on the south side of the new church, and was conveyed to the place by the Earl of Dunfermline, Chancellor, and the rest of the honourable Lords of Council, with the Magistrates of the city and many others, the funeral serraon being preached by the most reverend father In God the Archbishop of St Andrews."* Calderwood relates that the last clerical office which Bishop Cowpar discharged was his ordaining for the rainistry a certain Mr Scott who had been his secretary, and that he performed this duty sitting up In his bed. The Bishop married, in 1611, Grizel daughter of Robert Anderson. Of his descendants little is known. He had a daughter naraed Lilias who was baptized at Perth on the 17th of April 1615, at which were the Earl of Montrose and Lord Scone as witnesses. Another daughter was raarried during his * The grave of Bishop Cowpar is stUl to be seen in the Greyfriars' church-yard, close to the south wall of the New Greyfriars' church, as it is called, built in 1721 at the west end of the church locaUy known as the Old Greyfriars, erected in 1612, in the grounds which were formerly the gardens of the Greyfriars' Monastery. The grave of the Bishop is marked by a flat stone, the Latin inscription on which was toler ably legible in 1843. The epitaph is — " Hie conditum est corpus Gullielmi Cowpar, Candidas Casae Episcopi, qui postquam quinquaginta tres annos vixisset, et trigenta tres evangeUum, multa cum spiratus virtute predicasset, et Opera Theologica non pauca, pietatis et eruditionis testes perennes seripsisset ; quievit a laboribus 15to Februarii 1619." 414 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1619. lifetime to John Crawfurd of Skeldon, and this intiraates that the mother of Lilias Cowpar was the Bishop's second wife. The whole of his valuable treatises were coUected and published In one folio volume in London in 1726, when his Commentary on the Book of Revelation was the first time printed. Some of his manuscript writings, which were In the possession of private citizens of Perth In 1775, are probably now lost. Bishop Cowpar was succeeded in the See of Galloway by Bishop Larab, one of the three consecrated at London, who was trans lated from Brechin. The Presbyterian historian of Galloway thus speaks of Bishop Larab — " Iraraoderately hostile to the cause of Presbytery, he was a fit meraber of the High Coraraission Court, Never was this man known to shew mercy to the suffering Presby terians.''* This is a mere gratuitous assertion, for there were no " suffering Presbyterians" in those times. Several meraorials of Bishop Lamb stiU exist at Brechin. He was succeeded in that See by Darid Lindsay, then minister of Dundee, son of Colonel John Lindsay, a brother of Lindsay of Edzel — an ancient branch of the Lindsays in Forfarshire. He was consecrated in the Castle of St Andrews on the 23d of November by Archbishop Spottis woode. Calderwood says that Bishop Lindsay's preferment was " the reward he got for his book entitled Resolutions for Kneeli/ng, which was answered soon after in the book entitled Solutions of Doctor Resolutus his Resolutions for Kneeling!'' The value of the so called " reward," will be easily understood by the reader when he is informed that the Bishopric of Brechin had been so dilapi dated at and after the Reforraation that it was the poorest in Scotland ; and at the Revolution the revenue enjoyed by Bishop Druraraond was only L.76 sterling. To narrate all the local discussions, animosities, and evasions, connected with the Five Articles of Perth, and especially the one which enjoined the attitude of kneehng at the Eucharist, would be merely to quote Calderwood's accounts, and his exaggerations of the " scenes" at different places. Sydserff, afterwards Bishop of GaUoway, was then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and took a prominent part in the controversy. Sorae of the more refractory were caUed before the High Commission Court, but nothing of im portance occurred. Archbishop Spottiswoode states that there " History of Galloway, 1841, vol. n. p. 28. 1619.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 415 was much contention in Edinburgh in the spring of 1619, between the clergy and the Magistrates, on account of the people " stray ing frora their churches, at which the Magistrates were thought to connive." The rautual retorts and recriminations were brought before the King. The ministers contended that they were " un kindly used for the obedience given to the Acts of the Perth As sembly ;" while, on the other hand, the Magistrates alleged that " the ministers were the cause of the people's disobedience, some of thera having directly preached against the Acts of Perth, and all of thera affirraing that these Acts were concluded against their hearts." The King ordered the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and Lord Binning, Secretary of State, to Investigate the truth of these charges, and as It appeared that both parties were to blame, they were advised to " lay aside their grudges, and keep one course for the retaining the people in the obedience of God and his Majesty." On this occasion the Magistrates were enjoined to divide the city into parishes, and to provide four ad ditional ministers. In consequence of this arrangeraent, Dr Wil liam Forbes, minister at Aberdeen, Mr John Guthrie, rainister at Perth, Mr John Maxwell of Mortlach, and Mr Alexander Thora- son of Carabuslang, were translated frora their respective parishes to Edinburgh. The two first naraed were eminent Individuals. Forbes Is sub sequently noticed as the first Bishop of Edinburgh, after the erec tion of the See in 1633. Guthrie, afterwards Bishop of Moray, succeeded Bishop Cowpar as minister of Perth. His removal to Edinburgh was not effected till 1621, his popularity in Perth hav ing induced the inhabitants to oppose it as much as possible. The Perth Kirk-Session Records, under date June 12th 1621, detaU the popular reluctance which was manifested to his resignation of his charge in the " Fair City." Mr Scott reraarks — " The Pres bytery had concurred all along with the town-council and session In opposing Mr Guthrie's translation. — It was no doubt very hard to force Mr Guthrie from the charge which he loved, especially to carry him to a scene of tumult such as Edinburgh then was. But the situation of the Church seemed to require such a man as Mr Guthrie to be at Edinburgh ; and the King having directed that four new ministers should be added to the number who had for raerly been In Edinburgh, Insisted that Mr Guthrie should obey. 416 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1619. He was present again at Perth In a meeting of council and the kirk-session, July 12, 1621, after which his actual translation seems to have taken place." He was succeeded at Perth by Mr John Robertson, who, with the sanction of Archbishop Spottis woode, was ordained and adraitted second minister of Perth by the Bishop of Dunkeld on Sunday, March 3, 1622. Mr Scott says that Mr Robertson " continued minister at Perth, much esteemed by the people and by the brethren of the Presbytery, tiU he was deposed by a very arbitrary sentence. May 28, 1645." Several proceedings of the Bishops are recorded by Calderwood in the years 1617, 1620, and 1621, connected with the refractory preachers who would not acknowledge the Five Articles of Perth. The great source of contention was the enjoined mode of adminis tering and receiving the Coraraunion, but as the parties concerned were obscure and are now forgotten, the detaUs are not of much interest. On the 6th of April 1619, Archbishop Spottiswoode held his Diocesan Synod at St Andrews, but no business was transac ted, in consequence of an alarming report of the King's dangerous illness. At another Synod held in Edinbtu-gh, after It was under stood that the King had recovered, the Archbishop plainly inti mated to some of the more obstinate rainisters in the vicinity of the city that they were likely to incur banishraent to the " new found lands, and loss of their stipends." A few days afterwards the Primate undertook one of his numerous journeys to the Court. The Archbishop of Glasgow in his Diocesan Synod carefuUy re corded aU those who had not conformed. A few were subsequent ly deprived, or rather their ministerial functions were suspended, and confined to residence in distant towns. In June 1619, the Court of High Commission was renewed, with power to suraraon all avowed or suspected Roraan Catholics, and all who opposed, either by speech or in writing, the Perth Articles — the punishment to be " suspension, deprivation, fining, warding, and imprisoning, of aU such as are disaffected and seditious persons, according to the nature and aggravation of the offence." Mr Scott very can didly observes — " The High Commission was, to be sure, a Court constituted for very arbitrary purposes. It Is not Impossible, how ever, but that sorae honest men might think, though very unjustly, that the necessity of the times required It." Calderwood reports a long " conference betwixt the Bishops and 1621.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 417 ministers at St Andrews," on the 23d of November and two fol lowing days. Archbishop Spottiswoode presided, and after open ing the meeting with prayer, inforraed the parties present that the King had so far sanctioned the conference, and had sent Lord Scone to attend for his interest. The alleged speeches and obser vations of the Bishops of Aberdeen, Brechin, Ross, and the Arch bishop of Glasgow, are recorded, as also some of those of the ordi nary ministers, but the discussion, which was chiefly about the state of the Church, and the observance of the Perth Articles, is now of no Interest. In 1620 several of the Presbyterian party were cited before the High Coramission. Some were " warded," but on the whole they were leniently treated. It appears frora various documents that many of the Presbyteries exerted themselves greatly this year against the avowed or suspected professors of the Roman Catholic religion, especiaUy those In the higher ranks of life. The merabers of the Roraan Church, however, were gradually decreasing in in fluence, and even in nurabers, except araong the half civilized Highlanders, raany of whose Chiefs, from their lawless character and difficulty of access in their remote mountain districts, were unmolested. On the 1st of June 1621, the Scottish Pariiaraent met at Edin burgh, the Marquis of Hamilton presiding as the King's Comrais sioner. The two Archbishops, and all the Bishops, with the exception of those of Moray and The Isles, were present. On the third day after the raeeting the Lords of the Articles were chosen, araong whora were the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, Dunblane, Ork ney, and ArgyU. On the following day the very first act of the ParUaraent ratified the Five Articles of the Perth General Assem bly, which was a severe blow to the Presbyterian party. In this ParUament the Deanery of the Chapel-Royal of Stirling Castle was annexed to the Bishopric of Dunblane ; but, with the exception of a few other acts regulating the temporalities of several parishes, and connecting thera with particular Bishoprics, the great raajority of the enactments had no connection with the Church. This was the last Scottish ParUament held in the reign of James, and Arch bishop Spottiswoode states that it was the one "wherein he received greatest content " by the ratification of the Perth Articles. He 27 418 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1622. expressed his sentiments to the Bishops and Privy CouncU on the subject In letters dated the 29th of Septeraber. To the former the King wrote that " as they had to do with two sorts of enemies. Papists and Puritans, so they should go forward in action both against the one and the other ; that Papistry was a disease of the mind and Puritanism of the brain ; and the antidote of both a grave, settled, and well ordered Church, In the obedience of God and their King, whereof he wiUed thera to be careful, and to use all means for reducing those that either of simplicity or wilfulness did err." On the last day of the Parliament a tremendous and alarming storm of thunder, lightning, rain, and hail, broke forth, accompanied by an extraordinary darkness, and it Is gravely stated that " God appeared angry at the concluding of the [Perth] Ar ticles," at the moraent the Marquis of Harailton, as Lord High Coraralssloner, rose to touch thera with the sceptre, according to the Scottish custora when an act of Pariiaraent was to be ratified. Archbishop Spottiswoode observes that " the factious sort did In terpret it to be a visible sign of God's anger for ratifying the acts of Perth ; others, in derision of their folly, said — that it was to be taken for an approbation from Heaven, likening the same to the thunderings and lightnings at the giving of the Law of Moses." Nothing of any iraportance occurs in the history of the Church in 1622, with the exception of sorae proceedings against a few of the raore refractory and obstinate of the Presbyterians. Among those who figured in this manner were Mr Robert Bruce, Mr Robert Blair, and Mr Darid Dickson. In that year Dr WiUiam Forbes was translated from Aberdeen to be one of the ministers of Edinburgh. In the Diocesan Synod of Fife held at St Andrews in the beginning of October, it was resolved that ministers should teach no other doctrine on the afternoons of Sunday except that contained in the catechism. Calderwood mentions a curious fact connected with the University of St Andrews in 1623. On the 15th of January, Dr Wedderburn and Dr MelviUe were directed by a letter from Dr Young, Dean of Winchester, in the King's name, to use the English Liturgy at morning and evening service in St Salvador's CoUege, which was accordingly done without any opposi tion. At that time, and long afterwards, most of the students resid ed in the CoUege, at least all those who were on the foundation. At this period great excitement prevaUed in England and Scot- 1623.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 419 land respecting the matrimonial expedition of Prince Charles to Spain. The unsuccessful result of that projected alliance Is well known. Calderwood introduces it to Indulge his malignity against the Church generally, and in particular against the future Bishop of Edinburgh. He records several gossipping reports of the theological opinions of Dr Forbes, whose learning, eloquence, and piety, could not be denied by the Presbyterians, and they resorted to their usual mode of endeavouring to prejudice the people against their opponents by representing him as a Roraanist. It is, how ever, unnecessary to narrate those contentions, all of which refer to merely local matters. Bishop Douglas of Moray died at his cathedral town of Elgin In May 1623, and was interred In the church of St Giles there, which was the pastoral charge of the Bishops of Moray. During the episcopate of Bishop Douglas, a second incumbent was ap pointed about 1613, who was considered the Bishop's vicar, and even in the Presbyterian Establishraent the incumbency of the town and parish of Elgin is still collegiate. Bishop Keith states that Bishop Douglas was interred In the " south aisle of the church of St GUes, in a vault buUt by his widow, who likewise erected a stately monuraent over hira, which is to be seen quite entire to this day ;" but Mr Lachlan Shaw, in his " History of Moray," inforras us that " the church of St Giles, being an old vaulted fabric, fell down in 1679, and was soon rebuUt in the modern way as it now stands." The monument was doubtless preserved. The old church of St GUes fell on the forenoon of Sunday the 22d of June 1679, the very day on which the Battle of BothweU Bridge was fought, and fortunately the accident happened after the congrega tion had retired from the raorning service. Bishop Douglas was succeeded In the See of Moray by Mr John Guthrie, already men tioned as successively one of the ministers of Perth and of Edin burgh. He was proprietor of the estate of Guthrie in Forfarshire, and is justly described by Bishop Keith as a " venerable, worthy, and hospitable Prelate." In 1624 several Presbyterian preachers were deprived for hold ing conventicles and other seditious meetings. Calderwood gives very ample details of their examinations, which resemble each other. Towardsthe end of that year the ministers of Edinburgh were again engaged In a troublesome dispute with some of the citizens 420 THE OBSERVANCE OP [1624. and raembers of the kirk-session about the order for administer ing the Communion. The leader of this opposition to the clergy was one of the baihes or magistrates named WilUara Rigg, assisted by several " base companions," as Archbishop Spottiswoode desig nates them. Calderwood concludes his " History " by narrating the proceeding at length in his own way. It appears that BaiUe Rigg chaUenged Dr Forbes for " divers points of doctrine," says Archbishop Spottiswoode, who was present at the exaralnations, " delivered by hira in his serraons, and as he refused to be judged by hira and the laics that assisted, the said Bailie did openly threaten thera all that unless they returned to the old [sitting] forra of rainistering the holy Coraraunion, the whole people would forsake thera." They were aU suraraoned before Sir George Hay, afterwards first Earl of Kinnoul, who had been appointed Lord Chancellor at the death of the Earl of Dunfermline in 1622. The Privy Council ordered them to leave the city, deprived Bailie Rigg of his situation in the magistracy, and declared hira incapable of ever holding any public office. The result of this dispute was favour able to the Church in Edinburgh. The clergy were ordered to reside in their respective parishes ; and the popular election of the incumbents by the citizens was prohibited, and vested in the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and Town-Council, with whom the right of presentation to all the parishes within the ancient and extended Royalty still remains. During this local dispute Mr Patrick Galloway died at Edin burgh about the end of the year. This personage was a very eminent though not the raost consistent man in his day, and was weU known in Scotland. In his youth he was a keen foUower of Andrew MelviUe, and attached himself to the Presbyterian party ; he next approved to a certain extent of the Tulchan Episcopate ; and he latterly became zealous for the Episcopal Church. He left Perth at the end of 1591 to serve Jaraes VI. as his chaplain, and his abilities soon attracted the notice, and obtained for him the friendship, of the King. Mr Scott, in his Extracts from the Kirk-Session of Perth, has quaintly condensed aU that is recorded of Patrick Galloway by Archbishop Spottiswoode, Calderwood, and others, and his notices are here for the first time printed. "In the year 1600 he [Galloway] was very serviceable to the King by his persuading many people of the reality of John Earl of 1624.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 421 Gowrie's treason, especially by a sermon to that purpose which he preached at the Cross of Edinburgh a few days after the Earl and his brother Alexander Ruthven were slain. He chose for his text Psalm cxxiv., which according to the old translation was as follows : — ' Praised be the Lord who hath not given us a prey unto their teeth. Our soul Is escaped even as a bird out of the snare of the fowlers ; the snare is broken, and we are delivered. Our help is in the name of the Lord who hath raade heaven and earth.' On the street, in the audience of the King, of many noblemen and barons, and of a great multitude of people, he related at length the particulars of the unhappy affair at Perth, according as it had been told hira. He pathetically described the imminent danger in which the King had been ; and then, as the proper improvement, called upon the King to give thanks to God, and to continue his trust in the Divine Providence ; and urged all the rest who were present to unite in their thanksgivings as loyal subjects for the great deliverance their Prince had met vrith. Spottiswoode says that this sermon gave satisfaction to many who before had been very doubtful of the truth of the King's story. He continued his endeavours, labouring, both by his pubhc discourses and by his private correspondence with ministers and others, to remove the unfavourable suspicions that had been entertained. The King his master was abundantly sensible of his faithful service in that cause. He doubled to him the pension he formerly received from the Abbey of Scone, and held him in greater esteem than ever ; but he lost much of his popularity by the zeal with which he espoused the King's interest. Sorae worthy good raen, who did not see things in the same light as Mr Galloway, plainly told him they admired his great abiUties, but were doubtful of the goodness or honesty of his heart. He seemed to many intoxicated with the royal favour ; but he was warm in whatever he engaged. Having high notions of the duty which he owed as a subject to his sovereign — to a sovereign especiaUy who had caUed him to be his own minister, and who put confidence in hira, he thought It incurabent upon him to act as far as he could with a safe conscience in his service ; and indeed he was brought over to embrace many of the King's opinions both with regard to Church and State. " When the King went to take possession of the Crown of England, April 4, 1603, he carried Mr GaUoway along with him 422 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1624. as his minister. Mr GaUoway was admitted to the celebrated Conference at Hampton Court, January 14, 1604, and afterwards wrote an account of that Conference, honourably mentioned by Dr Maclaine, the translator of Mosheim's Ecclesiastical History. In April 1604, Mr Galloway retumed to Scotland, being thought a proper person to raanage the affairs of the Scottish Church. He closely corresponded with the King, made frequent journeys to London, and kept the [Presbyterian] clergy and people in Scot land wonderfully quiet, considering the design which was then taking effect against the Presbj^erlan Establishment. The Com mission of the General Assembly, June 7, 1607, appointed hira to be one of the rainisters of Edinburgh. Though the Pariiaraent which raet at Perth, July 1, 1606, had established Prelacy in a more ample manner than it had been at any time since the Re forraation, and though the teraporalities of the Bishoprics were restored by that ParUaraent, yet Mr GaUoway, who no doubt might have had a Bishopric from the King If he had been pleased to take It, chose rather to live as a private minister. He was Indeed of more service to the King by remaining in that station, than he could have been If he had accepted the odious (!) office of a Bishop ; and he continued throughout his whole life to have a good deal of influence with the Presbyterian party. " After the Assembly at Perth, August 25, 1618, in which the five famous Articles which the King was obtruding upon the Church were agreed to, Mr GaUoway hurt his private usefulness as a minister of the gospel, and rendered himself obnoxious to many, by the impetuous raanner in which he sought to enforce the practice of those Articles, particularly that of kneeling at the Cora- munion. The people of Edinburgh shewed great backwardness to comply with this last ceremony, and Mr Patrick Galloway, whose temper could bear no contradiction from his parishioners, frequently shewed an Indecent degree of passion, by rudely com manding the comraunicants to kneel while he was giring thera the elements at the Lord's table. " Calderwood relates an unseemly accident which befeU on one of these occasions as foUows, April 21, 1622 : — Mr GaUoway, being to dispense the Lord's Supper In the Old Church of Edin burgh, said In his serraon — ' To yourselves be it said, to God be it said, and to the King be It said, if ye kneel not, for now there 1624.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 423 is a law established by act of Parliament for it.' Having come down from the pulpit after sermon to consecrate the elements by prayer, he kneeled, as the custom was, before the table, on which were four cups full of wine. In rising after prayer, being now very old and infirm, he took hold of the table to help him, but in so doing he overturned It with the four cups, and also two basons which contained the elements of bread. The bread and table cloths being all wet, and stained with the colour of the wine, occasioned no little confusion, and discomposed the minds of many ; and the service was obliged to stop tiU the Dean of Guild went and got new provision of table-cloths, bread, and wine. The people considered this accident as a rebuke, and Mr Galloway himself appears to have been not entirely void of such an apprehension. The next Sabbath, continuing to give the Communion, he said to an old man who had been his parishioner in Perth, and who after wards was his parishioner In Edinburgh, while he was putting the elements into his hands — ' Why do you sit so slovenly 2 Bow down and kneel.' The man answered — ' If I be now doing wrong, you have been teaching me wrong these forty-three years.' But it was observed that when Mr GaUoway himself coramunicated, he bowed only the one leg, and still sat upon the seat. Being grieved to the heart with the hurt which he saw insisting on the ceremony of kneeling occasioned, he intimated that the next Sabbath he would again proceed to give the Coraraunion, and would give it to the communicants sitting, standing, or kneeling. Thus he seems to have yielded a point which he had zealously contended for about four years ; and in yielding this point, he shewed that the general success of the gospel was raore precious to him than the favour of the Prince. " Many ofthe inhabitants of Edinburgh blamed hira unjustly for encouraging the King in the imposition of ceremonies. The fact was, that he and the other clergy who appeared obsequious were in their hearts averse from such things, at least judged their in troduction at that time very inexpedient. In April 1620, a per son in Edinburgh wrote in a letter to Mr Galloway the foUowing severe words — ' In the pregnancy of your youth you stirred up the Lords against the King at the Raid of Ruthven ; in the dotage of your age you would stir up the King against the Lord's servants, both pastors and people." 424 THE OBSERVANCE OF [1625. " According to the Session-Register of Perth he was raarried to Martha Guthrie, with whora he was contracted, April 21, 1583; but by the account of his family in Douglas' Peerage it appears that she dying, he married another wife." This was Mary, daughter of James Lawson, the successor of John Knox as rainister of Edinburgh. By this raarriage he had a son. Sir Patrick GaUoway, who acquired the lands of Carnbee in Fife. He was a person of great abihties, and obtained the favour of King James, by whora he was knighted, and appointed Master of Requests when a young raan. He was continued in this office by Charles I., to whora he was devotedly attached, and who con ferred on hira various other appointments. In 1645, the King rewarded his fidelity and services by creating hira Lord Dunkeld. He raarried a daughter of Sir Robert Norton, knight, by whom he had Thomas, who succeeded him as second Lord Dunkeld. That nobleman raarried Margaret, daughter of Sir Thomas Thom son of Duddingstone near Edinburgh, by whom he had tliree sons and four daughters, the second of whom raarried Thomas Rattray of CraighaU in Perthshire, from whom descended Bishop Rattray, and the second married the Rev. Dr Falconer. His eldest son, Jaraes third Lord Dunkeld, embraced the miUtary profession, and Is described as baring been a brave officer. He refused to conform to the Revolution, joined the Viscount of Dundee when he raised forces for James II. , and was at the Battle of KiUicrankle, for which he was outlawed and attainted. He retired to the exUed monarch's little Court at St Germains, entered the French ser rice, and was klUed in action, leaving a son and a daughter, who became a nun in the Val de Grace at Paris. This son took the title of Lord Dunkeld, and rose to the rank of Lieutenant-General In the French service. He married, but left no Issue. " Thus," observes Mr Scott In his siraple way, " the posterity of Mr Pat rick GaUoway were nobilitated ; thus did they continue obstinate In their fidelity to the Royal House of Stuart ; thus did they at last becorae Popish, and enter into a foreign service ; and in aU pro babUity the direct raale Une is already or wiU soon be extinct." In the spring of 1625 King Jaraes, who had previously suffered frora severe iUness, was seized with ague, of which he died at Theobald's on the 27th of March in the fifty-ninth year of his age. He was burled In Westminster Abbey, and his funeral sermon was 1625.] THE PERTH ARTICLES. 425 preached by Dr WlUIaras the Dean, then Bishop of Lincoln, after wards Archbishop of York. His views as to ecclesiastical and religious affairs in Scotland are best understood by the raeasures which he adopted, and for the accoraplishraent of which he exert ed all his influence and authority with unwearied zeal and perse verance. His character as a raonarch and as a raan has been so often discussed, that it would be superfluous to atterapt any new delineation of it in the present work. As It respects his exertions for the Episcopal Church of Scotland, we are informed by Bishop Henry Guthrie in his " Memoirs of Scotland," in alluding to the Scottish Bishops of his reign — " It had been King Jaraes' custora, when a Bishopric became vacant, to appoint the Archbishop of St Andrews to convene the rest, and name three or four well quali fied, so that there could not be an error in the choice, and then out of that list the King pitched upon one whom he preferred, whereby It came to pass that during his time most able raen were advanced, such as Mr William Cowpar to Galloway and Mr John Guthrie to Moray." 426 [1625. CHAPTER VIIL THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. — PRO CEEDINGS OF THE BISHOPS— HISTORY OF TEINDS IN SCOTLAND — THE king's revocation OF THE TEINDS — ITS DISASTROUS CON SEQUENCES. Charles I. soon after his accession to the throne solemnized his raarriage to the Princess Henrietta of France, and dUigently ap plied himself to public affairs. The new sovereign's attention was so much engrossed by foreign poUcy and events in England, that for sometirae he interfered Uttle with the ecclesiastical condition of Scotland. He indeed wrote to Archbishop Spottiswoode that he was resolved to enforce aU the laws enacted in the preceding reign connected with the Church, and in August he issued a royal pro clamation, which was posted on the doors of every parish church, enforcing the strictest conformity to the Perth Articles. He de clared his approbation of the arrangements effected by his father, but he confined hiraself to some Important regulations connected with property and the temporal condition of the parochial Incum bents. If, however, we are to credit the paper preserved by Wodrow, and said to have been written by Archbishop Spottis woode, entitled " Extracts of the Church of Scotland as to Con formity, 1627," It appears that three of the Perth Articles — Com munion of the Sick, Private Baptism, and Confirmation — had sel dom or never been administered, and even the other two, which enjoined kneeling at the communion, and the observance of the five great commemorations of the Church, were by no means generaUy acknowledged. This intimates that ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland were conducted by Archbishop Spottiswoode with the utmost ralldness, and raakes the conduct of the Presbyterian leaders the 1626.] . EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT ACCESSION OP CHARLES I. 427 more unwarrantable at that period. This is adraitted by the raost candid writers of their party. Dr Alton mentions with approval " the able administration of Archbishop Spottiswoode," and thinks that if Charles had continued to foUow the Primate's policy, " the Scots, instead of being his first and fiercest foes, would have con tinued his last and best friends." Dr Aiton farther asserts — " If Spottiswoode's mild measures had been persevered in tiU all the old heroes of Presbyterianism who had, previous to the Perth Assembly, preached against conformity, died out, and tlU the young were either raolified by kindness, or altogether dis regarded. Prelacy might have been fairly rooted in our soil, and even come to as full a growth in Scotland as it has done in Eng land." These are mere raatters of opinion, but It is ludicrous to find the biographer of Alexander Henderson writing about the growth of what he calls " Prelacy" in England. When was " Prelacy," or the episcopal succession, ever out of England since the tirae of the early British or Anglo-Saxon Church 2 The condition of the people was much the same as during the reign of James. The country was wretchedly cultivated, the roads miserable, and the ignorance of the people greatly fostered by the religious dissensions and clamours of the Presbyterian preachers. Nevertheless there was no general dissatisfaction towards the Episcopal Church. We find even Principal BaiUie of Glasgow, in a letter to one of his friends in 1637, declaring — " Bishops I love, but pride, greed, luxury, oppression, immersion in secular affairs, was the bane ofthe Romish Prelates, and cannot have good suc cess in the Reforraed." The several Presbyteries and Kirk-Sessions continued to occupy theraselves with cases of scandal, immorality, quarrellings, stroUing on Sundays, wilful neglect of public worship, deserting the parish churches, and though last not the least in that age — prosecutions for witchcraft. In that raatter it cannot be denied that the Episcopal clergy were fuUy as zealous as their Presbyterian opponents. During a few of the subsequent years after 1625, little occurs in the history of the Church. In 1626 the King issued a commis sion for constituting a new ecclesiastical judicatory under the di rection of the Primate, but a clamour was raised by the Presby terian party that the proposed Court was intended to resemble the Star Charaber Court In England, and the nobility opposed It so 428 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH . [1626. resolutely that the Commission for Grievances, as It was called, never held even one meeting. Archbishop Spottiswoode employed his leisure tirae at his country seat at Dairsie Castle in Fife, in collecting and arranging the raaterials for his " History of the Church and State of Scotland." The Primate had becorae pro prietor of the estate of Dairsie, and erected the present parish church near his now ruinous castle in 1622— one of the most ele gant and finely proportioned structures of the kind in Scotland. It occupies a beautiful and picturesque situation on the bank of the ¦ river Eden, which debouches into the sea about four miles from St Andrews below the Guard Bridge erected by Bishop Wardlaw in the earlier part of the fifteenth century. The Primate also erected the bridge of three arches over the Eden leading to the castle and the parish church. The injury inflicted on the church of Dairsie after the Presbyterians obtained the ascendency is suf ficiently testified by a report of its internal state as finished by the Archbishop, in the minutes of the Provincial Synod of Fife, dated November 2, 1641. They had appointed sundry of their number to visit the church, and to report on the aUeged " super stitious raonuraents" it contained. Those enemies of architectural ornament stated that at the " entrie of sundrie desks upon the platform, and above the great west door, there are crosier staffs, in some part alone, and in other as an aditament and cognizance of the last pretended Bishop's arras, not being any sign or cogniz ance ordinario and commoune in the armes of that name or familie [of Spottiswoode], but merely a signe of his degree hierarchaU, according to the manner and forra used araong the Roman Hierar- chists and others following them. Further, they find supersti tious a glorious partition wall, vrith a degree ascending thereto, dividing the body of the kirk from their queir [choir], as it is ordinar- lie called in Papistrie, and among those that follow Papists (!) And because this particular Is not speciallie named in their commissioun, and a great part is the building and ornament of some desks ; and above the great door of their queir, so caUed, the arms of Scot land and England quartered, with divers crosses about and beside them, whereupon the Kirk has not yet particularlle determined." On the 4th of October 1642, the " partition timber wall in the kirk of Dairsie " was ordered to be taken down, and on the 20th of May 1645 those bigotted Individuals " recoraraended to Alex- 1626.]^ AT THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 429 ander Inglis of Kingask, depute-ballie of the regalitle of St An drews, to have a care that the act of the Assembly be satisfied anent the fuU removing of what is superstitious in the kirk of Dairsie, and particularlle anent the leveUing of the choir, which he being present did promise." On the 14th of May 1626, King Charles sent a coraraand signed by himself to the Lords of the Exchequer to admit Archbishop Spottiswoode as President of that Court. Sir James Balfour states that the Primate was the " first and last President that ever the Exchequer of Scotland had." On the 11th of June the King wrote to the Archbishop thanking hira for his " pains In his ser vice ;" and on the 12th of July Charles addressed a letter to the Privy Council, commanding that the Archbishop, as Primate of Scotland, should have precedence before the Lord Chancellor, and consequently before all the Nobility. The Lord Chancellor at the time was Sir George Hay, repeatedly mentioned as the first Earl of Kinnoull, who resisted this order, and would never allow the Primate to have the precedence, " do what he could," says Sir James Balfour, " all the days of his life." This order for the pre cedence of the Archbishop, though harmless in itself, and merely in conformity to the practice in England, was injudicious at the time, and eventuaUy injurious to the Church, as it and some other marks of the royal favour rendered the Bishops liable to the ac cusation of ambitious secularity — a charge of which their eneraies failed not to take due advantage. At the time of the arrival of the above order Bishop Lindsay of Ross came from England, and brought ten articles signed by the King on the 12th of July respecting the Church, copies of which were sent to the Archbishops and to all the Bishops. They first authorized the Archbishops and Bishops to allow those raini sters who were refractory, and would not conforra to the Five Articles of Perth, " a tirae tiU they be better resolved, provided they utter no doctrine publicly against the King's authority, the church governraent, nor canons thereof;" and the second stipulat ed that those ministers were not either publicly or privately to dis suade others from obeying them, nor refuse to administer the Com raunion to all who desired to receive it kneeUng, prohibiting thera frora adraitting any persons belonging to the congregations of their neighbours to the Communion without the testimonial of 430 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1626. their ministers. The exUed preachers were to be aUowed to re turn, and those confined or suspended from their functions for their refractory conduct were to be placed again In churches, If they conducted themselves according to law, and recognized those conditions. The Archbishops and Bishops were enjoined to see that all parochial Incumbents admitted since the Perth General Assembly observed the Five Articles, and to censure those who refused ; and if any had been admitted without subscribing a bond of conformity the Diocese was to be Intimated to the King, and the Bishop censured, whUe the " said minister be urged to sub scribe the bond, which at his entry should have been done by him." The Archbishops and Bishops were strictly ordered to reside at their cathedral churches, and those who neglected to do so were to be reported to the King. They were also to " use ordinary risitations, and In the time thereof they plant schools in every parish, and cause weekly catechize the people by every minister for renouncing ignorance, barbarity, and atheism ; and that also they take order for entertaining the poor in each parish." One of the articles speciaUy referred to Robert first Earl of Nithsdale, who was not to be " troubled for his religion unless he give sorae public offence," untU the King's pleasure was known. Mr Peter Hay of Naughton was ordered to deliver the manuscript of his book to the Archbishop of St Andrews for examination and cor rection before It was sent to press, and the said Mr Peter was assured that the King would not forget his good serrices done to his " late dear father," but have a care of his preferment."* It is noticed in the records of the Diocesan Synod of Fife, held at St Andrews on the 2d of October 1627, that " my Lord Archbishop desired that the purpose concerning Mr Peter Hay of Naughton's book should not be mentioned in the public synod ; and de clared that his Lordship would not be present if the sarae were spoken of.""!* This book was " An Advertisement to the Subjects of Scotland ofthe FearfuU Dangers threatened to Christian States, and namely to Great Britain, by the ambition of Spayne, with a Contemplation of the truest means to oppose it. Also diverse other Treatises touching the present Estate of the Kingdome of • Sir James Balfour's Annals, Edinburgh, Svo. 1824, vol. U. p. 142-145. X Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife from 1611 to 1687, 4to. printed for the Abbotsford Club, 1837, p. 107. 1626.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 431 Scotland, verie necessarie to be knowne and considered in this tyrae, caUed The First Blast op the Trumpet. In Aberdene, printed by Edward Raban, 1627." On the 22d of November 1626, King Charles granted a warrant of L.4000 Scots, or L.333 SterUng, to repair the Abbey Church of Holyroodhouse, and in that month a royal proclamation was issued, enjoining aU persons to pay their tithes. On the 4th of Deceraber, the city of Edinburgh was dirided Into four parishes superintended by eight rainisters, and the Privy Council officiaUy ordered the citizens to resort to their respective churches, and to contribute to the raaintenance of the incumbents. The records of the Diocesan Synods at that period and some years afterwards, like those of the Presbyteries, are chiefly occu pied with local raatters, such as the conduct of the clergy, the condition of the parishes, and the examinations of candidates for the ministry. The " Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife, 1611 to 1687," printed in 1837, for the Abbotsford Club, may be assumed as fair speciraens of the business transacted in the other Diocesan Synods. In the meeting held at St Andrews on the 3d and 4th of AprU 1627, it was reported that the Master of Oliphant [afterwards sixth Lord Oliphant], who was suspected of Papistry, has sworn and subscribed the Confession of Faith, and was of purpose to have received the holy comraunion, but that a certain impediment did intervene the day Immediately preceding the celebration thereof ! He has promised faithfully to communi cate in any other kirk within that bounds within the space of ten days." A certain Mr James Bennet, rainister of Auchterrauchty in Fife, who was admitted in 1615, conformed to Presbyterianism in 1638, and died about 1640, figures in no very enviable manner on this occasion. — " Because it was reported by the brethren of Cupar [Fife], that Mr James Bennet is ane frequent hunter with dogs, ane player at cards, and a runner of courses upon horses, the said Mr James being called upon, compeared, was gravely re buked, and expressly inhibited to attend any of the former games In time coming ; and the brethren ordained to report in the next Synod how the said Mr James does behave himself in all these particulars. The brethren at Meigle are ordained to close their process against my Lord Gray, who continues avowedly In Papis try, and to send the same to my Lord Archbishop, that the sen- 432 the episcopal church at [1627. tence of excommunication may be pronounced against him. The brethren were exhorted gravely in these dangerous times to walk circumspectly, and to abstain frora the exercises of hunting, card ing, running of horses, and all such as may give occasion of scan dal and offence, under pain of suspension frora their rainistry." On the 4th twenty-one of the parish incurabents in the Diocese were appointed to attend a convention of the Bishops then as serabled in Edinburgh, one of whora was Alexander Henderson of Leuchars, with " full power given to them to vote and consent to aU such things as in these conventions shaU be proposed, tending to the benefit and good of the Kirk." Charles I. was at this time engaged in his grand project, after wards fatal to himself, though advantageous to the clergy, of the surrender of the Scottish teinds or tithes. The Bishops viewed this measure with alarra, as hkely to excite numerous and power ful enemies against the Church, who were then either friendly, or at least not its avowed opponents. On the 3d of May the King replied to their representation, reproving them as " raen void of charity, beyond raeasure timorous without a cause." It was thought necessary to send a deputation to Charles on the subject, and a few days after the arrival of that letter. Bishop BeUenden of Dunblane, and Mr John Maxwell, then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, afterwards Bishop of Ross, were appointed. They were instructed to represent to the King the serious apprehensions of the Bishops and clergy that the project of the " surrenders " of the teinds would be fatal to the stability of the Church, which elicited an explanatory letter from the King on the 18th of May, to the effect that " churches already not sufficiently pro vided be supplied ; that every proprietor of lands might have his owm tithes upon a reasonable condition ; also that his own revenues might be increased and augmented." MeanwhUe the conference to which Henderson and the others had been deputed was held at Edinburgh in July. Bishop Lind say of Ross presided in the unavoidable absence of Archbishop Spottiswoode, who sent a letter on the subject. The Primate ad rised the raeeting to raake arrangements for a day of public fast ing and humiUation, and for a specific contribution to support a resident at Court, when the affairs and Interest of the Church required such a representative. The nonconforming party insisted 1627.] the ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. ' 4.33 that, before discussing those two points, their raeeting should be constituted a General Asserably ; but this demand was success fully resisted. They then presented petitions in favour of those preachers who were " warded," or confined to particular towns and localities, and for the reformation of sundry alleged grievances. Bishop Lindsay of Ross raaintained that those matters could only be discussed in a General Assembly. It was conceded that until such was held, any petitions to the King should be sent to the person selected to repair to the Court, who was to be authorized to intercede with the King to convene a General Assembly. Bishop Lindsay of Ross, Bishop Forbes of Aberdeen, Bishop BeUenden of Dunblane, and Bishop Abernethy of Caithness, were then placed on a leet to proceed to England, and the Bishop of Ross was unanimously chosen. Three rainisters, Scott of Glasgow, Murray, and Henderson, one of whom was to accompany the Bishop, were then proposed, and Scott was elected in opposition to Henderson, though It does not appear that he ever went to London. It was also unanimously agreed that the parochial ministers should pay L.l Scots, or 6s. 8d. sterling, for every hundred merks, and L.5, lis. 4d. for every chalder of grain or victual which they enjoyed of stipend, to defray the expenses of the Bishop of Ross and his companion. The biographer of Henderson adraits that when his hero " pro moted Episcopacy it contained nothing to outrage the associations of the peasantry," who, he might have added, were utterly incom petent to judge on any subject of controversy, and states his views on what he calls the Primate's error in sending commissioners to the Court. This project, according to him, with that of " levying con tributions throughout Scotland for maintaining them there, was one of the few but fatal blunders which Spottiswoode committed in the course of a long and perplexing administration. One churchman after another of the party followed, ostensibly," con tinues Dr Aiton, " on the sarae errand, but really with the design of underraining his Influence with the King. At any rate the fact is certain that frora about 1627, when the Primate was managing matters with great dexterity, his influence began to wane. With King James his word was law — to him he sent up his own plans, as to what he judged proper to preserve Prelacy,and a transcript of them uniformly came down in dispatches from the King. He even 28 434 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1627. soraetlraes sent up the very draft of what he wanted, with di rections to Mr Murray of the Bed-Charaber to get It copied, signed by his Majesty, and returned. Thus clothed with royal authority, the Primate behoved to be obeyed, and through this channel he was enabled to give his master's pleasure as a pretence for every forcible measure he might choose to adopt. For a time Charles placed In hira the same implicit faith which James had done, and so long as he did so the mild measures of conciliation carried on by the Primate were rapidly contributing to the peace of the Scottish Church." This writer proceeds to state that the coramissioners sent to the Court by Archbishop Spottiswoode at tended more to their own interests and personal arabition than to the affairs ofthe Church, — that they saw Laud, then Bishop of Bath and WeUs, in 1628 translated to London, rising in influence and fa vour with the King, and they attached themselves to him as the cer tain channel of preferment. It is farther asserted that " as Laud and Spottiswoode thus sailed on different tacks, In proportion as the former acquired the ascendency over the King's raind, in the same proportion the latter lost it." Dr Aiton then attempts to delineate the character of Laud and Spottiswoode, representing each, especiaUy the former, in no very favourable light, which was indeed to be expected from a Presbyterian, and alleges that the Scottish Primate " committed therefore a fatal mistake in not con tinuing to make himself the sole organ of communication with Charles as he had done with James, and In not getting himself nominated as the comraissioner to be sent to Court at the public expence."* The charge of Arminianism and inclination towards the Papal Church is of course brought prominently forward against Laud, though it has been innumerable times refuted. In these statements several raatters are Introduced as authentic which are not supported by historical evidence. When Laud was in Scotland in 1617, the defects ofthe Established Church were too obvious to escape his notice. It wanted that efficient protection against fanaticism, and preservative of sound doctrine — a Liturgy such as that of the Church of England. It is stated that Laud was frequently consulted by the King on this iraportant subject, yet there is no decisive evidence that he interfered rauch with public affairs in Scotland at the period to which Dr Aiton alludes, • Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, p. 121, 122, 123, 124. 1627.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 435 beyond giving his opinion when consulted, and his advice to those Scottish Bishops with whom he came in contact at the Court. In reality, he does not appear to have been much implicated in Scottish affairs till a short time before his translation to the Arch bishopric of Canterbury in 1633. The statement that King James adopted all Archbishop Spottiswoode's suggestions, and acted solely by his advice, Is contrary to the Primate's declaration re specting the Five Articles of Perth — that he was not consulted in the matter — that those Articles had been sent to him unexpected ly ; and it is now known that he was Individually averse to their introduction. Dr Aiton, moreover, while he traduces Laud, makes an important admission, which completely invalidates his previous assertions. " Till the number of his [Laud's] adherents was in creased In Scotland, and untU he was promoted to the height of a prelate's ambition. Laud felt himself restrained in his meditated out rages on the Scottish Church, and in his opposition to so wary a statesraan as Spottiswoode. The Presbyterians, therefore, con tinued to enjoy comparative toleration till about 1634, when Laud, having no longer anything to fear or to expect, let himself fairly loose on his work of complete conformity." The " outrages" which Laud is charged with " raeditating" on the Scottish Church are ac knowledged by Dr Aiton to be siraply " complete conformity." The Presbyterians In 1643 were guUty of more enormous " outrages," when they attempted to compel the people of England and of Ireland forcibly to acknowledge their Solemn League and Covenant, the ostensible object of which was the " complete conformity" of the three kingdoms In doctrine, discipline, and worship, denying any toleration whatever to those who refused. Of all sects the Scottish Presbyterians should be the last to assail Archbishop Laud for his aUeged labours in the " work of complete conformity." As to the charge of what was caUed or beUeved to be Arminian ism by an ignorant people, and studiously misrepresented by the Presbyterian preachers, the popular notion on the subject is suf ficiently intimated by the then prevailing superstitions. In 1629 the appearance of a whale, always a strange though not unfrequent visi tor from the Northern Seas in the Frith of Forth, at Aberlady in Haddingtonshire, and the occurrence of an alarraing thunder storra In the Ayrshire district of Carriek, were actually believed to Indicate 436 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1627. Dirine judgments on the Church for the introduction of imaginary Arminian tenets. It is now well known that it was not so much either the sub sequent connection of Laud with Scottish affairs, his pretended opposition to Spottiswoode, or the unfortunate events resulting from the ill-managed introduction of the Liturgy in 1637, which caused the temporary downfall of the Episcopal Establishment of Scotland, as the combination and hatred which the King fatally en tailed against himself in the adjustment of the teinds, part of the odium of which was thrown on the Church. Mr Scott truly observes In the Perth Register : — " King Charles' fondness to pursue the revocation, by which he Intended to enrich the Church In general, and more especiaUy the dignified clergy, and to bring them into some degree with the Church and clergy in England, hurt hira ex ceedingly with the landed gentleraen in Scotland. It, together with his bestowing civil offices on some of the Bishops, furnished at last to many much the same motive to a reformation from Episcopacy as had been felt by their ancestors to reform from Popery to the Protestant religion." This is a fair representation of the case. It was a political and pecuniary warfare which was first waged against the Church, and though Presbyterianism was an Important eleraent. It was chiefiy raade auxiliary to the resentment of the influential opponents of the King, who found it necessary for their purpose to stir up and carry with them the preachers of the people. " Although," Dr Aiton admits, " the arrangements which Charles made respecting tithes produced effects permanently salutary, yet at the time it proved to be an unfortunate step, in so far as It was the means of enraging many of his former friends." An opposition to the King may be said to have been effectively formed soon after his accession. The history of teinds or tithes in Scotland is difficult and com plicated. The Reformation, such as it was in Scotland, was ac complished, and a scramble ensued for church lands, teinds, rents, feus, and moveable wealth, such as to justify the epithet be stowed on the lay leaders of the tumults of 1560, that they were absolute robbers. Even John Knox bitterly denounced their pro ceedings, and when he coraplained that nothing was left for his new order of priesthood, his expostulations and deraands were 1627.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 437 treated as a " devout imagination." In addition to those lands which were confiscated to the Crown, but the true meaning of which was appropriation to the friends and flatterers of the reign ing sovereign, various of the old Romish dignitaries who con formed to the Reforraation were allowed to retain the teraporali ties of their abbeys and benefices, under the title of Commenda tors. Those church lands were erected by James VI. into tem poral baronies, and their possessors known as Lords of Erection — a designation long relinquished as it respects their representatives, some of whom are raembers of the Scottish Peerage. The feuars of church-lands were similarly confirraed in their usurped rights, and from tenants they became proprietors. By this seizure of the church lands the cultivators of the soil and the peasantry were not in the least degree benefited, or their social condition improved. The whole of the Scottish teinds or tithes were seized by laymen, much In the sarae raanner as a third part of the tithes in England were secured by lay Iraproprietors, and those laymen, who were entitled to draw the Scottish tithes annuaUy, were and still are designated Titulars of the Teinds. The teinds were regularly leried year after year from the cultivators of the land and others by the titu lars, who enjoyed the exclusive benefit, and were not compelled to pay anything towards the support of the newly constituted preachers. Laws were indeed occasionaUy enacted to oblige the titulars to give up small portions of the teinds which they had illegally seized, but so weak was the existing Government, and so resolute were the titulars to keep possession of their plunder, that little of any consequence was done. In the time of Queen Mary, and especially during the long reign of James VL, the Scottish Parliament repeatedly passed acts regulating the stipends of the parochial incumbents, but those acts did not affect the right of property, in whatever manner the lands had been acquired by the possessors. King Jaraes appointed coraraissioners to appropriate stipends out of the teinds, and probably achieved as much as he could at the time to araeliorate the condition of the parish preachers. After the legal establishment of the Episcopal Church he granted to the Archbishops and Bishops the rents of certain lands, the pro perty of the Crown, which had been anciently a part of the Roman CathoUc patrimony. This was in 1606, so far as concerned the 438 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1629. benefices of Bishops, and the benefices belonging to the Episcopal Chapters were In like manner restored to them in 1617. Never theless vast confusion existed about the mode of paying the stipends of the incumbents, which had been the cause of much serious com plaints, altercations, and disturbances, for half a century after the Reformation. Charles I. after his accession saw the absurdity of this mode of supporting an Established clergy, and had the courage to grapple with it, though It raised up against hira raany danger ous eneraies. He revoked all the ecclesiastical grants which had been raade in the two preceding reigns, except the church lands from which the Bishops derived their very limited revenues. The parties interested in the tithes entered into bonds of arbi tration caUed Submissions, and referred their several claims to the King's own determination in 1628. These Submissions were four in number. The first and fourth were signed on the one part by the Lords of Erection and the tacksmen claiming under them; and on the other by the proprietors, who wished either to pur chase their own tithes, or to have thera valued. The two SubBois- sions contained what Erskine in his " Institute of the Law of Scot land" designates " procuratories of resignation by the titulars, for surrendering their right of superiority to the King ad remanentiam,'''' and hence they were caUed the Surrenders of Teinds. The King was to decide what should be awarded to aU the parties interested for the feu-duties, or other constant rent of the superiorities, and also the sums to be stipulated as the yearly rate and value of the tithes. The second Submission was signed by the Bishops and clergy in reference to the tithes to which they were legaUy en titled, but of which they were not In possession ; and the third Subraission was signed by the commissioners of several royal burghs, for such right as they could claim to the tithes formerly granted for the support of ministers, coUeges, schools, or hospitals, within their respective burghs. On the 2d of Septeraber 1629, the King pronounced on each of the four Submissions a separate award, called a Decree-Arbitral, subjoined in the statute books to the acts of his reign. The First and Fourth Decrees declare the Crown's right to the superiorities of erection resigned by the Submissions to the King, who was to give 1000 merks Scots himself or thereby to the Lords of Erection in full payment of each chalder of feu farm, and for each 100 1629.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 439 merks of feu-duty, or other constant rent of these superiorities ; and the feu-duties were to be retained till such payment was made. This condition ofthe Decrees- Arbitral was confirmed by the Parliament in 1663, with the exeraption of the superiorities of the lands belonging to the Bishops or the Chapters who had been restor ed in 1606. The raost important article in the Decrees- Arbitral is, as Erskine justly observes, that which directs the valuation at a certain annual rate, and the landlord is then entitled to the entire crop on paying such yearly duty to the titular. The result of the whole revocation, or the Four Submissions, into tlje hands of the King by the four different bodies who accepted his arbitration — viz. the Lords of Erection and landholders, the Bishops and clergy, the royal burghs, and certain tacksmen and others, having incidental right to teinds, in consequence of the Decrees- Arbitral pronounced by his Majesty — was the establishment of valuations of tithes ; sales of them to the proprietors of the land, which pre cluded the produce from the liabUity of division between the pro prietor of the ground and the owner of the teind ; and the appro priation of the teinds as a fund liable to the utmost extent for minister's stipend.* Such was the system accomplished by Charles I. in Scotland, notwithstanding the raenaces and opposition of the powerful Nobi lity, and it has continued to be the source frora which the parochial Incurabents derive their stipends. It is now universaUy adraitted that it is a noble memorial of the King's prudence and wisdom. This boon conferred on the country was of the greatest conse quence. Before the Four Submissions, and the pronouncing of the Decrees- Arbitral, the titulars of the teinds were entitled to a tenth part of the whole yearly crop ; and the grower could not carry off any portion of his nine parts till the titular had set aside or appropriated his tenth. Loud complaints were made by the agriculturists who paid the tithe, that the titulars often de layed to select their portion tUl the whole crop had been dainaged by the weather. " The rainisters," Dr Aiton candidly observes, " were also loud In their coraplaints that they received no tithes, but only a poor pittance. In this state of the raatter, both the * The reader will find the " Submissions and Surrenders of Teinds, &c. with His Majesty's Decreets following thereupon," and all the Documents, in "Acta Parliamen torum Scotorum," printed by command of George III., 1817, folio, vol. v. p. 189-207. 440 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1629. clergy and yeomanry were entirely dependent on the Nobles who were the titulars — ^the one for a stipendiary benevolence, and the other for the safety of their crops. They therefore both remon strated to the King, who at once saw the propriety of delivering them from so dangerous a vassalage to subjects." After noticing the appointment of the Commission to value the tithes, the hberty ulti mately given to the proprietors to buy them up frora the titulars at nine years' purchase, and eight chalders provided as a suitable provision for each Incurabent, the biographer of Henderson says — " The clergy a^d gentry rejoiced at this deUverance from intoler able bondage ; but the Nobles fretted, because by this plan they were deprived of that superiority over both clergy and yeomanry which, ' by the tye of tythes of the tenth,' they had enjoyed since the Reformation from Popery. The feudal rancours excited on account of this admirable arrangeraent was no fault of the King, but his misfortune. But the act of Revocation, in which Charles attempted to transfer to the Crown the church lands which had been long in possession of the old Court favourites, was the great foundation stone of aU the mischief which followed.* — But as the attempt was obviously hazardous, he went to work with caution. To make the powerful Barons leading cards to the rest, the Abbey of Arbroath and the Lordship of Glasgow were procured by secret purchases, and conferred on the two Archbishoprics. Se veral other estates of less value were managed in a similar way. So long as value was obtained, the Nobility, pretending favour to the Court, made a shew of zeal after a good bargain ; but when the Earl of Nithsdale came down in 1628 to offer merely the King's favour to those who surrendered the church lands, and to wrest them frora those who refused, open resistance was In an instant determined upon, and the old cry of Popery was raised to serve the purpose of those Interested in these grants. At a secret meeting it was settled that. If no other argument should Induce Nithsdale to de sist, the Barons should at once knock out his brains after the good old Scottish manner. When the parties carae to a confer ence in Edinburgh, the dark scowl of the Nobles, patiently waiting for vengeance, terrified the Court party so much, that they did not even disclose their instructions, but sent back Nithsdale to London to declare that the service was desperate. From this * Dr Aiton here refers to Balfour, p. 464, and Burnet's History, vol. i. p. 3 1 . 1629.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 441 time the Nobles suspected the King, and began to play under hand the game against his government. With a riew to coalesce with a powerful opposition party they became avowed champions of Presbytery ; and from pecuniary motives, in their opposition to the Bishops, artfully laid the blame of every raisfortune on Episcopacy. By thus making reUgion a mere stalking-horse to their own In terests, they verified the general remark, that at the bottom of the purest boilings of patriotism there often lies a thick sedlraent of gross selfishness."* Such are the admissions and representations of a Presbyterian writer. A well known anecdote lUustrates the dangerous, lawless, and unprincipled character of the Scottish NobUity, in reference to this great measure of the revocation of the teinds, at the conference In Edinburgh. Sir Robert Douglas of Spott In Haddingtonshire, created Lord Belhaven In 1633, who had received favours both from James I. and Charles, was at that conference, and Burnet narrates the conduct of this personage, who, though blind, was as ferocious as any of the others, on the authority of Sir Archibald Primerose, father of the first Earl of Rosebery. When the Earl of Nithsdale, whose brains the worthies had resolved to knock out " after the good old Scottish manner," appeared with the commis sion for the resumption of the church lands and tithes, it was agreed that he and his companions should be assassinated. One of them was the first Viscount Ayr, created Earl of Dumfries in 16-33. Lord Belhaven, by which title he is better locaUy known, de sired to sit near one of the Earl of Nithsdale's party, of whom, notwithstanding his blindness, he said he would make sure. He accordingly was placed next to the future Earl of Dumfries, whom he firraly grasped by the hand during the raeeting. When the other asked him the meaning of this extraordinary conduct, Belhaven replied that since his blindness he was always so rauch In danger of faUing that he was obliged to hold fast to any one who happen ed to be near hira. His other hand, however, rested on a dag ger, with which he Intended to stab his corapanion If any dis order had occurred. It is already mentioned that the proprietors were aUowed to buy up the teinds from the titulars at nine years' purchase. It was also arranged, that when paying the value of the teinds a certain * Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, p. 135, 136, 137. 442 THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT [1629. proportion of the price was to be withheld, to meet the obligation of each heritor to contribute a specific sum as stipend to the in cumbent of the parish, and a small annuity to the King. This process for ever abolished the levying of tithes in kind In Scot land, and as the King's Decrees- Arbitral were subsequently ratified by Pariiaraent, such a proceeding was never atterapted during the establishment of the Episcopal Church, or afterwards when it was supplanted by the Presbyterian systera. Moreover, by the valuing and purchasing of the teinds. It was not intended that the incumbents were then to receive stipends to the full amount of those teinds in their parishes. The remainder was to form a cer tain fund, as it were, from which their stipends were to be aug mented at stated intervals of nineteen years, as sanctioned by Par liament in 1633, until they and their successors received the whole. There is no evidence to shew that the Crown ever proceeded to act strictly on the King's Decrees-Arbitral. No estates were violently seized, and generally the provision was Uraited to render ing the properties liable in feu-duties, which could well afford to be paid. Charles declared that he would retain those church lands held by Lords of Erection, royal bufghs, and certain others, or take them at any future period convenient to the Crown on pay raent of a fine, which was to be regulated according to the state of cultivation and produce. This right continued tiU the Union in 1707, when an act was passed declaring that the Crown had lost the right of redemption. The state of the kingdom before this benefit conferred on the clergy, gentry, yeomanry, and peasantry, by Charles I., is set forth in a curious poem entitled " Scotland's Welcome to her Native Son and Sovereign Lord King Charles," written in 1633, after the Coronation at Holyroodhouse, by no less a personage than WiUiam Lithgow, who describes himself as " the Bonaventure of Europe, Asia, and Africa." Lithgow will be reraerabered by the anti quarian reader as a well known traveUer in the earlier part of the seventeenth century, though he attracted little notice tUl the publication of the curious narrative of his wanderings in 1614. In this poetical performance, which is of no great merit, he per sonifies Scotland as relating the account of the King's Corona tion, the raeeting of the Parliament, and " the whole grievances and abuses of the commonwealth of this kingdom," as he expresses 1629.] THE ACCESSION OF CHARLES I. 443 himself on the title-page, " worthy to be by all the Nobles and gentry perused, and to be laid up in the hearts and chests of the Commons, whose interest may best claim it, either in mean man ner, from which their privileges and fortunes are drawn as frora the loadstar of true direction." He raakes Scotland thus descant on the teinds, and the Intolerable conduct of the Nobility and the titulars — " As for my tithes, which Nobles most recoil, It is another grievance to my soul. Should tithes belong to laics ? Should church rent Be^given to temp'ral lords ? By God's intent Tithes were for Levites, not for hawks or hounds, Nor no reward of sycophanting sounds. Tithes may be called God's rent, and they pertain Still to His priests His service to maintain. Nay, more than clergy, tithes should, too, sustain My seminary schools with yearly grain." The loyal Mr Lithgow here maintains that tithes should support colleges, the decay of which he laments, build hospitals, schools, and bridges, and " sustain them too." Addressing the King, he makes Scotland say of the teinds — " But where they should do good they do most ill, Being abus'd by use and corrupt wiU. For, Sir, take heed, what grief is this, and cross To my poor Commons, and a yearly loss, That when their corns are shorn, stacked, dead and dry. They cannot get them teinded P Nay, and why ? Some gradge of malice moves despite to wound The hopeful hairst, and rot then comes ou ground. This is no rare thing ; on their stacks are seen Snow cover'd tops ; below them grass grown green, Which often breeds great famine and great scant. And plagues my Commons with a heart-broke want. For which they grieve in this long deformation. And hope to have from thee a reformation ; Which God may grant, and bless thy judgment too. For to consider what oppressors do. So, to reclaim them, deal them at thy pleasure For God, and godUness, and for thy treasure : Whieh being in thine hand, and then to farm Them back to Lords would bread a double harm. For worse and worse my Commons shall be crossed. And all thy good intentions therein lost. Then let my tithes be brought to money rent From thee, from land, and the poor tenant : 444 EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT ACCESSION OP CHARLES I. [1629. So may they shear, and lead, and stack their com. At midnight, midday, afternoon, or mom ; Which shaU be their advantage and my gain, When bams and yards are filled with timely grain. As for this Valuation, who can teU What means thereby, or can my preachers weU P With one out of each parish lay the ground, What every land is worth, or may be found. No, no, its labour lost, and I pray God We be not scourged for it by his just rod. A lesser fault than this made Israel quake When David of his people count would make ; But value stock and brock, tithes, fruits, and all ; God must give increase, or the reck'ning faU." Lithgow in these passages raay be considered as reflecting the sentiraents of the farmers and peasantry, for there is reason to believe that he was a person of mean condition and poor circum stances, though evidently his education surpassed that of his class at the period In which he lived. He seems to have been perfectly satisfied with the Episcopal Church as established, and after ex horting the King to " install good godly men and sound In Pre lates' functions," he thus compliments the clergy — " As for my clergy, I affirming vow The solid truth to God, and then to you. There are no people, nor no land so bless'd With godly preachers, and God's word profess'd With more sincerity, taught, shewn, and preach'd. Than in my kingdom ; there was never teach'd Profounder doctrine, more divine resounds In Christ's Eeformed Church, than iu my bounds, Which to perfect an universal mind, God grant his sacrament may passage find ; And scrupulous stops may be hewn down and made As plain as Christ himself has taught and said." 1629.] 445 CHAPTER IX. CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES — IRREGULAR ORDINATIONS OF PRESBY TERIANS IN IRELAND — INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF THE CHURCH — CORONATION OF CHARLES I. AT HOLYROODHOUSE — FOUNDATION OP THE BISHOPRIC OP EDINBURGH — THE FIRST BISHOP — HIS DEATH — DEATH OF BISHOP FORBES OF ABERDEEN. In August 1628, John Leslie, of a branch of the ancient family of Balquhain in Aberdeenshire, was appointed Bishop of The Isles at the death of Bishop Thomas Knox, which Keith says occurred inl626, though it is not likely that the See would be so long vacant. Bishop Leslie was educated at Aberdeen, from which he proceed ed to Oxford, where he remained some tirae. He had travelled rauch through France, Italy, Gerraany, and Spain, with the language of which countries he is stated to have been corapletely farailiar, and Wood records that he was such a master of the Latin, as to elicit the observation of the learned in Spain — " Solus Lesleius Latin^ loquitur!'' When he retumed to England he was complimented with the degree of Doctor of Divinity at Oxford. " He was from his tender years," says Wood, " conversant In Courts, where he leamed that address and freedom which was peculiar to his edu cation, and gave a particular air even to his preaching. Whence it was said of him, and another Bishop of his narae, that no man preached more gracefuUy than the one, nor with more authority than the other.' These accomphshments introduced him to be treated even with familiarity by several princes and great men abroad, and he was particularly happy in the good esteera of his Majesty King Charles I., who admitted hira to sit at his Council Table both In Scotland and Ireland, as his father King Jaraes had done for the first, In both which he was continued by King Charles 446 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1629. II. His chief advancement in the Church of Scotland was the episcopal See of The Isles, where sitting several years not without trouble from the faction, he was translated to the See of Raphoe in Ireland, anno 1633, and the same year was made one of his Majesty's Privy Council in that kingdom."* This Bishop was con spicuous for his loyalty In Ireland, and encountered many hard ships, yet he survived tUl 1671, when he died Bishop of Clogher, upwards of one hundred years of age. It is stated that In the 70th year of his age he married the Dean of Raphoe's daughter, by whom he had two sons and one daughter. One of his sons he lived to see a Dean, and the other was the celebrated Charles Leslie, Chancellor of Down before the Revolution, author of the " Snake in the Grass," and other learned controversial works.-]- Bishop Leslie's brother, was Dr William Leslie, of King's College, in Old Aberdeen, one of the famous Aberdeen Doctors who opposed the Covenanters. A few of the Scottish Bishops of this period were translated to the northern Sees in the Irish Church, but the conduct of Bishop Andrew Knox, Bishop Leshe's predecessor in the See of The Isles and in Raphoe, was disreputable and scandalous. A number of the Presbyterian preachers resorted to the North of Ireland, among whom were Mr Robert Blair and Mr John Livingstone, both of whom were ordained in the most irregular manner, if ordination it can be called, the former by Bishop Robert Echlin, of Down and Connor, in 1623, and the other by Bishop Andrew Knox, of Ra phoe, in 1630. Both of them sustained a prominent part in the rebellion of the Covenanters. Of the two, Blair was the more eminent, and his abilities were revived in several branches of his faraily, particularly In his grandson Robert Blair, minister of Athelstaneford in Haddingtonshire, the celebrated author of " The Grave," and his two great-grandsons, Dr Hugh Blair, author of the celebrated Sermons, and Lectures on Rhetoric, and the Right Honourable Robert Blair, Lord President of the Court of Session. The " worthy famous Mr John Livingstone," as he was termed by the Presbyterian dames with whora he associated, was an en thusiast of the raost extravagant pretensions, who contrived by his peculiar preaching, aided by the casualty of his descent as the * Wood's Athena; Oxoniensis, edited by Dr Bliss, vol. iv. col. 846. t Ibid. col. 847, 848. 1629.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 447 great-grandson of Alexander fifth Lord Livingstone, ancestor of the Earls of Linlithgow and Callender, to obtain considerable countenance from various persons of rank and influence. Living stone's " ordination," after he had been an itinerating preacher in Scotland, and one of the prominent leaders of the extraordi nary " revival" at the Kirk of Shotts in June 1630, resembles that of Blair, and the following is his own account, with Bishop Mant's very excellent and judicious observations. It is to be observed that Liringstone, " in consequence of his opposition to Prelacy, was silenced by Spottiswoode, Archbishop of St Andrews, in 1627, but stiU continued to preach in Scotland occasionally and by stealth, his settlement in any parish being constantly opposed by the Bishops ;" but he had an opening In Ireland, and his mode of procuring " a free entry into the ministry" is described by himself. The Viscount Claneboy here mentioned was the son of a Scottish Presbyterian minister named Hamilton so created in 1622, and advanced to the dignity of Earl Clanbrassil In 1647 — a Peerage extinct in that faraUy in 1675. " About August 1675," says Livingstone, " I got letters from the Viscount Clanneboy to corae to Ireland, in reference to a call to Killinchy, whether I went, and got an unaniraous call from the parish. And because It was needful I should be ordained to the ministry, and the Bishop of Down, in whose Diocese KiUinchy was, being a corrupt humorous ' [or, for various editions read differently, timorous''] man, would require some engageraent, there fore my Lord Clanneboy sent sorae with me, and wrote to Mr Andrew Knox, Bishop of Raphoe, who, when I came, and had de livered the letters from my Lord Clanneboy, and from the Earl of Wigton, and some others, that I had for that purpose brought out of Scotland, told rae he knew my errand ; that I carae to hira because I had scruples against Episcopacy and ceremonies, ac cording as Mr Josias Welsh and some others had done before : and that he thought his old age was prolonged for little other purpose but to do such offices ; that If I scrupled to call him my Lord, he cared not much for it ; all he would desire of me, be cause they got there but few sermons, was that I would preach at RamuUen the first Sabbath ; and that he would send for Mj- WilUara Cunnlnghara and two or three other neighbouring minis ters, who after sermon should give rae Imposition of hands. But 448 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1629. although they performed the work he behoved to be present ; and although he durst not answer it to the state, he gave me the Book of Ordination, and desired that any thing I scrupled at I should draw a line over it on the raargin, and that Mr Cunnlng hara should not read it. But I found that it had been so raarked by sorae others before, that I needed not raark any thing ; so the Lord was pleased to carry that business far beyond any thing I had thought, or almost ever desired." On this pretended " ordination," which discloses the wretched state of ecclesiastical affairs in the North of Ireland at that time. Bishop Mant observes : — " Here, then, we have a ceremony, under the pretext of an episcopal ordination by the Church's authority, perforraed in the presence indeed, but without the participation, of the Bishop, by inferior ministers ; the Serrice being read, so much of It at least as the candidate's ' scruples ' aUowed to be read, by one of these rainisters, and iraposition of hands given by him and the rest — a practice, as It appears, not unusuaUy sanc tioned by the feeble old man, of whora it is most charitable to be lieve that, if the narrative be true, he was at the tirae in his dot age ; and this dereliction of the Bishop's function, and this usurpa tion of it by inferiors, and this violation of the law, and this treachery and fraud upon the Church, is gravely attributed to the special pleasure, the signal interposition and agency, of the Lord."* This indecent famUiarity in Interpreting the Divine will was coraraon araong the Scottish Presbyterians. It is characteristic of Livingstone that he spent nine months " In seeking directions from God" before he could resolve to pay his addresses to a daughter of a citizen of Edinburgh, the lady who became his future wife, and who had been recommended to him by the " favourable speeches of his friends ;" and the manner in which he describes what took place when he reaUy proposed raarriage indicates his fanaticism, absurdity, and foUy. Josias Welsh, who with some others had been simUarly " ordained" in the presence of Bishop Knox, was another enthusiast. The only difference between the cases of Livingstone and Blair was, that the former was " ordained" in the presence of Kjiox, whose dotage, as Bishop Mant observes, is his only • History ofthe Church of Ireland, p. 456, 457. 1629.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES 449 excuse, whereas the latter was actually ordained by Echlin of Down and Connor, who nevertheless told Blair that he assisted " Mr WiUiara Cunnlnghara and the adjacent brethren in no other relation than a presbyter!'' This Bishop, like Bishop Knox, com mitted a great sin, and those who encouraged hira to this viola tion of his duty were partakers of that sin. The result may be anticipated. Bishop Mant states that one of the first acts of Blair was Insolently to rebuke his patron for kneeling at the Communion, which seems to have reminded Bishop Echlin of his errors. This probably induced Livingstone and others to apply to the Bishop of Raphoe. For the subsequent proceedings of those raen In Ireland, and their suspension for their Irregularities, the reader Is referred to Bishop Mant's " History of the Church of Ireland from the Reformation to the Revolution." About the end of July 1628, Charles intiraated to the Privy Council that he intended to be crowned In Scotland, and ordered the Parliament to be suramoned on the 15th of September ; but the Scottish Privy Council persuaded the King to defer his journey till May 1629, and the Parliament was then enjoined to assemble. The Lord Chancellor Hay represented to him that It would be derogatory to his honour and station to appear with a small retinue in his native kingdora for the first time since his childhood, and in a much more horaely parade than his father at his visit in 1617 ; but that, says Sir Jaraes Balfour, he ought to corae " in greater porap and state, being about to receive his crown, as also to make his first entry among his native people." This advice pleased Charles, who applauded the Lord Chancellor's discrimination. The year 1629 passed quietly as it respects the Church. In 1630, Maxwell, then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, returned frora the Court with a letter from the King to Archbishop Spottis woode, pressing greater conforraity to the Church of England. It was probably sorae rumour of tlUs which induced Struthers, one of his coUeagues, who had long aspired to a Bishopric, and who was repeatedly veering from ecclesiastical conformity to Presby terian practices, to address a letter to the King by the Earl of Airth, denouncing the " novation of organs, Uturgies, and such like." The letter is preserved by Sir James Balfour. He assigns five reasons for addressing the King — the first, that King James had solemnly promised to require nothing more from the Church 29 450 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1630. than the reception of the Five Articles of Perth, on which assur ance they were ratified by the Parliament ; second, because the Church was not consulted about the Intended alterations ; third, the reluctance of the people to observe " geniculation" at the Comraunion ; fourth, the unpopularity of the Bishops ; and fifth, that as " Popery Is increased in the land," if any raore changes were introduced the " people vriU be made susceptible of any reU gion, and turn atheists in gross." It Is not known whether the King ever saw this epistle. In reference to the proposed changes Wodrow says — " This I take to be the first motion for the EngUsh Liturgy In King Charles' reign." Maxwell retumed to the Court, and held several interviews with Laud, who strongly advised the Scottish Church, if a Liturgy was introduced at aU, to adopt that of the Church of England ; but this prudent adrice was over ruled, and the old objection about national jealousy, and that the people would prefer a Liturgy of their own, was advanced. Who Is now afraid of the English Liturgy in Scotland 2 How many thousands of it, of aU forras and editions, are sold annually through out the country even to Presbyterians ! In AprU 1630 the Diocesan Synod of Fife held at St Andrews unaniraously requested Archbishop Spottiswoode, their " ordinar," to represent to the King the dangers likely to arise to the Church on account of the raode in which the tithes were then in process of valuation, by atterapting to evade the Subraissions and the Eang's Decrees-Arbitral. In the Diocesan Synod at St Andrews on the 5th of October that year the clergy were ordered to intiraate in their several parishes, that all householders of every rank raust present themselves and their famUies for examination before the administration of the Coraraunion, otherwise they would not be perraitted to approach the holy table. It was also enjoined that " the brethren be careful in their catechizing, and that they labour to expone to their people once in the year the Lord's Prayer, the Belief, and the Ten Commandments." On the 20th July a Convention of the Nobility, Bishops, barons, and commissioners of the counties and burghs, was held at Holy roodhouse. The Archbishop of St Andrews, and the Bishops of Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, GaUoway, Brechin, Dunblane, Caith ness, Argyle, and The Isles, were present. After producing the King's warrant for summoning this Convention of the Estates 1631.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 451 by the Lord ChanceUor Hay, the royal letter was read. In which Charles intimated that he had deferred his visit till the spring of 1631. Four short articles were sent by the King to the Conven tion, referring to the speedy and exact valuation of the tithes, the employment of the people, a revisal of the laws to be sub mitted to the Parliament, and a taxation to meet the expenses of the royal visit and to defray the debts contracted for the pur chase of heritable offices. The Convention of Estates took the taxation first into consideration, and passed two acts authorising its coUection. On the 29th of July the Convention ratified and approved the " four decreets given and pronounced by the King's Majesty upon the general Submissions raade by the Prelates, Lords of Erection, Titulars, Heritors, Burghs, and others." The naraes of the Archbishop of St Andrews and the Bishop of Dunblane are prominent at various raeetings of the Privy CouncU and Officers of State at Holyroodhouse and Perth in 1631. The business then transacted was chiefly connected with the fisheries on the coasts and in the lakes. The discipline of the Church was also duly enforced. In the Diocesan Synod of Fife held on the 19th of April 1631 — " It was found that Mr John Lindsay, minister at the kirk of Aberlemno, has been long absent frora the service of the cure at his kirk, and his flock destitute of the benefit of his ministry. He was gravely rebuked in the face of the Synod, and admonished to attend his charge more faithfully, with certifi cation If he shaU be found to be four Sabbath days absent from his kirk in the whole year without lawful and necessary excuse, he shall be deprived from his ministry ipso facto. It is ordained by my Lord Archbishop and Brethren assembled, with one voice, that no ministers shall upon any occasion go into England with out liberty asked and obtained from ray Lord Archbishop and the brethren of the Presbytery where they reside, under the highest pains that may foUow." The reasons for this peculiar restriction, though obvious, are not assigned. In the Diocesan Synod of Fife held on the 2d of October 1632, the metrical version of the Psalras by King Jaraes, zealously urged by King Charles to be generaUy used in Divine service, was " by ray Lord Archbishop reraerabered and recoraraended to the Synod, and sorae [copies] of them delivered to certain brethren of the Presbyteries to be perused by them, and they ordained to report 452 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1632. their judgment thereanent against the next Synod."* But the King's metrical version was not favourably received by the clergy, and there Is no evidence that It was ever used In the parish churches. Calderwood, who had little respect for the royal author, criticised the work with great severity, and wrote " Reasons against the public use of this new metaphrase of the Psalmes," maintaining that the old version by Stemhold and Hopkins "should be sung In the kirks of Scotland as they have been since 1564, and no ways suppressed, for any thing seen or heard yet."-f- Toward the end of 1632, the Church experienced a severe loss by the iUness of Bishop Forbes of Aberdeen and the death of Archbishop Law of Glasgow. A contemporary chronicler records the foUowing affecting notice respecting the great and good Bishop Forbes : — " Patrick, Bishop of Aberdeen, sitting In his own chair in the Old Town [Old Aberdeen], was suddenly stricken in an apoplexy, and his right side clean taken away, and was forced to leam to subscribe with his left hand. He was carried In men's arms, soraetlraes to Provincial Assemblies [Diocesan Synods], and sometimes to serraons, and continued so tlU the 28th of March 1635, that he departed this life.J The death of Archbishop Law is briefly recorded by Sir James Balfour, who knew him intimately: — " In November this year, 1632, Jaraes Law, Archbishop of Glasgow, departed this Ufe, and was interred In St Mungo's church [the Cathedral] there, the 8th of this sarae month." This Prelate, as already mentioned, * The Psalms of King David, translated by King James, assisted, it is said, by Sir WilUam Alexander of Menstrie, the first Viscount and Earl of Stirling, were originally printed in 1631, with the foUowing privUege : — " Chakles E. — Having caused this Translaticm of the Psalms, whereof our late dear Father was author, to be perused, and it being found to be exactly and truly done, we do hereby authorize the same to be imprinted, according to the patent granted thereupon, and do allow them to be sung in aU the churches of our dominions, recommending them to aU our good subjects for that effect." X Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife, printed for the Abbotsford Club, p. 113, 114. — Bannatyne Miscellany, vol. i. p. 227. In the Diocesan Synod held at St Andrews 30th April 1633 — ' ' Doctor Alexander Gladstanes, Dr John Mitchelson, Mr Alexander Henderson, Mr Sylvester Lambie, and Mr Eobert Murray, were apoyntit to concurr and convene with the rest of the commissioners nominate fiirth of other Synods, to give their sound judgment and opinion anent the new translated Biuk ofthe Psalmes."' — Minutes ofthe Synod of Fife, p. 114. :|: Spalding's History of Troubles in Scotland and England from 1625 to 1645, printed for the Bannatyne Club, 2 vols. 4to. 1828, vol. i. p. 14. 1633.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 453 was translated from Orkney to Glasgow in 1615. Bishop Keith says that Archbishop Law " was esteemed a man of good learn ing, and had a grave and venerable aspect ; he left behind him a Commentary upon several places of Scripture which remains still In manuscript, and gives a good specimen of his knowledge both In the Fathers and the history of the Church. The Archbishop corapleted the lead roof of the Cathedral of Glasgow. He was twice married — first to a daughter of Dundas of Newliston in the parish of Kirkliston, county of Linlithgow, where he had been minister ; and to Marion, second daughter of John Boyle of Kelburn in Ayrshire, ancestor of the Earls of Glasgow. The Archbishop left an estate in Fife to a son. He was descended from an ancient and respectable family in that county, a branch of whora gave birth to the celebrated financial adventurer, John Law of Laurieston near Edinburgh. Dr Arthur Johnston, Physi cian to Charles I., one of his erainent contemporaries, comraends hira in some elegant Latin verses. Archbishop Law was succeeded In the See of Glasgow, in April 1633, by Bishop Patrick Lindsay of Ross, the relative of Rachel, daughter of Bishop David Lind say, his iraraediate predecessor in that See, and wife of Arch bishop Spottiswoode. Bishop Lindsay's successor in Ross was MaxweU, one of the rainisters of Edinburgh, a raan of great learn ing and abilities. The great event of 1633 was the visit of Charles I. to Scotland, and his coronation in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood at Edinburgh. A minute account of the whole of this grand pageant is given by Sir James Balfour, who was Lord Lyon King-at-Arms. The King, accompanied by Laud, then Bishop of London and Dean of the Chapel-Royal, Dr White, Bishop of Ely, then his Majesty's Almoner, and a number of the English NobUity and gentlemen, reached Ber wick-upon-Tweed on the 8th of June, where he remained till the 12th, when he lodged one night in Dunglass Castle. On the following night he was entertained at Seaton by the Earl of Winton, frora which he proceeded to the castle of Dalkeith, at that time the seat of the Earl of Morton. On Saturday the I Sth the King made his public entry into Edinburgh on horseback amid the greatest pomp and raagnificenoe, and reached the Palace of Holyrood by the same route through the city which his father traversed, after having been complimented by seven speeches during his progress. On the fol- 454 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1633. lowing day, which was Sunday, he attended Dirine service in the Chapel-Royal, at which Bishop BeUenden of Dunblane, his chap lain, officiated. On Monday the 17th the King rode to the castle of Edinburgh, where he lodged during the night, and on the foUowing day was the coronation. A splendid procession of the Nobility, Officers of State, and other public functionaries, left the castle on the fore noon for Holyroodhouse. The Chapel-Royal was fitted up In a manner suitable for the imposing ceremonial which was to be cele brated within its waUs. A contemporary alleges that there was a " four neuked taffel in raanner of an altar within the kirk," on which were two clasped books, called Blind Books, two " chande liers" with wax candles which were not lighted, an erapty bason, and towards the wall rich tapestry, on which was a crucifix curiously wrought ; but Sir Jaraes Balfour, who superintended all the ar rangeraents, expressly states that the communion-table was " de cently decked." On the north side of the comraunion-table was the pulpit, and in front were kneeling cushions for the King. On the west side of the pulpit were two large seats for the Archbishop of St Andrews and the Bishops engaged in the ceremonial. A sraall table was placed near the south side of the communion-table for the crown, sceptre, sword of state, and the great seal of the kingdom. The King was received at the west or grand entrance of the church by Archbishop Spottiswoode and several Bishops, and after kneeling devotionally he was conducted to a chair placed at the west pillar of the side aisle, where Mr James Hannay, the preacher of the Chapel-Royal, addressed him in a short speech. The King then rose, and proceeded through the church to a plat form, on which was the chair of state, the choir chanting the anthera — " Behold, 0 Lord our Protector, and look upon the face of thine anointed." Sir James Balfour, as Lord Lyon, then de livered a golden viol with the oil to Archbishop Spottiswoode, who placed it on the communion-table, and the King removed from the platform to the chair near the pulpit. Bishop Lindsay of Brechin, whom Spalding designates a " prime scholar," preached the sermon from 1 Kings i. 39, after which the King returned to the platforra, and occupied the chair of state. The cereraony of the coronation now coraraenced, and was performed with great 1633.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 455 dignity by Archbishop Spottiswoode, assisted by Bishop BeUenden of Dunblane, Bishop Alexander Lindsay of Dunkeld, Bishop David Lindsay of Brechin, Bishop Guthrie of Moray, and Bishop Max well, elect of Ross, arrayed in their episcopal robes, or, as Spalding describes it, " with white rochets and white sleeves, and loops of gold, having blue silk to their foot." Bishop Guthrie acted as Lord Almoner, and scattered money among the people. While the 80th Psalm was sung by the choir the Archbishop went to the communion-table, and at the conclusion of the anthem the King approached the table to present his oblation, supported by Bishop BeUenden as Dean of the Chapel-Royal, and by Bishop Guthrie. Archbishop Spottiswoode received the oblation in a cup of gold, after which the King knelt, and the Primate said a prayer. He then sat down in his chair, and the Archbishop advancing to ward him, asked if he was willing to take the oath appointed at the coronation of Kings. After the usual questions about faith fully administering the laws of the kingdom, the promoting of true religion, the maintenance of the privileges, rights, and rents of the crown of Scotland inviolate, and the protection of the Church, the hymn Veni Creator was sung, after which the King knelt, and the Archbishop again prayed. The Litany was then said by the Bishops of Moray and Ross, and the Primate at its conclusion began that part of the Communion Office, saying aloud — " Lift up your hearts, and give thanks unto the Lord." The Archbishop then proceeded with the coronation, which took place about two o'clock, anointing the King on the head, and on the palm of the hands, and other parts of his body. After the preliminary cere monies with the oil. Archbishop Spottiswoode took the crown in his hands, and with a prayer placed it on the King's head. The usual homage was then rendered by the Nobility, and the oath of allegiance administered. An anthem was now sung by the choir, after which the Lord Chamberlain loosed the sword from the King's side, who presented it to the Archbishop, by whom it was laid on the communion-table, where it was redeemed by the Earl of Erroll, who drew it frora the scabbard, and carried it before the King. The Primate then placed the sceptre in the King's hand with an appropriate address and invocation. His Majesty kissed the Archbishop and the Bishops engaged in the ceremonial, and then ascended the platform. 456 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1633, where he was solemnly enthroned by the Primate. The Lord Chancellor now proclaimed at each corner of the platforra the royal pardon under the Great Seal to all who required It, and the Archbishops and Bishops knelt and did homage, repeating the words after the Earl Marischal, and again kissing the King's left cheek. The whole was concluded by the administration of the Holy Communion, and the King entered the Palace with his whole train, having the crown on his head and the sceptre in his hand, amid the sound of trumpets, and the discharge of artillery from the castle. Such Is a condensed account of the coronation of Charles I. in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood by Archbishop Spottiswoode, and it is well observed that it " is the raore entitled to our regard, as the solemnity happened at a period when the monarch was a free agent, and the aspect of public affairs was calra and unclouded, and not distracted by the dissensions and troubles that attended the subsequent coronation of Charles IL, when that Prince was little better than a captive in the hands of a rebellious and over bearing faction ; on which account the former raust now, strictly speaking, be regarded as the last regular and legitiraate cereraonlal of the kind in Scotland." Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow, and the other Bishops who were not required to assist at the corona tion, wore black gowns. The Presbyterians advance a charge against Archbishop Laud, who took no active part in the cererao nlal, that he thrust the Archbishop of Glasgow frora the left side of the King, because he appeared without his episcopal robes, and substituted in his place, Maxwell Bishop-elect of Ross. It is to be observed, however, that what Laud's enemies term an " inde cent violence " was merely a hint to Archbishop Lindsay, and that the incident originated in sorae raistake on the part of both. On Thursday the 20th, two days after the coronation, the Par liament was held. Archbishop Spottiswoode preaching the opening serraon. The two Archbishops and all the Bishops were present, with the exception of Bishop Forbes of Aberdeen, who was unable to attend by sickness, and Bishop Abernethy of Caithness, whose proxy was the Bishop of Dunkeld. On the second and last day of the Pariiaraent thirty-one acts were passed, and raany corarais sions and ratifications in favour of certain of the Nobility, Bishops, Colleges, and private individuals, were sanctioned. The taxation granted to the King of thirty shillings " upon the pound land, and 1633.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 457 the sixteenth penny of all annual rents," was affirmed, and granted for six years. The King's revocation and restitution of the church lands was also sanctioned, and an act, the third in order, was passed, though not without sorae difficulty, regulating the ecclesi astical dress. Those two acts particularly Inflaraed the Presby terian party. On Sunday the 23d of June the King went to St Giles' church, and heard a sermon by Bishop Guthrie, who preached in his epis copal habit, which gave much offence to several then present. Two days afterwards the King attended Divine service in the Chapel-Royal, when Dr William Forbes preached from St John, xiv. 27. The Liturgy of the Church of England was read on that occasion. Bishop BeUenden of Dunblane appeared in his episcopal dress, but the other Bishops in attendance wore black gowns. On the 28th the acts of Parliament were ratified. On Sunday the 30th the King attended divine service in the Chapel-Royal, when Archbishop Laud preached, " which scarce any Englishman," says Clarendon, " had done before him." He discoursed chiefly on the advantages of conformity, and reverence for the institutions of the Church. Laud was heard throughout by a crowded audience with the greatest attention and respect, although the Presbyterians assert that the congregation consisted chiefly of courtiers. " Many were then and stUl are of opinion," says Clarendon, " that if the King had then proposed the Liturgy of the Church of England to have been received and practised by that nation, it would have been submitted to without opposition; but upon raature considera^ tion the King concluded that it was not a good season to promote that business." Charles, before his return to England, undertook a progress to various towns accompanied partly by Laud, who visited Arch bishop Spottiswoode at St Andrews and Bishop BeUenden at Dun blane. On the 16th of July the King arrived at Berwick on his journey southward. Before his departure he appointed a commit tee of the Bishops to prepare a Liturgy, and to correspond on the subject with Laud, who, having no particular cause to hasten home, did not return from Scotland to his palace of Fulham until the 26th of July. The death of Archbishop Abbot occurred on the 4th of August, and Laud was translated to the Primacy of Canterbury, having secured the appointment of his old friend and 458 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1633. fellow student, Dr William Juxon, to succeed him in the Diocese of London. One of the results of the King's visit to Scotland was the found ation or erection of the Bishopric of Edinburgh, the charter of which is dated at WhitehaU, 29th September 1633. It is already stated that the Archiepiscopal Diocese of St Andrews was most extensive. Clarendon observes — " Edinburgh, though the metro polis of the kingdom, and the chief seat of the King's ovm resi dence, and the place where the Council of State and the Courts of Justice stiU remained, was but a borough town in the Diocese of the Archbishop of St Andrews, and governed In all church affairs by the preachers of the town, who, being chosen by the citizens from the time of Knox, had been the most turbulent and seditious ministers that could be found in the kingdom." Before the erec tion of the See of Edinburgh, the ecclesiastical affairs of the dis tricts contained in the Diocese of St Andrews south of the Forth were administered by an Archdeacon appointed by the Arch bishops, and eight Deans belonged to the Diocese, being only one less than in the very extensive Diocese of Glasgow. The new Diocese included Clackraannanshire on the north side of the Forth, the counties frora the town of StirUng to the Tweed, bounded by the Forth, the Frith of Forth, and the German Ocean on the one side, and was bounded by the Bishopric of Galloway and Diocese of Glasgow on the other. The King purchased part of the estates which had been the patrimony of the ancient Priory of St Andrews frora the Duke of Lennox, to secure a suitable revenue for the new Bishop, and that nobleman disposed of the property at a moderate sum to meet the King's wishes. The church of St Giles, the original parish church of the city, which has been long subdi vided into various places of worship both in Episcopal and Pres byterian times, and which was corapletely repaired and the outer waUs rebuilt in 1830 and 1831, was constituted the cathedral. This large Gothic edifice, the erection of different times, though no part of Its interior Is apparently more ancient than the reign of James IV., Is said to occupy the site of a church founded before A.D. 854, which was subsequently under the jurisdiction of the Bishops of Llndisfeme or Holy Island. The Bishops of Edinburgh, by the King's charter of erection, were to have precedence after the two Archbishops, and next in 1633.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 459 order were the Bishops of Galloway. The Chapter was arranged to consist of a Dean and twelve Prebendaries. The principal minister of St Giles' was to be the Dean. In the charter the patrimony of the Bishopric is carefully enuraerated, and a proper raaintenance for the Bishop, Dean, and Prebendaries was secured frora the teinds, feus, and superiorities of various lands specified. This the King did, says Clarendon, " hoping the better to prepare the people of the place, who were most numerous and richest of the kingdora, to have a due reverence to order and government, and at least to discountenance. If not to suppress, the factious sprout of Presbytery which had so long ruled there." The first Bishop of Edinburgh was Dr WilUam Forbes of Aberdeen — " a very eminent scholar," says Clarendon, " of a good family in the kingdom, who had been educated in the Uni versity of Cambridge." In the short biographical notice of him in serted by Bishop Keith it is stated that Dr Forbes was the son of Thomas Forbes of the faraUy of Corsindae, who married a sister of James Cargill, a physician of great eminence in Aberdeen, where the Bishop was educated before he went to Cambridge. In his youth he traveUed through Germany and Holland, and after an absence of five years he retumed to Scotland, and became successively minister of the parishes of Alford and Monymusk in the county of Aberdeen. He was removed to be one of the minis ters of Aberdeen, and Principal of Marischal College, and thence he was translated to be one of the ministers of Edinburgh. The reputation of Dr Forbes for , theological learning soon attracted the notice of Charles during his visit to Scotland, who is said to have stated that he had " found a raan who deserved to have a See erected for hira." The patent of Dr Forbes to the Bishopric of Edinburgh was dated the 26th of January 1634, after he had been twenty years in holy orders, and he was imraediately conse crated ; but he died on the 1st of April following, universally regretted by all who knew hira. Spalding, however, states that Bishop Forbes died on the 12th of April. " About this time " [1634], says that local contemporary, " Dr William Forbes, one of the ministers at Aberdeen, was translated therefrom to the town of Edinburgh, where, in February thereafter, he was with great solemnity consecrated Bishop of Edinburgh, and shortly thereafter transported his wife and children, goods and gear, from Aberdeen 460 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1633. to the said burgh. This raan was the first that ever was raade Bishop of Edinburgh, and continued short whUe ; for upon the 12th day of April In the said year 1634, he departed this life, after taking of some physic, sitting in his own chair, suddenly — a matchless man of learning, languages, utterance, and delivery, a peerless preacher, of a grave and godly conversation, being about the age of forty-four years."* Bishop Burnet, in the Preface to his " Life of Bishop BedeU," describes the first Bishop of Edinburgh, who was one of that IUustrious and learned body of ecclesiastics popularly known as the " Doctors of Aberdeen." " One of the Doctors of Aber deen," observes Burnet, " bred In his [Bishop Patrick Forbes'] time, and of his narae, WiUiara Forbes, was proraoted by the late King wlule he was in Scotland in the year 1633, to the Bishopric of Edinburgh which was then founded by hira, so that that glorious King said on good grounds that he had found out a Bishop who de served that a See should be raade for him. He was a grave and erainent divine. My father, -f- who knew him long, and, being of counsel for him in his law raatters, had occasion to know him well, has often told rae that he never saw hira but he thought his heart was in heaven, and he was never alone with him but he felt within himself a comraentary on these words of the Apostle — ' Did not our hearts burn within us, while he yet talked with us, and opened to us the Scriptures 2' He preached vrith a zeal and veheraence that made him often forget all the raeasures of tirae ; two or three hours was no extraordinary thing for hira ; those sermons wasted his strength so fast, and his ascetical course of life was such, that he supplied It so scantly that he died within a year after his promotion, so he only appeared there long enough to be known, but not long enough to do what might have been otherwise expected frora so great a Prelate. The little remnant of his that is in print shews how leamed he was. J I do not deny " Spalding's History of the Troubles in Scotland and England, printed for the Ban natyne Club. X Eobert Bumet of Crimond, a Judge in the Scottish Supreme Court by the title of Lord Crimond, the brother-in-law of Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, also designated Lord Warriston, the noted Covenanter, one of Cromwell's partizans. X Bishop Bumet here alludes to the treatise by Bishop Forbes, entitled — " Con- siderationes Modestas et Pacificae Controversiarum de Justificatione, Purgatorio, Invo- catione Sanctomm. Christi Mediatore, Eucharistia." — " The book," says Pinkerton, 1633.] CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. 461 but his earnest desire of a general peace and union among all Christians has made him too favourable to many of the corrup tions of the Church of Rorae, but though a charity that Is not well balanced raay carry one to very indiscreet things, yet the principle from whence they flowed in him was so truly good, that the errors to which it carried hira ought either to be excused, or at least to be very gently censured." A portrait of Bishop Forbes of Edinburgh is given in Pinker ton's " Portraits of Illustrious Persons of Scotland" In his epis copal habit, from a painting by the celebrated Jaraeson, known as the Scotish Vandyke. The Bishop was succeeded in the See of Edinburgh by Dr David Lindsay, who was translated frora Brechin In September 1634. The successor of Bishop Lindsay in Brechin was Dr Walter Whiteford, son of Whiteford of Whiteford, who married Margaret, daughter of Sir James Somerville of Cam- nethan. Bishop Whiteford was consecrated In September 1634. He had previously held the Incumbency of Monkland, and the Subdeanery of Glasgow, from which he was preferred to be rector of Moffat, retaining the Subdeanery in comm,endam. In 1620 he received the degree of Doctor of Divinity. Bishop Whiteford is mentioned In the Peerage of Scotland as having married Anne, fourth daughter of Sir John Carmichael of Carmichael in Lanark shire, successively Warden of the Middle and West Marches on the English Border, who was raurdered when on his way to hold a court at Lochraaben In 1600, by a person named Thomas Arm strong and several accomplices, then returning from a match at foot-ball. This Sir John Carmichael was the grand-uncle of Sir Jaraes Carmichael of Hyndford, ancestor of the Earls of Hyndford. Bishop Patrick Forbes of Aberdeen died on Easter-Eve, 28th of March 1635, in the seventy-first year of his age, and was interred in the south aisle of the Cathedral of St Machar in Old Aberdeen. So rauch has been already said of this learned and Illustrious ornament of the Scottish Episcopal Church, that any remarks are alraost superfluous. Bishop Burnet truly describes him as " in " forms an octavo volume replete with theological leaming, and its intentions are the more laudable, because very uncommon. But party, ever in extremes, is a stranger to reason, and to aU Modest and Pacific Considerations. He who takes the middle open ground is only exposed to the fire of both armies." Iconographia Scoticse, London, 1797, vol. i. 462 CHANGES IN THE DIOCESES. [1633. aU things an apostolical raan." " When," says Burnet, " he heard reports of the weakness of any of his clergy, his custora was to go and lodge unknown near their church on the Saturday night, and next day, when the rainister was got Into the pulpit, he would corae to the church, that so he raight observe what his ordinary sermons were, and accordingly he admonished or encouraged them." After stating. In reference to the learning and loyalty of the Aberdeen Doctors, one of whom was his son John Forbes of Corse, Professor of Divinity in King's College, Aberdeen, and that " the true source of that advantage they had," In their con troversy with the Covenanters, " is justly due" to the memory of Bishop Forbes, Burnet says — " He had Synods twice a year of his clergy, and before they went upon their other business he always began with a short discourse, excusing his own infirmities, and charging them that if they knew or observed any thing amiss In him, they would use all freedom with him, and either corae and warn him in secret of secret errors, or If they were public, that they would speak of them there in public ; and upon that he with drew to leave them to the freedom of speech. This condescension of his was never abused but by one petulant man, to whom aU others were very severe for his insolence ; only the Bishop bore it gently, and as became him."* His character is amply delineated in the " Funeral Sermons, Orations, and Epitaphs, on the Right Reverend Patrick Forbes, Bishop of Aberdeen," published in 1635. Bishop Forbes was succeeded in the See of Aberdeen by Bishop BeUenden, translated from Dunblane, to which Dr James Wedder burn was appointed in February 1636. Bishop Wedderburn was a native of Dundee, and was educated at Oxford, but if Hey lin's statement in his Life of Archbishop Laud is correct, part ly at Cambridge. He obtained a prebendal staU in WeUs Cathedral in 1631, and was afterwards Professor of Divinity in the University of St Andrews. Such were the changes in the episcopal succession previous to the memorable rebeUion in 1638. " Preface to the Life ofBishop BedeU. 1634.] 463 CHAPTER X. DISCONTENT IN SCOTLANIJ — PLOTS OP THE ENGLISH PURITANS AND SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIANS — TRIAL OF THE SECOND LORD BALMERINO — BISHOP SYDSERFF OF GALLOW^AY — CALVINISM — THE COMPILATION OP THE SCOTTISH LITURGY — ARCHBISHOP laud's CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. The visit of Charles I. to Scotland, notwithstanding the enthusiasm with which he had been received, was followed by the most dis astrous results. The Nobility remembered with rancorous hatred the revocation of the church lands : the ceremonial of the corona tion had entailed upon them debts and expences which they were unable to defray without great exertions In a country where raoney was proverbially scarce ; and the taxation pressed hard upon their narrow resources. A general discontent pervaded the kingdora fostered by the Presbyterian party. The Court unfortunately at this crisis conferred appointments which were most Imprudent. The Earl of KinnouU, Lord Chancel lor, died on 16th of December 1634, and Archbishop Spottiswoode was preferred to that high office on the 16th of January 1635. The Presbyterian wnriter Row observes respecting the appointraent of Archbishop Spottiswoode as Lord Chancellor — " It was thought by many, he being an old and infirm man, and very unraeet for so great changes in Kirk and Coraraonwealth, that this was oddly done for a preparative that the Bishops of younger years might succeed him." It is more than probable that this supposed "prepara tive" is fallacious and unfounded, but it proves that the seeds of discontent were widely sown among the Nobility and the people, and even those of the former who were attached to the Church were Irritated at the preference awarded to the Bishops, bellering 464 DISCONTENT IN SCOTLAND. [1634. that the object of the King In aU proceedings connected with Scot land was to aggrandize the clergy. Sir Robert Spottiswoode of New- abbey and Dunipace, the Priraate's second son, who, it is already mentioned, successively held the office of an Extraordinary and Ordi nary Lord of Session, was appointed Lord President of that Court after the death of Sir James Skene in 1633, and the Archbishop's acceptance of the office of Lord Chancellor, in connection with his son's position as head of the College of Justice, was the cause of much hostiUty. Even about the end of October 1634, It had been rumoured that the King, without any assignable cause, had sup planted the Lord Chancellor KinnouU, and the Earls of Mar, Winton, Haddington, Roxburgh, Lauderdale, Southesk, and others of inferior rank, as Lords of the Scottish Exchequer, and had no minated in their stead the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glas gow, the Bishops of Edinburgh and Ross, four judges of the Supreme Court, four of the Barons, the Earl of Morton, Lord High Treasurer, Sir John Hay of Barro, Lord Clerk Register, two of the Officers of State, and the lawyer who held the appointment of Depute-Advocate. It is also aUeged that a new list of Privy CounciUors, containing the naraes of nine of the Bishops, was transraitted, and that as many of the clergy as were noted for their zealous attachment to the Episcopal Church were constituted jus tices of the peace. If these statements are correct, for the arrange ments were never enforced, it cannot be denied that they were injudicious. The amount of talent which would have been brought into the public service was undoubtedly more than the King could supersede; for no raan can deny the abilities of Archbishop Spottiswoode, Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow, Bishop Lindsay of Edinburgh, and Bishop Maxwell of Ross, exclusive of the four Noblemen and the Officers of State ; but the Nobility became alarm ed at the probable loss of situations of dignity which had aU along pertained to their rank, and granted to ministers of reUgion whom they considered Intruders into secular pursuits. Bishop Burnet truly states that the Scottish Nobility at that period were as power ful as they were ever known to have been In former times ; and Clarendon records that the honours conferred on the Bishops alienated many from the Church. " The promoting so many Bishops to be of the Privy Council," says the Noble historian, " and to sit in the Courts of Justice, [though there Is no eridence .1634.] DISCONTENT IN SCOTLAND. 465 that any one of them was ever connected with the Supreme Court except Archbishop Spottiswoode as Lord Chancellor], seemed at first wonderfully to facilitate all that was in design, and to create an affection and reverence towards the Church, at least an appli cation to and dependence upon the greatest Churchmen. So that there seemed to be not only a good preparation raade with the people, but a general expectation, and even a desire, that they might have a Liturgy, and more decency observed in the Church ; and this temper was believed to be the more universal, because neither from any of the Nobility, nor from the clergy who were thought most averse to it, there appeared any sign of contra diction, nor that licence of language against it as was natural to that nation ; but an entire acquiescence in all the Bishops thought fit to do, which was interpreted to proceed from a conversion to their judgment, at least to a submission to authority ; whereas, in truth, it appeared afterwards to be, from the observation they made of the temper and indiscretion of those Bishops in the great est authority, that they were likely to have more advantages ad ministered to thera by their ill raanagery, than they could gain by any contrivance of their own." The various details of the general discontent against the King are more or less specified In all the histories of that meraorable period. The Scottish Parliament of 1633 gave no satisfaction to the people. Sir James Balfour, who was the opponent of the Church, states that the " third and fourth acts of this ParUament so much displeased the subjects, that In effect they were the very ground stones of all the mischiefs that hath since followed. One whereof was anent his Majesty's royal prerogative and apparel of Kirkmen ; and the other, a ratification of all acts made in former Parliaraents touching religion, and to bind the subjects the more to observe his Majesty's general revocation [of the teinds], was ratified, which was only intended to be an awe band [restraint] over raen that would presume to attempt any thing against the two forraer acts. But it proved in the end a forcible rope to draw the affections of the subject frora the Prince. To be short, of thirty one acts and statutes concluded in this Parliament, not three of them but were most hurtful to the liberty of the subject, and as It were as many partitions to separate the King from his people. This Parliament was led on by the Episcopal and Court 30 466 PLOTS OF THE ENGLISH PURITANS [1634. faction, which thereafter proved to be that stone which afterwards crushed thera In pieces, and the fuel of that flarae which set all Britain a fire not long thereafter. In this Pariiaraent his Ma jesty noted up the naraes of such as voted against the three forraer acts with his own hand, wherein he expressed now and then a great deal of spleen. This unseemly act of his Majesty bred a great heart-burning in many against his Majesty's proceed ings and government." Though several of these statements are in accurate, they are of sorae iraportance as the recorded sentiments of a raan who lived at the tirae, and who, from his situation of Lord Lyon King-at-Arms, was concerned in raost of the events of his day. Sir James Balfour also knew intimately most of the leaders of both parties, and although an avowed partlzan, he un doubtedly expresses the opinions which prevailed. But the Pres byterian party were not idle in organizing an effectual opposition to the govemment of Charles I. From the accession of King Jaraes to the English Crown they had maintained a correspondence with the Puritans. After the death of that monarch, they employ ed a man naraed Berwick as their confidential agent in London, and a conspiracy was projected to assail the Church of England as soon as the war coraraenced against the Episcopal Church of Scotland. Various contemporary writers, especially Bishop Guth rie, and even Bishop Burnet, explicitly state that the Presby terians were encouraged to much of their subsequent violence and rebeUion by the information they regularly procured frora England ; and both Echard and Anthony Wood mention that the celebrated John Hampden annually visited Scotland to concert raeasures with his friends. This fact is also confirraed by Nalson, who teUs us, that " the principal men of the EngUsh faction made frequent journeys into Scotland, and had many raeetings and con sultations how to carry on their combinations." The Presbyterian leaders were comparatively quiet during the King's visit to Scotland In 1633, but they were sedulously con certing their plans. Sir James Balfour narrates that by act of Parliament in 1594, four of each of the Estates were to convene twenty days before the meeting of every Parliament, " to consider aU articles and petitions which were to be given in, that such things onlymlght be put In forra, and presented to the Lords ofthe Articles in time of Parliament, as were reasonable and necessary, and that 1634.] AND SCOTTISH PRESBYTERIANS. 467 such as were impertinent and frivolous raight be rejected ; but it was not deterralned who should raake choice of the persons." It seeras that this was not observed previous to the ParUament of 1633, and the only intimation was by a herald at the Cross of Edinburgh a month before the meeting, that all petitions were to be delivered to Sir John Hay, the Clerk Register — a " sworn enemj'," says Sir Jaraes Balfour, " to religion and honesty," in other words a zealous opponent of the Presbyterians — and " a slave to the Bishops and Court, to be laid before such of the Privy Council and Estates as would be nominated to consider the petitions." Some of the Presbyterian preachers, suspecting they would not be heard in any other raanner, appointed one of their " distressed brethren," a certain Mr Thomas Hog, to lodge their grievances with Sir John Hay, in the form of a raemorial to be laid before the King and Estates of Parliament. Sir James Balfour has pre served this document, which is entitled " Grievances and Petitions concerning the disordered estate of the Reformed Kirk within this Realm of Scotland, presented upon the 29th of May 1633 by me. Master Thomas Hogge, minister of the evangel, in my own name, and in name of others of the ministry likewise grieved, to Sir John Hay, Clerk of Register." The " grievances" set forth in Mr Thomas Hogg's " petitions" were the usual Presbyterian complaints against the Church. He and his friends demanded that no " ministers should be admitted to vote in Parliament without express warrant and direction from the Kirk" — that the said " ministers," as they termed the Bishops, ought to be subject to their seditious General Assemblies — and that the Five Articles of Perth should be rescinded. The other points set forth in the docuraent, which Is rather lengthy, are of little importance. The zealous Mr Hogg attended to present his " grievances," but no meeting of the Committee of the Estates was held, and his asso ciates induced him to lay a supplication before the King, which he did at Dalkeith Castle on the 15th of June, the day of his Majes ty's pubhc entry into Edinburgh. Charles read the petition, but no farther notice was taken of the matter, and in the opinion of Sir James Balfour, the acts of the Parliament of 1633 " laid the foundation of an irreconcileable schisra, and proved afterwards the ruin both of the King and the Bishops." The Marquis of Hamilton was Intrusted by the King with the 468 LORD balmerino's trial. [1634. coUection of the taxation granted by the Parliament. But another serious affair occurred in 1634 and 1635 which farther tended to widen the breach between the King and the Presbyterian party, and to enlist the sympathies of raany of the people who cared little for the Presbyterian dograas on the side of the latter. John second Lord Balraerino was the only son by the first raar riage of James the first Lord, who was tried, convicted, attainted, and conderaned to be beheaded. In the reign of King James, as al ready narrated. He was restored to the Peerage by letter under the Great Seal in August 1613, and after the accession of Charles became conspicuous by his opposition to the Government. His subsequent connection with the Covenanters, and friendship with Johnston of Warriston and other chief leaders of the Presbyteri ans, sufficiently indicate his principles. In the Pariiaraent of 1633 Lord Balraerino zealously denounced the act sanctioning the royal prerogative to regulate the dress of the clergy, and it is asserted that a raajority voted against It, although Sir John Hay, whose duty it was as Clerk Register to collect the votes, asserted that It was carried in the affirraative. John fifth Earl of Rothes, who afterwards becarae an enthusiastic Covenanter, boldly stated in the House that the votes were erroneously reported, but the King pereraptorlly insisted that the Clerk Register's declaration must be held correct, unless Rothes should appear at the bar, and ac cuse him of falsifying the records of Parliament. This, however, was a capital crime, and as the Earl was well aware that if he failed to prove it he was also liable to that punishraent, he pru dently withdrew his stateraent. The conduct of those noblemen excited the raarked displeasure of the King ; but as they were still persuaded that the act, though passed, had been virtually rejected, and as they considered that the Pariiaraent was useless if the Clerk Register was aUowed to declare the votes as he pleased, more especially Sir John Hay who was Indebted for aU his preferment to Archbishop Spottiswoode, they resolved to adopt another course, which was undoubtedly legal and constitutional. They eraployed a gentleraan naraed Haig, of the ancient family of Haig of Beraerslde In Berwickshire, who had been soUcitor to King Jaraes, to draw up a petition to King Charles, praying that this grievance raight be redressed. Before presenting or even signing it, Rothes was desired to shew a copy 1634.] LORD balmerino's trial. 469 of it to the King, who, when Inforraed of the scope of the docu ment, so expressed himself that the design was relinquished. It happened that Lord Balmerino preserved a copy of this peti tion, which he had Interlined In some places with his own hand, and shewed it, with the strictest injunction to secrecy, and a posi tive order that he was not to transcribe it, to his legal adviser, a notary in Dundee named Dunmore. That individual, however, basely copied it, and gave It to Mr Peter Hay of Naughton, on the condition that he was not to exhibit it to any individual. But that was an age in which honour was little regarded, and Hay, who cherished a bitter dislike to his neighbour Lord Balmerino, car ried It to Archbishop Spottiswoode. The Primate, who was either told or imagined that such an important document was circulating for signature, set off with it directly for London to lay it before the King, and the Archbishop's enemies accuse him of beginning his journey on a Sunday. Lord Balmerino was summoned on the 9th of June to appear before the Privy Council on the 11th. On the day of his citation his Lordship accidentally met Haig, who, after a conversation, considered it prudent to retire to Holland, from which he wrote a letter to Lord Balmerino, acknowledging that he was the author of the petition. But this was of no avail to his Lordship, who, after an examination before the Privy Council, was committed a close prisoner to Edinburgh Castle. He was tried on the 3d of December on the accusation of " art and part of the penning and setting down of a scandalous libel, and divulging and dispersing it among his Majesty's lieges ;" which dangerous libel " depraved the laws, and misconstrued the proceedings of the King and the late Parhament ; so seditious that its thoughts infected the very air — a cockatrice which a good subject should have crushed in the Qgg!'' To this inflated charge Lord Balmerino's counsel, three of whom were afterwards judges in the Supreme Court,* • Lord Balmerino's counsel were Mr Eoger Mowat, Mr Alexander Pearson, Mr Eobert Macgill, and Mr John Nisbet, Advocates. Mr Alexander Pearson was appointed an Ordinary Lord of Session by the Estates of Parliament in March 1650, and took his seat on the Bench by the title of Lord Southhall. He died in 1657, and his conduct or abilities had dissatisfied the EngUsh rulei-s of Scotland, for Lord Broghill, in a letter to Thurloe in November 1655, says of Lord Southhall — " We understand there are some things against him which possibly will soon invite to lay him aside." Mr Eobert Macgill was appointed by the same Estates, and took his seat as Lord Foord in June 470 LORD balmerino's trial. [1634. replied that the interUneations, for which his Lordship was un doubtedly responsible, were merely Intended to mitigate the strong phraseology of the petition, and could not constitute a libel — that the said petition was only subraitted to a confidential lawyer for his private opinion — that there was no precedent for a trial on such a charge — and that though it raight have been illegal to conceal the petition if it was reaUy seditious, its purport was ap parently at least respectful. On the 20th of Deceraber the indict raent was found what is called in Scottish law relevant, and re- raitted to an assize ; but the trial was delayed tUl the 20th of March 1635. Lord Balmerino was then placed at the bar, and in vain challenged eight of the jury. He succeeded with difficulty in set ting aside the Earl of Dumfries, although it was proved that the said Earl had deliberately declared that, " if he were of his jury, though he [Balmerino] were as innocent as St Paul he would find him guilty."* The first Earl of Traquair, so created in 1633, and one of the ministers of State, was aUowed to act as chancellor of the jury, notwithstanding his avowed hostility to Balmerino. When the jury were enclosed, Gordon of Buckie, who whUe a young man had been engaged with his chief the Earl of Huntly in the murder of the Earl of Moray in 1591-2, implored them with tears in his eyes not to shed blood by their verdict. Traquair replied that the jury had nothing to do with the punishment, but were merely judges of the act of concealment. Eight of the fifteen jury gave a verdict of guilty, and Lord Balmerino was sen tenced to be beheaded when the King's pleasure was known. His Lordship's friends held numerous meetings, and so great was the excitement in his favour, that during the trial the people daily assembled in crowds on the streets in defiance of the efforts of the Magistrates. The condemnation of Lord Balmerino increas ed their rage, and they planned the most desperate designs. It was resolved to break open the prison for his release, or, if that 1649. Mr afterwards Sir John Nisbet, who was Lord Balmerino's junior counsel, having been called to the Bar in 1 633, was appointed Lord Advocate, and took his seat on the Bench as Lord Dirleton in 1064. He was forced to resign his appointments in 1677, having incurred the resentment of Lord Haltoun, afterwards Earl of Lauderdale, brother ofthe powerful Duke of Lauderdale. • At that time a Scottish Peer was subject, like a commoner, to the cognizance of the Justiciary or Criminal Court and the verdict of a jury, but it was necessary that the majority should be of his own order. 1634.] LORD balmerino's trial. 471 scheme was unsuccessful, to revenge his death on the judges, and on the eight jurymen by whom he was convicted. The Earl of Traquair, who was one of those designed to be murdered, hasten ed to Court, and obtained a reraission of the sentence. A respite was received, which was considered by the people as the forerunner of a pardon. The merit of procuring this respite is ascribed by the Presbyterian writer Row to Archbishop Laud's influence with the King, and by others to the royal clemency ; but we have un doubted evidence that Balmerino was spared by the intercession of Laud, who had been the patron of Traquair, and who had been the instrument of raising hira frora the condition of a private gentleman to the rank of an Earl and the office of Lord High Treasurer. Balmerino was kept in confinement thirteen months, and he was then aUowed to be raerely a prisoner at large, as he was ordered to confine himself within certain bounds. A con siderable time elapsed before he received a pardon. This prose cution of Lord Balmerino was fatal to the King's interest in Scot land, and tended still more to unite the Nobility against him.* In October 1634, the warrant of the King for re-establishing the Court of High Comraission was received. It enuraerated as raembers of the Court the two Archbishops, the twelve Bishops, a great many of the Nobility, Lord Lome, afterwards a zealous Covenanter, better known as the eighth Earl and first Marquis of Argyll, and a nuraerous list of knights and baronets, clergy, and gentlemen. Seven of them, an Archbishop or Bishop being of the number, were empowered to call before them, at any time or place they chose to appoint, all who were avowed or suspected Roman Catholics or non-communicants, and others who were guilty of ecclesiastical or imraoral offences. They were also en joined to proceed against all who impugned the Five Acts ratified by the Perth General Assembly. It is curious to find the naraes of several who soon afterwards became active opponents of the Church in this document, and it cannot be denied, whatever opi nion raay be forraed of the expediency of re-establishing the Court of High Coraraission at that tirae, that they were all equally responsible. In 1634, died Bishop Lamb of Galloway, who had been trans- * The pleadings in this singular case, and a copy of the petition with the words in terlined by Lord Balmerino, are inserted in the firiit volume of the " State Trials." 472 BISTIOP SYDSERFF OP GALLOWAY. [1634. lated from Brechin to that See in 1619. The successor of Bishop Lamb was Dr Sydserff, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, who is commonly said to have been translated from Brechin, to which he may have been probably nominated ; but his name does not occur in the succession of the Bishops of Brechin, and we have already seen that Dr Walter Whiteford was this year consecrated to that See, vacant by the translation of Bishop David Lindsay to Edin burgh. The Bishopric of Galloway had long been noted for its religious animosities and fanatical opinions, and some of the most turbulent of the Pres'oyterian preachers having located themselves within its limits. Bishop Sydserff resolved to suppress their extravagances, and enforce the power vested in him by law. A gentleman naraed Gordon, of Earlston, thought proper violently to oppose the in duction of a minister whom the people of the parish disliked, and he was in consequence cited before the Diocesan Coramission Court. Gordon refused to appear, and he was fined, and ordered to remove to the town of Montrose. He was at the time superin tending the estates of John Viscount Kenmure, a minor, who succeeded his father Sir John Gordon of Lochinvar, the first Viscount, in 1634, and who had appointed as his son's trustees his brother-in-law Lord Lome and the Earl of Morton. Lome ex erted himself to procure a remission of the banishment to Mon trose, but Bishop Sydserff would listen to no representation in Gordon's favour. About the sarae time a Mr Robert Glendin ning, minister of Kirkcudbright, was deprived, or probably sus pended from the discharge of his functions, for refractory conduct, In refusing to allow a clergyraan to officiate in his parish church under the authority of the Bishop. Mr Glendinning, who is de scribed as then nearly eighty years of age, disregarded the Bishop's censure, and the magistrates of the town supported hira in his contumacy by resorting to his sermons. The Bishop issued a warrant for his imprisonment, but his son, who was one of the raagistrates, refused to put it in force. For this defiance of eccle siastical authority he and the other raagistrates were ordered to be confined in the Jail of Wigton. A certain Mr WilUara Dal gleish, minister of the parish of Kirkmabreck, was also deposed for nonconformity.* Although these and similar Instances chiefly ' Nicholson's History of Galloway, vol. ii. p. 41, 42, on the authority of a very un fair and questionable writer named Aikman. 1635-6.] CALVINISM. 473 rest on the stateraents of Presbyterians, who carefully narrate thera to their own advantage, and though now they appear harsh and oppressive, the circurastances of the times must be considered. The Episcopal Church was then the legal national Church, and those who refused to conform had no raore right to the posses sion of the parishes than the Episcopal Clergy now have to thera under the Presbyterian Establishraent, or the large party who seceded from It In 1843, and yet refused to acknowledge its con stitution and discipline. In 1635 and 1636 the compilation of the celebrated Scottish Liturgy or Service-Book of King Charles I., as It is called, was In progress, and as this. Including the Book of Canons, was preg nant with great and disastrous events, some Introductory details are necessary. We have already seen that Presbyterianism was unknown in Scotland tiU 1560. Under the direction of Calyin that raode of discipline had been put into operation at Geneva, frora which it was brought into Scotland by John Knox, though not In the same forra or complexion as that afterwards given to it, and verj' different from what has been legally established in Scotland since the Revolution of 1688. The doctrinal part of Presbyteri anism, is known as Calvinism, from the name of its founder or propagator, and this has been long and controversially opposed to what Is theologically caUed Arminianism. Calvinism appears to have been first so designated specifically at the Conference of Poissy In 1561, which Calvin was prevented from attending by his local duties and the state of his health ; but his correspondence with Beza, his deputy who was present, shews the Intense interest he felt In the proceedings. A debate ensued on that occasion, respecting the orthodoxy of the Augsburg Con fession, between the supporters of Luther and Calvin, and the foUowers of the latter frora that time were known as Calvinists. The Scottish Reformers and their successors of the MelviUe and other trainings were all determined Calvinists, though we have seen that raany of them were by no raeans satisfied with, or decided In their views of, the Presbyterian discipline. They fluctuated in their opinions from tirae to tirae, and seera to have been guided by interest, expediency, and other casualties. But it Is clear, and cannot be disputed, that the belief in the tenets of Calvinism, such as original sin, election, reprobation, absolute decrees, perseverance 474 CALVINISM. [1636. of the saints, irresistible grace, what is considered regeneration, the nature of the eucharist, and other points affected by or re sulting therefrora, does not solely constitute any man a Presby terian, for many erainent theologians of the Church of England have been Calvinists. When that Church was first purified in the reign of Edward VI. , and its unsettled state in the reign of his father corrected. It was to a considerable extent Calvinistic In doctrine, though apostolicaUy episcopal in its constitution, and catholic in its observance of the ancient and primitive fasts and festivals. The rise of the Puritans in the reign of Elizabeth, and their Increase under his successor, are facts well known. During the reign of James I. the English Puritans, in the excess of their zeal for Calvinism in all its forms and peculiarities, designated every one who was not of their sect, or who contended for the apos tolical constitution, succession, rites, and ceremonies of the Church, an Arminian. This was Intended to excite the ignorant preju dices of the common people against the Church of England, and those unscrupulous maligners soon extended their accusation by identifying what they called Arminianisra with Popery. This mania spread into Scotland, and after the accession of Charles I. every one who was not a Presbyterian was stigmatized as an Arminian and a Papist. At the present time such an accusation would be received with the utraost indifference, for it is a raatter of no consequence what the Presbyterians say of those who oppose their system ; but it had a different effect In the reign of Charles I. among an ignorant people such as the population of Scotland then were, few of whom could give any explanation of Arminianism, or knew anything of its doctrines. In all the writings of those men we find thera labouring under the hallucination that conforraity to the Episcopal Church was a recognition of Arminianism and Popery, and this was more particularly the case after the promulgation of the Scottish Liturgy. Even Principal BaiUie of Glasgow, one of the most sensible of thera, who was hiraself admitted into orders by Archbishop Law of Glasgow, writes to one of his friends in 1638 : — " When they troubled us not with ceremonies the world knows we went with them (whereof we have no cause to repent), so far as our duty to God or raan could require ; but while they wUl have us against standing laws to devour Arminianism, and Popery, and all they please, shall we not bear thera vritness of 1636.] THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 475 their opposition though we die for it, and preach the truth of God, wherein we have been brought up, against all who will gainsay 2" Archbishop Laud was in England considered the great patron of this imaginary Arrainianisra and Popery, the falsehood of which the whole life and opinions of that raartyred Priraate abundantly testify. Laud was catholic in the proper not the Romish raeaning of that word, and his theology was derived not from the mere opinions and speculations of Arminians, but from the Scriptures, the Fathers, and the learned writers of the Church In all ages. He opposed the Puritans because he rightly believed them to be the inveterate enemies of the Church of England, and restless Innovators who would destroy that great and illustrious fabric by annihilating the ecclesiastical authority with which the Bishops and clergy are invested, to preach. Instruct, and administer the sacraments. Laud also opposed the Presbyterians on the same ground, and because they were self-elected teachers without canonical authority. To him, as a Catholic English Churchman, Puritanism under whatever form or pretensions, and Presbyterian isra, were equally obnoxious, but he was no enemy to doctrinal Calvinism in itself, as his influence in the promotion of Usher to the primacy of the Irish Church, not to mention other Calvinists who obtained his patronage, sufficiently proves. Archbishop Laud was nevertheless accused as the great pro moter of Arminianism and Popery, and we are gravely told by the Presbyterian writers that, after he took an interest in Scottish affairs, all those who were promoted to the Bishoprics were " rank Arminians." Bishop Maxwell of Ross is particularly mentioned. This is one of those charges which would require more space to examine and refute than it is really worth. The matter will be best understood by examining Archbishop Laud's correspon dence with the Scottish Church after 1633, from which it appears that in all his letters he advised the Bishops to do nothing contrary to the law. A Scottish Liturgy had been long in contemplation, and we have seen that before Charles I. returned to England, In 1633, a Committee was appointed to prepare one for the revisal of cer tain of the English Bishops. We have also seen that Archbishop Laud strongly advised the Scottish Bishops to adopt at once the 476 ARCHBISHOP laud's CORRESPONDENCE [1636. English Liturgy, and to trust to the effect of time for the removal of local prejudices, but his judicious advice was disregarded. On the 8th of October 1633, Charles had dispatched a letter to Bishop BeUenden as Dean of the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood, which Rush- worth alleges was written at the suggestion of Laud, for a " refor mation In the Church of Scotland, beginning with the Chapel- Royal," and the orders it contained are " declared to be for a pat tern of the intended reforraation to all cathedrals, chapels, and parish churches, in Scotland." The King enjoined that the Dean of the Chapel-Royal and his successors should at all future coro nations be assistant to the Archbishop of St Andrews — that the Book of the Forra of the Coronation lately used was to be carefully preserved in a Uttle box, and kept in possession of the Dean — that Divine service was to be performed twice every day according to the Liturgy of the Church of England, " till some course be taken for making one that may fit the custom and constitution of that Church" of Scotland — that the Holy Communion be received kneeling, and administered on the first Sunday of every month — that the Dean preach in his " whites," or surplice, on Sundays and other holidays observed by the Church, and be as seldom absent as possible except when visiting his Diocese — and that the Privy Council, Judges, and members of the College of Justice, communi cate in the Chapel-Royal once every year, or be reported to the King by the Dean in case of refusal. This was followed by a let ter to the Lords of Session dated at Greenwich 13th May 1634. It is a matter of no consequence whether or not Archbishop Laud was the adviser of the preceding injunctions. The Chapel- Royal belonged to the Crown as an appendage of the royal resi dence of Holyroodhouse, and the King had an undoubted right to order Divine service to be performed in it according to the ritual of the Church of England. As to Archbishop Laud's own affairs, he maintained a considerable correspondence with the Bishops and some of the leading Scottish Nobility. In a letter to the Earl of Traquair, dated Lambeth, 14th March 1634, stiU preserved araong the archives of Traquair House in Peeblesshire, the Archbishop, after alluding to the trial of Lord Balraerino and other political topics, says — " I have nothing to do in those letters but to signify to you what Is already done, save only to give you thanks for the care you have taken to fit the Bishop and choir of Edinburgh 1636.] WITH THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 477 with their choir and precincts to them, as also for your love to me ; and therefore, without creating any further trouble to you I leave you to the grace of God and Christ." Certain letters frora Laud to Bishops BeUenden and Maxwell in 1634 and 1635 were made part of the charge against the Archbishop by the Scottish coraraissioners in Deceraber 1640, though it does not appear that they were ever produced in support of that charge. The letters to Bishop BeUenden chiefly relate to his preferment, he having apparently become tired of Dunblane. BeUenden was anxious to obtain the See of Edinburgh after the death of Bishop Forbes, and had applied to Archbishop Laud to use his interest with the King in his favour. BeUenden, however, had given offence to the Court, which the foUowing letter from Laud sufficiently intimates. Indorsed " anent the Liturgy and his sermon," and addressed " to the Right Reverend Father in God, my very good Lord and Bro ther the Lord Bishop of Dunblane, at Edinburgh, these," dated Lambeth, May 6, 1634. — " I am right sorry for the death of the Bishop of Edinburgh, the loss being very great both to the King and the Church. I acquainted his Majesty how needful it was to fill that place with an able successor, and when mention was raade of divers men to succeed, I did, as you desire, shew his Majesty what your desires, were, and what necessities lay upon you. After much consideration of the business his Majesty resolved to give the Bishopric of Edinburgh to my Lord of Brechin, and for your self, he coraraanded rae to write expressly to you, that he did not take It well that, contrary to his express coraraand, you had omit ted prayers In his Chapel-Royal according to the English Liturgy, with some other omissions there which pleased hira not ; besides, his Majesty hath heard that there have been lately sorae differ ences in Edinburgh about the sufferings of Christ, &c., and that your Lordship was some cause of them ; at least, such an occa sion as raight have bred much disturbance, if the late Bishop of Edinburgh's care and temper had not moderated them ; and this his Majesty is not weU pleased with neither. And this hath been the cause, as I conceive, why his Majesty hath passed you over in this remove, and you shall do very well to apply yourself better both to his Majesty's service and the well ordering of that Church, lest you give just occasion to the King to pass you by when any other remove falls. I am very sorry that I must write thus unto 478 ARCHBISHOP laud's CORRESPONDENCE [1636. you, but the only way of help lies in your ovm carriage ; and, therefore, if you will not be careful of that, I do not see what any friend can be able to do for you. Therefore, not doubting but you will take these things into serious consideration for your own good, I leave you to the grace of God, and rest your Lordship's loving friend and brother."* This rebuke to Bishop BeUenden elicited several letters to the King, and the contents of them wiU be readily understood by the fol lowing to the Bishop from Archbishop Laud, dated Lambeth, July 1, 1634, indorsed " anent reading of the Liturgie and his sermon at Edinburgh." — " My haste at this tirae forces me to write very briefiy ; and these are to let you know that I wrote nothing in my former letters but as the King was informed, and myself by him commanded. I have now read your Lordship's letters to his Ma jesty, which hath In some part satisfied him, but not altogether. And for the present, his Majesty saith, that though the gentlemen of the Chapel-Royal did absent themselves for fear of arrests, hav ing nought to pay, and this that might hinder the service in the Chapel in a soleran and a formal way of singing by them, yet his Majesty thinks you might have got a chaplain of your own to have read the English Liturgy, that so the work for the main part of it might have gone on ; and for the payment of those men, I think your Lordship knows that I have done all the good offices I can, but have it not in ray power to mend all the difficulties of the time. Concerning the disturbance that was in Edinburgh, if any wrong was done your Lordship, that must be upon thera who raisreport- ed you to the King, whoever they were. And howsoever, the King took it not 111 you advised the then Bishop of Edinburgh to appease the differences, for that was very worthily and deservedly done by you. But as far as I reraember the charge laid upon you to the King was, that in your own sermon, which you preached about that time, you did rather side with one party than either repress or corapose the difference, though I raust needs confess to your Lordship that, by reason of the raultitude of businesses which lie upon rae, I cannot charge ray raeraory with the particular. " Appendix of Original Letters and Papers to Letters and Journals of Eobert Baillie, Principal of the University of Glasgow, 1637 to 1662, edited from the Author's MSS. by David Laing, Esq. Edinburgh, 1841, vol. i. p. 432 ; printed from the original in Wodrow MSS. folio, vol. Ixvi. No. 15. 1636.] WITH THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 479 You have done very well to acquaint their Lordships of Council and Session, &c., with his Majesty's resolution concerning the Coraraunion In the Chapel-Royal, and I doubt not, if you continue to do that which his Majesty looks for in the course of your Church, and which Is most just and fit to be done, but that you will easily recover his Majesty's favour, and find the good of it. So in haste I leave you to the grace of God, and rest your Lordship's loving friend and brother." This conciliatory letter was followed by another from Arch bishop Laud, dated Croydon, October 4, 1634, but it is in such a very torn and mutilated state that the half of it at least Is unin telligible. The English Primate informs Bishop BeUenden — " I have a second time raoved his Majesty concerning thera that obey ed or disobeyed his coraraands in receiving the Communion in the Chapel at Holyroodhouse, and you shall not fail to receive his Ma jesty's answer by my Lord [Bishop IMaxwell] of Ross, so that I shall not need to be farther troublesome to you in that particular." The rest of the letter, so far as it Is legible, refers to the payment of the gentlemen of the Chapel-Royal who had been defrauded of their stipends by their own employed agent, one Bancroft, and who, says Archbishop Laud, " either ran away with the money, or mis spent it, or else served his owti turn with it." The Primate justly observes that the King cannot be expected to pay the money twice, " and yet," he says, " I must confess it falls very hard upon the poor raen to bear the loss, but they should have been wiser In the choice of their agent." The Archbishop promises, however, to " do his best," and declared that for the future they shaU be "duly paid." On the 12th of January 1635, Archbishop Laud again wrote to Bishop BeUenden about the Chapel-Royal. The Edward KeUie mentioned at the close of the letter was appointed Receiver of the Fees of the Chapel-Royal In November 1629, by writ under the Privy Seal. The mode in which Divine service was conducted in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood, before the introduction of the Liturgy, is narrated in a petition frora Mr KeUie to the King, dated at Whitehall, 24th of January 1631, two years and a half before the coronation In Scotland. Mr KeUie raentions that he carried from London three large printed Bibles, one for his Majesty's seat, the second for the reader, and the third for the 480 ARCHBISHOP laud's CORRESPONDENCE [1630. Dean's use. He also states that he had brought with him an or ganist, two raen to play on cornets and sackbuts [the latter a bass-tmmpet kind of Instruraent,] and two boys for singing In the " versus.''" — " In time of service within the Chapel," he says, " the organist and aU the singing raen are in black gowns, the boys are In sad [dark] coloured coats, and the usher, sexton, and vestry- keeper, are In brown gowns. The singing men sit In seats lately made before the noblemen, and the boys before them, with their books laid as In your Majesty's Chapel here [London]. One of the great Bibles is placed In the middle of the Chapel for the reader, the other before the Dean. There Is sung before the ser raon a full anthem, and after the sermon an anthera alone in ver sus with the organ ; and thus every one attendeth the charge in his place in a very grave and decent form." He was allowed an apartment In the Palace of Holyrood, in which he says that he placed an organ and various instruraents for the weekly practice of the organist and singers in English, Scottish, and Continental vocal and instrumental music* It is strange that the Presby terian writers take no notice of this state of affairs at old Holy- rood, but refer the erection of the organ solely to the King's coronation. This short explanatory digression is of importance, as shewing the details then in progress. Archbishop Laud, in another letter of the 12th of January 1635 to Bishop BeUenden, compliments him on his " ordering of the Chapel-Royal," and on his resolution to wear his " whites," notwithstanding the " maliciousness of foolish men." He informs the Bishop that the King was now satisfied conceming his sermon and all other things comraitted to his care, and that " as opportunity serves he may expect from his Majesty all reasonable things." The English Primate states that In his first Interview with the Earl of Traquair he would converse with him about the " gentleraen of the Chapel," and would show him what the Bishop wrote " concerning one Edward Kellie." In a postscript the Archbishop adds that he had seen the Earl, who assured him that Kellie had been paid. This evidently refers to the salaries of the persons belonging to the Chapel-Royal. * From an original paper preserved in the General Eegister House, Edinburgh, and printed in the Appendix to Dauney's " Ancient ScotLsh Melodies," Edin. 4to. 1838, p. 365, 866, 367. 103G.] WITH THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. 481 Bishop BeUenden was restored to the favour of the King, and Archbishop Laud was not forgetful of his proraise of proferraent. In a letter dated Larabeth, May 19, 1635, the Archbishop thus writes — " The King hath been acquainted with your care of the Chapel-Royal, and is very well pleased with the conformity that hath been there at the late reception of the blessed Sacrament ; and for my part I am heartily glad to see In what a fair way your Church businesses now are In those parts. I hope, if the Bishops be pleased to continue their good example and their care, all things will settle beyond expectation. The King hath declared his pleasure concerning the Bishoprics now void, and hath given you the Bishopric of Aberdeen, as you wiU hear more at large by ray Lord [Bishop] of Ross. But being an University, and a place of consequence, he wIU have you reside there, and relies rauch upon you for the well ordering of the place. I ara very glad the King hath been so raindful of your remove." It is already raentioned that Bishop Bellenden's successor in Dunblane was Dr Jaraes Wedderburn. Some intimations are given of the progress of the Liturgy and the Canons, in a letter frora Archbishop Laud to Bishop Maxwell of Ross, dated Croydon, 19th September 1635. After compliraenting Bishop Maxwell on the " forwardness" of the Liturgy, and expressing his satisfac tion that the " Canons are also in good readiness," which he thought would be of " great use for the settling of the [Scottish] Church," Archbishop Laud thus notices Bishop Wedderburn, who had been one of his Prebendaries in the Cathedral of WeUs. " I thank you for your care of Dr Wedderburn. He is very able to do service, and will certainly do it, if you can keep up his heart. I was In good hope he had been consecrated, as well as my Lord of Brechin [Bishop Whiteford], but I perceive he is not. What the reason is [I know] not, but It Is a thousand pities that those uncer- tanties abide with hira. I pray [coraraend] my love to hira, and teU hira I would not have hira stick at any thing, for the King will not have him long at Dunblane after he hath once settled the Chapel [Royal] right, which I see [he] will settle apace if he keep his footing. My letters are gone to the Bishop of Aberdeen, by the King's command, to desert his protestation concerning the Chapel, [and] to leave the rents presently to Dr Wedderburn; and it wiU not be long ere letters come from the King to take of 31 482 ARCHBISHOP laud's CORRESPONDENCE [1636. the annats from the Bishoprics, and Dr Forbes, the late Bishop's executor, being a worthy raan, may be better considered some other way. As for the annats of the rainisters, the King is re solved not to touch thera at this time." Archbishop Laud then replies minutely to all which Bishop Maxwell had written to him on the affairs of the Church. He assures the Bishop that the Chapel-Royal wiU soon be provided with silver vessels and other ornaments — that Archbishop Spottiswoode would shortly receive a letter frora the King — raentions the arrival of the Bishop of Brechin with a letter from Archbishop Spottiswoode, which he [Laud] had fully answered — and states that he hopes to induce the Marquis of Harailton to sell or " pass Arbroath full and wholly, precinct and all." He advises Bishop Maxwell not to despond, or to be uneasy at the designs and calumnies of the eneraies of the Church, but to " serve God and the King, and leave the rest to their protection." He says that he does not believe that the King wUl erect any other Bishopric hastily, and wishes that those in existence were better in revenues. A conteraporary MS. now printed,* is entitled ." An Account of Papers intercepted betwixt Archbishop Laud and the Scots Bishops." Mr Laing observes that this " title is the indorsation of the paper In a later hand, with the date 1637 added. It ap pears, however, that It was not before the year 1640 that the papers here referred to carae Into the possession of the Coven anters." The first was entitled " Meraoirs for ray Lord Bishop of Ross, of matters to be proponed to his Majestie and my Lord [of] Canterbury his Grace," which are described as aU written and subscribed by the Archbishop of St Andrews, August 8, 1634. This contemporary MS. was written by a furious Cove nanter, and is expressed in the spirit of true Presbyterian hatred to Archbishop Laud. The first draught of the Book of Canons is alleged to have been sent at this time to the King and the Archbishop for revisal or correction, to whom the Scottish Bishops are charged with giring an account of aU their actions. Some of these are curious as raatters of history. Among the documents enumerated by the Covenanting writer is a narrative by the Scottish Bishops respecting the Liturgy, the Canons, and the " In the possession of David Laing, Esq. Edinburgh, and published in the Appendix of Original Letters and Papers to his valuable work, the " Letters and Journals" of Principal Baillie of Glasgow, vol. i. p. 428, 429, 430. 1636.] WITH THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS. * 483 Psalms ; papers on the fiUing up of vacant benefices, the adminis tration of the Communion In the Chapel-Royal, and on constituting the High Court of Coraraission a constant judicatory for the sub version of Presbyterian discipline ; in proofof which a reference is raade to a letter written and subscribed by the King to Bishop MaxweU, 20th October 1634—" Whereof," the Covenanters aUcge, " we have the principal." Several of the docuraents are connected with local matters relating to St Andrews, in some of which the erection of a new cathedral is projected. Others refer to the Com mission for the Surrender of Teinds, the Comraissariot of Argyll, the reraodelling of the Court of Exchequer, and Lord Balraerino. The papers enuraerated are twenty-six, as sent, with other docu ments specified, by Archbishop Spottiswoode, " our chiefest Pre late,'" to Archbishop Laud, who is assailed for " medling In aU our affaires," and the " absolute dependence" of the Scottish Bishops " on him therein as the primus and principal raover, author, and director, frora whom all did and must flow, especially anent the Service-Book and Book of Canons, wherein our greatest Prelate [Spottiswoode] gives an account to the [Arch] Bishop of Canterbury, as equally joined with the King, even as scholars do unto their masters." To this, and the reiteration of the charge, that Archbishop Laud was the " prime and primum mobile, especially anent Service- Book and Canons, and all other our Church changes," It may be answered, that without admitting it to the absurd extent which the Covenanters affected to believe, it was impossible for Laud not to be considerably involved In Scottish affairs at the time. He was constantly consulted by the King, and he was In close cor respondence with the Scottish Bishops, who resorted to him for adrice in all their difficulties. As to his alleged interference or " medUng," he has left the true account in the affecting " History of his Troubles and Trials ;" and the statements of Archbishop Laud are of more authority than the declamations of his Cove nanting enemies — men whose malignant hatred to those who differed from them was unbounded — men not only Implicated in the murder of the King, but who had no inconsiderable agency in bringing the venerable Primate to the block. 484 [1636. CHAPTER XI. THE SCOTTISH BOOK OF CANONS AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. Before 1636 the outbreak of popular fury and violence which overwhelraed the three kingdoras in anarchy and bloodshed was projected In Scotland, though the raasses were apparently tranquU, notwithstanding the discontent which prevailed. If any oppo sition was threatened it was either unknown to the Governraent, or treated with disregard. Yet the Presbyterian preachers had not been Idle in animating the enthusiasm of their partizans. They resorted to their former practice of holding fast-days, which were not fast-days according to the proper meaning of the term, but days on which they delivered long extempore harangues to the people who resorted to them, exciting their passions, their igno rant fears, and their superstitious resentments. Bishop Henry Guthrie [of Dunkeld after the Restoration] states that those who were zealous for Presbytery kept frequent fasts with their adher ents, on which occasions they inflamed the popular disaffection to the King's measures, hinted at the unlawfulness of what they called Prelacy, and the alleged mischiefs it caused ; and that they thus prepared for the riots and disorders of 1637. As it respects fast- days, however, some of the Bishops were not behind the Presby terians In such observances, though from very different motives. An Instance of this occurred in the Diocese of Aberdeen In 1636, when Bishop BeUenden committed a great Irregularity. He authorised a public fast to be held on a Sunday, which Irri tated the King, and caused a royal declaration that " no Bishop should command or suffer any fast to be kept on that day, or on any other, without the special leave and command of the King." Mr Scott observes in the Perth Kirk-Session Registers — " King Charles undoubtedly was In the right, that the Lord's Day should not be turned into a day of fasting." 1636.] SCOTTISH BOOK OF CANONS AND LITURGY. 485 On the 4th of May 1636, a book which Mr Scott designates " Ecclesiastical Constitutions " was produced to tho Presbytery of Perth, whose opinion Is not recorded in the Kirk-Session Register. Mr Scott raost erroneously supposes that this was either the " Ser vice-Book," or the Book of Canons, or " both of them together." On the 18th of October, the King wrote to Archbishop Spottis woode and the Privy Council on the introduction of the new Liturgy throughout the kingdom. From this letter it is evident that the Liturgy was then prepared, though it was not printed till the following summer. Two copies of the Liturgy were enjoined to be purchased for each parish. A proclaraation at the market- cross of every town established the Liturgy, which the people un fortunately had never seen. On the 20th of Docomber 1636, the Privy Council passed an act " authorizing the Service-Book, with his Majesty's warrant of October 1636" — " comraanding hereby all Archbishops and Bishops, and other presbyters and church men, to take a special care that the said public form of worship be duly observed and obeyed, and the contraveners condignly cen sured and punished ; and to have a special care that every parish betwixt and Pasch [Easter] next procure unto themselves two at the least of the said Books of Common Prayer for the use of the parish." This, however, was not enforced tUl the 13th of July 1637, when letters of horning were procured by the Privy Council against the refractory incumbents. But by a singular fatahty the Book of Canons which ratified the Liturgy was first pubUshed, and this enabled the enemies of the Church to assert that soraething favourable to the Church of Rome was Intended to be enforced. The old cry of Popery was soon raised and credulously believed. Bishops Maxwell, Sydserff, Whiteford, and BeUenden, are the alleged compilers of the Book of Canons, but It may be assumed that the other Bishops were consulted. The original manuscript was transraitted to the King, by whom it was carefuUy revised. It was published by the title of " Canons and Constitutions Ecclesiastical, gathered and put In form for the Governraent of the Church of Scotland. Ratified and approved by Authority, and ordained to be observed by the Clergy, and all others whora they concern. Published by Authority. Aberdeen, iraprinted by Edward Raban, dwelling upon the Market place, at the Arras of the City, 1636, with royal privilege." 486 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OF CANONS [1636. On the title-page are the arras of Aberdeen, with the city raotto, Bon-Accord, and on the back are the royal arms of Great Britain, France, and Ireland. The Book of Canons consists of nineteen chapters, and extends to forty-three pages. The titles of the chapters are as follows : — 1. Of the Church of Scotland. 2. Of Presbyters and Deacons, their nomination, ordination, function, and charge. 3. Of Resi dence and Preaching. 4. Of the Conversation of Presbyters. 5. Of Translation. 6. Of the Sacraments. 7. Of Marriage. 8. Of Synods. 9. Of Meetings to Divine Service. 10. Of School masters. 11. Of Curates and Readers. 12. Of Printers. 13. Of Christnlngs, Weddings, and Burials, to be registered. 14. Of Public Fasts. 15. Of Decency in apparel enjoined to persons ecclesiastical. 16. Of Things pertaining to the Church. 17. Of Tithes and Lands dedicated to churches. 18. Of Censures Eccle siastical. 19. Of Commissaries and their Courts. It was weU known to the Presbyterians |at the time that a col lection of Canons had been authorized in the reign of King James by the General Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1616, and when King Charles was in Scotland in 1633, it was resolved speedily to coUect them. The preparation of the Canons, therefore, was no novelty. The Canons in reality contain little more than the Five Articles of Perth, which, however, rendered them peculiarly ob noxious to the Presbyterians, the raore fanatical of whom main tained that In their alleged spiritual matters they were indepen dent of all civil authority, and that it was Erastianism of the deep est dye to adrait that their proceedings could be reviewed by Par liaraents and judicial courts. They held that they were entitled In the name and by the authority of the great Head of the Church to legislate as they thought proper, to convene and to dissolve their General Assemblies at pleasure, and to arrogate to them selves the utmost plenitude of power. It is already seen that in ar rogating pretensions to heaven- derived powers, and in clalras to in- faUibillty, Presbyteriainism in Scotland yielded not to the Church of Rome. As the preachers had often disclaimed the sovereign's authority to suraraon their General Asserablies, claiming for them selves an imperium in imperio while eating the bread of State-con nection, it was not likely that they would render obedience to Canons about which they had never been consulted. " But," says 1636.] AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 487 Heyiin, " as they had broken the rules of the Primitive Church in acting as sovereigns themselves, without the King's approbation or consent in former times, so were they now upon the point of having those old rules of theirs broken by the King, in making Canons, and putting laws and constructions upon them, for their future conduct, to which they had never consented. And, there fore, though his Majesty had taken so much care, as himself ob served, for facilitating their obedience by furthering their know ledge In those points which before they knew not, yet they did generally behold it, and exclaimed against it, as one of the most grievous burdens which had hitherto been laid upon them." The Scottish Canons are unexceptionable, and the only misfor tune was that they were announced before the Liturgy ; for th© Scottish Bishops, as Clarendon truly observes, ought not to have " inverted the proper method, and first presented a body of Canonii to precede the Liturgy, which was not yet ready, choosing to finish the shorter work first." — " It was strange," says the Noble histo rian in another place, " that Canons should be published before the Liturgy was prepared, which was not ready in a year after or thereabouts, when three or four of the Canons were principally for the observation of and punctual compliance with the Liturgy, which all the clergy were to be sworn to submit to, and to pay all obedience to what was enjoined by it, before they knew what it contained, whereas if the Liturgy had been first published, with all the circumstances, it is possible that it might have found a better reception, and the Canons have been less exarained." But the King's reasons in his Royal Declaration authorizing the Canons are worthy of notice. " First, that he held It exceedingly impera tive that there should be some book extant to contain the rules of the ecclesiastical government, so that the clergy, as well as the laity, might have one certain rule to regulate the power of the one, and obedience and practice to the other. Second, that the Acts of General Assemblies were written only, and not printed, and therefore could not corae to the knowledge of raany ; so large and voluminous, that It was not easy to transcribe thera, insomuch that few of the Presbyteries theraselves could tell which of them were authenticated, which not ; so unsafe and uncertainly kept, that they knew not where to address theraselves for consulting them. Thirdly, that by reducing those numerous Acts, and thom 488 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OP CANONS [1636. nMt known imto themselves, to such a paucity of Canons, pubUshed and exposed to the public view, no man could be ensnared by Ignorance, or have just reason to complain of their multiplicity. FinaUy, that no one In all that kingdom did either live under the obedience of the Acts of these General Assemblies, or did know what they were, or where to find thera." In short, the whole Avould have been right, whatever may have been the result, If the fatal step had been avoided of promulgating the Canons before the Liturgy, because it aUowed sufficient tirae to discover alleged de fects, and to persuade the ignorant and weak-minded that they were the preludes to Popery. Another error which the King coraraitted was issuing letters- patent under the Great Seal, declaring that, by his " prerogative- royal and suprerae authority in causes ecclesiastical, he ratified and confirmed the said Canons, Orders, and Constitutions, and all and every thing in them contained," to be observed within the Provinces of St Andrews and Glasgow." This was dated at Green wich, 23d May 1635. Now, although the Scottish Parliament had no right to legislate in raatters connected with the Church farther than to ratify and confirra whatever was brought before them, Charles ought at this crisis to have caUed a General Asserably, and he had then sufficient influence to secure the assent of a raajority In favour of the Canons. This was always the mode which King James adopted to carry his measures. The Five Articles of Perth, the authority to compUe Canons and prepare a Liturgy, the very episcopate Itself, were raanaged in this manner. It re cognized so far the General Assemblies as legal ecclesiastical courts, which had never been denied by the most zealous supporters of the Episcopal Church, and it would have completely silenced the cavilling at the supposed arbitrary proceedings of the King. The Presbyterian party, If In the minority, would have resorted to their old practice of denying the legaUty of such a General Assem bly ; but as they had done so on other occasions, it would have had little effect. As to the Canons, they contain nothing which Is not familiar to those who are acquainted with those of the Church of England, the rubrics in the Liturgy, and other well known ecclesiastical rules of discipUne. The first — " Of the Church of Scotland" — asserts the King's supremacy In aU cases ecclesiastical, such as 1636.] AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 489 " the godly Kings had among the Jews and Christian Emperors in the Primitive Church," and enjoined all to be excomraunicated who afiirraed the contrary, with power exclusively to the Archbishop of the Province to restore them after repentance, and " pubhc revocation of their wicked errors." AU were to be excommuni cated, and only restored by the Bishop of the Diocese or Arch bishop of the Province, who taught that " the doctrine of the Church of Scotland, the forra of worship contained In the Book of Coramon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments, tho Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, the govemment of the Church by Archbishops, Bishops, and others who bear office In the same, the form of making and consecrating Archbishops, Bishops, Pres byters, and Deacons, as they are now established under his Ma jesty's authority, do contain in them any thing repugnant to the Scriptures, or are corrupt, superstitious, or unlawful in the serrice or worship of God." The Canons regulated the education and examination for holy orders of deacons and presbyters. No one was to be admitted Into deacon's orders before the twenty-first year of his age, and no pres byter was to be ordained before completing his twenty-fifth year. Ordinations were enjoined to be held four times during the year, on the first weeks of March, June, September, and December. Every person at ordination and admission to a parish was to take the legal oath of supreraacy, and he was to subscribe obedience to the Canons of the Church. Bishops who ordained, adraitted, or licensed any person otherwise were to be " suspended frora grant ing orders and licenses to preach for twelve raonths," and refrac tory presbyters and deacons, after so subscribing, were first to be suspended from their functions, and in cases of conturaacy deposed frora the rainistry. The Archbishop or Bishop was enjoined to administer, at institution or collation to a benefice, the oath in the Book of Ordination against simony. Non-residence was strictly prohibited under pain of deprivation. No one was allow ed to preach in any parish church unless he was Ucensed by the Bishop. Every presbyter, or he who officiated for him, being " lawfully called," was to perform Divine service before serraon according to the form in the Book of Comraon Prayer. Preachers were ordered to " eschew tediousness, and by a succinct closing leave in the people an appetite for farther instruction, and a new 490 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OP CANONS [1636. desire to devotion." No layraan, " whatsoever gifts he hath of learning, knowledge, or holiness," was to presume to officiate as a deacon or presbyter under pain of excoraraunicatlon. Public catechising was enjoined every Sunday afternoon, and in the country parishes, when the people assembled for Divine service only once a^day, the Catechisra was to be explained to thera every alternate year. Various other raatters connected with discipline, personal Ufe, and conversation, were set forth, all truly exceUent, and worthy at the present day of special observance. The fifth Canon of the fourth chapter — " Ofthe Conversation of Presbyters" — is very significant. " It is observed that sundry presbyters resort oftener to, and stay longer in Edinburgh than their charges can weU perrait ; for which cause It Is ordained that special notice be taken of such, and their naraes sent to their Ordinary, that due censure raay be inflicted." Persons in holy orders who betook themselves to trade, and aban doned their sacred profession, were to be branded as apostates, and all presbyters and deacons were not to " haunt the company of heretics, schismatics, or excoraraunicated persons, under the pain of suspension, unless the Church hath appointed them to confer with such persons for reducing them unto the right way." The Administration of the Sacraments embodied the Perth Articles. Diocesan Synods were to be held twice every year at such places as the Bishop appointed, and any presbyter who was wilfully ab sent was to be suspended tlU the next Synod. National Synods were to be caUed solely by the King's authority, and such Synods were declared to " bind all persons, as well absent as present, to the obedience of the decrees thereof In matters ecclesiastical;" and those who maintained that a National Synod so assembled ought not to be obeyed were to be excommunicated, untU they publicly repented. Any presbyter or layman who presumed to '' make rules, orders, or constitutions, in causes ecclesiastical," or who " added or detracted from any rubrics, articles, or other things without the King's authority, or his successors," was to be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored until he repented ; but forasmuch as no reforraation in doctrine or discipline can be made perfect at once In any Church, therefore it shall and raay be lawful for the Church of Scotland at any tirae to make remon strance to his Majesty, or his successors, what they conceive fit to be taken into farther consideration In and concerning the premises. 1636.] AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 491 And if the King shall therefrora declare his liking and approba tion, then both clergy and laity shall yield their obedience without incurring the censure aforesaid, or any other. But It shall not be lawful for the Bishops themselves. In a National Synod or other wise, to alter any rubric, article, or canon, doctrinal or disciplinary, whatever, under the pain above mentioned and his Majesty's farther displeasure." Marriages were enjoined to be celebrated in the parish churches between the hours of eight o'clock and twelve noon, after procla mation of banns on three several Sundays. The licence of the Archbishop of the Province or Bishop of the Diocese was declared necessary. No persons were to be raarried under the age of twenty-one without the consent of parents or guardians ; and a table of the forbidden degrees was to be affixed in every parish church. The Archbishops and Bishops were authorized to grant licences " to persons of good sort and quality, and upon good surety and caution that there is no irapediraent, and the persons not under the censure of the Church ;" but in such " cases, wherein licence cannot be refused, to marry without asking banns." Some regula tions were added respecting divorces, and the conduct of the parties so situated. The eleventh chapter, entitled — " Of meetings to [for] Divine Service" — enjoins decency of behaviour In the parish churches. No man was to " cover his head in time of Divine service except he have sorae Infirralty, in which case he raay wear a night-cap or coif." AU persons were " reverently to kneel when the Confes sion and other prayers were read, and stand up at the saying of the Creed." In all meetings for Divine worship, before sermon the " whole prayers, according to the Liturgy," were to " be deliber ately and distinctly read ; neither shall any presbyter or reader be permitted to conceive prayers extemporary, or use any other form In the public Liturgy or Service than Is prescribed, under the pain of deprivation frora his benefice or cure." Professors in Colleges and parochial schoolmasters were to be under ecclesiastical con troul. The appointment of Sunday as a fast-day was strictly pro hibited, and no fasts were to be aUowed on week days unless sanc tioned by royal authority. No presbyter was to pronounce sentence of excoramunication without the written approval of the Bishop. A regulation simUar to the rubric of the Church of England in 492 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OP CANONS [1636. the visitation of the Sick on sacramental confession and absolu tion was inserted. Sentence of deprivation or deposition of a presbyter was to be pronounced exclusively by the Archbishop of the Province or Bishop of the Diocese, In presence of " three or four grave presbyters." Every person deprived or deposed, who persisted in exercising ecclesiastical functions, was to be excom municated, and prosecuted in the civil courts. Penalties were inflicted on Bishops for irregular ordinations, and residence in their Dioceses was strictly enjoined, unless " employed by the King or by the Church." Such is the substance of the Scottish Book of " Constitutions and Canons Ecclesiastical." It would be superfluous to notice the comraents of Presbyterian writers, and their total raisappre- hension of Primitive rule and order. Even Dr George Cook pro nounces them " popish," or as tending to " popery," though an examination of them proves that such an inference is altogether unfounded. Previous to the publication of the Canons, the learned and venerable Bishop Juxon of London wrote to Bishop Maxwell of Ross, dated London House, 17th February 1636, acknowledg ing the receipt of a copy, and alluding to some explanations In the Liturgy then in the press. " With your letter of the 6th of this month," says Bishop Juxon, " I received your Book of Canons, which perchance at first wiU make more noise than all the can nons in Edinburgh Castle ; but when men's ears have been used awhile to the sound of them, they will not startle so rauch at it as now at first, and perchance find them as useful for preservation of the Church as the others for the comraonwealth. Our prayers here are for your happy proceedings in that great service, where with I rest, your Lordship's assured friend to serve you — GuL. London." The Earl of Stirling [Sir WiUiam Alexander of Men strie], Secretary of State for Scotland at the tirae, thus wrote to Bishop MaxweU — " I thank you heartily for your Book of the Canons, which I received yesternight. I was present In the morning when ray Lord of Canterbury delivered the Book to the King, which, as soon as his Majesty had read sorae of it, he delivered unto me, and I was glad to hear hira so well pleased therewith. I find sorae errors in the printer, by mistaking or reversing of let ters, and therefore have the more care in looking to that In printing of the Service-Book, for Young, the printer. Is the greatest knave 1636.] AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 493 that I ever dealt with ; and therefore trust nothing to him nor his servants but what of necessity you must. [Since] the writing hereof I received a letter from my Lord of [Canter]bury, signify ing his Majesty's pleasure for two letters that should bo [drawn] up for his hand concerning the authorizing of the Book [of Ca]- nons, which, God wiUing, shaU come home with the next packet. I hope ray son will take such a course, with your advico, concem ing the Psalras, as shall be fit, to whom I refer the same."* The Psalms here mentioned were the metrical versions of King James, with which the Earl of Stirling was Intlraately connected, and his Lordship's severe reflection on the printer was elicited by transactions with him on that subject. Bishop Juxon's supposition that the Book of Canons would pro bably " make more noise than all the cannons in Edinburgh Castle" was erroneous. Though discontent existed. It excited no particular feeling against the Bishops or the Government. The great conspiracy was organized against the Liturgy, which it was well known would soon appear. Sorae curious gossiping on tho state of affairs occurs in a long letter from Principal BaiUie to his " dear and loving cousin," Mr William Spang, dated January 29, 1637. On the 18th of October 1636, the King signed a missive for warrant of an act of the Scottish Privy Council, which was issued on the 20th of December. The Archbishops of St. An drews and Glasgow were present at that raeeting, and the act enforcing the use of the Liturgy was proclairaed at the Cross of Edinburgh, but the book was not completed till May 1637. " The proclamation of a Liturgy," says Principal Baillie, on January 2, 1637, to Mr WiUiara Wilkie, then a Regent or Pro fessor in the University of Glasgow, " is the matter of my great est affliction" — the said Mr WUkie, whom Lord Halles designates " a sort of ecclesiastical spy eraployed by Balcanqual, the great confidant of Charles I. In every thing relating to Scotland," at that time an aspirant for the Bishopric of ArgyU, vacant by the death of Bish op Boyd in December 1636. Baillie, who in the above letter to Mr Wilkie declares — " Bishops I lovi'' — writes to his friend Mr Spang — " After we were beginning to forget the Book of our Ca- • Original Letters and Papers from tlie Wodrow MSS. folio, vol. Ixvi. No. 21-22, in Appendix to " Letters and Journals of Eobert BaiUie, M.A., Principal of the Univer sity of Glasgow," edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 438-439. 494 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OP CANONS [1636. nons, before Yule vacants [Christraas vacation] a proclamation was made by an act of Council at the King's direction brought home with the Bishop of Ross, who the last year brought us down our Canons, to receive the Service Book. This all the churches in Scotland are coraraanded to do against Pasch next under the pain of homing ; yet to this day [January 29, 1637] we cannot get a sight of that book. The reason, sorae say, is because our Scottish edition Is not yet corapletely printed. I would rather think that sorae of our Bishops raake delay, as not being at fuU point theraselves what they would have in and what out. I know rauch of it was printed in Edinburgh before Yule [Christraas] was a year. We heard then that the Bishop of Edinburgh chiefly had obtained that we should be quite of the surplice, cross, Apocrypha, Saints' Days, and sorae other trash of the English Liturgy, but since that time they say that Canterbury sent down to our Chan cellor [Archbishop Spottiswoode] a long writ of additions, which [he insisted] behoved to be put in." The absurd and Ignorant fears of the Presbyterian party are expressed in the following most unfounded stateraents : — " However It be," Baillie writes to Spang, " ray Lord Treasurer [the Earl of Traquair] brought home a copy of our Scottish Service printed at London, which sundry have perused, and say they find no difference betwixt it and the English Service save one, to-wit, an addition of sundry more Popish rites, which the English wants. We must cross in baptism, have ring in marriage, &c. ; but besides, we must consecrate at set times with set prayers holy water (!) to stand in the font ; at the delivery of the eleraents there is another, and that a very ambiguous prayer, as they say, looking much to transubstantiation ; the deacon, on his knees, must In an affecting manner present the devotions of the people to the Lord upon his altar or table. For myself, I suspend ray judgment till I see the Book ; only I fear the event to be to the hurt of our poor Church."* Baillie at the time he thus wrote was a presbyter of the Episco pal Church, yet here was a raan, rauch superior in talent to the ordinary grade of those with whom he afterwards acted, delibe rately, though ignorantly, setting forth the raost erroneous and ridiculous statements about the Scottish Liturgy, which he con- • Letters and JouraaLs, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 4. 1636.J AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 495 fesses he had not then seen. An exaralnation of the Book, and a comparison of it with the Liturgy of the Church of England, is a complete refutation of all his visionary clamours against " Popery and Arminianism." The corapilers of the Scottish Liturgy were, or are generally understood to have been. Archbishops Spottis woode and Lindsay, Bishops Wedderburn, Guthrie, Maxwell, and Whiteford. Dr Cook asserts that the Liturgy was chiefly pre pared by Bishops Maxwell and Wedderburn, and It Is probable that they were the active parties in the raatter, but all the others were more or less concerned, as they had been with the compila tion of the Book of Canons. They were ordered to transmit the work for revisal to Archbishop Laud, Bishop Juxon of London, and Bishop Wren of Norwich, the latter, according to Clarendon, " a man of a severe sour nature, but very learned, and particu larly versed In the old Liturgies of the Greek and Latin Churches.* Yet from a fatal inadvertency, the Scottish Bishops neglected several of Laud's wise admonitions, and acted contrary to the advice of their more experienced brethren. The Liturgy appeared under the title of " The Book of Com raon Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments ; and other Parts of Divine Service for the Use of the Church of Scotland, Edinburgh, printed by Robert Young, Printer to the King's most exceUlht Majesty, 1637." The sentiments of Archbishop Spottis woode on the Scottish Liturgy are intimated in a letter written by him to the learned and pious Bishop HaU of Norwich, the original of which is preserved In the Library of Trinity College, Dublin, in serted in a copy printed on large paper, now re-bound and cut down : — " I was desired," writes Spottiswoode, " to present your Lordship with one of the copies of our Scottish Liturgy, which is forraed so nigh the English as we could, that it might be known how we are nothing different in substance from that Church. And God I beseech to keep us one, and free us frora those that crave divisions. Your Lordship wiU be pleased to accept of this little present as a testiraony of our Church's love, and sent by hira who truly loveth your Lordship, and wIU still remain your Lord-^ ship's raost affectionate brother." Indorsed — •' To ray very Re verend good Lord and Brother, ray Lord Bishop of Norwich."-f- • Heylin's Life of Archbishop Laud, p. 222. Laud's History of his Troubles and Trials, p. 168-169. Clarendon, vol. i. p. 153. t Appendix of Original Letters and Papers, in Principal BaUlie's Letters and Jour nals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 442. 496 THE SCOTTISH BOOK OP CANONS [1630. The Chapel-Royal of Holyrood was among the first of the churches suppUed with the Liturgy, for which Robert Bryson, bookseUer, and Evan Tyler, printer, granted a discharged receipt on the 15th of April, for the sum of L.144, 4s. Scots raoney, or L.12 sterling. In that month Bishop David Lindsay of Edinburgh wrote to the clergy of the various Presbyteries, or Exercises, as they were then called. In his Diocese, of which that addressed to " his weU-beloved Brethren, the Moderator and remanent Brethren of the Exereise of Dalkeith," is an Interesting speciraen, dated Holyroodhouse, 20th April : — " A great number of the ministers of this Diocese, thinking the day of the Synod had been the last Wednesday of April, did come to this town, and finding them selves mistaken, presently retumed to their own horaes, with whom I spake not. These presents, therefore, are to desire you to keep precisely the tirae appointed, which is the last Wednesday of May, for at that tirae there [are] sundry things that I have to irapart unto you, and in special concerning the Service Books that are to be received in our Church, of the which Books it is thought expedient that presently every rainister and congregation buy two upon the coramon charges of the parish, one for the use of the minister, and the other for the reader, or him that shall assist the minister in the service. The price of the book I think shall be L.4, 1 6s., that is L.9, 12s. [Scots, or 14s. 8d. sterUng] the two. The matter is of no great moraent, and the employment very necessary and profitable, as experience shall prove. I hope, therefore, you will not fail every one to bring in your monies, and receive your books, for it Is appointed that the printer be paid, and the books taken off his hand, betwixt this and the first of June. In the mean time I expect that ye will observe the commeraoration of Christ's Ascension on Thursday the 18th of May, and on Sunday the 28th thereafter, called Whitsunday, a comraeraoratlon of the descend ing of the Holy Ghost, which have been and are solemnly observed through all the Christian world, to the honour of Him who is the God of order, unity, and peace, to whose grace I leave you."* It Is singular that the Presbyterian writers obstinately persist in maintaining that the Scottish Liturgy is another version of the Roman Missal. Kirkton, one of the enthusiasts of the Covenant, states — " I have seen the principal book, corrected with Bishop * From the Original in Wodrow MSS. folio, vol. Ixvi. No. 40, printed in Appendix to Principal BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 443. 1636.] AND THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. 497 Laud's own hand, wherein, in every place which he corrected, he brings the word as near the Missal as the English can bo to the Latin." An examination of the Liturgy itself is the best refuta tion of this ignorant and absurd statement, and It Is now admitted to be an excellent and judicious compilation. Collier in his Eccle siastical History enumerates all the differences between the Scot tish Liturgy and that of the Church of England, and gives an ac count of the manner in which the forraer was fraraed. The sarae is found in the King's " Large Declaration," but the perusal of Haraond L'Estrange's " Alliance of Divine Office," will at once shew wherein the Scottish Liturgy agreed with, and wherein it differed from, even in the least instance, the English Book of Common Prayer. The Presbyterians of that time who denounced the Scottish Liturgy were men, as Bishop Burnet describes them, " all of a sort ; they affected great sublimity in devotion ; they poured themselves out in their prayers in a loud voice, and often with many tears: they had an ordinary proportion of learning among them, something of Hebrew, and very little Greek ; books of controversy with Papists, but above all with Arminians, were the height of their study." We have not only the intemal testimony of the Scottish Liturgy to its general conformity to the English Book of Common Prayer, and the written statement of Archbishop Spottiswoode to Bishop Hall of Norwich already quoted, but also a narrative of the whole matter in a paper, assumed on good authority to have been drawn up by the Earl of Stirling, then Secretary of State for Scotland, indorsed in the handwriting of Dr Walter Balcanqual, Dean of Rochester, under the title of " Instructions how the Service came to be made, delivered to me by the King."* It Is there stated that the work had been in progress since 1616, or at least that it was enjoined by the act of the General Assembly of that year to be prepared. A Liturgy was compiled and sent to Archbishop Spottiswoode, who transmitted it to King James for examination. After it was revised by Dr Young, Dean of Winchester, it was returned to Archbishop Spottiswoode, with the King's observa tions as to what he wished to be omitted, altered, or added. .During this interval King Jaraes died, but King Charles pursued " Printed from the Wodrow MSS. vol. Ixvi. No. 34, in the Appendix of Original Letters and Papers in Principal BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 443, 444, 44.3. 32 498 THE SCOTTISH LITURGY. [1636. his father's design. " This very book, in statu quo King James left it," says the Earl of Stirling, " was sent to his Majesty, and presented to his Majesty by myself; whether the same was done or not by the Bishop of Ross then [Patrick Lindsay], now Arch bishop of Glasgow, I dare not confidently aver, but I think he it was. His Majesty took great care of it, gave it his royal judg ment, and I returned home and signified his Majesty's pleasure to my Lord St Andrews, and he to each of the clergy as he thought fit. There were during this time much pains taken by his Majesty here, and my Lord St Andrews and some others there [in Scot land], to have it so framed as we needed not to be ashamed of it when it should be seen to the Christian world, [and] with that prudent moderation that It raight be done in that [way which raight occasion] the least offence to weak ones there. — To facili tate the Book of Coraraon Prayer, a care was had besides to raake it as perfect as could be, so likewise that howsoever it should come as near to this of England as could be, yet that it should be In some things different, that our Church and kingdora raight not grurable as though we were a Church dependent upon or subordinate to thera. — And yet [his Majesty's] care and prudence were more, that when aU was concluded, and the Book ready for the press, to prepare men the better to receive it [he] gave order to all Arch bishops and Bishops, till our own should be printed and fully authorized, to cause read the English Serrice-Book in their cathe drals, to use it morning and evening in their own houses and col leges, as it had been used in his Majesty's Chapel-Royal in the year of God 1617. The Bishops upon a remonstrance made to his Majesty, that seeing their own was shortly to come forth, desired that all should be continued till their own was printed and fully authorized, to which his Majesty graciously accorded." Although Archbishop Laud had no concern in the preparation of the Scottish Liturgy, he caused it to be translated into Latin, that the learned world might see the falsehood of the allegation of its enemies that it was Popish. His subsequent troubles and fate prevented Its publication. 1637.] 499 CHAPTER XII. THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY AND THE RESULTS. The Scottish Liturgy was ordered to be introduced In Divine service on Easter Sunday 1637, and the King repeatedly enjoined the Bishops not to neglect this duty. Bishop Lindsay of Edin burgh was not prepared for it on that day, and at several meet ings ofthe Bishops in June and July It was resolved, in obedience to a letter from the King, to use the Liturgy on Sunday the 23d of the latter raonth, which was publiclyannounced on the preceding Sunday. Baillie narrates an account of the preliminary arrangements In a letter, dated October 1637, to his " dear and loving cousin," Mr William Spang. " The Bishop of Ross hiraself," he says, " in his cathedral at least, did long before that time, and so to this day continues, to read a Liturgy, whether the English, or ours printed at London, I do not know. The Bishop of Dunblane at his Synod did read it, and gave aU rainisters [to] Michaelraas terra to advise whether then they would use that Book or leave their places. The Bishop of Edinburgh in his Synod, when Mr. Rollock had preached at length for the obedience to the King and Church, did read the Book. Mr. D. Mitchell and young Durie were the chief answerers. St Andrews In his Diocese did propone the buying and using of the Book, and thereupon took instruments. Glasgow was sick In Edinburgh, so in our Synod was no word of the matter. In the raeantime some copies of the Book go from hand to hand ; some of the unconform party make it their text daily to shew the multitude of Romish points contained in the Book, and the grossness of it far beyond the English ; the way of the imposing of It, not only without any meeting either of Church 500 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. or State, but contrary to standing laws both of Church and State ; in a word, how that It was nought but the Mass in English brought in by the craft and violence of some of the Bishops against the mind of all the rest, both of Church and statesmen. These things did sound from pulpits, were carried from hand to hand in papers, were the table-talk and open discourse of high and low." On the 13th of June the Privy Council had issued an act enjoining that all the parishes should be provided with two copies of the Liturgy within fifteen days, under " pain of re belhon and putting of them to the horn." Alexander Hen derson of Leuchars, Jaraes Bruce, rainister of Kingsbarns, and George Harailton, minister of Newburn, all in the Presbytery of St Andrews, In the name of a number of others who held the same opinions, presented a petition on the following day, request ing a reasonable time to see and examine the Liturgy, which was granted. Meanwhile, every day of the week prerious to the 23d of July the citizens of Edinburgh were considerably excited, and a combination was formed to prevent by clamorous violence the in troduction of the Liturgy. Henderson continued in the city during the week, and was met by Mr David Dickson, minister of Irvine in Ayrshire, and Mr Andrew Cant, rainister of Pitsligo in Aberdeenshire, who becarae the conspicuous leaders in the ap proaching Covenanting crusade. They held repeated conferences with Lord Balmerino and Sir Thomas Hope, to whom they detailed the objects of their visit to Edinburgh, and the mea sures they had resolved and were prepared to adopt. The appro bation of Lord Balmerino might have been expected, consider ing his avowed principles, and his previous prosecution by the Government ; but such conduct was disgraceful to Sir Thoraas Hope, who had received raany personal favours frora the King, and who, as Lord Advocate, entrusted with the administration of the law, ought to have cautioned Henderson, Dickson, and Cant, even though he coalesced with their alleged grievances. He weU knew that the Episcopal Church had been the ecclesiastical esta blishment of the kingdom for at least upwards of thirty years, soleranly ratified and confirraed by successive Parliaraents, and that Presbyterlamsm was not and could not be recognized except by violence. Another meeting was held In the house of one Nicholas Balfour, in the street known as the Cowgate, which was 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 501 attended, it is stated, by the Earls of Rothes, CassiUis, Glencairn, Loudon, and Traquair, Lords Lorn, Lindsay, Balmerino, and several others, one of whom is alleged to have been the Marquis of Hamilton, though this may be doubted, and Henderson, Dick son, Cant, and a number of the discontented Presbyterians. They railed at the alleged ambition and avarice of the Bishops, and their supposed Innovations In the Church ; and the rights of the Nobility were mentioned as infringed. On this occasion they concerted their plan of operations, and in imitation of an incident recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, to which they referred, that the Jews stirred up devout and honourable women, they instructed some Presbyterian " matrons" of the lower orders to " give the first affront to the Book," meaning the Liturgy, and to comraence an uproar In the church when the service commenced, assuring them that the business would be soon taken out of their hands by men stationed for the purpose, several of whom were to aid them, dis guised in female attire. On that memorable Sunday, the seventh after Trinity that year both in the Scottish and English Liturgy, long known by the sou briquets of Stony Sabbath and the Casting of the Stools, a crowded congregation assembled in the moming in that part of St. Giles' church in Edinburgh, designated as the Old Church, the eastern division, or the High Church, being then, it Is said, under repair. Archbishop Spottiswoode as Lord Chancellor, Archbishop Patrick Lindsay of Glasgow, several of the Bishops, numbers of the Privy Council, some of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and the Magis trates of the city, all attended in their robes of office. It was then the custom of the poor classes to carry with them small three- footed stools on which they sat during the sermon. At the tirae of Divine service, which it appears was then nine o'clock in the raorning, Mr. James Hannay, Dean of Edinburgh, entered the reading-desk habited in his surplice, and opened the Liturgy. The uproar was instantly commenced by the women and men in dis guise. Baillie states that the riot in the church was carried on by " serving maids," who " began such a turault as was never heard of since the Reformation in our nation." This riot is differently related by various writers, some of whom detail the blasphemous, indecent, and disgusting exclamations of the ignorant and design ing wretches then present. Wodrow gives his gossipping Presby- 502 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. terian version, in his biographical sketch of Bishop Lindsay of Edin burgh ;* but he is very Inaccurate, and mentions incidents which could not have occurred. Clamours, outcries, and curses assaUed the Dean, accorapanied by such clapping of hands and other noises that not a word could be distinctly heard, and as the Dean still continued to read, those profanities were succeeded by a discharge of clasped Bibles, stools, stones, sticks, and other missiles, at his head. Others attempted to pull him out of the reading-desk, and he was glad to escape frora their fury, leaving a part of his sur plice in their hands. A portable stool was thrown at the head of the Dean, and he only evaded It by turning aside. Various paltry jokes, unworthy of notice, are recorded by the Presbyterian writers on this tumult. Bishop Lindsay, who was to preach the sermon, now went into the pulpit, and addressed the deluded and audacious disturbers of the service. He reminded them of the sacredness of the place and of their duty to God and the King, and he entreated them to desist frora their fearful profanation ; but his courage, dignity, and eloquence, which even Wodrow admits he displayed, were of no avail. He was assailed by the most odious epithets, and It is said that a stool was also airaed at hira, which raight have killed him If it had not been averted by a friendly hand. Archbishop Spot tiswoode, who occupied a seat in the gaUery, also interfered, but he only tumed the tide of fierce Imprecation against himself. The Primate saw that it was vain to allay the profane uproar, and In the exercise of his authority as Lord Chancellor he ordered the Lord Provost and Magistrates to clear the church. With the assistance of the other raembers of the Town-Council this was done with difficulty, and the doors raade fast. The service was then continued. The raob, however, though expelled, loudly knocked at the door, and broke the glass of the windows with stones. Nevertheless the serrice proceeded in defiance of this noise and violence, until sorae of the rioters left within the church raised their old cry — " A Pape ! a Pape ! puU hira down." This corapeUed the Magistrates again to interfere, and to expel them from the cathedral. The service was then concluded, and the ser raon delivered In quietness. * Wodrow MS. printed in Appendix to Life and Times of Alexander Henderson, by John Aiton, D.D. p. 623-627. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 503 The Liturgy was opposed, though not with such Indecency, in the other churches of the city. In one adjoining to that of St Giles' less uproar ensued, but sufficient disapprobation was raani fested. Bishop Fairlie, who had been consecrated to the See of ArgyU only two days before, was interrupted in the Greyfriars' church by groans, hisses, and bowlings, when he coraraenced the raorning service, and gave it up after the General Confession and Absolution were read. The minister of Trinity College church, although pledged to use the Liturgy, cautiously delayed till he learned its reception in the other churches, and at length adopted the extemporaneous form for his own safety. When the Bishops and the Nobility retired from St GUes' church after the morning service they found the street crowded by a mob, who insulted and threatened to attack them. One clergyman was severely beaten, and Bishop Lindsay, who was very corpulent, was so severely assaulted, though attended by one of the city clergy and a respectable merchant, that he was probably rescued frora death solely by the domestics of the Earl of Wemyss, who carried him into that nobleraan's residence. Before the afternoon service several of the Bishops convened in the house of Archbishop Spot tiswoode, and there met the Magistrates, who adopted proper methods for preserving order. Numbers resorted to St Giles' church at two o'clock to hear the sermon, but no clergyraan ap peared. About three o'clock some of the Bishops and clergy went privately to the church accompanied by a strong guard. Another guard was stationed at the door, and only those were admitted who were known to be peaceable citizens. At the disraissal of the congregation about five o'clock the High Street was again crowded by male and female rioters, who were ready to renew their out rages. The guard was thought insufficient to protect Bishop Lindsay on his way to Holyrood Palace, whither he intended to retire for safety, and though he was in the coach of the Earl of Roxburgh, Lord Privy Seal, with that nobleman, who was exceed ingly popular, and who was suspected to favour the opponents of the Liturgy, he escaped with great difficulty. The attempt to stop the coach and drag out the Bishop, who was erroneously supposed to be the raost active promoter of the Liturgy, was repelled by the Earl's servants and the guards with drawn swords. The drivers cleared their way down the High Street, and soon 504 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. outstripped the rioters, who could not overtake them ; but as the Tron church was then building, the raaterials afforded a ready and plentiful supply of ralsslles to the insurgents, who pursued the coach to the Palace and Injuring the Fail's domestics. A nobleman, supposed to be the facetious Earl of Rothes, who saw the populace running after the coach, exclaimed — "I will write to the King, and tell him that the Court here is changed, for ray Lord Tra quair used ever before to get the best following, but now the Eari of Roxburgh and the Bishop of Edinburgh have the best backing." This profane riot, rendered more so by occurring on a day for which the Presbyterians affect the greatest veneration, was origi nally Intended to be perpetrated on Easter Sunday by Henderson, Dickson, Cant, and their associates, if the Liturgy, in obedience to royal authority, had been introduced on that great Festival of the Church. Various reasons are assigned for the delay. Dean Balcanqual of Rochester alleges that the Liturgy was postponed till the 23d of July for the " farther trial of men's minds," that the Judges of the Supreme Court and other Influential lawyers might ascertain Its success before they left the city for the autumn vacation. Rapin supposes that it was delayed to ascertain if anysigns of opposition transpired, which would have been vigorously checked. Clarendon states that the Earl of Traquair persuaded the King that preparation would be made for the more willing reception of the Liturgy in July ; yet it was observed that Traquair was pur posely absent on the day of the tumult, afterwards assigning as an excuse that he was in the country on the occasion of the marriage of a kinsman, and was detained by rain on the Sunday raorning ; while others raaintain that it was postponed by the secret eneraies of the Church, to aUow the Presbyterians sufficient tirae to concert their measures. Bishop Lindsay, in his letter to the Presbytery or " Exercise" of Dalkeith on the 28th of April previously, merely reminded the incumbents that the next Diocesan Synod was to be held on the last Wednesday of May, and desired their attendance — " For," he observes, " at that time there are sundry things that I have to Impart unto you, and in special concerning the Service- Books that are to be received in our Church." Frora this it ap pears that the Liturgy was to be subraitted to the Diocesan Synod. The success of the Liturgy in other Dioceses, except those in the North, was very indifferent. At St Andrews It Is 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 505 said that only a part of It was used by Archdeacon Gladstanes for about a month. The officiating minister read the service for a tirae in Dunblane, and was In consequence designated a " corrupt worldling!'' The parish minister in Brechin cathedral refused, and Bishop Whiteford is alleged to have caused his own servant to officiate — which Is probably a Presbyterian fiction. Such was the reception of the Scottish Liturgy, and it must be admitted that It was a fatal error to enforce its reception by authority on a people who were utterly ignorant of ecclesiastical usages and Primitive practice. The Privy Council soon became sensible of this fact. Meanwhile the state of Edinburgh after the above riot on the 23d of July deserves notice. Baillie says — " The day thereafter I had occasion to be in the town. I found the people nothing settled, but if that Service had been presented to them again, resolved to have done some mischief. Some six or seven servants were put in ward ; the town put under an episcopal interdict, which yet continues ; no preaching, no prayers on the week days, no reading nor prayers on Sundays." It Is stated that for a month there was no public worship in the city — that " the haill kirk doors were locked, and the zealous [Presbyterian] parti zans flocked each Sunday with melancholy foreboding to their de votions in Fife, and then returned to their own homes."* On Monday the Privy Council issued a proclamation condemning the conduct of the rioters, and prohibiting all turbulent assem blages of people under the highest penalties. The Magistrates also publicly denounced the tumult, laid the blarae of the whole on the rabble, and proraised to exert theraselves by searching for and apprehending the ringleaders. They also declared to the English Privy Council that they would maintain the peace of the city, and establish the use of the Liturgy in all the parish churches. In a letter addressed to the King, which was sent to Archbishop Laud, they professed the most devoted loyalty, stated the additions to the stipends of the city clergy notwithstanding the exhaustion of the corporation funds by public works, and appealed in proof of their sincerity to the Scottish Privy Council, the Lord Treasurer Tra quair, Bishop Sydserff of Galloway, and Bishop Wedderburn of Dunblane. They made a show of their zeal by imprisoning a few women, as mentioned by BaiUie, and prohibiting the sale of the * Spalding's History, p. 43. 506 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. scurrilous pamphlet entitled, " A Dispute against the English Popish Ceremonies." It was eridently the object of all parties to free theraselves from blarae. Archbishop Spottiswoode convened the Bishops, who sent an express to Court, and in their account of the riot the citizens of Edinburgh were censured as the chief actors, with a coraplaint against the Earl of Traquair that he had been purpose ly absent. The Privy Council were offended at this procedure without consulting thera, and alleged that the Bishops had not sufficiently exarained the facts. They held that the city would be liable for any mischief which raight afterwards occur, silenced Ramsay and Rollock, two of the ministers, for not using the Liturgy In their respective churches on the preceding Sunday, and deposed Patrick Henderson, the ordinary reader in St Giles' church. This was on Friday the 28th, in a meeting at which Archbishops Spottiswoode and Lindsay, and the Bishops of Edin burgh, GaUoway, Ross, and Brechin, Aberdeen, and Moray, were present. After hearing the Magistrates explain the course they intended to adopt for the " peaceable exercise" of the Liturgy, and the protection of the clergy who used it in Divine service, the Lords of the Privy Council ordained " the Provost and Bailies to advise among themselves anent an obligatory act, to be given by the town for the real performance of what they shall undertake In the business above raentioned ; and allow them to publish by tuck of drum the orders to be established by thera for keeping their town in peace and quietness, and preventing of aU trouble and coraraotion within the same." On the following day the report of the clergy " anent the Service-Book" was received by the Privy Council at a raeeting in Archbishop Spottiswoode's house, at which were present the Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishops of GaUoway, Aberdeen, and Brechin. The Primate announced for himself and the other Bishops that in the then state of affairs, after the serious opposition to the Liturgy, It would be withdrawn tlU the King's pleasure was known regarding the " redress and punishment of the authors and actors of that disorderly tumult ;" and in the meanwhile, " in the whole churches of the city sermon shall be made at the accustomed times by regular and obedient rainisters ; that a prayer shall be made before and after sermon ; and that neither the old Service nor the new established Service 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OP THE LITURGY. 507 be used in the Interira." The Privy Council sanctioned this arrangeraent, by authorizing the Bishops " to do therein accord ing to the powers incumbent unto thera in the duty of their offices." When the tidings of the riot in Edinburgh reached the Court the King was greatly irritated. On the 7th of August Archbishop Laud wrote a long letter to the Earl of Traquair, expressing his sentiments and those of the King on the subject, and complaining ofthe injudicious manner in which the preparations were conducted. " His Majesty," said the Archbishop, " well knows the clergy havc not power enough to go through with a business of this nature, and therefore is not very well satisfied with them either for the omission In that kind, to advise for assistance of the Lords of the Privy Council, or for the preparation or way they took. For cer tainly the publication a week before, that on next Sunday the prayers according to the Liturgy should be read in all the churches of Edinburgh, was upon the raatter to give those that were IU affected to the Service tirae to coraraunicate their thoughts, and to premeditate and provide against it, as it is most apparent they did." The Archbishop also censured the clergy for their raisman- ageraent, especially for transmitting their account of the tumult without consulting the Privy Council, and regrets the casualty of the raarriage of Traquair's kinsman, which had prevented the Earl's presence in the city on that day. Archbishop Laud then laments the withdrawal of the Liturgy tUl the King's pleasure was known, which he thinks was the " weakest part." He states that he wrote to Archbishop Spottiswoode to that effect, and observes to Tra quair — " Your Lordship at the Council, July 24, spoke very worthily against the interdicting of the Service, for that were in effect as much as to disclaira the work, or to give way to the Inso lency of the baser multitude, and his Majesty hath coraraanded me to thank you for it in his name; but the disclaiming the Book as any act of theirs, as [if] It was his Majesty's command, was most unworthy. It is most true the King coraraanded a Liturgy, and It was tirae they had one. They did not like to adrait of ours, but thought It reputation for them, as indeed It was, to corapile one of their own ; yet as near as raay be they have done it well."* The very day on which Archbishop Laud wrote the above letter ' Eushworth's Historical CoUections, vol. ii. p. 389, 390. 508 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. to the Earl of Traquair, that nobleraan addressed an epistle to the Marquis of Harailton, from which It appears that the Privy Coun cil were raost anxious to lay the chief blame on the Bishops. Other parties also endeavoured to exonerate theraselves. Those were the Magistrates and Town-Council of Edinburgh, who on the 19th of August wrote to Archbishop Laud, expressing their deep regret at what had occurred, assuring his Grace of their loyal obedience, and that they had " daily concurred with their Ordinary [Bishop Lindsay] and the ministry for settling of the Service-Book," re ferring as proof to the Earl of Traquair, and the Bishops of Gal loway and Dunblane. They concluded by thanking the English Primate for past favours.* This letter gratified the Archbishop, who in a letter to Traquair, dated September 11, says that he had laid their " very full and discreet" letter before the King. " I have written the city an answer by the return, and given them his Majesty's thanks, which indeed he commanded me to do very heart ily, and in truth they deserve it, especially as times stand." The Magistrates in a subsequent communication with the Archbishop, " thanked his Grace for his kind letter with all their hearts." The use of the Liturgy was nevertheless urged In the se veral Dioceses, and in the northern counties it was very generally received. Baillie says that " most of the Bishops had raised letters of horning, to charge all the ministers in their Dioceses to buy two books for the use of their parishes within fifteen days. Glasgow was very diligent In charging all his Presbyteries, and by no entreaty would delay so much as to his assembly [Diocesan Synod] in August, but would have us all to the horn presently who would not buy. St Andrews moved many to buy the books with out charging ; only two or three unconform men were charged in his Diocese." The Diocesan Synod of Glasgow was appointed to be held on the last Wednesday of August, and on the 13th of that month BaiUie, who was then rainister of Kilwinning, received a letter from Archbishop Lindsay, requesting him to preach at the opening of the Synod, and " to frarae his sermon to Incite his hearers to the obedience and practice of the Canons of our Church and Service-Book published and established by authority." The reply of BaiUie, who had not yet become a Presbyterian, ex- • Eushworth's Historical CoUections, vol. n. p. 393, 394. The Magistrates who signed the letter were John Cochrane, An. Ainslie, J. Smith, C. Hamilton. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 509 plains his own feelings, and is honourable to the personal character ofthe Archbishop. He expresses himself grateful to the Arch bishop for entertaining such an opinion of his " poor gifts" as to honour him with so great a service ; but he respectfully declined on the plea that he had formed no opinion decisive on the Canons and Liturgy of which he had only a " slight view," and for the present it had not satisfied his mind. " Yea," he says, " the little pleasure I have in these Books, the great displeasure I find the most part both of pastors and people wherever I come to have conceived against thera, has filled ray mind with such a measure of grief that I am scarce able to preach to my own flock ; but to speak in an other congregation, far less in so famous a meeting, and that upon these matters, I am at this time utterly unable. Your Lordship, I put no question, is so equitable as to take in good part this very ingenious confession of the tme cause why I am unable to accept that honourable employraent which your Lordship's raore than or dinary respect would have laid upon me ; so for this and raany more favours received, far above my deserving, I pray God to bless your Lordship, and to continue you raany years to be our overseer ; for be persuaded that raany thousands here where I live are greatly afraid that whenever your Lordship shall go their peace and greatness shall go with you." Notwithstanding this spontaneous testiraony to the character of Archbishop Lindsay, and to his con duct in his Diocese, the writer meanly designates him a " trouble some man " in a letter to his friend Mr Spang written about the very tirae. Baillie, however, was charged on his canonical obe dience to preach before the Synod, with an Intiraation that the sub ject of his serraon was left to his own discretion, tie prepared himself, and resolved, he says, " to have spoken no syUable of any conformity, but pressed those pastoral duties which would not have pleased all :" but he was accidentally relieved, and his place was supplied by Mr William Annan, moderator of the Presbytery of Ayr. The Archbishop, however, wished Baillie to preach on the following day, " being the chief day of the Synod," which he de clined. He gives an. account of Mr Annan's sermon, which was from the passage in the First Epistle to Timothy — " I coraraand that prayers be raade for all raen." In the latter half of his dis course Mr Annan commented on the Liturgy, and " spake for the defence of it," says Baillie, " in whole, and sundry most plausible 510 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. parts of it, as well In ray poor judgraent as any in the Island of Great Britain could have done, considering all circurastances ; however, he did raaintain, to the dislike of all in an unfit time, that which was hanging In suspense betwixt the King and the country." The sermon excited a considerable sensation among the female auditors. On the following day Mr John Lindsay, moderator of the Presbytery of Lanark, preached ; and as Mr Annan's defence of the Liturgy had given offence to the women, it is said that some of them whispered to Mr Lindsay, as he was proceeding to the pulpit, that " if he should touch the Service- Book In his serraon he should be rent out of the pulpit ; he took the advice, and let that raatter alone." The viragoes resolved to revenge theraselves on Mr Annan, and when he was learing the cathedral church thirty or forty of thera assailed hira with such iraprecatlons before the Archbishop and Magistrates, that it was necessary to send two of thera to prison. This was soon known in such a smaU place as Glasgow then was, and during the day whenever he appeared In the streets angry looks and threats indicated his unpopularity. He was recognized about nine in the evening on his way to the Archbishop's residence with some of the clergy by sorae hundreds of those females, who grossly maltreated him, tore his clothes, and almost murdered him ; yet it was considered prudent not to investigate this disorder lest some woraen of good rank would have been iraplicated. On the following day Mr Annan was accompanied by the Magistrates and some of his brethren to protect him safely out ofthe town. While mounting his horse the animal feU with him, and both were rolled into what Baillie calls a " foul mire," which was unfeelingly cheered by the spectators. Much excitement prevaUed in Glasgow at that time, and Baillie observes — " I suspect these tumults will hinder the [Arch]bishop, for all his stoutness, in haste to read the Service in his cathedral." On the 23d of August the " supplication of certain ministers of Fife " was presented to the Privy Council by Henderson and two others. In Edinburgh they met WiUiara Castlelaw frora Stew arton, Thomas Bonar from Maybole, both in Ayrshire, and Robert Wilkie, from Glasgow, Presbyterian rainisters who had been charged by Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow to use the Liturgy, and who had been Induced by the Earl of Loudon, Dickson, and 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 511 others in the West of Scotland, to resort thither for advice. Henderson and Dickson, who In their several localities, the forraer in Fifeshire, the latter In Ayrshire, were considered the acknow ledged leaders of the Presbyterians, were now joined by Cant, Rollock, Rarasay, and Murray, aU preachers in great repute araong the coraraon people. Henderson and his corapanions frora Fife coraplained that they had been each required by the raoderator of the Presbytery of St Andrews to procure two copies of the Liturgy, and declared that they would wiUingly receive one copy to read and exaraine It before they promised to obey It, but that this had been refused, and that they were now charged with letters of homing by their Lordships on an accusation that they had refused the books out of " curiosity and singularity." They ob jected to the Liturgy generally that it was not sanctioned by the General Assembly nor by Act of Parliament — that the liberties of what they caUed the " true Kirk," and the " form of worship and religion received at the Reformation, and universally practised since," had been warranted by those authorities, especially the Parliaments of 1567 and 1633 — and that the Liturgy would be " found to depart far frora the form of worship and reformation of this Kirk ; and in points most material to draw near to the Kirk of Rome." To all this Bishop MaxweU of Ross replied — " That whereas they pretend ignorance of what is contained in the Book, it appears by their many objections and exceptions to all parts of it almost, that they are too well versed in It, but have abused It pitifully : — that not the General Assembly, which consists of a multitude, but the Bishops, have the authority to govern the Church, and are the presentative Church of the kingdom : — that they will never be able, do what they can, to prove what is con tained In the Service-Book to be either superstitious or Idolatrous, but that it is one of the most orthodox and perfect Liturgies in the Christian Church." On the 25th of August, two days after the " Supplication" was presented, the Privy CouncU Issued a de claration to correct " a great raistaking in the letters and charges given out upon the act of Council raade anent the buying of the Service-Book," and enjoined it to be understood that the said act and letters extended only to the buying of the books, and " no farther," which In other words intiraated that they had nothing to do with the reading of thera. It is stated that at the Council 512 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. board, before the suspension of the reading of the Liturgy was discussed, several noblemen by letters, and nurabers of gentleraen personally, entreated the Lords of the Privy Council " to hold the yoke of the black book* from off the necks of the rainisters," and pointed out the dangerous consequences which raight ensue to the Government. The Earl of Southesk recoraraended Henderson's supplication. He was answered by Archbishop Spottiswoode, who stated that " as there were only a few ministers, and two or three Fifegentlemenin[the]town, there needed to be no steer[noise] anent the affair." According to the " Relation " of the Earl of Rothes, Southesk sternly replied — " If aU their pouches [pockets] were weel ryped [rifled], a great raany of the best gentry in the country would be found to resent these raatters." " The Archbishop would only have looked to sorae petitions which were worst expressed ; but the Earl of Roxburgh pointed out the one from St Andrews, which spoke most freely." Henderson and the other Presbyterian ministers met at dinner on the day of the raeeting of the Privy CouncU to consult about the state of their affairs, and one of thera concocted a document, " averse to all conformity, but raodest as could have been expected," which Baillie has preserved at length. In another paper, entitled "Inforraations given to several Council lors, "the above objections by Henderson are repeated in four of the seven particulars set forth. In the fifth it is aUeged that the Liturgy destroyed their kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and As semblies — a most erroneous or unfounded inference ; and that It placed " censure of doctrine, the admission of rainisters, and the whole governraent of the Kirk, absolutely in the hands of the Pre lates." The sixth is not a little ludicrous, and shews how much the opponents of the Liturgy were blinded by prejudice : — " It es- tablisheth a reading ministry ; whosoever can read the Book can be a minister, and he who is best gifted must say no more nor he readeth, whether in prayer, baptism, comraunion, &c." According to this notion whosoever can pray exteraporary is fit to be a Pres byterian rainister. The seventh and last objection was, in addition to the usual false charge of the Liturgy baring " raany gross points of Popery," that it " prescribeth Apocrypha to be read as If * Probably called the Black Book because the whole Liturgy, with the exception of the rubrics, is printed in black letter. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 513 it were the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets." This Is a shameful misrepresentation. The only chapters selected out of the Apocryphal Books are from the Books of Wisdom and Ecclesias- ticus, and are limited to the coraraemorations of the Conversion of St Paul, the Purification of the Virgin Mary, St Bartholomew's Day, St Matthew's Day, and All Saints' Day. Doubtless the Pres byterians and the sectaries conscientiously object to the observance of such days, but these comraeraorations were not and never are enforced, and the recognition of thera has no connection whatever with the practice of the Church of Rorae. On the 25th of August the Privy Council wrote to the King, expressing their wUlingness to render every assistance to establish the Liturgy. They expected that the Liturgy might soon be brought into general use ; but after appointing a raeeting of Council, though it was then the vacation, solely to devise the raost prudent measures to carry it into effect — " We found ourselyes, they declared, " far beyond our expectation surprised with the clamour and fears of his Majesty's subjects from almost all the parts and corners of the kingdom ;" and that such was the feeling " even of those who have heretofore lived in obedience and conformity to his Majesty's laws, both in an ecclesiastical and civil business ; and they found it so to increase, that they conceived it to be raatter of high consequence, in respect of the general murmur and grudge In all sorts of people for urging of the Service-Book, as the like hath not been heard in this kingdom ; they therefore could no longer delay nor conceal from his Majesty, not knowing whereunto the same raay tend, and what effects it may produce." The Privy Council concluded by suggest ing to the King either to examine the whole matter by summon ing some of themselves, both clerical and lay, to London, or to adopt any other safe measure to settle the coraraotion. This let ter was signed by Archbishop Spottiswoode, the Bishops of Edin burgh, Galloway, Ross, Brechin, eight Earls, Sir Thomas Hope, as Lord Advocate, and several other raembers of the Privy Council. As this letter was despatched the day when the Privy Council issued their explanation, that their " charges and letters" only extended to the buying of the two copies of the Liturgy for each parish, Henderson aijd other " Supplication" raen publicly dined together, and expressed their gratitude to their Lordships for the above mitigation, and for the representation of their case transmitted to 33 514 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. the King. This was conveyed to the Privy Council by the Earls of Sutherland and Wemyss, who had now joined the raoveraent, and encouraged the ringleaders in their opposition. The proceedings ofthe Privy Council were intimated to the Pres byterian leaders ; the order for the use of the Liturgy was with drawn ; and those committed to prison for their concern In the turault were set at liberty. BaiUie, indeed, states that the Privy Council resolved not to enforce even the purchase of the two copies of the Liturgy for every parish church, and that the Bishops, who were responsible for the expenses. Insisted that the raoney should be guaranteed. According to the " Relation" of the Earl of Rothes,* Bishop Maxwell of Ross obtained a grant to print and seU the Liturgy, but " the sarae was gainstood, and [it] was thought fit that each Bishop should have the buying of such as served his own Diocese." The truth or inaccuracy of BaiUie's statement Is now of no raoraent. The assurance that a full an swer would be given to the deraands of the Presbyterians restored apparent tranquillity ; but the popular feeling had only subsided, and the opposition to the Liturgy found new adherents in most of the counties south of the Tay. The Presbyterian leaders were the more successful in their projects, for none of the peasantry and many of the upper classes had ever seen the Liturgy, and as vast numbers of the forraer were uneducated. It would have been of no avail though it had been accessible to them all. They obtained their information on it solely from their preachers, who described the Liturgy In the most exaggerated language to their hearers. Inflammatory, false, and seditious pamphlets, chiefly sent from the English Puritans, were in extensive and rapid circulation through out the country, irritating the minds of the populace, and laying the train for the great explosion. The 20th of September, when the King's answer was expected, was a day anxiously expected by the leaders of the raoveraent. They had secured as their secret legal adviser the Lord Advocate Hope. Lord Balraerino and Henderson were to act when requir ed, and four of their associates were sent to various parts of the kingdora to keep up the agitation. Rollock was entrusted with a * A Eelation ofthe Proceedings concerning the Aflfairs of the Kirk of Scotland from August 1637 to July 1638, by John Earl of Eothes. Edinbui;gh, 4to. printed for the Bannatyne Club, 1830. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OP THE LITURGY. 515 mission to stir up the " brethren" in the Southern counties, Cant was appointed to the North, where their cause was most unpopu lar, Rarasay to Forfar and Kincardine shires, and Murray to I'erth and Stirling. The Western counties, Fife, and the city of Edinburgh, had no lack of agitators. Meanwhile, on the 4th of September Archbishop Laud wrote a letter to Archbishop Spottiswoode, In which he regretted that the Scottish Privy Council had not acted with that unaniraity and determination which the crisis required, and deplored that they had not been acquainted with the proceedings of the Bishops, nor their advice taken, till it was too late : — " And that," continues the Arch bishop, "after the thing was done, you consulted apart, and sent up to the King without calling a Council, or joining the lay Lords with you, whereas all was little enough in a business of this nature, and so much opposed by some factious men gathered. It seeras, purposely together at Edinburgh to disturb this business. And Indeed, ray Lord, you could not in this particular have engaged the lay Lords too far ; and if any Lord here speak too rauch when he thought the Service raight have been well received throughout all that kingdom in one daj', I hope your Grace falls as rauch too short on the other side, for I hope it will be settled in far less tirae than seven years. And whereas you write that the fault Is most in your rainisters, I easily believe that to be true ; but then they should have been dealt with withal before hand, and made pliable, or else some others appointed in the room of such as dis liked." The Archbishop concludes by noticing the conduct of the two Edinburgh ministers Ramsay and RoUock. He agrees with Archbishop Spottiswoode that " a sharper course would do raore good " with such persons as the former ; and as to the latter he says — " I ara sorry as well as you for Mr Rollock, and that is aU I have to say of him." On the 11th of September Archbishop Laud wrote a long letter to the Earl of Traquair, in reply to one from that nobleman dated 20th August, and mentions that the Enghsh Puritans were greatly elated and encouraged by the opposition in Scotland to the Liturgy. He expresses hiinself disappointed at delaying the use of the Liturgy, and Is not surprised at this recomraendation from " such Lords and others as were ill affected to It, which they could not but see would answer their own ends, but that my Lord of Ross 516 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH ^ [1637- [Maxwell] should give the advice, and ray Lord of St Andrews follow It with such stiffness, raay be a wonder to any raan that knows thera and the business." He is surprised at the informa tion communicated to him by Archbishop Spottiswoode, that Bishop MaxweU had gone to his Diocese, and that several of the others had also left Edinburgh — " ray Lord of Ross especially, whose hand hath been as rauch in it as the most." He states that the King was much pleased at the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, and Dunblane, remaining in the city, and also thanked Traquair " for staying with them, and keeping them so well In heart : for," he says, " as the business Is now foiled, if you do not stick close to God's and the King's service in it, it will certainly suffer more than it is fit It should." The Archbishop farther intimates that the King was gratified at the Earl's exertions in Edinburgh to maintain " such as shall take upon them to read the Liturgy," and compliraents the Magistrates on their conduct. After some observations the Archbishop concludes — " And since I hear from others that some exception is taken because there is more in that Liturgy than is In the Liturgy in England, why did they not ad mit the Liturgy of England without more ado ? But by their refusal of that, and their dislike of this, it Is more manifest they would have neither perhaps, yea, none at aU, were they left to themselves. But, ray Lord, to yourself only, and in your ear, a great favour you should do me if you will get my Lord [Bishop] of Galloway to set me down in brief propositions, without any further discourse, all the exceptions that are taken against the Liturgy by Rarasay, RoUock, or any other ; and I could be content to know who the Bishops are who would have amended something had they been advised with, and what that is which they would have so amended." The King's letter to the Privy CouncU, dated Oatlands, 10th September, was delivered sorae days afterwards by the Duke of Lennox. The Privy Council and the Magistrates of Edinburgh were censured — the forraer as a " very slack CouncU," or the people were- very bad subjects — for not continuing the use of the Liturgy after the 23d of July, and also for not punishing the rioters. A specified nuraber of the Privy Council was ordered to attend In Edinburgh or the vicinity during the vacation time " tiU the Ser vice-Book be settled." They were enjoined to see that the minis- 1637.] . AT THE FIRST USE OP THE LITURGY. 517 ters of Edinburgh performed their promised duty ; every Bishop was to introduce the Liturgy Into his Diocese, as the Bishops pf Ross and Dunblane had already done ; and the burghs were to be warned that only those were to be elected magistrates whose conformity would be certified. Such was the reply of Charles L, who, regardless of the Presby terians, seems still to have confided in the loyalty of the mass of the people. It was soon known, and multitudes siraultaneously re sorted to Edinburgh, as if, observes Clarendon, In " a cause which concerned their salvation." This exclteraent, though ostensibly religious, had now to a great extent assuraed a political aspect, and many of the Nobility and landed proprietors, who cherished an im placable hatred to the King, on account of the compulsory surrender of the teinds, incited the malcontents in their opposition. On the same 20th of September the Privy Council replied to the King, and the letter evinces their disagreeable position. They made an act appointing seven of their number to attend constantly in Edinburgh during the vacation, two of whora were Archbishop Spottiswoode as Lord Chancellor, and the Earl of Traquair as Lord High Treasurer. They intimated their arrangements to the King, and informed him that they had ordered the burghs to " make a right choice of conform and well affected persons for the charge of the raaglstracy this ensuing year." They also described to the King the state of public feeling, and alleged that since the date of their last letter the opposition to the Liturgy had not abated, specifying sixty-eight petitions which they had received on the subject, and referring to the Presbytery of Auchterarder and the city of Glasgow — " the effect and substance of all which resolve into one allegation, that the Service enjoined Is against the religion presently professed, or that the same is unorderly brought in without the knowledge or consent of a General Assem bly, or contrary to the acts of Parliament, or disconform from the Service used and received in England, [all] which the petitioners undertook to qualify and make good, wherewith we have forborne to meddle till we receive your Majesty's gracious resolution there anent." They express their grief at the result, and refer to the Earl of Stirling, his '• Majesty's secretary, who could lay before hira a more fuU and particular account of all that was moved or concluded in CouncU." 518 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH V; [1637. The Earl of Rothes gives an account of the proceedings of the petitioners on this 20th of Septeraber, and although his statements are those of an eneray they are of conteraporary iraportance. He^ attended a meeting in the residence of the Earl of Wemyss, where he met a nuraber of the disaffected Nobility. They resolved to draw up a petition to the Privy Council, and accompany the Duke of Lennox thither. Other meetings were held of the smaller barons or lairds, those of Fife raustering in great force ; and upwards of one hundred rainisters, magistrates of the principal burghs, deputies from seventy parishes, and numbers of the gentry from several adjacent counties, also appeared. It is said that " many of these knew not of the rest being there till they met at the door of the Council-House ;" but this is not to be credited, and Is refuted by the organized plan which had been effected. When the Duke of Lennox carae up the High Street from Holyroodhouse to the meeting of the Council in the Tolbooth, an immense crowd of aU ranks and classes resorted to learn the result. The Presbyterian rainisters ranged themselves on a part of the High Street, and made a low obeisance as the Duke passed. The nobleraen stationed theraselves opposite the door of the Tolbooth. All the parties attended during the forenoon to give In their petition, which had been concocted from one written by Henderson, and expressed in the name of the Nobility, Barons, ministers, and burgesses ; but they were not heard, and the Council rose at twelve o'clock. The Duke of Lennox returned to the Palace to dinner, and the peti tion, which had not been read, was procured from the clerk. Rothes carried It to Traquair, who after perusing it softened those expressions in It which required the Bishops to concur with the petitioners In their remonstrance to the King, and advised the Presbyterians not to Irritate any individual. The petition was in consequence again written. Traquair appeared, unaccompanied by Lennox, between three and four in the afternoon, the " Supplicat ing" noblemen and rainisters ranging theraselves in the sarae order as In the raorning. The Earl retired with Archbishop Spottiswoode, several Bishops, and raerabers of the Privy CouncU, to an apart ment caUed the Banqueting House, In which they remained an hour and a half, and sent for Lennox, who soon joined them. The Earl of Sutherland presented the " Supplication" to the clerk, and desired it to be read, while his friends out of doors adjourned to 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OP THE LITURGY. 519 what was called the Laigh House to wait the result. Before the Council rose the Earls of Sutherland and Wemyss were called In, and told that their petition had been duly considered, and would be presented to the King by Lennox. Rothes relates his interview with Archbishop Spottiswoode in the afternoon of that day. They conversed on the Liturgy, of which Rothes disapproved as Illegal and unsound. The Arch bishop denied the latter, and demanded the proof. Rothes re ferred to the Office for administering the Comraunion, and to the Office for Baptism, which declared that Infants were regenerated. The Archbishop contended that It was not fairly Interpreted by the Presbyterians, and stated that the Bishop of Derry [Bramhall, afterwards Archbishop of Armagh], to whora he sent a copy, had expressed his opinion so favourably of the Liturgy as to regret that Scotland should have the advantage of England in such a work, and that the Prince's tutor had comraended it, both declaring that there had not been such a Liturgy for the first six hundred years after Christ. Rothes replied that the Bishop of Derry was reputed the raost unsound raan in Ireland and a great Arrainian, as the Prince's tutor was considered in England, and that it was the worse of any of their testimonies in favour of the Liturgyj or even of the Archbishop of Canterbury's. Archbishop Spottis woode, srailing, asked — " What was the necessity of all this resist ance ? If the King turned Papist we behoved still to obey hira as subjects. Who could resist princes ? When King Edward was a Protestant, and raade a reforraation. Queen Mary changed it, and Queen Elizabeth altered it again. There was no resisting, and no Kirk was without troubles." Rothes replied that they soon " got it changed in England, for the two professions were nearly equaUy divided ; but there were few here to concur in such a change, aU being reformed, and would never yield. Moreover, In his opinion the reformation of England was not so complete as that of Scotland, and had not so rauch law for it ; the forraer was but half reforraed." Rothes mentions that " distraction began to increase In that city [Edinburgh], because the Magistrates had never shewn their dishke of that Book as [did] the rest of the country." The crowd of persons in the city hostUe to the Liturgy Induced the Magis trates to send a petition to the Comraittee of the Privy Council, 520 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. which was revised by Archbishop Spottiswoode, that the Liturgy should not be pressed on them till the King's answer was known. It was intimated that their petition would be transraitted to the King, and his sentiments made known on the 17th of October. The Magistrates also considered themselves bound to explain their conduct to Archbishop Laud. In a letter dated the 26th of Sep teraber, which is in answer to one from the English Primate, they expressed their willingness to receive and maintain the Liturgy — " not only in ourselves, but in the greatest and best part of our Inhabitants, of whom from time to time we have had most confi dent assurance." They then relate to the Archbishop their pecu liar situation — " Since our last there hath been such an innurae rable confluence of people frora all the comers of this kingdom, both of clergy and laity, and of all degrees, by occasion of two [Privy] CouncU days, and such things suggested to our poor igno rant people, that they have razed out what we by great and con tinual pains had imprinted in their minds, and diverted thera alto gether frora their former resolutions ; so that now, when we were urged by ourselves alone, we could not adventure, but were forced to supplicate the Lords of the Council to continue us In the state they had done the rest of the kingdom, having hitherto forborne either to corabine with thera, or to countenance them in their sup pUcations ; yet we wiU not forbear to do our Master's service to our power, and shall study to iraprint on their minds what hath been taken away."* During the interval before the 1 7th of October the excitement stiU continued in Edinburgh, and multitudes remained to watch the progress of events, suspecting that if the Liturgy were forraally received there It would be introduced into other towns, and by degrees throughout the kingdora. The influence of the Court had induced the Town-Council to elect Sir John Hay, a zealous sup porter of the Episcopal Church, to be the Lord Provost. This excited additional alarm in the minds of the agitators, who nar rowly watched the proceedings of the standing coraraittee of the Privy Council, who daUy attended. One day, when sitting In the Tolbooth, a raob of raen and woraen rushed In upon the coraraittee, exclairaing — " The Book we wiU not have." They assailed Sir * Eushworth's CoUections, vol. u. p. 399, 400. This letter is signed by Ch. HamU ton, James Eocheid, J. Cochrane, J. Smith, Bailies. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 521 John Hay with opprobrious epithets, and they were induced by the Magistrates to retire only by the assurance that at least the citi zens would not be more urged to receive the Liturgy than the In habitants of any other town in the kingdora. On the 17th of October three proclaraations intimated the King's resolution. The first enjoined all strangers to leave Edin burgh and return to their several homes within twenty-four hours, under the penalty of being denounced rebels, and their goods confiscated ; the second removed the Supreme Courts first to Linlithgow, and afterwards to Dundee, there to reraain during the royal pleasure ; and the third prohibited the sale of Gillespie's perforraance — the " Dispute against the English Popish Cere raonies obtruded upon the Kirk of Scotland." On the foUowing day a dreadful tumult broke out, which was of more serious im portance than the riot on the 23d July. In the morning some hundreds of woraen asserabled at the head of an alley near the Tolbooth, and raoved in a body to the house in which the Town- Council were convened. An imraense crowd soon collected near the Tolbooth, in which the Privy Council raet, and the city was again in an uproar. At this crisis Bishop Sydserff of Galloway was recognized pressing through the populace towards the Tol booth, where he was to be examined as a witness In a civil case. The assertion of the Earl of Durafries had become public that the Bishop wore a gold crucifix under his vest, and the multitude atterapted to ascertain the truth of this statement. After rough usage, and amid profane iraprecations, the Bishop was enabled by sorae friends to approach near the Tolbooth. His dangerous situation was intiraated by some of his domestics to his former pupil Traquair, who was with the Earl of Wigton, another of the Privy Council, in a house in the vicinity. Traquair, Wigton, and their servants, ran to the rescue of the Bishop, and after great exertions they got near him, but found themselves in no better condition. They contrived to send privately to the Magistrates for relief from this singular imprisonment amid a dense crowd of excited enthusiasts. The civic authorities replied that they were be set in their own council room, which was filled with persons threaten ing murder if their deraands were not granted. The two noblemen and their followers forced a passage to the town-council room, and it was resolved by the Magistrates and Traquair to yield to the demands 522 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. of the rioters, and petition with thera against the Liturgy ; and that Ramsay and RoUock, the silenced rainisters, and Patrick Henderson, the deprived reader, should be restored. This ar rangeraent was publicly notified by the Magistrates at the Cross, and calmed the opposition to the civic authorities. The two Earls now turned their thoughts to the perilous situation of the Bishop of GaUoway, whom they had left a prisoner at the door of the Tolbooth. Traquair and two of the Magistrates, with several attendants, went to relieve hira, but they were assaUed with frantic exclamations — " God defend all those who defend God's cause ! God confound the Service-Book and aU its raaintainers !" Although the rioters were assured that their grievances would be redressed, their fury Increased, and Traquair was thrown down on the street, and his hat, cloak, and white staff, indicating his office of Lord High Treasurer, violently pulled frora hira. The Earl was mal treated in such a manner, that if he had not been pulled to his feet by sorae persons near hira the populace would have trampled him to death. In this condition he was conveyed to the door of the Tolbooth, at which were the Bishop and others of the Privy Council. It was now the afternoon, yet the tumult was not sub siding. Traquair, with the approbation of the Bishop and the Lord Provost Hay, at length sent Sir Jaraes Murray of Ravelrig to a house in the neighbourhood. In which were convened the Earl of Loudon and others of the " Supplicating" nobleraen, requesting them to wait on him. Loudon and some of his friends complied, and surrounded Traquair, the Bishop, and the Provost, whom they escorted quietly down the street, their followers keeping off the crowd, till they carae to Traquair's house in an alley long reraov ed known as NIddry's Wynd, when the rabble denounced Bishop Sydserff as a " Papist loon, Jesuit loon, and betrayer of religion." Here the courage of the Lord Provost failed, but he was assured by Loudon and others that those epithets were uttered only by a " pack of poor woraen," and he succeeded In reaching his own house. It is stated that the raob afterwards broke his windows, and might have done more mischief, but they were dispersed by his servant, who fired a musquet at them charged only with powder. The Privy CouncU raet in Holyroodhouse in the afternoon, and Issued a proclaraation to keep the peace, prohibiting all " pubUc gatherings and convocations within the city." This had sorae 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 523 effect In allaying the commotion. On the other side, the Presby terians were actively engaged in their private and confidential arrangements. BaUlie mentions that at the desire of Lord Mont gomery his patron, in compliance with the request of the Earl of Rothes, Montgomery's father-in-law, he attended a raeeting of the " Supplicants" at Edinburgh on the day of the above turault. The Nobility, gentry, and preachers of the Presbyterian party met in separate rooms. In the evening a nuraber of the " Supplicants" convened In Lord Balmerino's lodgings about eight o'clock after supper, and it was resolved that if any of them were cited before the High Commission, its authority should be declined as an un lawful judicatory. The Earl of Loudon and Lord Balraerino raade sundry speeches, and their next meeting was fixed for the 15th of November. It was on this occasion, or rather on the previous even ing, that the true designs of Henderson were developed. He mov ed that though they had formerly petitioned against the Liturgy, they might now complain of the Bishops as underralners of reUgion, and crave justice to be done upon thera. Many were at first averse to this bold proposition, declaring that they complained only of the Service-Book, but otherwise they had no quarrel with the Bishops. Loudon and Rothes silenced this opposition, and Loudon and Balmerino, Henderson and Dickson, were appointed to draw up a complaint against the Bishops, and this docuraent was to be submitted to the " Supplicants" on the following morning. A letter was also sent to the Privy CouncU, pretending that as raany of them had private affairs to transact in Edinburgh before the approaching term of Martinmas, it was iraposslble for them to leave the city within twenty-four hours, as the proclaraation en joined. On the evening of the day of the second riot several of the Bishops retired to Dalkeith Castle, six miles frora Edinburgh, the site of which, now occupied by the Duke of Buccleuch's raansion, was then the residence of Traquair. It is stated on the authority of BaUlie that the appointraent of another assemblage on the 15th of November, and the signs of the times, so paralyzed Archbishop Spottiswoode, that he and the Bishops now seldora attended the Privy Council raeetings. The Priraate doubtless saw that one great object of the Presbyterians was to exclude him and his brethren from the Council table, and they raight have conducted 524 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. themselves in this passive raanner to avoid any cause bf offence. But the Presbyterian leaders had recourse to other expedients. To enlist the populace in their behalf, they got up two petitions, one from the mmi,, women, servants, and children. In Edinburgh against the Liturgy, which was addressed to Archbishop Spottis woode as Lord Chancellor ; and the other was frora the " Noble men, barons, ministers, burgesses, and coraraons," against the Liturgy and the Book of Canons, and sent to the Privy Council, who transmitted both to the King. As no apology or regret was expressed for the riots the King delayed to answer the petitions, and coraraanded the Privy Council to issue a proclamation, de nouncing the riot of the 18th of October, and soleranly assuring all his loyal subjects that he abhorred all " superstition of popery," and would maintain the true religion as was " presently professed within his most ancient kingdom of Scotland." The Presbyterian preachers, careful to foment the frantic excite ment against the Church, diligently circulated throughout then- respective localities the intelligence of their intended muster on the 15th of November. A greater concourse of persons resorted to Edinburgh on that day with their " Supphcations " than on the former occasions, and the Magistrates, seriously taught by past experience, were in great alarm for the peace of the city. Among the nobleraen who had not been at any previous raeetings was James fifth Earl afterwards first Marquis of Montrose, and his appearance In defence of the Presbyterian party — a party against whom, within six years afterwards, he was to take up arras in behalf of the King, and becorae their raost dangerous and formid able enemy, was, we are told, " most taken notice of." Montrose was at the tirae twenty-five years of age. After his return from foreign travel he waited on the King, whose reception of him. It is said, was not very favourable, and he hastened to Scotland and joined the " Supplicants." Whatever may have been his treat ment at Court his talents were well known and appreciated, If the statement of a writer at that period is correct, that " when the Bishops heard that he was come to Edinburgh to join in hostUe measures agaiinst them they were soraewhat affrighted, baring that esteem of his parts that they thought it time for a storm when he engaged." Montrose became one of the most zealous supporters of the Covenant, for which he first fought, and then 1637.1 ^"^ ¦''^^^ FmSI USE OF THE LITURGY. 525 denounced, when in arms against his former associates, as in famous, treasonable, and wicked. The presence of such a mob, who were daily Increasing, alarmed the citizens of Edinburgh and the authorities, more especially as the language and demeanour of those enthusiasts indicated no very peaceable disposition. Traquair entreated their friends to induce thera to disperse, but their leaders refused to interfere, and simply cautioned the " Supplicants " not to comrait any outrages, enjoining them to appear seldora on the streets. It was also arranged that the " Supplicants " from each county should meet In separate houses, and mutually comraunicate by authorized messengers. The Earls of Traquair, Lauderdale, and Lord Lorn, held a conference with the " Supplicating " Nobility, as arranged at the Privy Council, to whom they represented the danger and illegality of their followers convening so frequently, and in such large numbers, particularly as the King had promised not to enforce the Liturgy before more mature deliberation ; and as he had pardoned the recent tumults, their conduct was more likely to irritate than to obtain a satisfactory adjustment of their cora plaints. The " Supplicants " replied by evasive answers, defend ing theraselves, and coraplaining that the Bishops had designated them rebellious subjects. They declared that they had no objec tions to select a few noblemen, two gentleraen frora every county, and one burgess frora every burgh, to act for the whole ; but if the Privy Council refused to recoramend their " Supplications," they would themselves draw up a declaration to the King. Tra quair, Lauderdale, and Lorn, replied that they were expressly pro hibited to transmit their " Supplications," and their declaration would be stopped before it reached the King. The Presbyterians argued that their " Supplications " were vindications of their pro ceedings, and urged their usual objections against the Liturgy, Canons, High Comraission Court, and other " innovations." They were told that it would be prudent to confine their opposition solely to the Liturgy for the present ; and that as the Privy Council expected the King's answer in a few days, if the mass of the " Supplicants" would leave the city quietly their accredited agents would receive a faithful account of the Instructions of the Court. If these were favourable they would request permission from the King to transmit their complaints to him, and in the 526 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. raeantime they promised to persuade the Bishops not to excite their prejudices in religious matters. After this interriew the " Supplicants" seemed to approve of the propositions of Traquair and his two friends. They arranged that as many of the Nobility as were inclined should forra a council, with whom were to be associated two gentlemen from every county, one minister frora each Presbytery, and one burgess frora each burgh, together with Henderson and Dickson, the Earls of Rothes, Montrose, and Loudon, and Lord Lindsay of Balcarras, for the NobUity, three gentlemen for the counties, and five others, two of whom were preachers, were constantly to act in Edinburgh for the others as occasion required, and If necessary to suraraon all their adherents throughout the kingdom. They thus constituted a raost illegal, dangerous, and even treasonable body selected from a certain number of their leaders. Those delegates met the Privy Council at Holyroodhouse on the following day. On the 16th of Noveraber it was finally agreed that the accusation of rebeUion against the " Supplicants" by the Bishops should be regarded as a raere ebulition of anger — that the Privy Council could not inter fere with the reponing of the ministers Ramsay and Rollock during the absence of Sir John Hay the Lord Provost — that Bishop Lindsay should use his influence with Archbishop Spottis woode to restore Henderson the reader — and, to a certain extent, that the " Supplicants were to be aUowed to meet in their several counties for choosing delegates." On the evening of the following day, after devotional exercises in their own way, and solemn as severations of obedience and loyalty to their sovereign, which every act of their subsequent proceedings belied, they resolved to return to their several homes, leaving their iUegal council or coraraittee to raanage their affairs. The committees constituted by the " Supplicants" to sit In Edin burgh were soon distinguished by the eccentric soubriquet of the Tables, frora the circumstance of conducting their deliberations at four separate tables, or in four rooms, in the new Pariiaraent House. The Privy Council wrote to the King and to the Earl of Stirling, intimating that as it was then the season of the year for paying accounts, and transacting other civil and private business, they had not issued any proclaraation ordering strangers to leave Edin burgh, which in aU probabihty would have been disobeyed — that 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OP THE LITURGY. 527 they had arranged with the leaders to prevent any asserablages of disorderly persons — that the " Supplicants " had accused them of not properly representing to the King their objections to the Liturgy, and their fears at the unlimited powers of the High Court of Comraission — and that the said " Supplicants " had quietly dispersed, waiting to learn frora their agents in Edinburgh the King's reply. During this Interval the personages composing the four Tables organized their confederacy. Each Table consisted of so many individuals — four noblemen, four gentlemen, four ministers, and four burgesses — In aU, a council of sixteen, one from which constituted a General Table of ultimate resort ; but the Table of gentlemen was divided into a nuraber of subordinate ones accord ing to the several counties. Every raeasure which originated in the country was brought before the Table of the district, remitted to the General Table of sixteen, and then to the Table of four, whose decision was final. The Table of last resort, however, though intended to consist of a delegate from the other four, was soon monopolized by Rothes, Loudon, and Balmerino, and the rainisters Henderson and Dickson, whora Baillie facetiously designates the " two Archbishops^^ and who suggested and instructed all their measures. No tyranny could be more intolerable than that exercised by those raen whose pretensions and clalras were most outrageous. It is candidly admitted by Dr Aiton that " they soon became a new representative government In Scotland " — that " they in the end usurped the authority of the whole kingdora, and issued orders which were even obeyed with more promptitude than those of the most despotic of sovereigns." Towards the end of November the heroes of the Tables ascer tained that the Earl of Roxburgh had returned from Court, and that a meeting of the Privy Council was to be held at Linlithgow on the 7th of Deceraber. It was also ruraoured that the Earl had brought with hira certain Instructions, dated the 15th of No veraber. The Tables Iraraediately suramoned a meeting of the dele gates on the 5th of December, and were only persuaded not to proceed next day to Linlithgow by Traquair, who proraised that nothing would be done injurious to their Interests, and that their representatives would be fully heard at a Privy Council raeeting within four days afterwards. On the 7th the Council Issued three proclamations, one regulating their own raeetings, another thos© 528 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. of the Supreme Courts, and the third was the one already men tioned, assigning the King's reasons for delaying the consideration of the " Supphcation," and his abhorrence of " all superstition of popery." On that day the Earls of Rothes, Loudon, Montrose, Lindsay, and a private gentleman, raet the Earls of Traquair and Roxburgh. The latter referred to the King's conciliatory procla mation, which clearly indicated that no change of religion was in tended — advised Rothes and his party to limit their opposition solely to the Liturgy — and that they should alter their conduct, which was considered a rebellious combination, and present their coraplaints separately at different tiraes by counties. Rothes and the others in their reply imputed the whole blame to the Bishops, and they de manded that the Canons, Liturgy, and Court of High Comraission, should be suppressed. After a discussion of two days on the proposed mode of dividing their petitions it was rejected by the Tables as censuring all their former proceedings, of which Hen derson and Dickson, representing the preachers, inforraed the Council on the 11th. When this answer was returned — " My Lord Roxburgh," says Rothes, " did flee out in many great oaths that we would irritate a good King, in dealing with him in so peremp tory and rude a manner, acknowledging withal that the hand of God was in it, and that he feared he would employ all his power to maintain that which we sought in so rude a manner to over throw. Mr. Henderson did reprove him for his oft swearing." The Privy Council met on the 12th of Deceraber at Dalkeith, and Rothes and the other delegates attended to demand an answer to their " Supplication," or liberty to transmit their grievances directly to the King. They were refused to be admitted as a body, and were desired to send their docuraents, which they de clined, aUeging that they wished to address the Privy CouncU. They rejected the perraission that one of the Four Tables raight present their " Supplication." They were then Inforraed that seven or eight without distinction of rank would be admitted, but they replied that twelve were too few. After various unsuccessful con ferences, the Privy Council passed an Act on the 19th granting them admission on the 21st. On that day Loudon and his friends appeared before the Privy Council, at which no Bishop was present. Loudon presented copies of the former " Supplications," with a new complaint that they were designated rebels and sedi- 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 529 tious bankrupts. He then addressed the Privy Council in a long speech, adducing the usual declamations against the Canons, the Liturgy, the High Court of Comraission, the Bishops, the Ulegality of the " Innovations," and the necessity of the Council sending some of the principal Officers of State to represent the whole con troversy to the King. Fierce speeches were also delivered by Ramsay and the other disaffected preacher Cunningham. An act of the Privy Council was read to them, declaring that their " SuppUcations would be sent to the Com-t," and that they would be aUowed to speak on their declinature. When they returned from Dalkeith they wrote an " Historical Information" in defence of their proceedings, and a paper " against the Service-Book, Canons, and High Commission." They then appointed a com mittee to confer with Traquair and Roxburgh; new delegates were to attend in Edinburgh in March ; a fast day was ordered ; and the Professors In Colleges were warned not to sanction the Liturgy, and to beware of what they taught in their prelections. On the following day they left Edinburgh. It is alleged by a writer, in reference to the origin and progress of this contest, that the abolition of Episcopacy was not contem plated by the leaders — that they were rather convinced that the King's proceedings seriously affected civil and religious liberty — and that they chiefly disliked the influence of the Bishops in the Privy Council.* Yet it Is undeniable that the said leaders were the avowed enemies of the Church. The whole was a pohtical as well as a reUgious movement, carried on by men who excited the fanati cism of an ignorant populace. Baillie thus describes the madness which then prevailed : — " What shaU be the event God knows. There was In our land never such an appearance of a stir ; the whole people think Popery at the door ; ihe scandalous pamphlets which come daily from England add oil to the flame; no man raay speak any thing for the King's part, except he would have hiraself raarked for a sacrifice to be killed one day. / think our people possessed with a bloody devil, far above any thing I ever could have imagined though the Mass in Latin liad been presented. The rainisters who have tl)e coraraand of their raind disavow their unchristian humour, but are no way so zealous against the devil of their fury as they are against the seducing spirit of the Bishops. For myself I • Guthrie's History of Scotland, vol. ix. p, 292. 34 580 THE RIOTS AT EDINBURGH [1637. think God, to revenge the crying sins of all estates and profes sions, of which no exaraple of our neighbours' calamities would move us to repent, is going to execute his long denounced threatenings, and to give us over unto madnefes, that we may every one shoot our swords in our neighbours' hearts." In the same letter he says — " My heart Is for the present full sore for that poor land wherein we were bom, and Church where in we were regenerated. If it were not a God who perraitted a powerful devil to blind and enrage men against the common prin ciple of clear natural reason, [without reference to] equity or re ligion, / think both our Bishops and their opposers might be easily withdrawn from destroying themselves and their neighbours ; but God and devils are too strong for us. For as well as I have been beloved hitherto by all who have known me, yet I think I raay be killed, and ray house burnt upon [over] my head ; for I think It wicked and base to be carried down with the impetuous torrent of a multitude. My judgment cannot be altered by their motion, and so my person and estate may be drowned in their violence."* The connection ofthe Puritans, and other enemies of the Church of England, with the Scottish tumults and subsequent rebeUion, is distinctly adraitted by all writers on that unhappy period. But another powerful engine was at work, directed by Cardinal Richelieu, the minister of France, and although one of his three great and avowed schemes was the annihilation of the Calvinists as a political party, he was not scrupulous In his other measures of revenge. Charles I., ever hesitating in his foreign poUcy, had dis appointed the Cardinal in his proposal of a defensive league between France and England, and Inclined to a Spanish aUiance. Richelieu declared in a letter to the Count D'Estrades de Ruel — who had orders to tamper with some Scotsmen, particularly a certain nobleman and minister then at the English Court — dated 2d De cember 1637, that the King and Queen of England would repent the rejection of the treaty before the year was over. In this let ter he says — " I will pursue the advice you have given me as to Scotland, and will despatch thither the Abb6 Charabers, my Almoner, who is himself a Scotsman, and ,who shaU go to .Edin burgh to wait upon the two persons you have named to me, and to enter into a negotiation vrith thera." In another passage of • BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 23, 24. 1637.] AT THE FIRST USE OF THE LITURGY. 531 the same letter he says — " If your two Scottish friends are yet at London, tell thera to trust to whatever shall be communicated to them by the Abb^ Chambers, and give them a letter frora your self to that AbBot, which will serve as a signal to introduce thera to his corapany." Richelieu is accused of exciting the Puritans and Covenanters by the agency of a certain Father Joseph and the French Ambassador at London. As it respects Scotland, arms and ammunition were sent to Leith from France for the use of the disaffected in 1639. When the rebellion broke out not less a sura than 100,000 crowns of French money were deposited in the hands of General Leslie to defray the expences of the Covenanters, who could not in their poor and distracted country have obtained any adequate resources. Disguised emissaries were actively engaged both in England and Scotland, some of them pretending to be zealous defenders of the Church, others appearing as violent Puritans, and others as furious Presbyterians, but all intent on widening the breach between the King and his people. The invectives published by the Puritans and Presbyterians were cordially sanc tioned by those agents of RicheUeu, and the Jesuits were over joyed at the prospect of a coraraotion which held out to thera strong hopes of temporal advantage and ecclesiastical domination. Such Is a sketch of the political ferment carried on in the name of religion, and under the pretence of liberty, which agitated the greater part of Scotland at that period. Never was a tyranny more grinding, oppressive, and intolerable, than that which the Presbyterians were labouring to establish. The great conspiracy or combination against the Church now claims our attention. 532 [1638. CHAPTER XIII. THE NATIONAL COVENANT AND THE COVENANTERS. / The Earl of Traquair was suramoned to Court imraediately after the meeting of the Privy Council held on the 19th of December 1637. He refused to carry the " Historical Information" prepar ed and revised by the " Supplicants," but he allowed it to be entrusted to Sir John Hamilton of Orbieston, Lord Justice-Clerk, who accorapanied hira. At his first Interview Traquair detailed the state of affairs in Scotland, which distressed the King, who complained that the facts had either been concealed or greatly misrepresented. Traquair stated that an authentic account had been transmitted to the Earl of Stirling, but that nobleman blaraed Archbishop Laud for not laying the dispatches before the King. The Archbishop positively denied the charge, and he was not a man to resile from any transaction- vrith which he was concerned. The Earl of Traquair returned to Scotland on the 14th of Fe bruary 1638, and his arrival at Dalkeith was soon known. Num bers of the " Supplicants" resorted to Edinburgh, and the Earl was beset by several of the Nobility, and two individuals connected with the Tables, when he came to Edinburgh on the 15th. He cautiously informed the two delegates from the Tables, In the pre sence of the Earl of Roxburgh, that he had no comraunication to them — that though he was not aware when they might expect an answer, or by whom, he believed It would be soon ; and assured them that the King would consider their " Supphcations." On the following morning Rothes, at Traquair's request, had a long conference with him. Traquair Informed Rothes that all their " Supplications" were In possession of the King, who knew all their moveraents and leaders, mentioning their lawyers, especially 1638.] NATIONAL COVENANT AND THE COVENANTERS. 533 Mr John Nisbet,* as one of them, " who," says Rothes, " was not ; and reporting sundry other things which were mere mistakes and misinformation, though he knew many other things which toe thought had been kept mare close!'' " Has the King," asked Rothes, " seen the Historical Information which was sont up with the Lord Justice-Clerk ?" " There was no necessity," replied Traquair, " for it was previously in the press." " That," said Rothes, " could not be, for not a copy of that Information was ready before the one which the Justice-Clerk received." " The King," observed Tra quair, " has all the particulars, though he had not the Informa tion itself, but I believe he has now seen It." The Earl then com plained to Rothes of the unscrupulous conduct of the Presbyterians towards himself and the Earl of Roxburgh, while they were both in treaty with Archbishop Spottiswoode for " drawing things to a pacification," and aUeged that Rothes himself had " misinformed the King." " You seek," said Traquair, " the destruction of the Bishops, to which the King will never listen." " We crave no more," replied Rothes, " than the discharge of the Service-Book, Canons, and High Comraission — that no oath should be exacted from ministers than that allowed by the Act of Parliament, which gives Bishops the power of ordination — that Bishops might be re strained by these caveats whereon the Kirk and King condescend ed that they might not be uncontroulable, but liable to censure as the rest of the lieges." The Earl farther stated that his party demanded an annual General Assembly, adding that if the King rescinded the Five Articles of Perth he would receive a subsidy of L. 60,000 Scots money. " If," said Rothes jocularly, " there is no other mode of disposing of the Bishops, the noblemen, barons, and burgesses, would sit in judgment upon thera, and hang thera." " My Lord," replied Traquair in jest, " you are mad."-|- It is impossible to discuss the intrigues, conferences, and cor respondence of that period within the limits of the present vo lume, as connected with the Episcopal Church and Scottish history in general. They are aU repetitions of the same affairs, the same raen, the sarae principles, and the same contentions. The details * Previously noticed as one of Lord Balmerino's counsel, afterwards Sir John Nisbet, who became a Judge in the Court of Session by the title of Lord Dirleton, author of the well known work on Scottish law, entitled ' ' Dirleton's Doubts." X The Earl of Eothes' Eelation, printed forthe Bannatyne Club, p. 55, 56, 57. 534 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. are aU characterized by a kind of repulsive worldliness, and an utter want of honourable and candid principle on the part of the Scot tish Nobility who erabarked in the raoveraent. It raay be admitted that the King and his advisers were iraprudent in their ecclesias tical proceedings, and that they ought to have raade the use of the Liturgy optional, instead of rigidly deraanding a general conform ity in a matter on which the ignorant prejudices of the people were easily excited. Nevertheless a feeling of disgust cannot be suppressed at the perusal of the narratives of the Earl of Rothes and other actors In that raeraorable revolt — raen utterly destitute of any religious principle, who could jest unfeelingly on the raost serious subjects. The Government Issued no order to deprive men of their property, their honour, or their life. To quote the lan guage of the distinguished Presbyterian historian Dr Cook — " In fatuated as Charles was, he threatened no such evils. In the ardour of party zeal it was indeed strongly insinuated that he was steadily prosecuting the design of restoring Popery, but there is not the slightest eridence to support the insinuation. The account of the religious calaraities which the inhabitants of Scotland had to dread was the continuance of Episcopacy, or the atterapt to continue it ; but it surely may be doubted how far this was at the comraence raent of the disturbances a sufficient cause for actuaUy resisting the sovereign. Many ofthe clergy who joined in opposition to the Governraent had at this period no idea that Episcopacy was sub versive of Christianity ; all of thera had sworn obedience to the Bishops in whose Dioceses they rainistered ; and some of them ex pressly distinguished between Episcopacy as it existed in the tirae of Knox's Superintendents, and the Episcopacy which was now opposed, affirming that both ought to be reraoved, but that the for raer ought not to be abjured."* A somewhat sirallar view is ex pressed by the biographer of Henderson. " The Nobles," says Dr. Aiton, " were of one opinion, and guided by a single senti ment, and that sentiment evidently was a determined resistance to the Governraent, engendered by the spirit of revenge ever since the transference to the Crown of the Church lands which had been long in possession of the old Court favourites. Most appro priately did Bishop Leslie of The Isles compare the behaviour of the Presbyterians towards Charles to that of the Jews, who one * History ofthe Church of Scotland from the Eeformation, vol. ii. p. 415, 416. 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 535 day saluted Christ with loud acclamations, and the next day voci ferously demanded his crucifixion." The Privy Council was to meet at Stirling to issue the King's proclamation approving the Liturgy on the 20th of February, and the " Supphcants" prepared a remonstrance against it and the in tended prohibition of their future meetings. In opposition to the urgent advice of Traquair they resolved to appear in Stirling for mutual defence, as numerously as they could muster, with their protest. The Privy Council attempted to anticipate their march thither. Very early on the morning of the day previous to the meeting Traquair and Roxburgh left Edinburgh to publish the proclamation before the disaffected had risen from their nocturnal slumbers, but their intention was accidentally discovered by the folly of Traquair's servant, who halted at a hostelry for refresh ment, and mentioned to some persons in the house that he must immediately follow his master who was riding before hira to Stir ling. Lord Lindsay was in this hostelry on his way to StirUng with the Earl of Home and two gentlemen on behalf of the " Sup plicants ;" and his domestic, who overheard the conversation of Traquair's attendant, informed his master. Lindsay knew well the Earl's object. Summoning his friends, they were all soon on horse back, passed while it was stiU dark Traquair and Roxburgh, and entered Stirling before them. Ignorant of the movements of Home and Lindsay, who had stationed themselves at the Cross with their protestation attended by notaries, Traquair and Rox burgh entered the town about eight in the morning, and after breakfast, and waiting two hours for the specified number of the Privy Council to ratify the proclamation enforcing the Liturgy, they published It on their own responsibility at the Cross. The proclamation is inserted by Rushworth in his Historical Collections. All meetings of the " Supplicants" on those matters were pro hibited under the pain of rebellion, and all who were not members of the Privy Council were to leave Stirling within six hours, or be held as rebels. The proclamation was no sooner read than Horae and Lindsay affixed a copy of their protestation on the Cross. It stated their objections to the Liturgy and Canons, and their refusal to allow the Archbishops and Bishops to be their judges, until they " purge themselves of such crimes (!) as they [the Supplicants] had 536 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. already laid to their charge ;" and embodied their usual arguments, poUtical, civil, and ecclesiastical, against the Liturgy and Book of Canons. During the whole of the day arraed men resorted to Stirling from distances of forty miles, and no fewer than 2000 eventually assembled. They met In the old parish church near the Castle, and demanded a copy of the proclamation, which was refused till It was announced in the other towns. The presence of ¦ so many armed and dangerous enthusiasts in such a small town as Stirling was of a sufficiently alarming aspect, and, though the Privy Council raet in the Castle, the report of a raeditated attack on Archbishop Spottiswoode increased their apprehensions. They sent for Rothes, Montrose, and Werayss, to Induce their adherents to leave the town, assuring them that the " Supplicants" who might remain would be aUowed to present their declinature. The proposal to leave Stirling was at first resolutely opposed, but the influence of the three noblemen at length prevaUed, and they agreed to retire from the town in the afternoon, leaving a deputa tion to manage their affairs, who were admitted to a meeting of the Privy Council held after the departure of the " Supplicants," which was attended by Bishops Whiteford of Brechin and Sydserff of Gal loway. The deputation contended that those Bishops ought to be placed at the bar with themselves as parties, which caused some altercation. It seems that Bishop Sydserff was personally Insulted by the populace of Stirhng, and he encountered a mob of female enthusiasts at Falkirk, who pelted him with stones. On the 21st of February the royal proclaraation in favour of the Liturgy was published in Linlithgow, and on the following day at the Cross of Edinburgh. In the former town three per sons appeared with a protestation, but In the latter a large as semblage of the leading " Supphcants" raustered with their docu raent at the Cross. They resolved to appeal to the inhabitants of those districts who had not declared in their favour, and Rothes subraitted a letter to their consideration against the " Service- Book, Book of Canons, High Commission, and divers Proclamar tions." Loudon and Dickson also drew up an " Inforraation" to be sent to other parties. Those inflammatory documents sum raoned aU friendly to their movement to Edinburgh with the utraost expedition. A coramittee was chosen, consisting of four barons, four burgesses, and four ministers, to act with the NobUity ; and 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 537 they " fell upon the consideration," says Rothes, '¦ of a Bond of Union to be made legally ; also, after his Majesty was supphcated, and would not return an answer, a Declaration was thought on as the last act." This " Bond of Union" was the National Covenant, which embodied the Confession of Faith drawn up in 1580 and 1581, condemning episcopal government as existing in the Church of Rome, signed by King James in his youth, and again subscribed in 1590 and 1596. It was now proposed to adopt this Confession as a Covenant, and its supporters were to engage by oatb to raain tain religion as it appeared to them in 1580, rejecting what they considered " Innovations" since that time. On the 23d and 24th of February the disaffected " Supplicants" resorted in great numbers to Edinburgh in defiance of the pro clamation. They agreed to a motion by Loudon, that none of thera should hold farther Intercourse with the Privy Council without ge neral consent. Meanwhile Henderson and Johnston of Warriston were appointed to superintend the Covenant, which was to be revised by Loudon, Rothes, and Balraerino. On the following day, which was Sunday, a fast was ordered to be observed, and some of the more violent of the preachers were enjoined to prepare the minds of the people for the Intended Covenant. Two days after wards a scroll of the Covenant was produced, and sent to the Presbyterian rainisters for their concurrence. The National Covenant is inserted by Rushworth, who quotes the opinion of Dr Walter Balcanqual, the undoubted author of the King's celebrated Large Declaration. " The first dung," said the Dean of Rochester, " which frora these stables was thrown upon the face of authority and governraent was that lewd Covenant and sedi tious bond annexed to it." It consists of three divisions, the first being the Confession of 1580 ; the second enuraerates all the Acts passed against the Church of Rome in the reign of James, and in the Parliament of 1633 ; and the third refers to their own circum stances. The subscribers covertly swore to maintain Presbyterian ism, andto resist what they designated "contrary errors to the utter most of their powers, all the days of their lives." They were also to defend one another — that " whatsoever should be done to the least of them for that cause should be taken as done to all in general, and to every one In particular." The first part of the bond annexed to this Covenant was the production of Johnston of 538 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. Warriston, whose legal profession rendered him familiar with the Acts of Parliament, and the second part, against the Papal Church, was also his composition. The third part, in which they pretended " obedience to the coraraandraent of God," iraraediately following the enumeration of the Acts, was written by Henderson, " and this," Baillie observes, " was all the difficulty." Although this docu ment on the principles of comraon law sanctioned an illegal combin ation, Lord Advocate Hope declared that it contained nothing inconsistent with the allegiance of a true and loyal subject. Yet the so called National Covenant was threatened with oppo sition even in Edinburgh. It seems to have been apparently sug gested by Henderson to sorae of the Nobility and a few of the preachers. Baillie says — " The Nobleraen, with Mr Alexander Henderson and Mr David Dickson, resolve the renewing of the old Covenant for reUgion. A little inkling of this is given out at first to the rest!'' At one of the meetings on the day before it was submitted and approved, a gentleraan frora Ayrshire stated, as the decided conviction of raany persons belonging to his district, that the renewal of this Covenant implied that it had been previously void — and that some scrupled to sign because it contained opinions on sorae points contrary to their own, though they objected to the Liturgy. The Five Articles of Perth were also seriously dis cussed. Several of the rainisters said that they had sworn to ob serve those Articles, and to deny them would be to perjure them selves. The Earl of Rothes records that he contrived to remove this important difficulty. One of them, however, was not satisfied, alleging that he had " positively sworn to observe the Articles during the time of his ministry." Rothes replied, in reference to kneeling at the Communion — " At that time the raeraory of super stition and idolatry was past, and therefore it was thought good to kneel ; now, superstition and Idolatry are re-entering, why should we not also abstain from the gesture ? A man is not tied to an unreasonable oath. When the oath appears now unreason able he is no longer bound." This miserable sophistry satisfied the objector. Another asked — " As an oath could only be exact ed by a superior, how could this oath [the Covenant] be exacted of thera?" Rothes alluded to Acts of Pariiaraent and of the Privy Council, shewing that rainisters were bound to exact an oath to the Confession of Faith frora their parishioners, though It was 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 539 unnecessary from those who were ready to swear ; and besides, the Covenant was " an oath whereunto none were to be compelled, but It was expected that all would willingly condescend, and make their oath to Almighty God." On the last day of February, or on the Ist of March, probably on both days, this " National Covenant" was signed in the Greyfriars' church and church-yard at Edinburgh. It is said that 60,000 par tizans had resorted to the city, but considering its then limited ex tent, and the population of Scotland at the time, this must be an exaggeration. It appears that doubts and perplexities marked the discussions on the Covenant, some arguing that it was illegal, others that it went too far, and others that they were not exactly prepared to receive it as binding them by an oath. The Earl of CassiUis, Baillie, and others from the Western counties, were most reluctant to have any connection with the Covenant at the prelirainary ar rangeraents. Referring to sundry serraons preached at the time, BaiUie states that the " plainness" of Mr Rollock " made hira sus pect their intention In this new Covenant to make them forswear Bishops and cereraonies in their raeetings." — " I had," he continues, " discovered the sarae raind in sorae, alleging over and over [again] that the Achan of our land was the breach of our Covenant, in ad raitting against the oath of our nation the governraent of Bishops and Articles of Perth. To this I gave so sharp and so modest a re ply, that excluded thereafter this motion from this meeting. But I was filled with fear and great perplexity, that the bond which I found was conceiving should contain any such clauses ; for this, I thought, would inevitably open a gap, and make a present division in the rainistry, which was the earnest desire and sure victory of the Bishops." Baillie adds — " Some other clauses also, which might have seemed to import a defence in arms against the King, these I would could not yield to in any imaginable case." These explanations were at length considered satisfactory, and Baillie writes — " It is expected that this day the hands of all estates shaU be put to It [the Covenant], and thereafter a declaration shall be made of our innocency in this whole proceeding, and of the Injustice of the Bishops, with an earnest desire to have our Prince informed in the truth of this cause by way of the most humble Supplication. We have yet no assurance or warrant that any one line of the Book shall be remitted, but hopes are made of 540 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. withdrawing Liturgy, and Canons, and Comraission, and aU, If we would let the Bishops alone ; but the most part are peremptorUy resolved not to endure any longer their lawless tyranny."* Having adjusted all their disputes, sophistical arguments, and very questionable explanations, it was agreed that the leaders should meet in the Greyfriars' church in the afternoon to sub scribe the Covenant. Henderson opened the proceedings in the church with a long prayer, and the Covenant was then read by John ston of Warriston from " a fair parchment above an ell square." Those from the southern and western counties who had any doubts were ordered by Rothes to go to the west end of the church, where Loudon and Dickson would act as confessors ; and those connected with the counties of Linlithgow, Edinburgh, and Had dington, and frora the north side of the Frith of Forth, were to wait on him and Henderson in the east end for the same purpose. About four o'clock the leaders among the Nobility subscribed, and after thera the sraall barons. The signing of the Covenant con tinued till eight that evening. John thirteenth Earl of Sutherland was the first who signed, and the second is said to have been Sir An drew Murray of Balvaird, minister of Abdie in Fife, who had been knighted by Charles I. at his coronation in 1633, and was created Lord Balvaird in 1641 , which elicited the censure of a subsequent General Assembly, who ordered him not to assurae improper titles. The Covenant was then carried to the burying-ground, spread upon a flat grave-stone, and signed by as raany as could approach. It is raentioned as an extraordinary instance of their fanaticism, that hundreds not only added to their names the words till death, but actually cut themselves, and subscribed it with their blood. Every part of the parchment-sheet of " above an ell square" was crowded with names, the raarglns were scrolled over, and at last many were obliged to be content with adhibiting their Initials. While this was in progress many of the enthusiasts wept bitterly, nurabers groaned as if convulsed, others seeraed to be corapletely happy, and a few shouted with joy. AU confirmed their subscrip tions by a soleran oath. A general oath was then adralnistered, to which they assented by tumultuously lifting up their right hands, and the crowd retired. On the following day Rothes, Lindsay, Loudon, and others * BaUlie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 52, 53, 54. 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 541 of their party, went to the Tailors' HaU in the Cowgate, where the Presbyterian preachers from the country were assembled. Nearly three hundred of them, exclusive of the delegates from the burghs, signed it that night. The Covenant was next carried for signature through the city, and it was followed in its itinerating progress from house to house by numbers of women and children, howUng, groaning, and weeping. It Is said that raultitudes of the latter were allowed to subscribe, or rather, as raany of them could not write, their hands were guided in their signatures, though Rothes states that only communicants were permitted to put their hands to the parchment. It is certain that much violence was used in sorae of the towns to procure naraes, especially in St An drews and Glasgow, and personal compulsion was inflicted in numer ous instances. All classes were admitted, and many were terrified into compliance by most appalling threats of Divine judgments. In the case of those who could not write public notaries were constantly in attendance. On Friday the 2d of March, a copy was transmitted to every county for signature in the parishes. Some of the Nobility took copies of it, signed by themselves, and solicited the signatures of those whom they met. This accounts for the existence of so many originals. In the Advocates' Li brary at Edinburgh five copies written on parchment are pre served, with the original signatures of Rothes, Loudon, Montrose, and many others of the leaders araong the Nobility and gentry. Only one of these five copies, however. Is apparently connected with the first signing of the National Covenant, and the other four, which are dated 1639, were subscribed after it was ratified by the General Asserably. When Archbishop Spottiswoode returned to Edinburgh, and was informed of the subscription to the Covenant, he is said to have exclaimed — " All which we have been attempting to build up during the last thirty years is now at once thrown down." On the 1st of March the Privy CouncU met at Stirling, which was attended by the Officers of State, Bishop Whiteford of Brechin, and eleven of the Nobility. The cause of this meeting was the " corabustion within the country." A letter was read from Arch bishop Spottiswoode, excusing himself frora attending according to his proraise. Traquair inforraed the Council that he had request ed the Archbishop as Lord ChanceUor to raeet them, and the CouncU 542 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. adjourned tiU the following morning. The Archbishop's letter was ordered to be entered In the Register of the Privy Council, and is a proof of the moderate principles of that great and good man. His letter, which is very short, is dated " Edinburgh, the last day of February 1638," and he states, as his deliberate opinion — " Your Lordship knows ray mind In the chiefest business which is to be entreated, which I assure myself will be the mind of all good clergymen, that is, to lay aside the Book, and not to press the subjects with it any more, rather than to bring It in with such trouble of the Church and the kingdom as we see ; but I should wish aU this to be fairly carried, without any touch to his Majesty's honour, and the opening of a door to the disobedience of Ill-affected people." On the following day the Privy Council unanimously resolved that the causes ofthe " combustion " were the Liturgy, Car nons, and High Comraission, which were consideredbymany as " con trary or without sanction ofthe laws ofthe kingdom." At another raeeting they declared that having In vain atterapted to prohibit large asserablages by proclaraations, they " can do no farther than is already done;" and they appointed the Lord Justice-Clerk Hamil ton of Orbieston to proceed to London, and lay before the King a true representation of the state of the kingdom. Other letters of the same date were vn-itten by members of the Privy CouncU to the King and the Marquis of Hamilton.* The Covenanters, as they raay now be designated, were not be hind in exercising such influence at Court as they possessed. We have seen that in addition to their opposition to the Liturgy and Book of Canons, their public allegation against both was that they were introduced without the sanction of Pariiaraent and the General Asserably. This specious objection had great Influence with many, yet It could not include the Five Articles of Perth. Al though they furiously complained of them as " innovations," they well knew that those Articles were sanctioned by the ParUaments of 1621 and 1633. After signing the Covenant, and organizing themselves throughout the country, their leaders soon saw that they were imitating the very course they denounced — that of adopting a Con fession of Faith and Covenant without the sanction of a General ' Those letters are inserted by Bishop Bumet in his " Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton," in which work are several important original letters and documents con nected with that eventful period. 1638.]' * AND THE COVENANTERS. 543 Assembly, while they were also levying subsidies without the au thority of the Government. Henderson and his party, called the Easterns, coincided with Loudon, Baillie, and the Westerns, and it was resolved to deraand a General Assembly and a Parliament, to " sanction," as Dr Aiton says, " their daring measures." On the 13th of March they concocted another "Supplication" directed to the King, justifying their own conduct, insolently blaming the Bishops, requesting a General Asserably and a Pariiaraent, and hypocritically concluding with an assurance to his Majesty that next to their salva tion they would render hira dutiful obedience, praying that his reign might be long, peaceable, and prosperous. They also resolved to send Livingston, of Irish notoriety, who was now a preacher in Scotland, to the Court with letters to the Duke of Lennox, the Marquis of Harailton, and the Earls of Haddington and Morton, soliciting their influence in behalf of their " Supplication." The Earl of Traquair had already written to the Marquis of Harailton by the Lord Justice-Clerk, stating that unless the King withdrew the Liturgy he must be prepared to oppose force to force. The Justice-Clerk passed Livingstone on the road, arrived first at Court, informed the King of the object of the Covenanter's mission, and added that before he came to Scotland he had been deposed, degraded, and excommunicated by the Church of Ireland. The Earl of Had dington protected him from prison by secreting him for a few days, and sent him back to Edinburgh with a mass of important private correspondence. It seems, however, that they had employed a Mr George Hallyburton on their mission. The " Supplication" was returned to the Covenanters in his hands unopened, and they were informed merely as individuals that the King would consult the Privy CouncU, and intimate his sentiments by a proclamation. Traquair, Roxburgh, and Lome, were summoned to Court, carry- mg with them the extraordinary opinion of sorae lawyers in Edin burgh that the Covenanters had not acted Illegally, or were guilty of sedition. Meanwhile the Covenanters proceeded in their raraifications. On the 5th of March the delegates from the burghs were ordered to write to their constituents " not to be afraid of proclamations," and to send them a copy of the protest and of the Covenant. Their partizans in the burghs were enjoined to keep a list of those who signed and those who refused, which they were to transmit to- 544 THE NATIONAL COVENANT* [1638. Edinburgh. A deputation of four lairds was appointed to "go North," and confer with the Marquis of Huntley and other chiefs of Influence in Aberdeenshire, Banffshire, and Morayshire. On tha 6th It was unanimously resolved, that if any individual Covenanter was " criminaUy pursued," or " processed," aU should be ready to assist. Sundry noblemen and others were appointed to visit the Colleges of Edinburgh, Glasgow, St Andrews, and Aberdeen, to " press the subscription of the Confession and Covenant ;" minor detaUs were arranged ; and sorae of the preachers were authorized to refute the Service-Book and Canons for " inforraation and pub Uc use, and that with convenient expedition." The reception of the Covenant was different in the CoUeges. Those of St Andrews and Edinburgh subscribed with few excep tions, butin Aberdeen it encountered the raost deterralned opposition from the two Colleges, the Professors in which, men of great learn ing, known as the Aberdeen Doctors, who, as Bumet says, " were an honour to the Church," would listen to it on no conditions. Dr Barron and Dr Forbes, the latter then Professor of Divinity In King's College, the son of Bishop Patrick Forbes of Aberdeen, defended the Liturgy, and assailed the whole systera of Presby terianism. In the CoUege of Glasgow, too, the Covenant was vigorously resisted. " The greatest oppositionists in the West to this subscription," says BaiUie, " are our friends in Glasgow ; all the College without exception ; Mr John Maxwell, Mr John Bell younger, and Mr Zachary [Boyd], are not only withdrawers of their hands, but all of them pathetic reasoners against it." He mentions only two — " old Mr John Bell and Mr Robert Wilkie — ^" as " passionately for it, albeit half derided by the others as simple fools." BaiUie farther states that Lord Boyd, four others, and " I, went in as commissioners from the meeting at Edinburgh to join with the rest, but I foresaw it was in vain, for no reasoning could move any of them to pass frora the smallest of their scruples, which they yet multiplied. We left them resolved to celebrate the comraunion on Pasch [Easter] day in the High Church kneel ing, but Mr Robert WUkie and Mr John Bell are resolved to pass that day, and the next Sabbath to celebrate sitting in the Low Kim." The Covenanters were raore successful in the towns, and their peregrinations to procure signatures occupied them consi derably during the months of April and May. 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 545 On the 20th of April a raeeting of the Covenanting noblemen was held to consider the answers of the Duke of Lennox, the Mar quis of Hamilton, and the Earl of Morton, brought on the 16th by Mr George Hallyburton in reply to the letters from the " Sup plicants." Lennox wrote to Rothes, Hamilton to Montrose, and Morton to CassUlis. Rothes has preserved his, and raentions that the other two were similarly expressed. Lennox stated that HamUton, Morton, and hiraself, had jointly read their letters, and acquainted the King with the contents, who commanded them to write that he was ever willing to receive petitions properly " con ceived in matter and form" — that the Privy Council had duly transmitted their Supplications, respecting which various direc tions had been issued — and that the King would soon declare and explain his Intentions, and thereby free his subjects from any fears of " innovations of religion." Rothes, Montrose, and Cas sillis, sent in reply a document to the Duke of Lennox, with a long note written by Henderson, containing eight " Articles for the present peace of the Kirk and Kingdom of Scotland." Those were, 1. Withdrawal of the Liturgy and Canons. 2. Abolition of the High Comraission. 3. Revocation of the Perth Articles. 4. Limitation of Churchmen to vote in Parliament. 5. That tlie act of 1592, conferring on Presbyteries the power of collating and ordaining ministers to benefices, or of depriving, should be re stored. 6. An annual General Assembly. 7. The sumraoning of a Pariiaraent. 8. That if such were sanctioned, raore particular suggestions for restoring peace would be submitted to the said General Assembly and Parliament. As to the National Covenant itself, although its object could not be misunderstood, it contains no direct denial of the royal authority and the episcopal governraent of the Church. This obtained for it signatures from many who were opposed to violent raeasures, and who never conteraplated the overthrow of the Epis copal Church. In a letter to Principal Strang of Glasgow, who had signed it, " so far as that it was not prejudicial to the King's authority, the office of episcopal govemment Itself, and that power which is given to Bishops by lawful Assemblies and Parlia ments," Baillie says — " If ye saw any thing into this Covenant which, either in express terras, or by any good consequence, could Infer the contradiction of any of these things ye narae, ye might 35 546 THE NATIONAL COVENANT [1638. not in any terms, on any exposition or limitation, offer to sub scribe it." He declares that he could see no word in it against the King's " fuU authority," or " against the office of Bishops ;" and he says — " Not only I believe this, but have professed so rauch more before the whole raeeting at Edinburgh, often both in word and write, without the least appearance of contradiction to this hour." But he at once assigns the reasons for the whole movement, which he credulously believed — " Our main fear [is] to have our religion lost, our throats cutted, our poor country made an English province, to be disposed upon for ever hereafter at the wUl of a Bishop of Canterbury." Such were the false and in famous statements which roused into madness the Covenanting populace. The intolerance of the faction is well described by Bishop MitcheU, then one of the ministers of Edinburgh, in a letter, dated Edinburgh, 19th March, to Dr John Leslie, Bishop of Raphoe, translated from the Diocese of The Isles in 1633, who must not be identified with Bishop Henry Leslie of Down — " Truly it is like enough I will be brought to that necessity to leave ray charge here, and then there is no man to whom I will be raore willing to be beholding [than to your Lordship.] It would cause any man's ears to tingle to hear what a pitiful plunge this Church and kingdom are in. The greater part of the kingdom have subscribed, and the rest are daily subscrib ing, a Covenant. It is the oath of the King's house 1580, with strange additions, a rautual corabination for resistance of all novations In reUgion, doctrine, and discipline, and rites of wor ship that have been brought in since that time ; so as if the least of the subscribers be touched (and there be some of them not ten years of age, and some not worth twopence), that aU shaU concur for their defence, and for the expulsion of all Papists and adversaries, that Is, all that will not subscribe, out of the Church and Kingdom, according to the laws, whereof one hundred are cited in the carta. This goes on apace. The true (!) pastors are brought in to Edinburgh to cry out against us wolves ; and they, with our brethren, Mr A. Ramsay, Mr H. RoUock, and your whilorae friend the Principal [Adarason], crying out that they are neither good Christians nor good subjects that do not subscribe, nay, nor in covenant with God, have raade us so odious that we dare not go on the streets. I have been dogged by some gentlemen, and 1638.] AND THE COVENANTERS. 547 followed with many mumbled threatenings behind my back ; and then, when I was up stairs, swords drawn, and [they exclaimed] — ' If they had the papist vUlain, 0 !' Yet I thank God I am living to serve God and the King, and the Church and your Lord ship. There is nothing expected here but civil war. There Is no meeting of Council. The Chancellor [Spottiswoode] may not with safety attend it, nor any Bishop ; the very name is more odious among old and young than the devil's. Galloway takes shelter under the Treasurer's [Traquair] wings ; he draws him out to known dangers, and then raakes a show of protection. Ross keeps at home still, and keeps up the Service in his cathedral, but I fear shall not be able long. What was told your Lordship of his disclaiming the [Service] Book was most false ; Dun and he never spake together. Conceming the other point of your postscript, that the Book is a transcript of King Edward's Book, that is not true neither. I know my Lord [Bishop] of Ross sent a copy of ours to your Lordship, and the other you may have, and can compare them. They are somewhat like in the Communion, and great need there was to return to '\t propter sacramentarios. But now, when all shall be discharged, Service-Book, Canons, and High Commission, they will not rest there ; there is some other design in their heads. There are still here 500 commissioners of the estates ; they relieve one another by course, as Castor and PoUux went to hell. They sit daily, and make new laws ; their protestations and decrees begin thus — ' We, Noblemen, Barons, Gentlemen, Burgesses, Ministers, and Coraraons.' They depose moderators of Presbyteries, and choose new. Mr ]\Iatthew Wemyss subscribed on Friday, preached for the Covenanters on Sunday, and discharged the organ. I have neither more time nor paper. God send this Church peace, preserve yours, and send you better news next."* • Original in Wodrow MSS. folio, vol. Ixvi. No. 49, in Appendix to Principal BaUlie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. I, p. 463-464. 548 [1638. CHAPTER XIV. THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. James third Marquis of Hamilton and second Earl of Cambridge, created in 1643 first Duke of Hamilton, whose fate in March 1649 was as unfortunate as that of his sovereign, was nominated Lord High Comraissioner to Scotland by the King, to aUay the religious and political distractions, and to restore peace to the kingdora. Charles announced his selection of the Marquis, In preference to certain others of the Scottish Nobility, to Arch bishops Laud and Spottiswoode, and to the Bishops of Galloway, Brechin, and Ross, In his closet at WhitehaU. On the 7th of May the appointraent was intimated in Scotland ; and on the 16th the Marquis received his instructions, which were remarkably moderate and conciliatory. The only direct references to the Church are short. He was to admit no petition against the Five Articles of Perth, though for the present he was not to press the observance of them ; the Acts of the Privy Council enjoining the Liturgy were suspended ; and the Privy Council and Supreme Courts were to return to Edinburgh as soon as the citizens ab rogated the Covenant, which was to be within six weeks or less, as set forth in the royal Declaration. About this time the Scottish Bishops transmitted to Arch bishop Spottiswoode and their brethren, then in London, a detail of grievances, signed by the Bishops of Edinburgh, Dunblane, and ArgyU, and by Mr Hannay, Dean of Edinburgh, and Messrs Mitchell and Fletcher. They coraplained of the violent and iUegal conduct of the Covenanters in changing the moderators of Pres byteries, maltreating several of the parochial clergy, giving " im position of hands" without the knowledge of the Bishop — inducting 1638.] the CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH. 549 seditious and banished preachers from Ireland into parishes — threatening to depose the clergy — removing Alexander Henderson from Leuchars to Edinburgh without the consent of the Bishop — that " the rainisters of Edinburgh who have not subscribed the Covenant were daily raUed and cursed to their faces, and their stipends not paid ; and that all ministers who have not subscribed are in the same case and condition with them." The Marquis of Hamilton coraraenced his journey on the 26th May, and on the 3d of June he reached Berwick. He was there inforraed by the Earls of Roxburgh and Lauderdale, and Lord Lindsay, of the state of Edinburgh, that there was little hope of the abandonment of the Covenant, and that they demanded the aboli tion of the Five Articles of Perth, and a Parliament and General Assembly, otherwise they would call the latter themselves before they left the city. Notwithstanding this discouraging intelligence the Marquis resolved to try the influence of his authority as High Commissioner. The leaders of the Covenanters prohibited any of their party to wait on him ; and his escort from Berwick, with the exception of his own friends, relations, and attendants, was limited. Even at Haddington a very few of the Nobility and Barons waited to escort him ; yet when he approached Dalkeith he was conducted into that town by a splendid cavalcade, consist ing of the Privy Council, the Judges of the Supreme Courts, and a great number of the Nobility and gentry who were opposed to the Covenant. Previous to his arrival at Dalkeith he was con vinced, from the inteUigence he had received, that there was no chance of treating with the Covenanters, and he despatched a mes senger to the King to prepare him for strong measures, espe ciaUy advising him to prevent the purchase of arms by the agents of the Covenanters on the Continent. The nomination of the Marquis of Harailton was by no raeans popular araong the Covenanters, though some writers have doubted his sincerity, and accuse him of secretly encouraging the move ment. It is true that his mother. Lady Anne Cunningham, a daughter of James seventh Earl of Glencairn, had become a zealous adherent of the Covenanters, and her father's family since the Reformation were noted for their attachment to the then democratic Presbyterianism. So zealous was this lady in the cause, that in 1639, when the Marquis arrived In the Frith 550 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. of Forth with a force to overawe the Covenanters, his raother appeared on the shore at the head of a body of raounted troopers, drew a pistol frora her saddle-bow, and declared that she would be the first to shoot her son If he landed and attacked his countryraen. Yet they recoUected that he was a courtier — the relative of the King — and that his father, the second Marquis, had zealously pro moted the Five Articles of Perth, which were ratified by the Par Uament in 1621. The Marquis was aware of the arduous duty de volved upon him by the King, to whom he candidly stated that he considered his chance of success utterly hopeless and the employment hazardous. After his arrival at Dalkeith the Covenanting preachers soon declared against him. Before his proposals or intentions could be known he was violently denounced in their sermons, the King was charged with treachery, and their followers were warned to listen to no terms of accoraraodation, which were so many snares laid for their destruction. They maintained that the whole was a plan devised by Archbishop Laud to introduce Popery, and this falsehood was accompanied with every anathema which their ingenuity could devise. Their adherents were told that if they submitted they would be perjured traitors, betrayers of Jesus Christ and of the true religion, endangering the salvation of their souls ; and addresses and resolutions were circulated through out the kingdora with incredible celerity. New committees were constituted, and measures were adopted to procure a supply of arms. Nor were the praises of the Covenant forgotten. As Prynne in England had declared that Christ was a Puritan, so in Scotland the people were taught to believe that Christ teas a Covenanter ! He was the " Covenanted Jesus ;" they declaimed about their " Covenanted God" and " Covenanted Kirk ;" and as they now had a " Covenanted Bridegroom," they would never rest tiU they had a " Covenanted King." Mr Cant, In a ser mon at Glasgow, told his audience that he was " sent to them with a commission from Christ to bid them subscribe, it being Christ's contract — that he carae as a wooer for the bridegroom to call upon them to be hand-fasted by subscribing the contract — and that he would not depart tiU he had got the names of all refusers, of whora he would coraplain to his Master." Such was the state of public feeling when the Marquis suraraoned the Privy Council at Dalkeith. A deputation arrived from the 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 551 Town-Council of Edinburgh entreating him to reside at Holyrood house, which would be raore convenient for the public. The Marquis refused to enter Edinburgh, because the city was in the hands of armed rebels under the guidance of the Tables, who on the other hand declared that they would not wait on him at Dal keith, under the pretence that they were likely to be blown up with gunpowder taken sorae days previously from a vessel at Leith, and removed for security to Dalkeith, as all access to the Castle of Edinburgh was then prevented by the Covenanters. At length, however, he consented on the condition that the j)eaceable conduct of the multitudes In the city was guaranteed, and the guards at the gates and before the Castle were withdrawn. To this they agreed, and Friday -the Oth of June was appointed for his arrival at Holyroodhouse. The Covenanters on this occasion resolved to make a display of numerical force. For some reasons of his owm, instead of proceed ing direct from Dalkeith to Edinburgh the Marquis diverged by Inveresk to Musselburgh, four miles from the former town on the shore, and six railes from Edinburgh. From Musselburgh the Marquis and his cortege rode along the coast on the present line of the post road, passing over the ground on which the large modern parliamentary burgh of Portobello is built, and the now irrigated tract of land then covered \\ith furze, known as the Figgate Whins, to the common called Leith Links. During this progress the Marquis was followed by thousands who uttered loud excla mations against Popery, Bishops, and the Book of Common Prayer. It is stated by the contemporary writers that no fewer than 60,000 persons appeared, of whom a large proportion were women, though the Earl of Rothes limits the numbers to above 20,000. When the Marquis was approaching Leith Links he was met by thirty of the Covenanting Nobility, and the gentry marshalled themselves in a line along the sea-side extending nearly two miles in length. Passing through this array of the Covenanters, he perceived on an eminence near the east end of Leith Links from 500 to 600 of their preachers all dressed in their black Geneva cloaks, It was here intended to edify him with a speech, though Burnet states that four were to be delivered. Baillie, who was present, says — " We had appointed Mr WiUiam Livingstone, the strongest in voice and austerest In countenance of us all, to make him a short welcome." This individual, then a presbyterian preacher at Lanark 552 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638 was the brother of savoury Mr John Livingstone. But the Marquis was spared this infiiction to the no small disappointment ofthe Cove nanters. Dr Walter Balcanqual, Dean of Rochester, who attended him as chaplain, informed him that the repulsive-looking Mr Livingstone, whom he described as " one of the most seditious of the whole pack," would deliver an invective against the Bishops ; and the Marquis merely bowed to the Covenanter, telling him that he was aware of his intention, but that " harangues on the field were for princes, and above his place, yet what he had to say he should hear it gladly in private." The crowd on the Links, and on the road to Edinburgh, upwards of a mile distant, was im mense. At the Watergate of the Canongate, close to the Palace of Holyroodhouse, the Marquis was received by the Magis trates of the city. Baillie records that Harailton was affected to tears during his progress at the sight of the vast asserablage, and at the apparent earnestness expressed in the countenances of the Covenanters. As Dr Walter Balcanqual is here noticed as attending the Marquis in the capacity of his chaplain, and as he Is repeatedly raentioned in the present volurae, it raay be here stated that he was well acquainted with raany of the Covenanting preachers. He was a native of Edinburgh, of which his father had been a turbulent minister for forty-three years previous to 1616. The son, who was educated at Pembroke College, Oxford, enjoyed the patronage and friendship of King James and King Charles. Dr Balcanqual, it is stated by Burnet in his " Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton," came with the Marquis " as his council in Church affairs, which trust he discharged -faithfully and diligently, and received those Informations which were raade public In the Large Declaration as penned by him." He is intimately connected with one of the noblest charitable Institutions in Great Britain — George Heriot's Hospital at Edinburgh. Heriot, at his death in February 1624, ordained Dr Balcanqual to be the principal of the three executors of his last will, and to undertake the important charge of the erection of his Hospital In their native city. The building was In very slow progress In 16.38, though the founda tion-stone had been laid by Dr Balcanqual in person in 1628. One private object of his attendance on the Marquis of Hamilton on this occasion was the affairs of the Hospital. It was, however, surmised by the Covenanters that he was deputed by Archbishop 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 553 Laud as a spy both on the Marquis and on themselves. The Marquis had resolved after his arrival at Holyroodhouse to attend Divine service in the Chapel-Royal, where Dr Balcanqual was to officiate. The Covenanters contrived to enter the chapel secretly and nail up the organ, and they intimated to the Marquis that if the " English Service-Book " was again used the person who officiated would hazard his life. Much of their enmity was directed against Dr Balcanqual, although the raanner in which he offended them is not recorded. In the " Canterburian's^ Self-Conviction," written by BaUlie against Archbishop Laud, he is mentioned with- such asperity as to show that if he had fallen into the hands of Covenanters, he would not have been forgotten in their Infamous and vindictive persecution of the martyi-ed Primate of England. The Marquis of Hamilton delayed to pubUsh the King's Decla ration, lest it should be met by a protestation from the Covenan ters. In reality, on the Tuesday after his arrival, in a long con ference at Holyroodhouse, where he stated to the leaders that they would receive an answer by a public proclamation, he was inso lently told that for every such document a protestation would be in readiness. He wrote to the King that their demands must be con ceded, or they must be opposed by arms, at the same time recom mending leniency rather than the disastrous consequences of a civil war. On the 15th of June the Marquis was informed in a letter from the King that the proceedings of the Covenanters were so intolerable that he had resolved to reduce them by force— that the Marquis was to take possession of the Castles of Edinburgh and Stirling — that he might flatter thera as he pleased, but that he was not to consent to the summoning of a ParUament and General Assembly " until the Covenant be disavowed and given up" — that he [the King] " would rather die than yield to their impertinent and damnable demands," as he [the Marquis] rightly caUed them — " in a word," concluded the King, " gain time by all the honest means you can, without forsaking your ground." When the Covenanters found that no concessions would be of fered unless they relinquished the Covenant their rage was un bounded. In the four sermons which their preachers were in the habit of delivering every day, except Saturday, the most furious and inflammatory imprecations were uttered, not forgetting to compliment the Marquis tha,t faggots were prepared for him in hell I 554 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. As for the Covenant, they bound themselves to abide by it with their lives. They were duly informed of the preparations against them. They received letters frora the Earl of Haddington and others at the Court, announcing that the King had resolved to " speak to thera frora the cannon's raonth." They had also learned that a powerful fleet was preparing to sail for the Frith of Forth and blockade the east and south-east coast of Scotland — that a strong force was to be landed from Ireland in the Western counties — and that the loyal Clans and followers of the influential Nobility opposed to the Covenant, assisted by the Roman Catholic Chiefs and their numerous dependants, were to act against them in the centre of the kingdom. All this intelli gence induced them before the arrival of the Marquis to form a secret treaty, one of the articles of which enjoined their former committee to act with diligence about arms and other warlike preparations. The secret arrival of the stores at Leith for the use of the garrison of Edinburgh Castle, which were disembarked at Fisherrow harbour, close to Musselburgh, and sent up to Dalkeith, although they quadrupled the number of those stores, served to convince them that they must prepare for action. It is unnecessary to enter Into minute details of the proclama tions, and the protestations to the same by the Covenanters. On the 16th of June they presented a petition to the Marquis in Holyroodhouse, and demanded Instant redress of their grievances as they could no longer delay. He told them that he had resolved to summon a General Assembly and Parliament, but they con sidered even this answer as now unsatisfactory. They wanted the King to accept an Explanation of their Covenant, by which it would be seen that it was not iUegal or derogatory to the royal authority. Rushworth asserts that the draught of this Explana tion was made by Archbishop Spottiswoode. Bishop Burnet also observes — " To this I shall add a surprising thing, that I find the Archbishop of St Andrews was for accepting an Explanation of the Covenant, for a draught of It yet remains under his pen," and he inserts the document entire.* It ostentatiously set forth their regret that the King was offended at their " Bond or Covenant for the maintaining of the true religion and purity of God's worship In this kingdom, as If they had thereby usurped his Majesty's • Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton, p. 58. 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 555 authority," and they £\|ffected solemnly to protest that all their proceedings " were only for the maintaining of the true religion by thera professed." They concluded by requesting a General Assera bly and Pariiaraent, for removing their fears of the " introduction into the Church of another form of worship than that to which they had been accustomed." This " Explanation" was transmitted to the King, who on the 25th of June returned an indignant reply. His Majesty declared that as to the " Explanation" of their " damnable Covenant, whether with or without it," he was left with no more power In Scotland than a Duke of Venice, which he would rather die than suffer, yet he recoraraended the Marquis to prudently listen to it that he might gain time. He said that he would not be sorry if they called a General Assembly and Parlia ment without his authority, which would the more loudly shew thera to be traitors and justify his actions. He thought his De claration should no longer be delayed, but that was a mere opinion, not a coraraand. The Marquis of Hamilton in vain expostulated, in his numerous and tedious conferences with the Covenanters, that they were driving matters to such an extremity by insulting the King's honour, that the result would be such as to render the Scottish nation the basest under the sun. When the Marquis was at one of those wearisome interviews he asked Rothes what the Covenanters intended to do in the General Assembly and Parlia ment, the reply was that the latter would doubtless satisfy the proceedings of the former, but no one could say what those would be till the Assembly met. The dissimulation of Rothes is obvious. He knew well that his party had concocted the business of the Assembly. Their grand object was to procure the meeting of the Assembly before the Parliament, and towards this all their plans were directed. The Marquis of Harailton at this crisis resolved to return to London. He told Rothes that he would " rather lose his life and all he had before he was put to such trouble and vexation as he had been this tirae past." He obtained leave on the 29th of June, which he intimated to the Covenanting leaders, stating that he would lay all their petitions before the King, and return them an answer within three weeks or a month. The Marquis induced the Covenanters to dismiss their adherents. He restored the Court of Session to Edinburgh, pledged himself that no prociama- 556 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. tions or alterations would be allov/ed in his absence, and that the Bishops should not be allowed to go to London. Sorae days before Sunday the 24th of June the Covenanters were informed that Bishop Wedderburn of Dunblane had arrived from Seton House in Haddingtonshire, the seat of the Earl of Winton, about eleven miles from Edinburgh on the coast, and that he intended to read the Liturgy and officiate before the Marquis in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood. Those very Covenanters, who while they were then in rebellion against the King for alleged violations of their conscience, were at the same time the bitter enemies of toleration, and cherished the most tyrannical hatred towards their opponents, sent a remonstrance to the Marquis, deraanding that he should prohibit the use of the Liturgy on that Sunday in his presence, otherwise it would subsequently " disable hira to do any good." Bishop Wedderburn knowing their disposition to violence, " vi'Ulingly," says the Earl of Rothes, " absented hiraself." Disgusted at their insufferable interference with his religious duties, the Mar quis, on the following Sunday, which was the 1st of July, proceeded in the morning on a visit to Seton Horae, and heard a sermon preached by Dr Balcanqual in the parish church of Tranent. This sermon is designated " cold and wise," and probably it may have been both, yet we are assured by Bishop Burnet that Dr Bal canqual was a " man of great parts, of subtile wit, and so eloquent a preacher, that he seldom preached in Scotland without drawing tears frora the auditors." The Presbyterian writers allege that this visit to Seaton Home, where the Marquis reraained during the night, and returned to Edinburgh on the following day, was " for the purpose of practising a trick" — that he then set out as if for London — and that " most of the leading Covenanters had gone home tiU the time he was to return from Court." The Presby terians assign as their reason the publication of the proclamation which foUowed " in the absence" of the said " leading Covenant ers." It is needless to observe that not the slightest evidence exists to substantiate this charge. On the 28th of June the King authorized a " Declaration" to be published, dated at Greenwich, promising to call a General As sembly and a Parliament at his earliest convenience, withdrawing the Liturgy and the Book of Canons, and promising to rectify the High Coramission with the advice and assistance of the Privy 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 557 CouncU, that it " shall never impugn the laws nor be a just grievance to his loyal subjects." He again declared that he neither was nor would be " ever stained with Popish supersti tion," but was resolved to " maintain the tme Protestant religion already professed within his ancient kingdom." This Declaration or proclamation was submitted to the Privy Council on Tuesday the 3d of July, was signed by all present, and an act passed that it ought to be satisfactory to the people ; yet this is the very docu ment about which the charge is brought against the Marquis, that he resorted to a trick to get the leading Covenanters out of the way. It was almost impossible that he could announce it to the Privy Council sooner, considering the mode of travelling in those days. It is dated on the 28th of June, which was Thursday, and the Marquis submitted it to the Privy Council on the foUowing Wednesday, exactly six days from the tirae it was sent from Greenwich. It was proclaimed at the Cross of Edinburgh on the following day, but the Covenanters, notwithstanding all their com plaints, were ready for its reception. When the heralds appeared with their trumpets, Cassillis and Johnston of Warriston were at their side with a long protestation, in which all their objections to the Liturgy, Canons, High Commission, defences of the Covenant, and complaints against the Bishops, are enumerated. Before the departure of the Marquis to London he made such arrangeraents for the security of the fortresses as his circura stances permitted. The King had also instructed him to relieve those of the Bishops and clergy who were suffering for his interest out of the Treasury ; but the Exchequer was exhausted, and the Marquis liberally advanced to them raoney from bis own private resources, without even taking legal security for repayment. A letter was written by Bishop Maxwell of Ross to the Marquis, dated Berwick, 29th June, which is printed by Burnet in his " Memoirs of the Dukes of Hamilton." Bishop Maxwell and some of his brethren were then enduring considerable privations at Berwick, from which the Marquis had advised them to remove, and they express their willingness to comply. The Bishop alludes to the expences already incurred by the Marquis — " Yet," he says, " your Lordship's noble and generous offer, and the necessity we are cast into at this present, that what is our own or due to us we cannot comraand, and know as little who will do us the favour at this 558 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. time to trust us, hath made us, seeing obedience Is better than sacrifice, to cast ourselves upon your Lordship's bounty and favour, fearing on the one part your Lordship may be offended if we do it not, and on the other that otherwise we cannot be provided." Bishop MaxweU requests an advance of " one hundred and fifty pieces, payable at Whitsunday next with the interest, or Martin mas, as your Lordship pleases," for which he sent his personal bond, and adding — " Here and at this time I cannot give better security, but by God's grace your Lordship shall be in no danger, come the world as it will." Archbishop Spottiswoode hiraself was then in a position not rauch more enviable. Rothes relates that on the 2d of July the Covenanters were afraid he would sit as Lord Chancellor in the Court of Session, where their cases would be heard, and they re solved to serve him with a declinature, refusing to acknowledge him in his judicial capacity. They devised the same procedure against Sir Robert Spottiswoode, the Lord President, whom Bur net describes as " among the most accomplished of bis nation, equally singular for his ability and integrity, but he was the Archbishop of St Andrews' son," and this was sufficient to consti tute them his deadly enemies. His relative Sir John Hay, the Clerk Register, was also honoured with their vituperation, and they renewed their declinature against the three. But this was not the whole present extent of their hatred. On the 6th of July they resolved to prosecute Sir Robert Spottiswoode and Sir John Hay, first before the Marquis of Hamilton for alleged " faults committed in their places," and also criminally before the Lord Justice- General of the Justiciary Court for causing sedition be tween the King and his subjects. They concerted a bill, demand ing a warrant from the Marquis to Sir Thomas Hope, authorizing him as Lord Advocate to concur with them in the prosecution. The Marquis advised thera, as the matter was of great import ance, and deeply concerned such high public functionaries, to wait till he returned. Before leaving Edinburgh the Marquis held a conference with the Covenanting leaders, and proposed four arti cles of agreeraent — 1. That during his absence those rainisters who were not Covenanters should not be raolested. 2. That the people should not be forced to subscribe the Covenant. 3. That the stipends of the rainisters should be paid. 4. That if his return 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 559 should be delayed longer than the 12th of August they would wait with patience, and not consider that he had broken faith. To the first they replied, that If any of the ministers should be de posed it would not be for refusing to subscribe the Covenant, but for other causes, according to the laws of the Kirk, as they would prove to the Marquis at his return. They declared — the contrary of which was notorious — that none were forced to subscribe the Covenant ; but that those who did so were persuaded conscien tiously, and the " matter was so holy that they held it irreligious to use wicked means for advancing so good a work." As to the third, they alleged that those ministers whose stipends were refused were theraselves blaraeable by " raUing upon their people." They agreed to the fourth, in the hope that the Marquis would be en abled to return on the 12th of August, and requesting hira to manage affairs " to a quiet issue." During the absence of the Marquis, though no public commotion occurred, the Covenanters were not idle. They pretended that the Marquis had sanctioned, or at least approved, the Covenant in the form they had presented to him — a falsehood which had a power ful effect on the people in their itinerating journeys through the Lowland countries to procure additional subscriptions. But of all the districts of Scotland the northem counties were the most averse to the practices and principles of the Covenanters. The Doc tors of Aberdeen, as the clergy of that city and the Professors in the two CoUeges were designated, were loud in their denunciations of the Covenant. The Doctors of Aberdeen became " distinguish ed," says Burnet, " from aU the rest in Scotland, so that when the troubles in that Church broke out the Doctors there were the only persons that could maintain the cause of the Church, as appears by the papers which passed between them and the Covenanters ; and though they began first to raanage that argument in print, there has nothing appeared since more perfect than what they WTote." A deputation of Covenanters was appointed to proceed thither, and convince the said Doctors of Its " lawfulness." This deputation consisted of Henderson, Dickson, and Cant, known in consequence as the Three Apostles of the Covenant, the Earl of Montrose, the Master of Forbes, and others, to obtain signatures. They arrived In Aberdeen about the end of July, and met with a very cool re ception from the clergy. Professors, and the Magistrates, some of 560 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. whom violently opposed the Covenant on the ground that it was in every respect Illegal. In New Aberdeen the Provost and Magistrates, who had previously decided by a majority in the Town-Council that the citizens should not be allowed to sign the Covenant, waited on them at their lodgings, and courteously offered to welcome them with a treat of wine which they had prepared, but they were told that the deputation would drink no wine with them tiU the Covenant was signed. Montrose spoke against the danger of " popish and prelatical innovations." The Provost re plied that they were Protestants and not Papists — that they were satisfied with the King's Declarations — and that they -would sanction nothing contrary to the King and the government. The Magistrates then abruptly left them, and distributed the wine among the poor. The Covenanting deputies received a paper, containing fourteen questions signed by the clergy of the town, who stated that if satisfactory answers were given they would subscribe the Covenant. A pamphleteering warfare coramenced between the clergy and Professors on the one side, and the Three Apostles ofthe Covenant, In which the whole subject of the episco pate was ably maintained by the Doctors to be of Divine institu tion. On Sunday, the 23d of July, the three Apostles resolved to preach In the church of St Nicolas and enforce their doctrines upon the people ; but they were prohibited by the incurabents, and were corapelled to be content with a more humble station in the court of the Earl Marischal's house In Castle Street, in which Lady Pitsligo, who favoured their cause, resided. Their discourses, however, had little infiuence on the people, and many of their hearers publicly ridiculed them. It is said that five hundred signatures were obtained, and a few signed the Covenant condition ally, especially Dr WiUiam Guild and another rainister, under the limitation that they merely bad scruples to the Perth Articles, but that they could not condemn episcopal government. The King was so well pleased with the conduct of the Magistrates, that he wrote a letter of thanks to thera on the 31st of July, and one to the Professors on the 4th of August ; and on the Oth of September he granted to the Corporation and comraunity a new charter, ratifying in the most ample manner all their ancient rights, privileges, and Imraunitles. This charter was confirmed by the Parliament in 1641. 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 561 The Marquis of Hamilton returned to Edinburgh on the 10th of August, and one of his first acts was to impeach the veracity of Henderson. That individual had twice declared in Aberdeen that the Marquis was satisfied with the loyal professions of the Covenanters — that he had sanctioned to a certain extent their Covenant — and that the Privy Counoil had issued or sanctioned certain proclamations connected with the Liturgy, the Book of Canons, ar«i the High Commission. The Marquis most solemnly denied these stateraents, and appealed not only to Henderson himself, and his associates Dickson and Cant, but to every noble man and gentleraan with whora he had ever any public or private intercourse. The King's instructions to the Marquis were to renew the Confession of Faith drawn up at the Reformation and ratified by Parliament in 1567 — ^to induce the Privy Council to sign it — and to summon, if necessary, a General Assembly at any time after the 1st of November. He was to use every exertion that the Bishops should vote as usual in the Assembly — that the Modera tor, if possible, should be one of the Bishops — that the Articles of Perth were to be held as matters indifferent — that he might, if he considered it necessary, approve the act of the Privy Council of the Sth July at Holyroodhouse recaUing the Liturgy, Book of Canons, and the High Commission — that he was to protest against the abolition of the episcopal dignity — ^and allow as few restric tions or limitations to it as he possibly could. He was authorized to concede that the Bishops should be amenable to the General Assembly, which, however, was not to interfere with the pre cedence of the Bishops, that " being no point of religion, and totally in the Crown." The Bishops who were accused of any particular offence, and also the Officers of State, were to have a free trial, and the Marquis was to exercise his own discretion in the case of those Bishops who were then out of the kingdom, while those in Scotland were to be advised not to attend the meetings of the Privy Council " till better and more favourable times for them." With these general instructions the Marquis was authorized to see that intemal peace was restored before he called the Asserably — that the raoderators of the Presbyteries nominated by the Bishops were reinstated, and to be officially mem bers of the Assembly, according to the act of 1606 — that aU the 36 562 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. incumbents expeUed from their parishes were to be recaUed, and preachers admitted without the license ofthe Bishops were to desist from exercising their functions — that aU persons resorted to their parish churches — and that the Bishops and clergy who refused to sign the Covenant were not to be molested, and their stipends were to be regularly paid. Finally, if " need required," the Mar quis " might caU a Pariiaraent against April next." A letter was also addressed by the King to the Privy Council, and a Declara tion published, embodying the Confession of Faith of 1567, witha bond annexed, which was to be signed by the people, pledging them selves to " profess and maintain" that Confession as the " true faith of Christ established by the laws of the country," and to defend the King's person and authority, the laws and liberties of the country. The Marquis found that the Covenanters had increased their demands during his absence. At a convention of the burghs it was resolved that no magistrate should be chosen who had not subscribed the Covenant ; and It was determined that the Bishops were not to vote in the General Assembly unless chosen by the Presbyteries, which they knew well they could prevent. They had so far organized their plans that Episcopacy was to be declared unlawful — the Five Articles of Perth were to be denounced — the Bishops prohibited from voting in ParUament — and aU persons corapelled to sign the Covenant. They resolved to elect as their lay delegates individuals of the greatest local power and influence ; and as at a meeting of one hundred and twenty ministers held at Edinburgh four-fifths were only for " limiting Episcopacy," none of those persons were to be ehgible as members. The Marquis, under these circumstances, declined to call a General Asserably until he received raore definite instructions from the King. After various interviews, explanations, and state ments, he found himself rauch in the sarae position in which he was before he went to London. By the recoramendation of Rothes and ArgyU, the Covenanters consented to delay their resolution to call a General Asserably on their own authority tiU the 20th of Septeraber, on the condition that it should be speedily suramoned after that date, and that none of their letters should be Intercepted in England. The Marquis was again compeUed to return to Court, and report the more violent aspect of affairs. 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 563 He commenced his second journey on the 25th of August, and on that night he remained at Broxraouth, the seat of the Earl of Roxburgh, a short distance beyond Dunbar. There he found the Earls of Roxburgh, Traquair, and Southesk, and they all wrote and signed articles of advice to the King, to be presented by the Marquis. The usual coraplaints of the Covenanters were stated in this document against the Liturgy, Canons, High Commission Court, and the Articles of Perth. They declared that all those " evils" had stirred up the Covenant, and they earnestly recommend to the King to propose such a Confession of Faith, with a covenant or bond annexed, as that signed by his father King James in 1580, which they thought would satisfy the people. The Marquis laid this representation before the King, who evinced the most resolute dislike to that Confession, the signing of which his father had always regretted. He considered the " proposed remedy as bad, if not worse than the disease," and the Marquis admitted the fact, but he declared there was no other remedy, for the Covenant was now the " idol of Scotland." The King consented to a General Assembly, notwithstanding the opposition of Bishop Maxwell of Ross, who had arrived on a mission from the Bishops. The Marquis received his new instructions on the 10th of Sep tember. They consisted of eighteen articles, revoking the Liturgy, the Canons, the High Comraission Court, and the Perth Articles ; authorizing the Confession of Faith of 1580, with the bond thereto annexed — declaring also, that the censures of the Parliament and the General Assembly shall be inflicted on all subjects in a legal manner — and that the " episcopal government already established shall be limited" to " stand with the recognized laws of this Church and kingdora." The Marquis was empowered to summon a General Assembly in any other town than Edinburgh at his discretion, and a public fast was to be observed before the meeting. He received almost similar instructions with regard to the Parliament. But though the Marquis was to summon a General Assembly in any town he pleased except Edinburgh, the King himself suggested Glasgow in a written paper. Burnet states that " as the city was large and convenient, so the Magistracy there was right set : besides, it was next to the place of the Marquis' interest [the town of Hamilton, the family seat of the Dukes of Harailton], whereby his power of overruling thera might have been greatest." The extent and 564 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. importance of Glasgow at that time are greatly exaggerated. Dr Cleland shows that the population scarcely amounted to 10,000, and the people enjoyed the unenviable character of being " raalig- nant, superstitious. Ignorant, and profane." The Marquis, on his journey to Scotland, raet several of the Scottish Bishops at Ferrybridge in Yorkshire, five miles from Pontefract, long one of the great thoroughfares between Scotland and the North of England. He informed them of his instructions, and that the King would maintain Episcopacy, but that the Bishops were to be limited In their diocesan authority. The Bishops loudly coraplained of those concessions, as most fatal to the Church, and as in reality resigning them to the Covenanters. They nevertheless resolved- to attend the General Assembly, and sent one of their number to the King. At this interview Archbishop Spottiswoode was offered L.2500 as a compensation to resign the ChanceUor- ship, which he signified his willingness to accept. The Marquis returned to Scotland on the 15th of September, the day before the one appointed to be held as a public fast by the Covenanters, and on the 17th he removed to Holyroodhouse. He informed their leaders at a special Interview that the King had granted all their demands, but he refused to enter into any details except through the Privy Council. It was alleged that the Assembly was to be held at Aberdeen in the spring of 1639, and Burnet states that this was the suggestion of Archbishop Spottiswoode. Though this rumour was altogether unfounded, it annoyed the Covenanters. Aberdeen was too distant for many of them at the season of the year ; and the Professors in King's and Marischal Colleges, and the clergy, had already defeated them in argument. The town was considered the very stronghold of the Episcopal Church ; and the surrounding district was the property of power ful noblemen and gentlemen opposed to the Covenant, who could summon thousands of armed retainers to overawe the meeting. As soon as the Privy Council met, the Marquis of Hamilton produced the Confession of Faith of 1580, and urged its renewal in opposition to the Covenant, both by his own recommendation and by a letter frora the King. He induced the Earls of Rothes, Argyll [then Lord Lorn], and Wigton, and the Lord Advocate Hope, to sign it, on the written condition that they did so ac cordmg to its meaning when first sworn. The Marquis and about 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 565 thirty of the Privy Council signed it on the 22d September, after a wordy discussion of two days, and all subjects were ordered to adhibit their signatures to it, and to the annexed bond of 1589. The Privy Council authorized two public proclamations, the one calling by royal authority a General Assembly to be held at Glas gow on the 21st of November ; and the other a Parliament to be held at Edinburgh on the 15th of May 1039, to deliberate on measures forthe "glory of God, and the peace ofthe Kirk and com raonwealth." The Archbishops and Bishops were suramoned to attend both the General Assembly and the Parliament, and the fourteenth day before the meeting of the former was to be ob served as a fast. Considerable divisions and jealousies existed between the Cove nanting Nobility and the preachers about the appointment of the persons designated in Presbyterian phraseology " ruling elders," but these were for a time forgotten when the proclamation appeared enjoining subscription to the Confession of 1580 and 1581. As this rival Covenant, which was accompanied by the unequivocal revocation of the Liturgy, Canons, and High Commission, tended rauch to benefit the royal cause by representing the King's pro ceedings in the most favourable light, the Covenanters became alarmed that it would completely overthrow their party, and that the King's sincerity would revive the loyalty of all peaceable and well disposed subjects. They accordingly met the royal proclama tion by a long protest, in which they elaborately detailed their sentiments. The burden of the whole argument was to shew that they preferred their own Covenant to the Confession of 1580. Their seditious designs were now the more apparent, for that Confession formed verbatim a part of their Covenant, and the only difference was the bond of 1589 attached to it, which was levelled against the Roman Catholics. Delegates were accordingly sent to every Presbytery, advising the preachers to warn their hearers not to sign the Covenant authorized by the King, and a copy of their protest was transmitted to every town in which the proclamation was made. It consequently in many towns and districts met with decided opposition. On the other hand letters were circulated throughout the kingdom to procure signatures to the King's Covenant. At Glasgow the activity of the Justice-Clerk Hamilton and the eloquence of Dr Balcanqual induced numbers 566 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. to sign, but BaiUie, and other ministers acting with the Town- Council, caused the subscription to be delayed till after the meet ing of the Assembly. In the northem counties upwards of 28,000 persons subscribed the King's Covenant, of whom 12,000 were procured by the Marquis of Huntly in the shires of Aberdeen and Banff. The Bishop and the Doctors of Aberdeen readUy signed It, adding several explanations — distinctly stating that by so doing they were not to be considered as abjuring " episcopal government as it was in the days and after the days of the Apostles in the Christian Church for many hundreds of years, and is now, con form thereto, restored in the Kirk of Scotland" — that they were not to be understood as abjuring the Perth Articles — ^that they did not presume by their personal oath either to prejudge the liberty of the Church of Scotland, or to change, reform, and correct the ambiguities and obscure expressions of the Confession — and that their present signatures were not to be held as bind ing their descendants. In accordance vrith their designs and principles the Covenanters usurped ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and the " Brethren" ofthe "Ex ercise" or Presbytery of Edinburgh summoned Mr David MitcheU to appear before them, and be censured " for certain points of erroneous doctrine delivered by him frora the pulpit," with inti mation that they would either suspend or depose him if found guilty. This induced Bishop Lindsay of Edinburgh to write a letter to the said " Brethren," dated Holyroodhouse, 9th October, reminding them of the Act of the Glasgow Assembly of 1610, and of the Act of Parliament of 1612, restricting that power " as an inriolable law in all time coming" to the Bishop of the Diocese, who was " to associate to himself the ministry of the bounds wherever the delinquent serveth, to take trial of the fact, and upon just cause found," either to suspend or deprive. Bishop Lindsay strictly prohibited thera to proceed against Mr MitcheU untU he hiraself acted with thera, or " to continue the process, and all other of this kind," till the raeeting of the General Assembly. About this time Rothes and other Covenanters petitioned the Marquis of HaraUton for a warrant to cite the Bishops before the Assembly at Glasgow, but this was refused on the ground that " the law was open for citing all such as were either within or without the country — that it was beyond all precedent for him 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT. 567 [the Marquis] to grant such warrants — and that it was enough for them that he did not protect the Bishop against trial." Foiled in that quarter, they applied to the Presbytery of Edin burgh, who had the presumption to grant the warrant to summon the Bishops. In this document, which was read in Trinity Col lege church In Edinburgh after the administration of the Com munion, and in all the other parish churches, the Bishops were actually cited as guilty of every atrocious crime. The Marquis was urged by the Bishops and others to prorogue the meeting of the Assembly, but though this would have been a fair retaliation on the Covenanters it was considered inexpedient. Indeed, as raatters had proceeded to such a length, and as the event proved, they would have disregarded the prorogation and held their Assembly in defiance. The great object now was the approaching raeeting. The Covenanters were indefatigable in pro curing the election of lay elders from the smaU burghs — men who were the mere creatures ofthe leaders, and on whom the latter could depend. They also attended at the election of the coraraissioners chosen for the approaching Parliament at Michaelmas, and by their riolence so terrified the loyal and peaceable that they also managed to pack that ParUament. The Marquis of HamUton was deeply grieved at the result of the elections, and dreaded the almost inevitable consequences. He saw that few or none were chosen except those who were Covenanters, and who were noted for their violent sentiments. In a letter from Dr Balcanqual to Archbishop Laud, dated Holyroodhouse, and supposed to have been written in October, he asks — " One thing I desire your Grace to adrise in — whether I shaU not cause to be printed their gene ral and public instructions to the several presbyteries for the election of their commissioners, as also their private ones, which they think are not known, that so the rest of the hoodwinked Covenanters may see how much they have been abused ? or shall we reserve that private paper to upbraid them with it in their teeth at the opening of the Assembly ? I send your Grace like wise their new instructions, sent throughout the kingdom, by which your Grace raay easily see what tumultuous and violent proceed ings they [intend] to use, not without force if they see cause.* • Original from Wodrow MSS. folio, vol. Ixvi. No. 33, printed in Appendix to BaUUe's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. p. 477. 568 THE CONPEDEKACY AGAINST THE CHURCH [1638. The Marquis of Hamilton was most anxious that the Aberdeen Doctors should attend the Assembly, and he wrote to them offer ing to send one of his coaches for their conveyance. They origin ally Intended to be present, as appears in a letter from Mr Wil liam Wilkie, minister of Govan near Glasgow, dated 6th November, to Dr Balcanqual : — " I received your letter, with the Doctors of Aberdeen their reply, for which I humbly thank you. All here are heartily glad of their intention to be at this Assembly ; and you raay be sure they will not want lodgraent, although my Lord Comraissioner's Grace had not taken such particular care to have them provided. We could cause some of our students quit their chambers, and confine themselves in less bounds, ere they lack ed." Yet when the time approached, the state of the weather, and their forbodings of the fall of the Church and the rebeUion which was to ensue, prevented their appearance. " That road, being always bad for a coach," says Burnet, " was irapassable in winter, and the Doctors were so extreraely averse frora coming, that he could not importune them any farther, since he said it was resolved, though an angel from heaven should come to plead for Episcopacy, all would be rejected." The Marquis exerted himself to procure subscriptions to the King's Confession In that part of Lanarkshire with which he was more particularly connected, and though his tenants and others at first refused, he succeeded in overcoming the scruples of many. Numbers in all parts of the country readily offered to sign, but the agents of the Covenanters prevented them by circulating reports that the King was insincere in his promises, and never intended to fulfil his offers ; and that it was deliberate perjury for those who had taken their Covenant to sign the King's. Burnet truly ob serves — " The sins of Scotland being so great that they were to be punished with a track of bloody civil wars, God in his holy and wise judgments permitted the poor people to be so blind in their obedience to their leaders, that these arts took universaUy with them, to which may be justly imputed all the mischiefs that king dora hath smarted under ever since." The King wrote repeatedly on the manner in which affairs were conducted in Scotland, and expressed his dissatisfaction at the proceedings both of the Mar quis and the Privy Council, complaining particularly of the pro test of the Covenanters to his Confession. " I see by yours of the 1638.] AND THE RIVAL COVENANT, 569 27th of September," said the King to the Marquis, " that the malignity of the Covenanters is greater than ever ; so that if you who are my true servants do not use extraordinary care and in dustry, ray affairs in that kingdom are likely rather to grow worse than better. In my mind the last protestation deserves [punish ment] more than any thing they have yet done, for if raising of sedition be treason this can be judged no less. — And this I will say confidently, that until at least the adherers to this last protes tation be declared traitors, nothing will go as It ought in that kingdom. I say this not to alter your course, but only to shew you my opinion of the state of affairs. As for the danger that episcopal govemment is in, I do not hold it so much as you do, for I believe that the number of those who are against Episcopacy, who are not in their hearts against monarchy, is not so consider able as you take it. And for this General Assembly, though I can expect no good from it, yet I hope you may hinder much of the ill ; first, by putting divisions among thera concerning the legality of their elections ; then by protestations against their tumultuous proceedings ; and I think it were not amiss if you could get their freedom defined before the meeting, so that it were not done too much in their favours." On the 29th of October the King again wrote — " As for the opinions of the clergy to prorogue this Assembly I utterly dislike thera, for I should more hurt my reputation by not keeping It than their mad acts can prejudice my service ; wherefore I command you, hold your day ; but as you write, if you can break them by proving nullities in their pro ceedings, nothing better." This explains a statement of Bishop Burnet respecting the Assembly, that the Covenanters " carried the elections as they pleased, for there being an elder out of every parish, they equalled the ministers in number, but exceeded them when the election was voted ; all the ministers who were on the list, and were ordinarily six or seven, being removed, yet in raany presbyteries protestations were used against them by some minis ters. The Marquis seeing how things were carried, and having Informations from all places of the unlucky elections, began to draw up the nulUties of the Assembly, sending the particulars to the King as he had them ; advising him withal to go on more frankly with his preparations, since he saw it impossible to prevent a rupture." 570 THE CONFEDERACY AGAINST THE CHURCH. [1638. On the 1st of November, when the Court of Session sat at Edin burgh, nine of the then fifteen Judges signed the King's Confes sion, two were absent, and four refused, but those Judges who sub scribed were exposed to Insult on the streets. Bumet states that about this time the Marquis gave Archbishop Spottiswoode secu rity for the L.2500 as a compensation for the office of ChanceUor, yet it is expressly stated of the Priraate that he continued Lord ChanceUor tiU his " dying day." As the Scottish Exchequer was entirely exhausted the Marquis became bound for that sum. It appears that he requested L.10,000 sterling from the King for distribution among the Bishops and those of the clergy who were " ruined for their duty to the King." This sum was not remitted, and the Marquis continued to supply their necessities from his own resources. The infamous libels prepared against the Bishops in this Gene ral Assembly are subsequently noticed. A letter from Mr WiUiam Wilkie of Govan to Dr Balcanqual, dated 29th of October, con tains a curious account of the manner In which the libel against Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow was concocted. The Earl of Loudon and Lord Boyd attended the Presbytery of Glasgow to accuse the Archbishop of every possible crime in the catalogue of human depravity. This libel was read publicly in the Cathedral before the sermon by a " writer boy," who pronounced the word colleagues, referring to the other Bishops, as colleges. The congre gation were astonished, says Mr Wilkie, that the Archbishop and his College, presuming that Glasgow College was intended, should be " accused of incest, adultery, drunkenness, &c. for they believed that both the Bishop and we were free of these. Also they be lieved that Bishops only should have been reraoved by this refor raation, but for the Colleges they marveUed why they would re move these." — " My heart," adds this honest Presbyterian, " was truly sorry to see such despiteful and insulting carriage." 1638.] 571 CHAPTER XV. THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. The Marquis of Hamilton attended a meeting of the Privy Coun cil on the 16th of November, and stated explicitly that in the affairs of the Church the King's " positive pleasure was, that Episcopacy raight be Uraited, but not abolished." The Privy Council were commanded to foUow him to Glasgow, and he Inti mated to Sir Thomas Hope that, as Lord Advocate, it was expect ed he would defend the Episcopal Establishment as the Church of the kingdom ; but that individual answered that this would be against his conscience, because he considered episcopal govern ment to be unlawful, and opposed to the Scriptures. This extra ordinary declaration — contrary to historical fact, for the Episcopal Church had been ratified by several Parliaments deliberately and solemnly — irritated the Marquis, who threatened to deprive him of his office. But the Marquis was met by the cool retort frora the Lord Advocate, that his right to his office depended not on the King, having been confirraed by Parliament. The Marquis prohibited his attendance at Glasgow, and Sir Thomas Hope prudently obeyed. On the 17th of November the Marquis proceeded to Glasgow, leaving Bishops MaxweU of Ross and Whiteford of Brechin at Hamilton until he could convey thera safely to the archiepiscopal castle of Glasgow. On the 20th he received a letter frora those Bishops, enclosing one from Archbishop Spottiswoode. The nature of this letter will be Inferred from the following passage in it : — " But above all, we two, for ourselves, and In name of our brethren, do with most thankful hearts acknowledge your Grace's most pious care of the liberties of this poor and distracted Church, and espe- 572 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. cially the solicitude and care your Grace hath that our Protestation be orderly done, secretly kept, and seasonably presented, before either the cause, or we that are Bishops, suffer wrong. The difficulties are great, the hopes none, but too pregnant fears to the contrary ; yet it is more like to be God's cause, that his work may appear, and it raay be called digitus Dei, and raarvellous in our eyes. Man's extreraity is God's opportunity." An imraense concourse of people resorted to Glasgow on this occasion, drawn together by the Covenanting Nobility, gentry, and preachers, in consequence of a ruraour that the Marquis, the Privy Council, and those opposed to the Covenant, intended by the numbers of their followers to occupy all the accomraodations for strangers. BaiUie says — " The town did expect and provide for large multitudes of people, and put on their houses and beds excessive prices ; but the diligence of the Magistrates, and the vacancy of many rooms, did quickly raoderate that excess." Meet ings were held by the Covenanters to organize their proceedings, fasts were observed, and Inflammatory sermons preached. Baillie, who was now one of the most active and Influential of them, states that a Mr Alexander SommerviUe, minister of Dolphington, an " old half-blind man, sore against his wiU" was induced to preach one of those preliminary sermons on the day before the meeting of the Assembly — " He did pretty well ; at length he insisted on the extirpation of Bishops, little to the contentraent of sorae, but > greatly to the raind of raost." The election of the Moderator was discussed in a secret conclave, and after carefully discussing the raerits of Dickson, Ramsay, Cant, Livingstone, and other such amiable worthies, with all of whom, according to Baillie, " there were sorae thing evidently wanting," Henderson was unanimously selected, as " incomparably tbe ablest man among us," says Baillie, " for all things." The only objection to hira was one of expedi ency. They fully expected " much dispute with the Bishops and Aberdeen Doctors," of the latter of whom they were in great dread, and BaiUie observes — " We thought our loss great, and hazardous to tyne [want] our chief champion, by making him a judge of the party." After the arrival of the Marquis of Hamilton the Earl of Rothes and some of the delegates waited on him, to intimate that it was their custom to comraence their General Asserablies with 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 573 solemn fasting. The Earl .also told the Marquis that it was the practice of the senior minister of the tovm or district, or the moderator of the Presbytery, to preach and open the Assembly in the absence of the Moderator of the former Assembly, who in this case happened to be Archbishop Spottiswoode; and that they had selected " old Mr John Bell," one of the ministers of Glas gow, to perform that duty until the new Moderator was chosen. The Marquis agreed to both proposals, and sent Dr Balcanqual to " old Mr John BeU" to express his approval of him. But although the Covenanting preachers were zealous in delivering sermons throughout Glasgow, Mr John MaxweU refused to admit any one of them into the pulpit of the cathedral during the time the Marquis acted' as Lord High Commissioner, and " preached after his fashion," says Baillie, " nothing to the matter in hand, so ambiguously, that himself knew best to what side he inchned." The Bishops of Ross, Brechin, and Galloway, repaired from Hamil ton to tbe archiepiscopal castle of Glasgow, and the Covenanters expected their appearance in the Assembly ; but in this they were disappointed, for those Prelates were persuaded not to appear, and soon returned to Hamilton Palace at the request of the Marquis. On Wednesday the 21st the Assembly met in the cathedral church. According to an accurate analysis the Assembly comprised 140 preachers, two Professors not preachers, and 98 ruling elders ; in all 240 persons. Of those ruling or lay elders seventeen were noble men of high rank, nine were knights, twenty-five were landed proprie tors, or lesser barons of such station as entitled them to sit in Par liament ; and forty-seven were burgesses, generally the magistrates or bailies of the respective towns.* A number of persons also attended who had no right to vote, but who pretended to be ready to give their advice. A throne was provided for the IVIar- quis as Lord High Commissioner, and on each side were seats for the Privy Council and Officers of State. At a long table on the fioor were the Covenanting Nobility and gentry who acted as " elders from parishes" and " commissioners frora presbyteries." Round this long table, rising gradually above each other, were rows of seats for the preaching " commissioners" from the most of the • Speech of Principal Lee at the "Commemoration ofthe Second Centenary" of this Assembly iu December 1838 at Glasgow ; and Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol. i. p. 109, 110, 11 1. 574 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. sixty-three Presbyteries into which the kingdom was then divided, and on these also sat the delegates frora the Universities. In the centre, fronting the chair of state, was a smaU table for the ac coraraodation of the Moderator and clerk. At the end a gal lery was constructed for the young Nobility, and " huge numbers of people," says BaiUie, " ladies and some gentlemen in the vaults above." Yet it Is a curious characteristic of this motley conclave that, as Burnet truly observes, " some commissioners there were who could neither read nor write, and yet these were to judge of heresy and condemn Arminian points ! All depended on a few that were learned and grave, who gave law to the rest."* The proceedings coramenced vrith a sermon by " old Mr John Bell," the acting Moderator, which BaUlie describes as "very good and pertinent, sharp enough against our late novations and Episcopacy," but the preacher, on account of his age, was not heard by a sixth part of the audience. After his sermon he con stituted the Assembly by a prayer. They adjourned till the afternoon, when they proposed to elect their Moderator. The Marquis of Hamilton Intiraated that sorae things were necessary • Burnet's statement, however, was denied by Principal Lee of Edinburgh in his speech at the Second Centenary Commemoration of this Assembly at Glasgow iu Decem ber 1838. " It has indeed been alleged," said Principal Lee, " that a large proportion the elders consisted of ilhterate men. I have seen it asserted in several books of late, even in some written by Presbyterians, that many of those in that Assembly who judged of the gravest questions concerning theological learning and soundness in the faith could neither read nor write. There is no authority for this insinuation except the random assertion of Bishop Bumet— supposed sometimes to have been a con temporary, though he was not born for five years afterwards." After disputing Bur net's " ignorant and erroneous statement" that ruling elders never came to the Assem bUes tUl 1638, Principal Lee discovers — " If the elders were unable to read or write, so much the less credit is due to the system of education which had prevailed nearly forty years before 1638 under auspices not Presbyterian." This is of little moment, and rather reflects on the conduct of the Covenanting preachers who intruded into the parishes. The Acts of the Scottish Parliaments amply prove that the prevaUing igno rance was not the fault of the Bishops, but was caused by the fanaticism of the age. Yet Principal Lee, who is a high reputed authority, was vaUant in the defence of his Cove nanting friends. — " There was not a peasant, as has been insinuated," he said, " or even a farmer or yeoman, in the number." They were all, in short, profoundly learned scholars, and this notable Presbyterian pluralist adds — " From what I know of the per sonal history of many of these men, and from documents which I have seen and now pos sess, I could undertake to prove that not one was iUiterate." He refers to " most ofthe original commissions," which he had obtained twenty years previous, and asserts that " the signatures are for the most part in a superior style of penmanship." Be it so. This only makes their rebellious conduct the more inexcusable. 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 575 to be done before that business, and that his comraission must be first read to show whom he represented. This document was in Latin, and was handed to Mr Thoraas SandUands frora Aberdeen, whom the Marquis had appointed clerk. After this was read and recorded an anxiety was again manifested about the Moderator- ship, but the Marquis Insisted that the King's letter, dated 29th October, should be read. He then addressed the Assembly in a speech, regretting that his " education and profession" precludedhim from making long harangues, and maintaining that the King was sincere in all his professions. He vindicated the King from all the " sinistrous aspersions," and " foul and deviUsh surmises," circu lated against him. At the conclusion of his address he presented a paper containing the King's offers, with which the reader Is familiar. The caUing of the roll of the presbyteries, burghs, and universities, appears to have terminated the principal business of the preliminary meeting. During the afternoon the Marquis sent a gentleman to the Bishops of Ross and Brechin, who were with the Archbishop of Glasgow, to consult them as to the manner in which he ought to proceed in the Assembly. He desired the advice of the Bishops on three points — the first, whether the King's letter should be pro duced before the election of the Moderator ; the second concerned the valid election of the delegates ; and the third referred to the proper time for presenting the intended Declinature of the Bishops. The Bishop of Ross in reply stated his opinion, that the King's letter to the Archbishops, Bishops, and others raentioned, should be presented and read by the clerk before the election of the Modera tor. Bishop Maxwell raaintained on the second point that both the '' coraraissions and coraraissioners" are " raost illegal, and there is more than sufficient ground from this one, if there were no more, to void this Assembly and make it null ;" but he feared that If this were done the Covenanters would renew their accusation against thera that the King was " only deluding them for other ends." As to the third, concerning the Declinature of the Bishops — " My Lords of Glasgow and Brechin," said Bishop Max well, " are fully of the mind, that at the very first it is to be read before the Assembly is established, and these reasons seem very pregnant ; first, because all declinatures are so used ; next, if the Asserably be once established how can It be declined, or your Grace admit our DecUnature or Protestation ?" 576 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. The discussions were numerous in the Asserably on all the preliminaries and points of forms ; debates succeeded protesta tions, objections were raoved, sustained, or disregarded ; and the Asserably, as described by the Presbyterian writers themselves, was the very personification of confusion. Much occurred to irri tate the Marquis, who was often treated with comparatively little cereraony, and sorae allusions to the King were most uncourteous. At length the list of names from which the Moderator was to be chosen was presented, and Alexander Henderson was unanimously elected. He took the chair, and commenced an address conclud ing with a long extemporary prayer. The Marquis proposed that SandUands of Aberdeen, whose loyal principles he weU knew, and who had ably discharged the duties of clerk to the General Assembly in 1616, should be continued clerk, but this was opposed by Henderson on the pretence that he was old and inefficient, and Johnston of Warriston was elected with only one dissenting voice, the Covenanters binding themselves to recompence Sandi lands in another way. Henderson now required that all who were in possession of any of the acts of the former General Assemblies should produce them, and Johnston of Warriston presented five folio manuscript volumes. The first and second volumes contained all the acts of the General Assemblies from 1560 to 1572, duly signed by the clerk ; the third included those from 1572 to 1579, five leaves of which were tom out ; the fourth comprised those from 1586 to 1589 ; and the fifth, which Henderson stated was the private property of Mr James Carraichael, minister at Haddington, contained all the acts from 1560 to 1590, margined by the then clerk. Those books after careful examination were declared to be authentic registers. Sandilands also exhibited some acts from 1590 to the Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1616, with several minutes of that meeting on a separate paper ; also the minutes of the Asserably held at St Andrews in 1617, and the acts of the Assembly at Perth in 1618 subscribed by his father, which he had received from Archbishop Spottiswoode. But the five volumes presented by Johnston were considered the most iraportant. Three of the above volumes were subsequentlybequeathed by Bishop Archibald Campbell to Sion Col lege. The first extended from 1560 to 1589, the second from 1590 to 1597, and the third from 1597 to 1616. It Is already raentioned 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 577 that they were burnt in the great fire which destroyed the Houses of Parliameut in 1834. Various tedious and paltry preliminaries having been adjusted, the Marquis of Harailton insisted that the D eclinature of the Bishops should beread, but after some discussion this was delayed. The Mar quis protested, and in reply to the Earl of Traquair it was contended by Lord Loudon that the Assembly must first be acknowledged as qualified judges before they could receive the Declinature of the Bishops. This extraordinary claim induced even the Covenanting Earl of Argyll to allege that as exceptions against any jury were always lodged before that jury was sworn, in like manner, if the Bishops had any thing against that Asserably, it was time to urge those exceptions. Henderson in a furious passion told Argyll that the Marquis of Hamilton could speak for himself, and that the As sembly were not to be thwarted by the witty remarks of noblemen who had no right to interfere. Argyll, who wa^ not a meraber, was enraged at this rebuke, and it would probably have led to a " scene," if it had not been stopped by an observation of Loudon, that Argyll's argument was good if the Bishops had appeared before the Assembly as defenders before the jury. The " Declinature and Protestation of the Archbishops and Bishops of the Church of Scotland, and others their adherents within that kingdom, against the pretended General Assembly holden at Glasgow, November 21, 1638," is a long document pre served by Rushworth and other coUectors. It is such a complete exposure of the seditious, rebellious, and partial conduct and wild principles of the Covenanters, that their opposition to it is no matter of surprise. The whole memorial is a masterly, compre hensive, and sumraary historical reply to the pretensions and as- suraptlons of the Presbyterians. While the Bishops acknowledged the advantages to be derived from a " General Assembly lawfully caUed, and duly and orderly convened by royal authority," for adjusting the affairs of tbe Church, they declared that they could not recognize the legality of the Glasgow Assembly on account of the preposterous, partial, and notorious proceedings of the " so caUed Tables,^'' who ordered the Presbyteries to elect their dele gates or representatives before the King's warrant authorizing the raeeting was proclaimed, and this was in opposition to the act of Parliament 1572. The Bishops maintained that as most of 37 578 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. those " ministers " convened at Glasgow had not " assented to and subscribed the articles of religion ratified by acts of ParUa ment In presence of the Archbishop, Superintendent, or Commis sioner of the Province," acknowledging the King's authority, and had otherwise disqualified theraselves according to law, they were precluded from exercising any function In the Church. It was farther contended that the Covenanters had vitiated their raeeting by " irapugning the dignity and authority of" the Bishops as one of the three Estates of Pariiaraent," denying thera the right to vote. In opposition to the ratification of various General Assemblies, and affirming that the Archbishops and Bishops had " no warrant for their office in the Kirk." They held that the meeting was also iUegal, because the constant moderators appointed by the Bishops to pre side in the Synods, according to the decision of the General As sembly in 1610, and the act of Parliament in 1612, had been de posed, and others elected in their place. Moreover, that their lay elders, chosen out of every kirk-session and parish, were function aries unknown in the Church, and that the " ministers " in that Assembly were chosen by laymen, contrary to aU order, decency, and custom observed in the Christian world, in no way according to the custom of that Church which they pretended to follow — the Presbyteries never associating to themselves lay elders in the elec tions to the General Assembly, but " only for their assistance in discipline and correction of raanners, caUing for them [only] at such times and occasions as they stood In need of their godly con currence, declaring otherwise their meeting not necessary : — nor have lay elders sat ordinarily In Presbyteries upon any occasion these forty years and upwards, and never had any place or voice in the election of ministers for the General Assembly." The Bishops farther maintained that the " persons ecclesiasti cal pretended to be authorised to this General Assembly have so behaved themselves, that justly they may be thought unworthy and incapable of comraission to a free and lawful General Assembly." Two reasons are assigned for this statement. The one was their ha bitual " railing and seditious serraons and paraphlets" against the King ; and the other that they were known to be " either schlsmatl- cally refractory, opposed to good order settled in the Church and State," who, though they have sworn obedience to the Bishops, their Ordinaries, have never observed their oath, or have deliberately 16.38.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 579 violated It, " to the conterapt of authority and disturbance of the Church ;" or such as are " under the censures of this Church" for "divers transgressions deserving deprivation. — I. For uttering in their sermons rash and irreverent speeches in tho pulpit against his Majesty's Council and their proceedings, punishable by deprivation, by the Act of Assembly at Edinburgh, May 22, 1590. 2. For reproving his Majesty's laws, statutes, and ordinances, contrary to the Act ofthe Asserably at Perth, May 1, 1596. 3. For express ing men's names in pulpits, or describing them vividly to their re proach where there is no notorious fault, against another Act of the same Assembly. 4. For using applications in their sermons not tending to the edification of their auditory, contrary to an other Act of the same Assembly. 5. For keeping conventions not allowed by his Majesty, without his knowledge and consent, contrary to another Act of the same Assembly. 6. For receiving of people of other ministers' flocks to the Communion, contrary to order. Acts of Assemblies, and Councils. 7. For intruding into other men's pulpits without calling and authority. 8. For usurp ing the authority to convene their brethren, and proceeding against them to the censures of suspension and deprivation. 9. For press ing the people to subscribe a Covenant not aUowed by authority, and opposing and withstanding the subscribing of a Covenant offer ed bj' his Majesty, and allowed by the [Privy] Council ; besides many personal faults and enormities, whereof many of them are guilty, which in charity they [the Bishops] forbear to express." The Bishops farther protested that by " reason. Scripture, or prac tice of the Cliristian Church," no laymen " should be authorized to have voice in a General Asseinbly except delegates by sovereign authority," for which they refer to several of the ancient Councils. They conclude by stating that as the majority, if not all the persons then convened at Glasgow, " have preconderaned episcopal govern ment," and resolved to maintain their Covenant, as " doth appear by their Covenant, petitions, protestations, pamphlets, libels, and ser raons," they cannot judge honestly or Irapartially on " persons and points which beforehand they have so unjustly condemned." They finally appeal to the " consciences of all honest raen," whether it is reasonable and lawful for the " same persons to be both judges and parties" — declaring that those persons are avowed parties " against the Bishops, whom they have not only declined but 580 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. persecuted by their calumnies and reproaches, vented by word and writ, In public and in private, by invading their persons, and oppos ing and oppressing thera by strength of an unlawful corabination." This Declinature was presented by Dr Robert Harailton, minis ter of Glassford, and after it was read in the Asserably the Cove nanters entered a declaration that the Bishops had acknowledged their citation, and that as they had appeared by Dr Hamilton, their alleged procurator, their absence was wilful. Dr Hamilton was then cited as procurator for the Bishops. A comraittee was ap pointed to exaraine the Declinature, and two answers, subsequently corapressed Into one, were concocted. A long discussion ensued in which the Marquis and Dr Balcanqual on the one side, and Henderson and a preacher naraed Dalgleish on the other, took part. Henderson, as Moderator, at length asked the Marquis of Hamil ton whether the question should be put — that the Assembly were to find themselves competent judges of the Bishops ? The Mar quis requested that it might be deferred. Henderson replied that this was impossible, for the Declinature was under consideration. This appears to have occurred on the morning of the 28th of November. After the Marquis had Intiraated to a number of the leaders, in the chapter-house of the cathedral, that he would be compelled to dissolve the Assembly by royal authority and leave thera, if they sat in judgraent on the Bishops, which he announced to Henderson in the Asserably, Rothes and others defended their conduct in constituting the Tables, admitting lay elders, and their mode of electing the members. The Marquis denied that the Assembly was free, for it consisted of an undue proportion of lay elders, some of whora were not even inhabitants of the parishes they pretended to represent within the bounds of the Presbytery, while others had been constituted elders for party purposes after the Asserably had been summoned. He advised them to dissolve of their own accord, and rectify those errors in a new election, promising that the King would sanction another Assembly. Rothes had the effrontery to irapute their disagreeable position to the Bishops, and the ferocious Loudon alleged that if the Bishops declined the judgment of the Assembly, the only judg- ment^seat for thera was the King of heaven's. The Marquis re plied, with tears In his eyes — " I stand to the King's prerogative as suprerae judge over all causes civil and ecclesiastical. To him 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 581 the Lords of the clergy have appealed, and therefore I will not suffer their cause to be farther reasoned here." The concluding addresses of the Marquis are inserted at length by Bishop Burnet in his " Memoirs of the Dukes of Harailton." He cited most of the arguments in the Declinature of the Bishops, complained of the iUegal preponderance of the lay elders and their office, " it being unknown," he said, " to the Scripture or Church of Christ for above fifteen hundred years. Let the world," con tinues the Marquis, " judge whether those laymen be fit to give votes in inflicting the censures of the Church, especiaUy that great and highest censure of excommunication, none having power to cast out of the Church by that censure except those who have power to admit into the Church by baptism. — And [let the world also know] whether all the lay elders present at this Asserably be fit to judge of the high and deep mysteries of predestination, the universality of redemption, the sufficiency of grace given or not given to all men, the resistibility of grace, total and final persever ance, or apostacy of the saints, the antilapsarian or postlapsarian opinion of election and reprobation, all which they mean to venti late if they determine against the Arminians, as they give out they will." The Marquis then described many of the preachers and their principles. He said that " choice was made of some who are under the censure of the Church, of some who are deprived by the Church, of some who have been banished and put out of the Uni versity of Glasgow for teaching their scholars that raonarchies were unlawful, some banished out of the kingdom for their seditious sermons and behaviour, and sorae for the like offences banished out of another of his Majesty's dominions — Ireland ; some lying under the fearful sentence of excoraraunicatlon, sorae having no ordination or Imposition of hands, some admitted to the rainistry contrary to the standing laws of this Church and kingdom ; all of them chosen by lay elders. What a scandal were it to the Reform ed Churches to allow this to be a lawful Assembly, consisting of such members, and so unlawfully chosen ! Of this Asserably divers are under a writ of outlawry, and by the laws of this kingdora are incapable of sitting as judges in any judicatory. — Ye have cited the reverend Prelates of this land to appear before you in a way unheard of not only in this kingdom, but in the whole Christian world, their citations being read in the pulpits, which is not usual 582 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. in this Church ; nay, and many of them were read in the pulpits after they had been delivered Into the Bishops' own hands. How can his Majesty deny unto thera, being his subjects, the benefit of his laws, in declining all those to be their judges who by their Covenant do uphold the principal thing in question, to-wit. Epis copacy to be abjured, as many of you do ; or any of you to be their judges, who adhere to your last protestation, wherein you declare that it is an office not known in this kingdom, although at this present It stands established both by Acts of Parliament and Acts of General Assemblies ? Who ever heard of such judges as have sworn theraselves parties 2" The Marquis concluded by again recomraending thera to " dissolve," and " amend aU these errors in a new election," assuring them that he would exert his influence with the King to suraraon another Asserably. Henderson, as Moderator, replied in a long speech, in which, to the astonishment of many of the zealous Covenanters, he " magni fied," says Burnet, " the King's authority in matters ecclesiastical, calling him the universal Bishop of the Churches in his dominions, with other such like expressions." He defended their proceedings against the Bishops, and several of the Covenanting Nobility main tained the legality and freedom of the Assembly. The Marquis stated his opinion on what had been advanced, and after ordering some papers to be read, which were disowned by the Assembly as raerely the " private opinions of sorae," he told thera that for raany months the Tables had been obeyed by all in preference to the King, but that he would now try their declarations of loyalty. He stated that " one of the chief reasons which moved him to dissolve this Assembly was to deliver the ministers frora the tyranny of lay elders, who. If not suppressed, would, as they were now designing the ruin of episcopal power, prove not only ruling but overruling elders. Having in vain requested Henderson, as Moderator, to close the Assembly with prayer, the Marquis rose so visibly overcome with grief as to affect most of the persons present, and solemnly pro tested in the name of the King, on behalf of himself and the Bi shops, that no act after his departure would be legal. He then by royal authority dissolved the Assembly on the 29th of Novem ber, and prohibited their farther proceedings. While the Marquis and the Lords of the Privy CouncU were leaving the cathedral, the Earl of Rothes handed to Johnston of Warriston a written 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 583 protest, prepared in anticipation of this result, which was pubUcly read. The concluding scene, before the departure of the Commissioner, is worthy of perusal. " Before ye proceed farther," said the INIar- quis, " I wiU renew all my protestations made in name of my raas ter and Lords of the clergy here, and wiU present unto you his Ma jesty's gracious pleasure signed with ray own hand by his warrant." The clerk then read the document presented by the Marquis, con taining the withdrawal of the Book of Canons, Liturgy, and High Commission — that the Five Articles of Perth were not to be urged — that the Assembly were to have liberty to declare their opinion of those Articles to the ensuing Parliament — that the only oath to be taken by ministers was to be that according to the Act of ParUament — that General Assemblies were to be suramoned when necessary or expedient — that tbe Bishops were to be liable to the censure of General Assemblies — that no change of re Ugion was intended — and that the Covenant and bond of 1580, revived in 1589, was to be subscribed. The Marquis then ad dressed the Assembly on those topics, to which Henderson re plied, and a desultory discussion ensued on the competency of the Assembly to be judges of the Bishops, in which the Marquis, Henderson, Lord Loudon, and the Earl of Rothes, were the speakers. The presence and voting of the " ruling elders," and the conduct of the Tables, were also warmly debated. The latter subject eUcited a facetious speech from the Earl of Rothes, in con cluding which he asked — " When the Commissioners from shires and presbyteries raet and sat down, what absurdity was there to call thera so met a Table, seeing it is not called a Council Table, or a Judicial Table, such as Prelates caUed their Tables I If we called It a Judicial Table, let us be hanged for It. A tailofs table sitting with his men sewing upon it is called a table, or a company eating at such a man's table ; there is no absurdity in the speech, and we did not call ourselves the Tables, but others gave it that name." " I ex cept not much," said the Marquis, " against the name of Table. I have no cause of passion to hear their raeetings called a Table, for there is passion enough at my heart that I find so much power at these Tables, and so little at the Council Table, for it is well known your positive councils are more regai-ded than the King's CouncU Table." In reply to an observation of Rothes the Mar- 584 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. quis repeated his statement, and before he dissolved the As serably he said — " I heard these raen [the Bishops] swear that for procuring the peace of the land they were content to lay down their offices and livings, and leave this kingdora. I grant the offer is but small, for the Prince whom they serve can make it up another way." He subsequently observed — " I ara sure the Bishops desire nothing more than to have a lawful hearing before a judge free of partiality, but no man will submit himself to a judge whom he thinks is party, as they think this Assembly to be." He soon afterwards dissolved the Assembly and retired ; but the ques tion was nevertheless renewed by Henderson — " Whether they found themselves lawful and competent judges to the pretended Bishops and Archbishops of this kingdora, and the coraplaints given against thera and their adherents, notwithstanding their De clinature and Protestation 2" Only four dissented frora declaring the affirmative. BaiUie alleges, as the opinion of some of his friends, who, he oonfesses, were " but short-sighted, and dived not deep into the mysteries of state," that if the Marquis had remained some days longer it would have been "In nothing prejudicial to his master's service ; yea, very conduceable to have kept all frora those irrerae- diable extremities all men saw by that departure to be inevitably consequent. Thequestion about the judgesoftheBishops,"continues BaUlie, " which his Grace took for the occasion of his rising, was brought on by his urgent pressing of reading their Declinature." To all this and many other opinions It raay be replied, that the Marquis of Harailton could not have acted otherwise without cora- proraising the honour and dignity of the Crovrai. Bailhe observes on the " Bishops and their opposites," that " there can be no pos sible agreeance but by yielding aU to the one side." This was probably the fact. The law, to say nothing of truth, was on the side of the Bishops and of the Church, and the Covenanters con tended for rictory. " For my own part," says Baillie, " I thought that the standing of Episcopacy in any the least degree could not be yielded." The sincerity of the Marquis of Harailton on this oc casion and during his subsequent career has been variously dis cussed. Bishop Henry Guthrie asserts that he secretly encour aged the Covenanters in their designs, but this is indignantly denied by a contemporary in his annotations on some passages of 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 585 the Bishop's work.* It Is certain from BailUe's narrative that the Presbyterians were at least pleased with his external deraean- our. " My Lord Coraraissioner's Grace," Baillie writes to his friend Spang, 12th February 1639, " seeraed to us one of the ablest and best spoken statesraen the King has ; a great lover both of the King and his country ; as he left nothing unassayed among us to get the King his will, so we hope he has done his en- ' Sir James Turner's Memoirs of his own Life and Times, printed for the Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 4to. 1829, p. 231-235. The Bishop aUeges that the Marquis after a certain interview said to the Covenanting NobiUty and preaching leaders in private — " My Lords and gentlemen, I spoke to you before these Lords of the Council as the King's Commissioner ; now, there being none present but yourselves, I would speak one thing to you as a kindly Scotsman. If you go on with courage and resolution you will carry what you please ; but if you faint and give ground in the least, you are un done ; a word is enough to wise men." The Bishop alleges that he would not have mentioned this private advice, if various contradictory accounts of it had not become public — that " some made it better, others worse than it was ; but that very same day Mr Andrew Cant told it to Mr Guild [of Aberdeen], as also to Mr Dalgleish, minister of Cupar [Fife], to Mr Eobert Knox, minister of Kelso, and to Mr Henry Guthrie [the Bishop himself, then] minister of Stirling." Sir James Turner has the foUowing severe remarks on this story : — " The Bishop, after so foul an aspersion, should have endeavoured to prove his accusation by some more habile witnesses than Mr Andrew Cant, yea, or any of the Covenanters, not excepting the best of them, for all of them were then party ; all of them knew but too weU that many public affairs are carried on by lies, and the business ordinarily done before the people be undeceived. But the Bishop himself makes Mr Andrew Cant the reporter of this tale, and consequently father of the Ue ; and indeed he [Cant] could not have told it to three fitter trumpeters, whereof this Bishop was himself one. But let this [the Bishop's] manuscript be ex amined J it will be found the Bishop accuses the same Mr Cant in another case to have made a concatenation of lies in the pulpit to his audience in a sermon, and blasphemous lies in his prayers to God Almighty. With what malic* and impudence, then, can the Bishop make use of the same Mr Cant as a habile witness against James then Marquis since Duke of Hamilton ? This Mr Guild, if it be he I mean, was an honest man at the time and a royalist, and therefore Cant hath purposely told this lie to him, that Guild being once persuaded to beUeve it, might also labour to bring other honest and loyal men to a distrust of the Commissioner, that they might provide for their own safety by leaving him and joining with the Covenanters — Cant and all his crew knowing well enough that when one is boldly calumniated something will stick and adhere ; and as suredly their design at that time, and long afterwards, was to make honest men jealous one of another, and particularly of James then Marquis of Hamilton, wherever they were but too successful, none contributing more to it than the Bishop, the author of this manuscript. But how wickedly and falsely the Bishop hath represented this story may appear perfectly by this, that he writes of the famous then Earl since Marquis of Montrose, as one who believed this ridiculous narration to be true." The indignant cavaUer denies that Montrose gave it the sUghtest credit, and adds—" Assuredly he looked upon it as a fable invented by Master Cant, with some additional notes by Bishop Guthrie." 586 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. deavours, and wiU continue to obtain the country justice at the King's hand. Though he has done all against our proceedings which the heart of the Bishops In any wisdom could have com- raanded hira yet we take it aU in good part, reraembering the place that was put on hira. My thoughts of the man before that tirae were hard and base ; but a day or two's audience did work ray raind to a great change towards him, which yet remains, and ever wiU, tiU his deeds be raost notoriously evU." And describing the disappointed feelings of the Marquis when dissolring the As sembly Baillie says — " It kythed [appeared] by his extraordinary grief at their miscarriage ; raany days thereafter he forgot to eat his bread, and through grief feU in sickness. My heart pitied the man." The Marquis after dissolving the Assembly summoned the Privy Council, who approved his conduct, with the exception of the Earl of Argyll, who declared that he would acknowledge the Assembly and take the Covenant. The Earl Induced a few others of the Privy Council to follow his example, but their defection was considered by the Marquis an advantage. The Privy Council also ^vrote to the King comraending the whole proceedings of the Marquis. On the morning of the ensuing day most of the Privy Councillors signed the proclaraation dissolving the Asserably, which was pub lished at the Cross of Glasgow, where it was met by a protestation subscribed by Johnston of Warriston. The Marquis then retired to his family mansion of Hamilton, carrying with him Bishops Max well of Ross and Whiteford of Brechin, and a few days afterwards he went to Edinburgh, where he received a letter from the King, dated 7th December, applauding his proceedings, and intimating that early in the spring the railitary preparations would be com pleted. The Marquis also received two letters from Archbishop Laud. The one, dated Lambeth, 3d December, was the Arch bishop's reply to a letter from the Marquis of the 27th November. The Primate raentions two long letters he had received at the same time from Bishop Maxwell of Ross and Dean Balcanqual, in which were fuU details of the proceedings of the Asserably. — " I heartily pray your Lordship," says Laud, " to thank both the Bishop of Ross and the Dean [Balcanqual] for their kind letters, and the full account they have given me ; but there Is no particular that requires an answer in either of thera, saving that I find in the Dean's letter 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 587 that Mr Alexander Henderson, who went all this while for a quiet and calm-spirited man, hath shewed hiraself a raost violent and passionate man, and a moderator without moderation!'' The Arch bishop's other letter, dated Whitehall, 7th December, is an answer to one frora the Marquis written on the 2d. It chiefly contains the King's sentiments on the state of affairs and some general details. Yet although the Marquis was zealously thanked by Archbishop Laud and others for his conduct, he so far adopted the Presbyterian notion in his letter to the King on the 27th of November, two days before he dissolved the Assembly, as to allege that the conduct of the Bishops in the raatter of the Liturgy was illegal, though it is now evident that Archbishop Spottiswoode and others were opposed to its introduction. He raost erroneously states — " Their pride was great, but their folly greater ; for if they had gone right about this work nothing was raore easy than to have effected what was airaed at. As for the persons of the men. It will prove of small use to have them characterized by me ; their condition being such as they cannot be too rauch pitied, yet lest I should lay upon them a heavier imputation by saying nothing than I intend, therefore I shall crave leave to say thus rauch. It will be found that some of them have not been of the best lives, as St Andrews, Brechin, Argyll, Aberdeen ; yet for my Lord of Ross [Bishop Maxwell], the most hated of all, and generaUy by aU, there are few personal faults laid to his charge more than ambition, which I cannot account a fault so it be in lawful things."* Henderson, after the departure of the Marquis, addressed the illegal conclave In a long speech. He said — " AU who are pre sent know how this Asseinbly was indicted, and what power we aUow to our sovereign in matters ecclesiastical. Although we have acknowledged the power of Christian kings for con vening Asserablies, and their power In them, yet that must not derogate from Christ's right ; for he has given warrant to convo cate AsserabUes whether magistrates consent or not." The argu raents adduced in support of these opinions may be easily infer red. The accession of Argyll to the now rebeUious movement Imparted fresh courage to the leaders, and Lord Erskine, then a youth, the son of the Earl of Mar, signed the Covenant, though three years afterwards he became a devoted loyalist. The question * Hardwicke's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 113. ¦ 588 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. was discussed — Whether they would adhere to the protestation against the Commissioner's departure, and continue to meet tiU their business was concluded ? With the exception of a few from the county of Forfar this was decided in the affirraative. The next question, simUarly decided, was — Whether they were lawful and competent judges of the Archbishops and Bishops of the kingdom, and of the complaints given in against them and their adherents, without any regard to their Dechnature and Protestation I On the 30th of November the Earl of Traquair wrote from Fal kirk to the Marquis of Hamilton — " The Serrice-Book \rill be conderaned in general as repugnant to the tenets of this Church ; episcopal governraent as not agreeable to the government thereof; and presently aU the Bishops of this kingdom are condemned, and presently excommunicate. — If I should subscribe any covenant or confession which in my judgment excluded episcopacy or episcopal govemment, I behoved to subscribe against the light of my own con science, and this I declared publicly, as I shall do while I breathe!''* On the 8th of December a long proclamation was issued against the continuation of the Assembly, dated Whitehall, but the royal authority was set at defiance. Their proceedings, as affecting the Episcopal Church, while sitting in defiance of the law, raay be thus summarily stated. They rindicated those of their own party who were under the censures of the Church, and answered the objec tions of the Court against the lay elders. They set forth their peculiar explanation of the Covenant, and condemned the Perth Articles, the Book of Canons, the Liturgy, and the High Commis sion. They denounced as Ulegal and corrupt the several General Assemblies of LinUthgow In 1606 and 1608, Glasgow in 1610, Aberdeen in 1616, St Andrews in 1617, and Perth in 1618. They enacted, as they aUeged, In accordance with the Confession of Faith of 1560, 1581, and 1590, that Episcopacy, or any ecclesias tical function differing from that of an ordinary Presbyterian minis ter, was illegal. But the conduct cf the episcopally ordained Mr BaUUe at the discussion of the abjuration of Episcopacy erinced some corapunctlon of conscience. When the vote was put — Re moved and abjured — ^in accordance to their Covenanting interpretar tion that aU episcopal government had been condemned by the Confession of Faith, BaiUie drew upon himself universal attention " Hardwicke's State Papers, vol. ii. p. 121. 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 589 when he alone declared — " Removed now, but never before abjured!''* He was similarly situated at the vote for the abjuration of the Perth Articles, and he describes the proceedings of his friends as most unprincipled and contemptible. " I pitied much," he says, " to see men take advantage of the time to cast their own conclu sions in Assembly Acts, though with the extreme disgrace or danger of their brethren. The question was stated very cunningly, as ye may see in the act about the removal of these Articles out of our Church." The hypocrisy of Henderson was here prominently displayed. He professed that it was not intended to injure any man's conscientious scruples by pronouncing the Perth Articles " idolatrous or superstitious, as some esteemed them," and that he had no wish to condemn other Churches, who were " to be judged by their own Master." BaUlie says that he saw the " snare," and though he was resolved not to dispute, yet before the vote he com plained of the evident purport of the question, and maintained — " that to ask if [the] Perth Articles were to be removed according to our Confession, which was conceived by way of oath and cove nant with God, [it] was all one as if to ask if they were truly ab jured before, and all who had defended them since were truly per jured, which was a very hard matter for many to grant." Hen derson lost temper at this declaration, and denied that his lan guage could be so construed. When the vote was taken, they all answered — " Abjured and remxived!'' Baillie, who had, like many of thera, acknowledged the Perth Articles, says — " No man was * BailUe's narrative of his conduct on the occasion is very sophistical. He says — " The question was formed about the abjuration of all kind of Episcopacy in such terms as I profess I did not well at the time understand, and thought them so cunningly in tricate, that hardly could I give any answer either ita or non. — When it came to my name, many eyes were fixed on me, expecting some opposition, but all I said was— that according to the express words of the Assembly 1580 [and] 1581 Episcopacy was to be distinguished. Episcopacy as used and taken in the Church of Scotland I thought to be removed ; yea, that it was a Popish error, against Scripture and antiquity, and so then abjured ; but Episcopacy simpliciter, such as was in the ancient Church, and in our Church during Knox's days in the persons ofthe Superintendents, it was for many reasons to be removed, but not abjured in our Confession of Faith. This Argyll and Loudon, and many, took out of my mouth as not ill said, and nothing against their mind, who spoke not of Episcopacy simpliciter, but in our own Church, whether or not it had been condemned at the time of the Covenant's first subscription." The approbation of Argyll and Loudon proves that BaiUie's notions of what he designates " Episcopacy'' were of no value. BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 158. 590 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. opposed but myself, for here I saw no place for distinction as be fore in Episcopacy, and so without any hesitation I voted — Removed now, but never before abjured!'' But the great business was the mock deposition of the Bishops and nurabers of the clergy. Every little foible, and every alleged error of conduct, without reference to tirae or place, were magni fied into enormous criraes ; lies innuraerable were invented and wiUingly credited ; and aU, however immoral, disgraceful, and un principled in their own characters and conduct, were gladly welcomed if they brought charges against the Bishops and clergy. It is some consolation to know that the Covenanting Presbyterians would have similarly treated the Apostles, the Fathers, and the Ulustrious Bishops and Martyrs of the Primitive tiraes. On the evening of the very day of the dissolution of the A ssem- bly they coraraenced by referring to processes against sorae of their associates in the High Commission Court. After sundry speeches and the discussion of some minor points. Lord Montgomery moved that the summons and claim against the pretended Archbishops and Bishops be read. Henderson replied from the chair that the Prelates were sumraoned in the best forra they could devise. " Let us now," he said, " hear what is said against one of the Bishops, and reraove the rest to be looked on by those that have charge of the bills. We need not spend tirae in reading the general com plaint against the Bishops ; but here is a particular condescend ing upon some things which will clear the general. This is against the Bishop of Galloway." On the 1st of December the first process read was against Mr David Mitchell, minister of Edinburgh, Dr Panter, Principal of St Mary's College in St Andrews, and Dr Alexander Gladstanes, who were accused of Arminianisra, and " many erroneous and Pa pistical points of doctrine." This was followed two days after by a singular discussion on Arminianism conducted by David Dickson and Andrew Ramsay. The extraordinary absurdities uttered by those two men are apparent throughout all their stateraents on election, predestination, reprobation, and other Calvinistic tenets. A letter was then read from Bishop Graham of Orkney, produced by his son, or probably his son-in-law, Patrick Smyth of Braco, a member of the conclave, offering to " submit himself in all re spects to the Asserably." Mr David Mitchell was then deposed — 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 591 the very charitable and amiable Mr Robert Douglas stating in re ply to Mr Moderator Henderson — " He Is clearly convicted of Arminianism and many points of Popery, and the censure of the Kirk is deprivation for his false doctrine, and excommunica tion for dechning the General Assembly ; therefore I think this Assembly should extirpate such birds lest the Kirk should receive prejudice hereafter." Baillie says — " Mr David Mitchell this long time had delighted to grieve the whole land with the doctrine of the faction : Arminianisra in all the heads, and sundry points of Popery, proved by sundry witnesses, besides his declining of the Asseinbly, which alone, according to the Acts of our Church, im ports deposition. He came to Glasgow, at least remained some days in Hamilton with the Bishop of Ross. No man could have such a one in our Church without serious repentance for his manifold errors." The delegates from Edinburgh presented their grievances against the Dean [Hannay] and his coUeagues, Messrs Thomson, Fletcher, and Dr Elliot — " the first three," says Baillie, " as decliners of the Assembly and practitioners of the Service- Book ; the last as obtruded on them by Sir John Hay's [Lord Provost] authority, and as too weak for that ministry ; also as one who had read the Liturgy in a Diocesan Assembly" [Synod]. On the 4th of December Mr WiUiam MaxweU of Dunbar and Mr George Sydserff of Cockburnspath in Haddingtonshire were referred to a committee appointed to raeet in Edinburgh, and eventually deposed for their aUeged " corrupt doctrine" and forcing their parishioners to conforraity. " It is raarvellous," adds Baillie, whose horror of Arrainianisra amounted to insanity, " how impu dent all the familiars of the Bishops of Ross and Galloway were grown in avowing pertly Arminianism and much Popery." On this day Dr Gladstanes of St Andrews was unanimously deposed. BaiUie's attack on hira is so gross and rabid as to carry its refuta tion. He describes him as a " monster of drunkenness and atheistic profanity ; Rome pagan could not have suffered such a beastly man to have remained a priest even to Bacchus ! I hear [for the pious Mr BaiUie was not even acquainted with Gladstanes] that the man once had a very great appearance of many good parts. They say he was a trim personage of a man, had a pretty estate, was a scho lar in all faculties ; right eloquent, wise, and discreet, and free of aU scandalous vices ; in favour with the King, Court, and country ; 592 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. but long since, having cast away the fear of God [not becoming a Covenanter], all these gifts of the body, estate, and mind, have evidently left him." At a subsequent stage of the proceedings Dr Panter of St Mary's College experienced their tender mercies. Of him BaUlie writes — " I never saw the man ; but his Valliados * makes me love him as one of the best poets I know now living. The man has a bonny spirit, sorae things in all sciences, but St Andrews [Spottiswoode] was far in the wrong to advance him to a divinity profession before he had well learned the grounds of that science. He was never diligent ; but he had not sooner settled himself in his chair when he began to recoraraend the English method of study to our youth, to begin with the Popish schoolmen and Fathers, and to close with Protestant Neoterics — a most unhappy and dangerous order. I hear in his public notes he has deboirded [swerved] to the Popish justification, and his discourses to the grossest Pelagianism in original sin, besides other points of Arminianism." On the 5th of December two of the parochial clergy were con signed to the coramittee at Edinburgh, and the process against Dr Robert Hamilton, who presented the Declinature of the Bi shops, was read. The official reported that Dr Hamilton had told hira to hang himself when he suramoned him — that he was not a traitor to appear before rebels — and that he was an honester man than any who sat in that Assembly. -f- " Besides his open affront ing of the Assembly," writes Baillie, " he was found to have been absent at Court and at Edinburgh often twelve, fifteen, eighteen weeks together from his church, upon no reason but pleas for aug- raentatlon [of his stipend] and suits of farther promotion. The man's gifts are every way mean ; he had a good estate, and was well [in circumstances], but being smitten by the ambition of his brother-in-law Dr Whiteford [Bishop of Brechin], trode his steps of vain lavishness and dUapidation of what he had, to seek what he did not deserve." After this specimen of prying Into private affairs — a common practice of the Presbyterians generally — Bailhe unhesitatingly affirms that Dr Hamilton was " according to the • " A Latin Poem in hexameter verse, dedicated to King Charles, entitled — ' VaUia- dos Libri Tres opus inchoatum auctore Patricio Pantero, ad Fanum Andreae Theologo.' Edinburgh, 1633, small Svo." BaUlie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 149. X Eecords ofthe Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol.i. p. 162. 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 593 English fashion a profaner of the Sabbath," Inducing his parish ioners to dance and play at football : — " He was, as we call it, an ordinary swearer, for the faction delighted, as I have heard sundry of them, to adorn their speeches with the proverbs — Before God ; I protest to God : By my conscience ; On my soul ! and higher asseve rations, by these phrases to clear themselves of Puritanism. He was a violent persecutor, even to excomraunication, and denying of raarriage and baptism, of those who would not communicate with him kneeling." Dr HamUton intimated to Henderson that he declined to appear before that illegal Asserably, and raaintaining that, if even all those falsehoods charged against hira were true, he considered thera unworthy of a rebuke from the Presbytery. He was eventuaUy deposed, but he continued to officiate several weeks in his parish church in defiance of their fulminations. Dr Hamilton soon afterwards retired into England, and the Cove nanters were alarmed at the intelUgence that he was nominated to the See of Caithness in room of Bishop Abemethy, who ac knowledged the authority of the inquisitorial conclave, and actuaUy subscribed the Covenant. The Doctor, however, was never conse crated. Another Robert Hamilton, minister of Lesmahago, was accused of " breaking the Sabbath, borrowing from bis parishioners, detaining the penalties of delinquents, banishing sorae of his pa rishioners out of tbe parish for not kneeling at the Comraunion, preaching Arminianism, and declining the Assembly." In addi tion he was charged with insolent behaviour before the Presbytery of Lanark, by designating some of his Covenanting parishioners debauched villains ; but the great query about him was — " If he had cleared himself before the Presbytery concerning universal grace 2" He appeared, and as his replies were considered unsatis factory he was suspended, declared worthy of deposition, ordered to appear before the Presbytery of Lanark, and next before their Commission at Edinburgh, after giving the former " satisfaction," or to proceed against hira. He was eventually deposed on the 31st of January 1639. He sent a letter to the said Presbytery declaring his conterapt for the Asserably, and that he intended to " continue preaching notwithstanding his deposition ;" for which he was summoned before the Presbytery to " hear the sentence of the Kirk, under pain of excommunication." This Mr Hamilton 38 594 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1038. was considered a person of some importance, as Mr Moderator Henderson expressed hiraself very anxious to " gain the man."* Mr John Crichton, minister of Paisley, was deposed on a charge of " many blasphemous points both of Arrainianisra and Popery — • about forty- eight — besides his scandalous life."-f- A simUar order was taken with Mr John M'Naught, minister at Chirnside, for " de^ serting his parish, declining his Presbytery, and preaching Armi nian doctrine." Mr William Annand of Ayr was ordered to be de posed by the Presbytery of Ayr for " maintaining Saints' Days and many points of erroneous doctrine," especially those advanced in his sermon before the Diocesan Synod of Glasgow in 1637. As it was also considered necessary to get up a charge of " scandalous life" as well as "erroneous doctrine" against Mr Annand, this very kind duty was volunteered by Mr John SempiU, Provost of Dunbarton, and a Mr John Ferguson or Fergushill, who " gave a large testimony." " I pitied him much," says Baillie ; " the man In my mind had exceeding great gifts ; but profaneness and a resolute opposition to all things he counted puritanical did spoil all. His ditty was, that in a common head — De Invocatione Sanctorum — he had main tained Saints' Days ; he had preached in a Synod in defence of our Liturgy, with many invectives against conceived [ex temporary] prayers ; he was frequently drunk, and an ordinary swearer ; that he had deserted his flock above eight months." Baillie, however, unwittingly records the real origin of those false charges^ — " It is strange to see that raan's unhappiness ; he sub scribed our Covenant ; his people, and we all, had he been con stant, were ready to have done hira rauch pleasure." Mr Thomas Mackenzie, Archdeacon of Ross, was also deposed for " many foul crimes," such as " fornication, drunkenness, marrying of adulterers, &c." Dr Scrymgeour, whom BaiUie calls his " old comerade" — stating thatModerator Henderson was " his neighbour and singular friend" — ^had been " suspended by the Presbytery [of St Andrews] for the Service, pressing conformity, preaching too grossly [the] necessity of Baptism, fornication since his ministry, drunkenness, playing at cards on Sunday." He presented a " con- • Extracts from the Eegister of the Presbytery of Lanark, printed for the Abbots ford Club, 4to. 1839, p. 16. f Peterkin's Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 163. 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 595 fession and supplication" to his tyrannical inquisitors, but Sir John Leslie of Newton, uncle of the Earl of Rothes, was zealous for his deposition, and was only pacified by that farce being do- legated to the Presbytery. Another " old comerade" of Baillie was a Mr John Macmath. His sentence of deposition by the Presbytery was produced and ratified for teaching " all Arminianism, prayer for the dead, invo cation of saints, Christ's local descent to hell, damnation of chil dren without Baptlsra, regeneration ex opere operato by Baptism, his obligation to say mass If King Charles coraraanded, his disdain to come near the Presbytery." Also Mr Francis Hervey, " for his erecting an altar with rails at his own hand [risk or expence], drinking and carding on Sunday, and without proclamation marry ing our Bishop's son with Blantyre's daughter."* Mr Thomas For rester, minister of Melrose, was also deposed, and the Covenanting hatred towards him is amusingly developed by Baillie, who desig nates him " a monster." He was accused of " avowing that the Service was better than preaching — that preaching was no part of God's essential worship — that all prayers should be read off books; he made his altar and rails himself ; stood within, and reached the elements to those who kneeled without ; he avowed Christ's pre sence there, but whether sacramentally, or by way of consubstan- tlation, he wist not, but thought it a curiosity to dispute it ; he main tained Christ's universal redemption, and all that was in our Ser vice-Book was good ; yet he used to sit at preaching and prayer ; baptize in his own house; made a way through the church itself for his kine and sheep ; made a waggon of the old communion table to lead his peats in ; that to make the Sabbath a moral precept was to Judaize ; that it was lawful to work on it ; he caused lead his corn on It ; that our Confession of Faith was faithless — only an abjuration of many things better than there we swore to ; he kept no thanksgiving after Coraraunion ; affirmed our Reformed to have brought more damage to the Church in one age than the Pope and his faction had done in a thousand years." It is singular that the usual charges of drunkenness, adultery, and other licentiousness, were forgotten in Mr Forrester's case. " This monster!" adds BaUUe ferociously, " was justly deposed."f Mr Forrester " is " If BaUUe means that a son of Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow married a daughter of Lord Blantyre, no such marriage is recorded in the Peerage Lists and other records. t BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 165, 166. 596 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. said to have often expressed hiraself in some ironical petitions of his own composition, containing such expressions as — " From the knock-down race of Knoxes, good Lord, deliver us."* He pro bably held the memory of Mr John Knox in no great estimation, but the real cause of this witty deprecation of the " knock-down race of Knoxes " raay have resulted from the circumstance, that Mr Forrester's iraraediate predecessor as rainister of Melrose was Mr John Knox, a nephew of the " faraous John." Such are examples of the sumraary raode in which the rebeUious Covenanting conclave " dealt with" the parochial episcopal clergy. To the pretended charges of Popery and Arrainianisra were inva riably appended false accusations of iraraorality, and this was de signedly done to render the clergy odious to the people. Nura bers of thera were transferred to the tender raercies of eight inquisitorial tribunals constituted by the leaders under the title of Coraraissions, which were appointed to convene at Edinburgh, Jedburgh, Irvine, Dundee, Chanonry of Ross and Forres, Kirkcud bright, and the Colleges of Aberdeen and Glasgow ; the first in De ceraber, and the others In the following months of January, Feb ruary, March, and April. Justice frora such tyrannical and ille gal committees was not to be expected, and they continued the work of deprivation and deposition. The High Commission Court was succeeded by Commissions oi another kind far more odious and intolerable — the very personification of oppression and cruelty on the part of the Covenanters. The proceedings of those men against the Bishops now corae under our notice. Lord Loudon alleged that when on one occasion their petition was presented to the Privy Council, Archbishop Spottis woode rejected It because it was expressed in the name of the " Kirk and clergy," the Primate observing — " Whora call ye the Kirk ? a number of baggage ministers worthy to be banished. Ye shaU understand that we are the Kirk." The narrator of this choice anecdote was followed by one named Bonar, who affirmed that he heard the Bishops declare in a convention at Leith — " They say that they are the Kirk, but we are the Kirk, and It shall be so ; who will say the contrary f ' Witnesses were suborned to de pone against all the Bishops. They began as already noticed with Bishop Sydserff, who was accused of " preaching false doctrine, Arminianism, and bringing in the Service-Book."' — " Besides com- * New Statistical Account of Scotland — Eoxburghshire, p. 68. 1038.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 597 mon faults," says BaiUie, " he was proven to have preached Armi nianism, to have had in his chamber a crucifix, and spoken for the corafortable use he found Into it ; to have indicted two anniversary fasts in his Diocese, and enacted in his Synod a communion for his ministers at all posterior Synods ; he was proved to have deposed ministers, fined and confined gentlemen for unconformity, embraced excommunicated Papists, and professed more love to them than Puritans ; to have conteraned exercise of prayer in his faraily ; to have profaned the Sabbath-day by buying horse ; doing any of his civil matters openly on It." It is hardly necessary to observe that all these were either gross lies, or wUful misrepresentations to suit their purpose. Archbishop Spottiswoode, in addition to preaching " Arminianism and papistical doctrine," was accused, besides his common faults, of ordinary profaning of the Sabbath, carding and diceing in time of Divine service [meaning their preachings .'], riding through the country the whole day, tippling and drinking in taverns till midnight, falsifying with his hand the Acts of Aber deen Asserably, lying and slandering our old Assemblies and Cove nants in his wicked book."* Not content with such falsehoods, those unscrupulous men actually charged the venerable Primate with " adultery, incest, sacrilege, and frequent simony." Bishop Whiteford of Brechin was the next denounced. In addition to the usual charges, they procured a woman who had been a domestic servant to a nobleraan falsely to allege that he was the father of her iUegitiraate child ; and she was ordered to attend and be ex arained in the Assembly. Dr Whiteford had heard of this scandal Invented by his enemies, and went to Glasgow to prove his inno cence in the Assembly ; but the Marquis of Hamilton persuaded him not to appear, lest It should be considered an acknowledg ment of their jurisdiction. These affairs occurred on the 7th of Deceraber. On the 8th Henderson coraraenced the proceedings by stating — " We began at the Bishop of GaUoway, and then at St Andrews and Brechin, and lest it raay seem a neglect that we are long in coming to the Bishop of Glasgow, whose residence is so hard by us, let us go on to the trial of him." The Earl of Werayss rephed—" The Bishop of Glasgow sent a gentleman to me desiring me earnestly to speak with him ; and because I could not go to him before the Assembly, • BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. i. p. 155. 598 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. he entreated me to desire the Asserably that nothing might be done anent hira tiU I speak with him." This was granted, and a few " discreet members" were associated wieh the Earl to confer with the Archbishop — " For," said Henderson, " it is better to wound one, than to lose twenty." They then proceeded to dis cuss the alleged meaning of the Confessions of Faith of 1580, 1581, and 1590, and concluded their debate by the abjuration of Episcopacy. On the following day the Five Articles of Perth were condemned. A letter was next read from Bishop Abernethy of Caithness, set ting forth that " bodily sickness and his extreme disease" were the sole causes of his absence from the Asserably ; and on the following day a committee was appointed " for clearing of the pro cess " against him. Meanwhile the Earl of Wemyss stated that he had seen the Archbishop of Glasgow, who expressed his regret at putting his hand to the Declinature of the Bishops, which he did suddenly, having been strongly urged to it, and that he was only dissuaded by the Marquis of Hamilton frora attending the Assem-_ bly. The Earl also mentioned that he requested Archbishop Lind say to " give two lines under his hand declaring his submission to the Asserably ;" but he replied that " he had not his wits about him," and desired to be " dealt with as those who had submitted theraselves." This was considered unsatisfactory, and it was found that as he had subscribed the Declinature of the Bishops " he be hoved to have his own place." Bishop Lindsay of Edinburgh was the next. Two of them declared that they had seen him " bow to the altar," and other two alleged that they saw him " dedicate a kirk after the popish manner." Baillie says of the Bishop of Edin burgh — " He was proven to have been a pressor of all the late no vations, an urger of the Liturgy, a refuser to admit any to the ministry who would not first take the order of a preaching deacon, a bower to the altar, a wearer of the rochet, a consecrator of churches, a domineerer of Presbyteries, a licenser of raarriages without bands to the great hurt of sundry, a countenancer of corrupt doctrine preached at Edinburgh, an elevator at consecration, a defender of ubiquity in his book.* We pronounced him to be deposed and * This refers to tbe " True Narration of all the Proceedings in the General Assem bly holden at Perth the 25th of August 1618," written by Dr Lindsay when Bishop of Brechin. 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 599 excommunicated." Two of them stated of Bishop BeUenden of Aberdeen that when informed that the way to reform abuses in the Church was a free General Assembly, he passionately exclaim ed — " The first article he would make then would bo to pull the crown off King Charles' head." Another alleged that he was ac cidentally present when he consecrated a chapol at the request ofa ladynamed Gordon, locallyknown as Lady Wardhouso. "The lady," said the witness, " came in, and gavo him a catalogue of the things that are within, which she had wrought with her own hands, and so desired that they might be dedicated to God, and so delivered the key to the Bishop, who went in and preached a serraon of con secration, and baptized a child, and then went to feasting. His text was Solomon's dedication of the Temple."* BaiUie's character of Bishop BeUenden is expressed in his usual style — " His proper faults were great slanders of frequent simony ; that though he was removed from the Chapel-Royal [of Holyrood] to Aberdeen, as one who did not favour well enough Canterbury's new ways, yet he had been found [as forward] as any to press the Canons and Liturgy ; that ho suspended ministers for fasting on Sundays ; that he en acted in his Synods without voting public fastings to be kept on Wednesdays only ; consecrated the chapel of an infamous woman, the Lady Wardhouso ;f stayed at his pleasur processes against Papists and incestuous persons. He had not subscribed the De clinature, as was thought for lack of no good will, but only through distance of place the write in time could not be conveyed to him." The " defect in his process" was supplied by Moderator Henderson, who assailed him for being once " by appearance but too zealous against Bishops and all their courses." Bishop Maxwell of Ross was next in order, and he was the object of their peculiar ferocity. His " process " also was " no way perfect," but the Covenanters were not scrupulous in observing forms of justice. Mr John Irving, formerly Provost of Dumfries, alleged that one Sunday when he was in that town they placed cushions for him in the church, expecting him to attend, but he chose rather to remain all day in an " excom raunicated Papist's house." Lord Loudon complained that though he went to Court by advice of the Bishops to procure the pro- * Peterkin's Eecords ofthe Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 170, 171. t Called " infamous" by the very charitable and amiable Mr BailUe because Lady Wardhouse was not a Presbyteriap. 600 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638. secution of theRoraan Catholics, yet he brought Articles from thence, and came to Glasgow to present the Declinature of the Bishops. BaiUie says of Bishop Maxwell — " It was proven that two years ago he was a public reader in his house and cathedral of the Eng lish Liturgy ; that he was a bower at the altar, a wearer of the cope and rochet, a deposer of the godly rainisters, a corapanion of Papists, an usual card [player] on Sunday ; yea, instead of going to thanksgiving on a communion-day, that he called for cards to play at the Beast; had often given absolution ; consecrated deacons ; robbed his vassals of about 40,000 merks ; kept fasts each Friday ; journeyed usually on Sunday ; had been a chief decliner of the As sembly, and a prime instrument of all troubles both of Church and State. Of his excommunication no man made question." The process against Bishop Wedderburn was next discussed. He had neither been personaUy cited, nor had he subscribed the Declinature, and they well knew that he was then in England — " Yet," says Baillie, " he was excomraunicated as one who had been a special instru ment of all our mischiefs, having corrupted with Arminianism divers by his discourses and lectures In St Andrews ; whose errors and perversness kythe [appear] this day in all the nooks of the kingdom ; having been special penner, practiser, urger of our Books and all no vations, a man set in the Chapel [Royal of Holyrood] to be a hand to Canterbury in all his intentions. What drunkenness, swearing, or other crimes were libelled, I do not reraeraber." Mr James Forsyth, minister of Kilpatrick in Dunbartonshire, whom they had already suspended, was deposed on the charges of " read ing an inhibition for the teinds against his people on the first com munion day, at the table and betwixt sermons and celebration ; for teaching the lawfulness of the bowing at the name of Jesus ; that our Covenant was seditious, treasonable, Jesuitic ; that who knelt not got no good at the Comraunion ; he gave raoney at his entry for his place ; he struck a beggar on the Sabbath-day." Baillie adraits that " they say he raight have cleared himself for the most part," but Mr Forsyth would on no account acknowledge the Assembly ; and Baillie was silent on his behalf, at which he alleges that he was the less grieved when he recollected the " evil reward" he had experienced from Mr. John Corbet, " one of that fraternity" whom he had befriended, and who printed in Dubhn in 1839 the " Unglrding of the Scottish Armour" — " one of the 1688.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 601 most venomous and bitter pamphlets against us all that could corae from the hands of our most furious and enraged enemy." On the 11th of December Bishop Graham of Orkney, Bishop Guthrie of Moray, Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow, Bishop Fairlio of ArgyU, and Bishop Campbell of The Isles, were severally de nounced. Bishop Graham was accused as " a curler on the ice on the Sabbath-day ; a setter of the tacks to his sons-in-law to the prejudice of the Church ; he overlooked adultery, slighted charm ing (!), neglected preaching, and doing of any good there; held portions of ministers' stipends for building his cathedral." As he had acknowledged the Asserably, and professed his dislike to the Canons and Liturgy, he was ordered simply to be deposed. Bishop Guthrie had " aU the ordinary faults of a Bishop," The veracious Mr Andrew Cant aUeged that " he knew him to be a common rider on the Sabbath-day, and that he was a pretty dancer ; at his daugh ter's bridal he danced in his shirt ; also that he conveyed a gentlewo man to a chapel to make penance aU barefooted." A person named Carmichael deponed that on one occasion, when the Bishop was riding from a church on a Sunday morning, he was asked to stay all night as it was then the Sabbath-day," but he answered that he would " borrow that piece of the day from God, and be as good to him some other way." Moderator Henderson opposed his ex communication, and BaUlie says he assented in the hope of obtain ing that favour " to poor Glasgow." That Archbishop was charged with " enjoining the Book of Canons in the Diocesan Synod, urging the Liturgy, oppressing his vassals, causing oaths of his own inven tion to be subscribed by preachers, and interfering with the stipends of the ministers." He was ordered to be deposed and excomrauni cated. Bishop Fairlie of Argyll was accused as " an urger of the wicked oath on entrants, obtruding the Liturgy, oppressing his vassals, a preacher of Arrainianisra, a profaner of the Sabbath, and beginning to do aU that Canterbury could have wished." It is astonishing that they preferred none of their usual falsehoods against Bishop Campbell of The Isles. Bishops Lindsay of Dun keld and Abernethy of Caithness " obtained favour" by their sub mission to the Assembly, and requested " to be continued in the office of the ministry — " Otherwise," says Baillie, " there were truly alleged the common faults, and as foul pranks of simony and avarice as any of the others."'' This admission sufficiently intimates that 602 THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. [1638- the whole charges against the Bishops were false. Infamous, and unworthy of the slightest credit. On the 13th of December the conteraptible sentences against the Bishops were pronounced in the cathedral of Glasgow by Modera tor Henderson, who preached a serraon on the occasion on Psalm ex. 1 : — " The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, - until I make thine enemies my footstool." This sermon, with the act of the pretended deposition, was published as a small pamphlet In 1762 at Edinburgh, entitied " The Bishops' Doom." Hender son enumerated all the preceding calumnies against the Bishops, eight of whom were deposed and excommunicated by him in name of the so called " honourable and reverend Asserably," and the other six deposed from the episcopal office. The eight then " de posed and excommunicated!'' were Archbishops Spottiswoode and Lindsay, Bishops Lindsay of Edinburgh, Sydserff of Galloway, Maxwell of Ross, Whiteford of Brechin, BeUenden of Aberdeen, and Wedderburn of Dunblane. This farce was followed by the deposition, from the episcopal office raerely, of Bishops Guthrie of Moray, Lindsay of Dunkeld, Abernethy of Caithness, Grahara of Orkney, Fairlie of ArgyU, and Campbell of The Isles. The re bellious and self-constituted conclave continued its meetings for seven days afterwards till the 20th of December, when it was thought expedient to separate, after conditionally appointing the third Wednesday of July 1639 for the meeting of the next General Assembly, and valedictory speeches from Henderson, Dickson, Ramsay, and ArgyU, the last of whom exhorted the persons present to be exeraplary in their lives and peaceful in their conduct — " For we must not think," said the Earl, " that because we want Bishops therefore we may live as we will." It is said, and has been often repeated by the Presbyterian writers, that after Argyll's speech, and some concluding observations. Moderator Henderson, imagining himself a second Joshua, exclaimed — " We have now cast down the walls of Jericho ; let him that rebuildeth them be ware of the curse of Hiel the Bethelite." This extraordinary in stance of the perversion of Scripture rests solely on the authority of one acrimonious Presbyterian historian ;* but if it were true, it ' Stevenson's " History of the Church and State of Scotland." It is however observed by Mr Peterkin — " As Mr Stevenson does not state on what authority this is given, and as it is not mentioned in any other work that we have seen, we merely add 1638.] THE GLASGOW GENERAL ASSEMBLY. 603 only shews the danger of such daring applications of sacred history to the peculiar actions of any sect of religionists. The pretendedly excommunicated and deposed Bishops and their inveterate Presbyterian enemies have long been gathered to their fathers, and raen at this distance of tirae can reason on the preceding raelancholy narrative of the extent of human passion and hatred with different feelings. The observations of Mr Scott, in the MS. Perth Registers, on the sentence of deposition pro nounced against Bishop Guthrie of Moray are applicable to all the other Bishops, and are worthy of notice as the candid admissions of a Presbyterian minister. — " The first ground on which it pro ceeded was his having acted contrary to the regulations agreed to in the Assembly at Montrose In 1600, restricting the powers of such as should sit and vote for the Church in Parliament. But the constitution of the Church had altered exceedingly after that date. Bishops were restored to all their ancient privileges in 1606, with which after Assemblies had found no fault ; therefore Mr Guthrie might think himself fully authorised to neglect regulations which had been virtually repealed. It is to be noted_^that in the old Confession of Faith, ratified by Parliament in 1560 and 1567, the office of a Bishop was only negatively condemned by its not being mentioned at all. If he [Bishop Guthrie] was otherwise persuaded of the lawfulness of the episcopal office, or of its agree- ableness to the word of God, which it is to be presumed he was, its being condemned by the old Confession, and by some of the old acts of the Church, would have little effect with him, especially as a new Confession had been framed in 1606, and acts had been passed favourable to Episcopacy. The third ground was his re fusal to underly the trial of the reigning slander of sundry other gross transgressions and offences laid to his charge ; but if he looked upon himself as lawfully a Bishop, he could not otherwise than decline the judgment of the Asserably. The ' other trans gressions and offences laid to his charge' are not specified ; but it is plain they were of such a nature as to have been overlooked, if he had not otherwise fallen under the displeasure of the [Pres byterian] church." it in a note — the expression being frequently referred to — without having before us any contemporary voucher for its accuracy." Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 193. 604 [1639. CHAPTER XVI. OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH — THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS — THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT — THE CIVIL WAR — THE PRES BYTERIANS SELL THE KING. The Covenanters in their Assembly at Glasgow exhibited their tender raercies in the most approved style of sectarian hatred. But notwithstanding the melancholy display of unscrupulous pas sions, prejudices, and errors, recorded in the preceding narrative, the Episcopal Church was still the lawful ecclesiastical establish ment of the kingdom, and the despicable deposition and conterapt ible excommunication of the Archbishops, Bishops, and others who belonged to it, or the project of punishing them, was preposterous, tyrannical, and illegal. The Covenanting Assembly had no power to usurp judicial functions, which could only be derived from the supreme legislature of the country. The pretended deposition of the Bishops, the self-constituted prohibition of Episcopacy and the practice of the Five Articles of Perth, and their act against the press, were so many assumptions of civil power and jurisdic tion. But the rebellion and tyranny of the Covenanting Assembly are now fully admitted. " It would be disingenuous as well as ab surd," says a Presbyterian writer of high authority, " to disguise the fact that several acts of the Assembly of 1638 were violations of, and irreconcileable with, the existing law of the land, and im ported an assumption of authority identical with that of the state. In fact, that Asserably was a political convention, as much at least as an ecclesiastical synod, having fully a hundred members of Parliament in its composition, and In many of its enactraents and decrees it directly rescinded, and superseded a great nuraber of acts of Pariiaraent. Without entering at all on controversial 1639.] OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. 605 ground, we may remark as a matter of fact and notoriety, estab lished on the face of the Statute-Book, and by the tenor of the Assembly's acts, that that Assembly virtually and explicitly ab rogated a series of acts of Pariiaraent by which Prelacy was fully and distinctiy settled as the Established Church of Scotland for a period of above thirty years preceding, under which tho greater number of the clergy in that Assembly had received ordination and benefices, and in which the lay members had acquiesced with out any visible opposition. In addition to the assumption of civil authority in practically repealing acts of Parliament, the As sembly sustained complaints against the Prelates and others at the instance of raiscellaneous and self-constituted public prose cutors — a practice never recognised as competent in the laws of Scotland at any period. It deposed the Prelates not solely for erroneous doctrine or immoralities, but chiefly because they held offices conferred on them under the existing law of the country. It superseded the uniform and settled law both of the Church and State from the time of the Reformation on the point of ecclesiastical presentations to benefices, and transported ministers from place to place regardless of tbe rights of patrons and the wishes of incumbents. It Imposed an absolute veto on the liberty of the press, and, above all, it issued an edict for coercing the whole people into an adoption of the Covenant or Confession ; and in obedience to its decrees, under the terrors of excoramunication — a penalty at that time tantamount to outlawry, confiscation of property, and proscription — in each and all of these particulars deviating frora the spiritual into the civil track of jurisprudence and legislation."* It cannot be denied that the Covenanting leaders in the Glasgow Assembly, who began what some fanatical and repubhcan Presbyterian writers fondly designate the Second Reformation, were raost intolerant and grasping tyrants. " The triumph of the Covenanters," continues the above authority, " was not more distinguished than any other portion of the period re ferred to for greater relaxation In this respect [toleration] than either the Popish or Episcopal Churches ; and during aU the vi cissitudes of their fortune we cannot find even a trace of any proposal to give freedom of conscience to others, even when they * Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol. i. p. 194, 195. 606 OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. [1639. were waging war against Popery and Prelacy In the name of religious liberty." The canonical constitution of the Episcopal Church of Scotland during the Spottiswoode Succession of the Bishops has been disputed. It is contended that the defect lay In the want of the essential preliminaries to valid consecration — that Spottiswoode and his brethren ought to have been first ordained deacons and presbyters In England. This subject is casually noticed in the proper place in the present work. As the subsequent Scottish Episcopal Church derives its Succession from another consecration, previous to which the orders of deacons and presbyters were duly conferred. It is unnecessary to discuss the validity of the Episcopate under the Primates Gladstanes and Spottiswoode. It is worthy of remark, however, that this validity seems never to have been disputed by Archbishop Laud. Immediately after the Illegal Assembly closed its sittings the several inquisitorial Commissions proceeded to " purge out" of the parishes all who adhered to the Episcopal Church, or who were obnoxious to the dominant faction. Baillie states that " many ministers who remained obstinate In scandals were deposed at Edinburgh, St Andrews, Dundee, Irvine, and elsewhere ;" though by two acts of another Assembly, held in 1639, their depositions were to be removed if they subraitted to the new oligarchy. But at Aberdeen the injunctions of the Glasgow Assembly encountered the most determined opposition, and Professor Lundie, the dele gate from King's College, was summoned before the Senatus Acade- micus, by whora he was threatened with deprivation for remaining after the Marquis of Hamilton dissolved the Asserably. We raay here suramarily notice the subsequent proceedings of the Scottish Bishops after their so called excommunication in eight in stances, and the deposition of aU, by the Covenanting Presbyterians. Archbishop Spottiswoode, at the time of the Glasgow Assembly, was in England, " knowing," says a writer of the period, " that although he had moderated in the last General Assembly held at Perth in 1618, yet he would not be welcorae, or by any raeans adraitted to preside in or open this Asserably."* This seems to imply that he was compelled to leave Scotland. In the sketch of " History of Scots Affairs, from 1637 to 1641, by James Gordon, Parson of Eothie may, printed for the " Spalding Club," 3 vols. 4to. 1841, vol. i. p. 139. 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 607 the Archbishop's life by Dr Brian Duppa, Bishop of Winchester, it is stated that he was forced " for safety of his life to retire into England, where grief and age, with a sad soul in a crazy body, had so distempered him, that he was driven to take harbour at New castle, till by some rest and the care of his physicians he had re covered so much strength as brought him to London." It is stated that he resigned the seals as Lord Chancellor for the pecuniary consideration of L.2,500 Sterling, and if this is the case, that sum was probably all he now possessed for his subsistence. A contem porary writer of his day alleges that he placed the seals in the hands of the Marquis of Hamilton, who retained them tUl the Earl of Loudon was appointed Lord Chancellor in 1641 ; yet Bishop Duppa expressly states that he enjoyed the honour of the Chan cellorship to his death. After the Archbishop arrived in London he again relapsed, and was visited in his last illness by Archbishop Laud and other Bishops, with whom he received the holy Com munion. The Marquis of Harailton was among the nuraber of the persons of rank and distinction who waited on the aged and dying Priraate, and Bishop Duppa's account of the interview is affecting. The Marquis approached his bed-side and said — " My Lord, I am corae to kiss your Lordship's hands, and hurably to ask your blessing." " My Lord," repUed the Archbishop, " you shall have my blessing ; but give me leave to speak these few words to you. My Lord, I visibly foresee that the Church and King are both in danger to be lost, and I am verily persuaded that there is none under God so able to prevent it as your Lordship ; and therefore I speak to you as a dying Prelate, in the words of Mordecai to Esther — ' If ye do It not, salvation in the end shall come elsewhere, but you and your house shall perish.' " The Marquis declared that " what he [the Primate] foresaw was his [own] grief, and he wished frora his heart he were able to do that which was expected frora bim, though it were to be done with the sacrifice of his life and fortune ; after which, upon his knees, he received the Archbishop's blessing and departed." In his addition to his last wiU, imraediately before his death he professed that he died in the faith of the Apostles' Creed ; — " For raatters of rites and governraent," he declared, " ray judgraent is and hath been, that the most simple, decent, and hurable rites should be chosen, such as the bowing of the knee In the receiving of the holy 608 OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. [1639. Sacrament, with others of the like kind ; profaneness being as dangerous to religion as superstition. As touching the govern ment of the Church, I am verily persuaded that the government episcopal is the only right and apostolic form, parity araong rainis ters being the breeder of aU confusion, as experience raight have taught us. And for those ruling elders, as they are a raere human device, so they will prove, when the way is more open to thera, the ruin of both Church and State." Archbishop Spottiswoode's " History of the Church and State of Scotland" from the year 203 to the accession of Charles I, in 1625, was published in London in 1655. The whole, with the exception of the first hundred and twenty pages, is valuable as the narrative of a contemporary, con taining detaUs not recorded by other writers, and is written in a clear though plain style, without the pedantry and quaintness peculiar to his time. This work, it is stated, was written by com raand of King James, who told the Archbishop, in reply to an observation that he could not approve of all the actions of his raother Queen Mary — " Speak the truth, and spare not." The Archbishop dedicated it to Charles I. in an epistle dated " from the place of my peregrination, 15th November 1639," in which it is singular that, though it extends to three pages, the writer aUudes neither to his illness nor his exile, but speaks as if he were still In Scotland ; yet this date was only eleven days before his death, which, according to the inscription on his monument, occurred on the 26th of November 1639, in the 74th year of his age, and this is more hkely to be authentic than the statement of other authorities that he died on the 26th or 27th of December. " The manner of his burial," says Bishop Duppa, by the command and care of his religious King, was solemnly ordered ; for the corpse being attend ed by many raourners, and at least 800 torches, and being brought near the Abbey Church of Westminster, the whole Nobility of England and Scotland then present at Court, with all the King's servants and many gentleraen, came out of their coaches, and con veyed the body to the west door, where it was raet by the Dean and Prebendaries of that church In their clerical habits, and buried according to the solemn rites of the English Church, before the extermination of decent Christian burial was come in fashion." Without reference to the infamous lies and atrocious charges set forth by the Covenanters in their pretended libel against Arch- 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 609 bishop Spottiswoode, we find his character assailed by the gossip of the day. Burnet describes hira as " a prudent and mild man, but of no great decency in his course of life," for, according to a statement in his work first printed at Oxford in 1823, " he was a frequent player at cards and used to eat often in taverns ; be sides, that all his livings were scandalously exposed to sale by his servants." But Bishop Burnet was not born till nearly four years after the Archbishop's death, and his partial delineations are well known. It is evident that the Primate, like most of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, made no secret of his aversion and contempt for the austerity of the Puritans, and thus would appear to evince a laxity of decorum which his traducers magnified into egregious crimes ; yet it ought to be remembered that even Archbishop Abbot of Canterbury, puritanically inclined though he notoriously was, often joined in the diversion of the chase, of which the melancholy homicide he committed in Lord Zouch's park is a memorial. Martine describes Archbishop Spottiswoode as " a grave, sage, and peaceable Prelate, ' deserving a singular note and mark of honour,' for, among other things, ' coraposing an excellent Liturgy ;"* but in this he is mistaken, and the Scottish Primate appears rather to have been averse to the introduction of any Liturgy, knowing that he could gain nothing by disturbing the then established order, or exciting the prejudices of the Pres byterians, though he did not openly oppose it In deference to the King. The testimony of Bishop Duppa is a warm eulogium on the piety and conduct of the Archbishop. " In his life he had set so severe a watch upon hiraself, that his conversation was without reproof, even in those times when the good name of every clergy man was set at a rate as formerly were the heads of wolves. — For piety he was more for substance than for show ; more for the power of godliness than the bare form of it. Frequent he was in his private prayers, and In the public worship of God of such an exem plary carriage as might warm the coldest congregation to gather heat, and to join with him in the same fervency and height of his devotion." Archbishop Spottiswoode left two sons and a daughter by his wife Rachel, daughter of Bishop Lindsay of Ross. Sir John Spottiswoode of Dairsie, the elder son, was alive in 1655, and it is said of him that he was then, " though not in a plen- ' Eeliquiae Divi Andrese, p. 251. 39 610 OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. [1639. tiful, yet in a contented condition, not any way cast down or ashamed of his sufferings, but comforting hiraself rather that in this general ruin brought upon his country he hath kept his con science free though his estate hath suffered." He died before the Restoration of Charles IL, surviving a short time his only son, John Spottiswoode, a devoted royalist, who was the follower of the Marquis of Montrose, and executed as a Malignant soon after the Covenanting raurder of that nobleraan. The fate of Sir Robert Spottiswoode, the Archbishop's other son, is subsequently noticed. He married a daughter of Sir Alexander Morrison of Preston grange in Haddingtonshire, a judge in the Court of Session under the title of Lord Prestongrange, and left three sons — John, who died unmarried before the Restoration — Sir Alexander, who carried on the succession of the family — and Robert, appointed by Charles II. physician to the governor and garrison of Tangiers, who was the father of General Alexander Spottiswoode, consti tuted Lieutenant-Governor of Virginia in 1710. The Archbishop's daughter, Anne, married Sir WiUiam Sinclair of Roslin, by whora she had two sons. Dr Jaraes Spottiswoode, brother of the Arch bishop, became rector of Wells in Norfolk in 1603, and Bishop of Clogher in 1621, in which See he continued to his death in 1644, and was interred near the Archbishop in Westminster Abbey, leaving two sons and one daughter, who married, and had descend ants, "whose posterity," it is stated, referring to Sir Henry Spottiswoode, the Bishop of Clogher's elder son, " stiU exist in Ireland, where they are possessed of opulent fortunes." * Archbishop Lindsay of Glasgow retired into England, and died at Newcastle in 1641. Keith says — " I have heard from some persons who knew hira that he was both a good raan and a very fervent preacher." The Archbishop is described as " aged and valetudinary" In 1638, and a contemporary chronicler says that he was then seventy-four years old, and confined to his bed by sickness. The Presbyterians assert that he fainted when the pretended de position and excommunication were announced to him. It appears that he was reaUy against the introduction of the Liturgy, and we have his stateraent to the Earl of Werayss that he reluctantly signed the Declinature of the Bishops by the persuasion of the Marquis of Harailton and Bishop MaxweU of Ross. Baillie states that he * Douglas' Baronage of Scotland, foUo, 1798, p. 447. 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 611 was at one time incUned to subrait himself to the Assembly, but a promised pension of L.5,000 sterling, and the hope of enjoying the revenues of the See of Glasgow for life, prevented hira. " Since that time," says Baillie, " he has lived very quietly, miskent by all, and put well near to Adamson's misery ; had not peace shortly come his wants had been extreme, and without pity from many, or great relief frora any hand we know." Bishop Lindsay of Edinburgh withdrew into England at the commencement of the Covenanting war, and died during the trou bles. A few notices of the family of Bishop BeUenden occur. His son, David BeUenden, minister of Kincardine, died at the episcopal residence in Old Aberdeen, on the 24th of November 1638, during the raeeting of the Glasgow Asserably. On the 22d of March 1639 the Bishop left his palace in Old Aberdeen, and removed to New Aberdeen for " better security." He continued to preach and ad minister the Comraunion till the 24th. On the 27th he was cora peUed by the threats of the Covenanters to leave the town with his son and nephew. The Bishop returned to Aberdeen on the 19th of May, but he was soon forced to depart. His daughter Margaret BeUenden foUowed hira to England, and died at Berwick in January 1640 much lamented. Bishop Whiteford of Brechin also withdrew into England, and in 1642 it was rumoured in Aber deen that he and Bishop BeUenden had obtained benefices from the King.* BaiUie, however, mentions that in December 1640 the latter was living in London " in great poverty and misery." He survived till the month of April 1642, but he died soon afterwards, and Bishop Whiteford in 1643. Bishop Wedderburn of Dunblane died at or near Canterbury in 1639, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and was buried within the chapel of the Virgin in the Cathedral, where a monuraent was erect ed to his meraory. It simply set forth that he was bom at Dundee, was Dean of the Chapel-Royal [of Holyrood] and Bishop of Dun blane four years, and that he was the ornament of his country for his leaming, probity, and faithfulness. Bishop Maxwell of Ross, a man of great abilities, whom the Covenanters particularly hated, retired to England after the Parharaent denounced hira in 1639. * Spalding's History of the Troubles and Memorable Occurrences in Scotland and England from 1624 to 1645. Printed for the Bannatyne Club. Edinburgh, 1829, 2 vols. 4to. vol. i. p. 85, vol. ii. p. 39, 40. 612 OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. [1639. His wife Is mentioned as the sister of Mr Alexander Innes, rainis ter of Rothieraay, with whom she took shelter after she was com pelled to leave the episcopal residence at the Chanonry of Ross, and remained tiU the Bishop sent for her. Bishop MaxweU was appointed to the Sees of Killala and Achonry in Ireland in 1640 at the deprivation of Dr Adair, and to the Archbishopric of Tuam in 1645. He was found dead in his closet In 1646, on his knees in the attitude of prayer, and he is said to have died of grief at the tidings of the King's misfortunes. He was most barbarously treated by the rebels both at KiUala and Tuam. He and his predecessor Archbishop Boyle of Tuam retired to Galway for protection in 1641, and were in great danger of their lives frora an insurrection ofthe Inhabitants, who took up arras against the garrison. " Bishop MaxweU," says Bishop Mant, " had been forced from his episcopal palace by the rebels, plundered of his goods, attacked, with his wife, three children, and a number of Protestants, in all about a hundred, at the Bridge of Shruel, where several were slain, and the Bishop himself, with others, was wounded, but happily escaped under the protection of a neighbouring gentleraan, who took them to his house, and afforded them signal assistance."* Ireland was at the unhappy period of 1639 an asylura for raany of the loyal and orthodox clergy driven from Scotland by the ferocity and tyranny of the Covenanters. " In particular," says Bishop Mant, " the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Bishop of Ross, and other lawful rulers of the Church of Scotland, being driven from their episcopal seats by schismatical intruders, sought shelter in the hospitable dwelling of the Bishop [Bramhall] of Derry, and sought it not in vain. His hospitality and bounty were largely acknowledged in several letters, ' praying God to re ward him for the relief which he gave to his distressed and perse cuted brethren, of whom their own country was not worthy, not doubting but succeeding ages would mention It to his honour.' " Bishop Guthrie of Moray would neither submit to the Covenant nor leave the kingdom, and he in consequence suffered great persecutions frora the Covenanters. After his pretended deposition he was ordered to make his public repentance in St Giles' church at Edinburgh for preaching before the King in his episcopal habit, under pain of excomraunication, and as he set this threat at defi- • Bishop Mant's History ofthe Church of Ireland, Svo. London, 1840, p. 563. 1639.] OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. 613 ance It was done In St Giles' church in the spring of 1639 by the preacher Rollock.* The sentence of his deposition by the Glasgow Assembly was intimated to him by three Covenanters deputed for that purpose, who raet the Bishop at the door of his church at Elgin after he had preached a serraon. Those worthies also en joined hira to make public repentance. It was his usual practice to preach every Sunday, but he now desisted, though he often offi ciated after his iUegal deprivation, and retired to the old episcopal castle or palace of Spynie, In the neighbourhood, which he had amply provided with necessaries, and garrisoned by sorae soldiers or retainers, resolving to stand a siege. One account states that he occupied Spynie Castle till 1640, when he was compelled to sur render to Colonel Monroe ; but according to another statement the Bishop's family retained possession till May 1642, when during his absence in Arbroath his wife sent aU his goods and furniture by sea from Spynie Castle to his paternal mansion and estate of Guthrie in Forfarshire, and soon afterwards joined him attended by two of their sons — Patrick Guthrie, and John Guthrie, minister of Duffus, deposed by the General Asserably in 1642.-I- The judi cial murder of another son is subsequently noticed. This " vene rable, worthy, and hospitable Prelate," as Keith justly designates him, died during the Civil Wars. Bishop Guthrie was committed a prisoner to the Tolbooth of Edinburgh in 1640, where he endured raany hardships and privations. On the 16th of November 1641 he petitioned the King and Estates of Parliament for " his enlarge ment frora the grievous prison wherein he had continued these fourteen months, and for taking course for the summons of forfeit ure Intended against hira." He was ordered to be " put to liberty, with prorision he do not return to the Diocese of Moray ."| Nothing is known of the subsequent retreat of Bishop Campbell of The Isles. " His censure," says Gordon of Rothiemay, " was deposition, and, except he submit to the Asserably, excomraunica tion. It seems this Bishop was upon the way of the Primitive * EoUock, who was succeeded by Henderson as one of the ministers of Edinburgh, repented of his Covenanting principles before his death in 1642, for which, says Spald ing, " he got small convoy to his grave by the Puritans of Edinburgh." History of Troubles iu Scotland, vol. ii. p. 56. t Spalding's History ofthe Troubles and Memorable Occurrences in Scotland, vol. i. p. 99, vol. ii. p. 43, 44. X Acta Pari. Scot. vol. v'. p. 482. 614 OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. [1639. party that resided in the West Isles about the Isle of Hya [Iona] in the tiraes of Coluraba and Aidanus ; being that, beyond aU the rest, nothing could be objected to hira but his being Bishop, so that In all probabihty the episcopal sanctity was fled to the con fines of Chrlstendora, to haUow anew the barbarous appendices of the Scottish continent. It was weU for him, however, that his episcopal see was at such a distance with his episcopal superin tendents, and himself stood at such a near relation to ArgyU as his surnarae."* Bishop Sydserff retired first to England, and afterwards to France, exercising " his episcopal office in the chapel of Sir Richard Brown, the King's Ambassador at Paris, by ordaining priests, and amongst the rest the laborious Mr John Durel."-f- Lord Halles printed a letter regarding Bishop Sydserff, written frora Paris by Robert Burnet, Lord Criraond, then In exile for not submitting to the faction, father of Bishop Burnet, to his brother-in-law the Cove nanting Johnston of Warriston. " For Mr Sydserff, soraetime Bishop of Galloway, he came here five or six weeks ago, and by [without] my knowledge, by the address of other Scotsraen, he took his charaber In the house where I am, and has been since my being here. I could have wished he had not corae here as long as I had been here, rather to have satisfied other men's scruples, whom I have no Intention to offend, than my own ; for the Lord is my witness, to whora I must answer at the last day, I think there was never a more unjust sentence of excomraunication than that which was pronounced against some of these Bishops, and particularly against this raan, since the creation of the world, and I ara persuaded that those who did excommunicate him, did rather excoraraunicate thera selves from God than him ; for I have known hira these twenty- nine years, and I have never known any wickedness or unconscien tious dealing In hira ; and I know hira to be a learneder and raore conscientious man, although I wiU not purge him of Infirmities more than others, than any of those who were upon his excomrau nication. And, alas ! brother, what would you be at, that now when you have beggared him, and chaced him by club-law out of the country ? Would you have him reduced to despair, and wUl you » Gordon of Eothiemay's History of Scots Affaire, printed for the Spalding Club, Aberdeen, 1841, vol. ii. p. 142, 143. t Skinner's Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. U. p. 348. 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 615 exact that every man, yea, against his conscience, shall approve your deeds, how unjust soever, yea, out of the country ? — As I wrote to you before, none of the ministers of Paris would believe me that you would or durst excoraraunicate any for not subscrib ing that Covenant, and the rainisters declared to him, that not withstanding his excommunication they would admit him to the Communion, since his excomraunication was not for any crime, but par raison d"etat ; but he communicates with the English. All Scots and English here, both of our party and others, respect hira; and I assure you he defends the Protestant religion stoutly against Papists, and none of our Scots Papists dare raeddle with him after they have once essayed him. Be not too violent then, and do as you would be done to, for you know not how the world wiU turn yet."* Bishop Sydserff Is subsequently noticed as the only sur viving Scottish Bishop at the Restoration. The four Bishops who basely submitted to the rebellious Assem bly were Graham of Orkney, Abernethy of Caithness, Fairlie of ArgyU, and Lindsay of Dunkeld. Keith says that Bishop Graham was " very rich," and was proprietor of the estate of Gorthie, which by his corapliance with the times he contrived to save " and the money he had upon bond, otherwise It would all have faUen under escheat." He acknowledged the Glasgow Assembly of 1638, and in that at Edinburgh in 1639 a letter from him was read, " testi fying his repentance and demission of his pretended office," at which Moderator Dickson " thanked God who had extorted a tes timony out of the mouth of a man who was once an overseer." This truculent Prelate's renunciation of the episcopal function in duced Bishop Hall, then of Exeter, afterwards of Norwich, to write his celebrated treatise entitled — "Episcopacy by Divine Right Asserted," at the recomraendation of Archbishop Laud, which was published in 1640. It Is an answer to the Presbyterian and Puri tan aUegation then set forth that Episcopacy was unlawful and antichristian, and the venerable Bishop Hall coraments with great severity on the conduct of Graham, and by implication his three companions. Bishop Abernethy was to be provided with a charge in the " ministry" by the Covenanters, when one could be found * Memorials and Letters relating to the Eeign of Charles I., Glasgow, 1766, p. 72- 75, cited in a note to Gordon of Eothiemay's History of Scots Affairs, printed for the Spalding Club, vol. u. p. 97, 98. 616 OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. [1639. for hira, of which no notice occurs. Mr Scott raentions in his Perth ISIS. Registers that Bishop Abemethy was his raother's greats grandfather, and that on his death-bed he desired to be relax ed frora the " excomraunication," which raust have been a subse quent procedure against him, but as he refused to admit that Episcopacy was unlawful and unscriptural, the usurping Presby terians continued their puny sentence. Bishop Fairlie of ArgyU became Presbyterian minister of Lasswade, a parish about five miles south of Edinburgh ; and Bishop Lindsay of Dunkeld, who in 1639 also declared " his unfeigned grief and sorrow of heart for undertaking the unlawful office of Episcopacy, swearing never to raeddle, directly or indirectly, with that pretended office any more," was aUowed to officiate in his former parish of St Madoes near Perth as the Presbyterian incumbent. Well might Bishop HaU exclaim at the commencement of the first section of his work with reference to those four unhappy raen — " Good God ! what is this I have lived to hear ? A Bishop in a Christian Assembly renounce his episcopal functions, and cry mercy for his now abandoned call ing ! — The world never heard of such a penance ; you cannot blame us if we receive It both vrith wonder and expostulation, and tell you that It had been much better you had never been born than to give such a scandal to God's Church, so deep a wound to His holy religion. — For a raan held once worthy to be graced with the chair of Episcopacy to spurn that once honoured seat, and to make his very profession a sin, Is so shameful an Indignity, as will make the wise in succeeding ages shake their heads, and not mention it without just indignation." In the spring of 1639 the Covenanters indicated the hypocrisy of their professions of loyalty by taking up arras and appearing in rebel lion against the King. Military coramittees were appointed for every county to assemble and train the peasantry, and to forward to their main army such levies and supplies as were necessary. Ar tificers were everywhere employed in the fabrication of muskets, carbines, poleaxes, halberts, and other implements of strife ; maga zines were provided for the troops ; and beacons were construct ed in each county to call together their partizans when occor sion required. The celebrated General Alexander Leslie, after wards created Lord Balgonie and Earl of Leven, was Invited by tho Covenanters from Sweden, where he had continued in the ser- 1639.] OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. 617 vice of Queen Christina after the death of Gustavus, at the sug gestion of the chief of his name, the Earl of Rothes ; and as the re puted oppressions of the Covenanters had been dUigently circulated on the Continent, he brought with him a number of Scotsmen who had served in the wars of Gustavus as soldiers of fortune, who had nothing to lose, but every thing to gain, from a civil commo tion in their own country. Arms to the amount of 30,000, exclu sive of those of home manufacture, were obtained from HoUand ; a foundry for cannon was established in the then suburban street of Edinburgh known as the Potterrow ; and Leith was soon placed in a state of defence by the plan of a new fort laid down by Sir Alex ander Hamilton, General Leslie's acting engineer, which in less than a week was corapleted. The whole coast of Fife with its numerous towns was strengthened by cannons carried on shore from the ships ; and the Covenanters were soon in a state of pre paration greatly superior to the King, though he had long medi tated his hostilities before declaring against them. General Leslie was at this time an old man, little in stature and deformed In person, but his great reputation, and the affected piety of his deportment, rendered him, according to Baillie, who attended him, a most popular and respected leader. He was, more over, powerfully supported by the zeal of his peasant soldiers — for the most part ploughmen from the Western counties — stout rustics whose bodies had been rendered muscular by their avocations, and who were impressed with the principle that the object was to defend their religion, their families, and their homes. The final muster of the Covenanters previous to their march southward was on the Links of Leith, 20th of May, when many thousand appeared, all equipped In the German fashion, and they were constituted an army by the reading of the Articles of War, drawn up by Leslie on the raodel of those of Gustavus, every one receiring a printed copy. On the 21st of May they raarched for the English Border, displaying their blue flags with the arras of Scotland wrought in gold, and the in scription — " For Christ's Crown and Covenant."^? The preach ers accompanied this force In great numbers, attended_^by little parties of their associates, and sermons were delivered every morn ing and evening in various parts of the carap, with the exercises of psalra-singing, praying, and reading the Scriptures. Leslie ad vanced toward the Enghsh Border, and halted at the little rural 618 OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. [1639. town of Dunse, fourteen mUes frora Berwick and ten railes from Coldstream, at the base of the hiU caUed Dunse Law. His army, strengthened by reinforcements, Is variously estimated at from 20,000 to 28,000 men. Leslie fortifled the hUl to the very sum mit, and his soldiers lay encamped on the sides. The King had advanced with a large army to a locality caUed Birks, on the Eng lish side of the Tweed, a few miles beyond Berwick, and is said to have been the first to descry the encampment of the Covenanters on Dunse Law. An amicable arrangement, however, was formed between the King and the Covenanters, and the negotiation was proclaimed in both caraps on the 18th of June, though It was of no long duration. On the suramit of Dunse Law are stUl seen the vestiges of General Leslie's entrenchments, and an original copy of the National Covenant was discovered upwards of one hundred and sixty years afterwards in that old part of the present splendid man sion of Dunse Castle said to have been erected by Randolph Earl of Moray, nephew of King Robert Bruce. The room is also pre served in which Leslie and his officers entertained their visitors. The Covenanters held their next General Assembly at Edinburgh on the 12th of August, the Earl of Traquair appearing as the King's Commissioner. In the treaty of the 18th of June it was stipulated by mutual consent that as aU discussions concerning the General Assembly of 1638 should be waived, all ecclesiastical matters were to be settled In a General Assembly, and civil mat ters In the Parliament and Courts of Law. Nevertheless, as Epis copacy was the unrepealed law of Scotland, the King, in his war rant of the 29th of June authorizing the Assembly of 1639, directed that " aU Archbishops, Bishops, and commissioners of kirks," should attend and vote as members. It is unnecessary to state that none of the Bishops appeared. The opening sermon was preached by Henderson, and Mr David Dickson was chosen Moderator. They indulged in sorae of their usual tirades against the Liturgy, Canons, Perth Articles, and the Bishops ; and the King had so far yielded to thera that Traquair stated — " My master was pleased at the camp to say, that If it could be made appa rent to him by the Assembly of the Kirk, notwithstanding his own inclination and opinion, which his education and the Church of England possibly give him of Episcopacy, that It was contrary to the constitution of this Church [of Scotland], he commandeth me 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 619 not only to concur with you, but to do all that could be expected from so good and gracious a King, both by my consenting to it and ratifying it in Parliament." The penitential letters, submit ting themselves to the Assembly, of Bishop Graham of Orkney and Bishop Lindsay of Dunkeld, were read, and much coarse ribaldry was uttered against the episcopal function in general. Although the Episcopal Church was still by law the ecclesiastical establish ment of the kingdom, they resolved to punish every raan who ad hered to it, whether clerical or lay. Numbers of the clergy were deposed, and the depositions of others by the Presbyteries were sanctioned. They brought forward " a motion for authorizing the Covenant, by way of new swearing and subscribing thereto by the whole kingdom :" and produced a lengthy reply to the King's Large Declaration written by Dr Balcanqual, designating it " dis honourable to God — to the King's Majesty — ^to this national Kirk — It is stuffed full of lies and calumnies." These formed as many distinct heads, which they endeavoured to prove, and con cluded their sittings on the 30th of August, appointing their next General Assembly to be held at Aberdeen on the last Tuesday of July 1640. The Parliament met on the last day of August, the day after the Assembly was dissolved, and the Earl of Traquair was also in It as the King's Commissioner. On the 6th of September Traquair subscribed the National Covenant In the Parliament, which he In timated and caused to be recorded that he did so not as the King's Commissioner, but in his official capacity of Lord Treasurer. This reservation, however, was ordered to be expunged on the 17th as Ulegal. The acts of the recent Assembly, entitled the " Six Causes of bygane evils," and the act prefixed to the Covenant, were read and passed, as was also the " supplication" of the Asserably against Dr Balcanqual's Large Declaration of the King, which caused some altercation between Traquair on the part of the King, and Argyll and Rothes. It was ordered that " the act anent the esta blishing of this Parliament to be a perfect judicatory, the act abolishing Episcopacy and the civil power of Churchmen, and another on the future constitution of the Parliaments, be drawn up in three separate acts." On the 24th of September the " act rescissory of the acts introduced in favour of Episcopacy and other Prelates, &c. for their places," was read and voted, Traquair as 620 OVERTHROW OP THE CHURCH. [1639. Comraissioner declaring that he would cause the Lord Advocate to " produce his reasons in writ against the article foresaid, or any other article which shall be voted to the Lords of the Articles to be presented to the Parliament prejudicial to his Majesty."* Acts were also passed regulating the " presenting of ministers to kirks ; hearers of mass ; admission of ministers to kirks which be longed to Bishoprics; planting of and presentation to kirks usurped by Bishops;" and " suppressing the distinction and difference of spiritual and temporal Lords In the Court of SessIon."-f- Previous to the raeeting of the General Assembly the " seeds of disunion," we are informed, were sown araong the Presbyterians by " a miserable controversy among the Covenanters themselves about private meetings for devotional purposes, which some of their leading men countenanced and others reprobated — a schism which was agitated at the Aberdeen Assembly, and at a future period increased, till the Presbyterian Church "was divided Into two furi ous factions, denouncing, excommunicating, and persecuting each other ."J The Scottish Parliament again raet in 1640, and on the 11th June, Robert Lord Balfour of Burleigh was appointed Presi dent in absence of the King's Commissioner. The Covenanters were at the time again collecting their forces under General Leslie against the King, having renewed their rebellion in AprU, though it was not till the end of August that they crossed the Tweed nearly thirty thousand strong, and defeated the royal troops at Newburn, by which they obtained possession of Newcastle, Tynemouth, Shields, and Durham, and several large raagarines of provisions. In the acts of the above raentioned Parliament the pen is drawn through the usual introductory words — " Our Sovereign Lord and Estates of Parliament ,¦" and the phraseology substituted, or rather interlined. Is — " The Estates of Parliament presently convened by his Majestas special authority!" The Parliament ratified the acts of the Covenanting Asserably of 1639, denouncing the Liturgy, Canons, Five Articles of Perth, and High Court of Coraraission ; and ordained that " the foresaid Service-Book, Book of Canons and Ordination, and the High Comraission, be still rejected — that the Articles of Perth be no more practised — that episcopal govern ment, the civil places and power of Kirkmen, be held still as unlaw- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. v. p. 263. f Ibid. p. 278. X Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. vol. i. p. 278. 1639.] OVERTHROW OF THE CHURCH. 621 ful In this Kirk — that the pretended Assemblies at Linlithgow in 1606 and 1608, at Glasgow in 1610, at Aberdeen in 1616, at St Andrews in 1617, at Perth in 1618, be hereafter accounted as null and of none effect; and that for preservation of religion, and preventing aU such evUs in time coming. General Assemblies rightly constitute as the proper and competent judge of all mat ters ecclesiastical hereafter be kept yearly, and oftener pro re nata as occasion and necessity shall require."* The " Supplica tion" and " Act of the General Assembly, ordaining by ecclesiasti cal authority the subscription of the Confession of Faith and Cove nant," and the Covenant itself, were approved and ratified. An act rescissory was passed, annulling the right of the Bishops to vote in Parliament, and declaring that " the sole and only power and jurisdiction within this Kirk stands in the Kirk of God as it is now reformed, and in the General [and] Provincial Presbyterial Assemblies, with the sessions of the Kirk established by act of Par liament made In June 1592." All the acts against the Roman Catholics were renewed, and the forraer authority of the Arch bishops and Bishops to prosecute them was vested in the Cove nanting Presbyteries. An act of the third Parliament of James VI. was revived, enjoining " letters of horning and caption by the Lords of Session against the excommunicated Prelates, and all other excommunicated persons." All the judges of the Court of Session were ordered to be laymen. Various other acts were passed in favour of the Covenanters and their proceedings with out the royal sanction, which were consequently illegal. The next Covenanting General Asserably was held at Aberdeen on the 28th of July. No Coramissioner was appointed by the King, and after waiting ,one day for the appearance of such a representa tive they proceeded to business according to their own views of " the liberties of the Kirk." They ordered aU " idolatrous monuments," such as " crucifixes, images of Christ, Mary, and Saints departed," to be demolished ; aU " witches and charmers" were to be prose cuted ; ministers who subscribed and afterwards " spoke against" the Covenant were to be deprived and excommunicated; " any other raan" was to be " dealt with as perjured ;" and no preacher or schoolraaster was to be allowed even to reside within a " burgh, uni versity, or coUege," who refused to sign the Covenant. But their • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. v. p. 291, 292. 622 THE ABEBDEEN DOCTORS. [1639. most Iraportant act was their " commission for visiting the Univer sity of Aberdeen," which was in reaUty a crusading persecution of their formidable and dreaded opponents the justly celebrated Doctors. Their proceedings against the Aberdeen Doctors are noticed by BaUUe, who was present. " We found," he says, " a great averseness in the hearts of many frora our course, albeit Uttle in countenance. Doctors Sibbald, Forbes, and Scroggie, were re solved to suffer martyrdom before they subscribed any thing con ceming [contrary to] Episcopacy and Perth Articles ; but we re solved to speak nothing to them of these matters, but of far other purposes. We found them irresolute about the Canons of Dort, as things they had never seen, or at least considered. They would say nothing against any clause of the Book of Canons, Liturgy, Ordination, and High Commission. Dr Forbes' treatises, fuU of a number of Popish tenets, and intending direct reconcUiation with Rome farther than either Montacute or Spalato, or any I ever saw among their hands and the hands of their young students, together with a treatise of Bishop Wedderbura's and an English priest Barnesius, aU for reconcUiation. Dr Sibbald in many points of doctrine we found very corrupt, for the which we deposed hira, and ordained him without quick satisfaction to be processed. The man was there of great fame. It was laid upon poor me to be their examiner and'moderator to their process. Dr Scroggie, an old raan, not very corrupt, yet perverse in the Covenant and Serrice-Book. Dr Forbes' ingenuity pleased us so well that we have given him yet tirae for advisement. Poor Barron, otherwise an omament of our nation, we find has been much in multis in the Canterburian way. Great knavery and direct intercourse with his Grace [Laud] was found among them, and yet all was hid from us that they possibly could." As an offset to this account the conteraporary narrative of Gor don of Rothieraay, the successor in that parish of Mr Innes, who was deposed by the Covenanters, the brother-in-law of Bishop Max weU of Ross, is worthy of notice. This candid Presbyterian honour ably mentions the Aberdeen Doctors, and the Inquisitorial proceed ings against them. The Committee met in the Earl Marischal's house, and summoned the Principals and Professors of both Col leges, Dr Alexander Leslie, minister of Old Aberdeen, Dr James Sibbald, minister of New Aberdeen, Mr John Gregory, minister 1639.] THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS. 623 of Drumoak, Mr John Ross, minister of Birse, Mr Alexander Strachan, minister of Chapel-of-Garioch, Mr Andrew Logie, mi nister of Rayne, Archdeacon of Aberdeen — all of that Diocese ; Mr John Guthrie, minister of Duffus, son of Bishop Guthrie, and Mr Richard Maitland, minister of Aberchirder, In the Diocese of Moray. Some were also cited who were not questioned, but num bers of the Diocese of Moray had been deposed by the committees before the meeting of the Assembly. Dr Scroggie was accused of " preaching long upon one text — that he was cold in his doctrine, and edified not his parishioners ; final ly that he refused to subscribe the Covenant ; and with little cere mony he was sentenced and deposed from his ministry by the voice of the Assembly." — " To my knowledge," says Gordon of Rothie may, " he was a man sober, grave, and painful in his calling : his insisting upon a text long was never yet made nor could be mat ter of accusation to any, if the text were material and the dis course pertinent ; and for his cold delivery his age might excuse it." Dr Scroggie obtained a pension frora the King in 1641, and after his pretended deposition lived privately till his death at Rathven in 1659, in the 95th year of his age. He was preferred from the parish of Drumoak to be ordinary minister in the cathe dral church of Old Aberdeen in 1621 by Bishop Patrick Forbes. He left two sons, the elder of whom became rainister in that church, and the younger was consecrated Bishop of Argyll in 1666. Dr Sibbald was accused of Arminianisra and not subscribing the Covenant. The informer against him was the " flower of the Kirk," the savoury Sarauel Rutherford, who had resorted to his serraons when exiled to Aberdeen for his seditious conduct. " It wilbnot be affirraed by his very enemies," says Gordon of Rothie may, " but that Dr James Sibbald was an eloquent and painsful preacher, a man godly, and grave, and modest, not tainted with any vice unbeseeraing a rainister, to whom nothing could in reason be objected, if you caU not his uncovenanting a crime." He went to Ireland, and at Dublin he maintained his reputation for piety, learning, and zeal In his sacred office. He is probably the James Sybald who subscribed a declaration of the clergy of Dublin in favour of the Liturgy in 1647. Against Dr Leslie, Principal of King's College, it was objected " that he was lazy," says Gordon of Rothiemay, " and neglective 624 THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS. [1639. in his charge ; they strove to brand him with personal escapes of drunkenness, and finally that he would not subscribe the Cove nant. I must plead for hira as for the rest, wherever I shaU speak truth. His laziness might be imputed to his retired monastic way of living, being naturally melancholy, and a man of great reading, a painful student, who delighted in nothing else but to sit in his study, and spend days and nights at his books, which kind of life is opposite to a practical way of living. He never married in his lifetime, but lived solitary, and if soraetlraes to re fresh him his friends took hira from his books to converse with them, it ought not to have been objected to him as drunkenness, he being known to have been sober and absteraious above his accusers. He was a raan grave, austere, and exemplary. The University was happy in having such a light as he, who was emi nent in all the sciences above the most of his age. He had studied a full encyclopaedia, and it may be questioned whether he exceUed most in Divinity, Humanity, or the Languages, he being of course Professor of the Hebrew and Dirinity." He was succeeded by Dr WiUiam GuUd, a regular "vicar of Bray," whose exploits are noticed in the following chapter. Principal Leslie resided some years after his " deposition" with the Marquis of Huntly, and latterly with his relative, a gentleman named Douglas, till his death, which occurred during CromweU's domination in Scotland. " The many high en comiums," says another Presbyterian authority, " bestowed on Dr William Leslie, must excite the deepest regret that he should have bequeathed so small a portion of his knowledge to posterity. Al though he was regarded as a profound and universal scholar, he never courted the fame of authorship."* It is already noticed that he was, according to Keith, brother of John Leslie, succes sively Bishop of The Isles, Raphoe, and Clogher, who was the fa ther of the iUustrious and learned Charles Leshe, author of " A Short and Easy Method with the Deists," and other well known works. Dr John Forbes of Corse, Professor of Divinity, is subsequently mentioned. " He was," says Gordon of Rothiemay, " the bone of any that troubled the Covenanters to digest ; for as he stood op posed to the Covenant, which he had evinced in his Warning,-f and * Dr David Irving's Lives of the Scottish Poets, 1814, vol. i. p. 136. t " A Peaceable Warning to the Subjects in Scotland, given in the year of God 1638. Aberdeen, imprinted by Edw. Eaban, the year above written." 1639.] THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS. 625 had disputed against thera in his queries ; so they knew hira to be a raan most eminent for learning and for piety, and they feared it would be a scandal to depose hira. But all this would not do ; therefore he got his sentence of deposition as the rest had gotten before him." This excellent son of the great and good Bishop Patrick Forbes had conveyed his house in Aberdeen as a future re sidence for the Professor of Divinity in King's College, and his Covenanting successor was mean enough to take advantage of the donation. We are told that his enemies would hardly allow him to " stay In Scotland till he put his affairs In order." He retired to his wife's relatives In Holland, and he was not permitted to re turn tiU 1646. Dr Barron, a man of extraordinary learning, died during the previous year, yet " they thought hira not orthodox In some of his tenets ; therefore such of his papers as were unprinted they must see, and they must be censured and purged." They compelled his widow, who had retired to her native district of Strathisla in Banffshire, to appear as a prisoner before them, and produce his manuscripts, but nothing farther was done In his case. " Thus," says Gordon of Rothiemay, " the Assembly's errand was thoroughly done— -those eminent Divines of Aberdeen either dead, deposed, or banished, with whora feU raore leaming than was left behind in aU Scotland beside at that tirae. Nor has that city, nor any city in Scotland, ever since seen so raany leamed Divines and scholars at one time together as were imraediately before this in Aber deen. Frora that tirae forward learning began to be discounte nanced, and such as were knowing in antiquity and the writings of the Fathers were had in suspicion as men who smeUed of Popery ; and he was raost esteemed who affected novelty and singularity raost ; and the very form of preaching, as well as the materials, was changed for the most part. Learning was nick named human learning, and some ministers so far cried It down in their pulpits as to be heard to say — Down doctrine, and wp Christ!''* Well might Archbishop Laud tell Alexander Hender son that " he would do well to let Canterbury alone, and answer the learned Divines of Aberdeen, who have laid him and all that " History of Scots Affairs from 1637 to 1641, by James Gordon, Parson of Eothie may. Printed for the Spalding Club, 4to. Aberdeen, vol. iu. p. 226, 244. 40 626 THE ABERDEEN DOCTORS. [1639. faction open enough to the Christian world, to make the memory of them and their cause stink to aU posterity."* As for the sermons of the Covenanting Presbyterians, we are told by Gordon of Rothiemay that they " were either declama tions or invectives against the King's party, or Bishops, or cere monies ; or persuasives to own the Covenant cordially, and to contribute liberally for the maintaining the good cause, for so it was ordinarily called. And It is very remarkable that those ministers who in the times of the Bishops pleaded tolerance for their non conformity, and argued from the tenderness of their consciences, how soon as they got the power in their hands they spared not other men's consciences, but pressed them to obedience, with threatenings of civU and ecclesiastic punishments. The work was begun at Glasgow Assembly, 1638 ; and proraoved at Edinburgh, 1639. In this Assembly they got a fuU conquest and victory over the Episcopal party, and dislodged such of them as were either in erainent places or universities. Aberdeen was the last place where they voided pulpits and chairs. Neither faUed they as soon as they had driven out the contrary faction to fill their places with raen who were raost zealous for Presbytery and the Cove nant. Mr Alexander Henderson was already transplanted to Edinburgh from a country charge. Mr Robert Blair and Ruther ford to St Andrews ; Mr David Dickson raust be Professor in Glasgow ; and Mr Andrew Cant raust once raore step up in Dr Forbes' chair in Aberdeen, as he had done before at Alford. He wanted leaming to take upon him the profession of Divinity in the University. Churches so far were decried, lest people should imagine any inherent holiness with Papists to be In them, that from the pulpits by many the people were taught that they were to have them in no more reverent esteera than other houses ; soraetlraes they were worse used. Finally, whatever the Bishops had established It was their work to deraolish."f This part of the history of the Episcopal Church of Scotland raight with p? opriety be concluded here, for the future coraraotions had no reference to Its Bishops and clergy. A few general notices, however, wUl explain the subsequent proceedings. A Covenanting * Wharton's History of Laud's Troubles and Trials, p. 112, 113. t Gordon's (of Eothiemay) History of Scots Affairs, vol. iii. p. 249, 250. 1641.] THE COVENANTING PARLIAMENT. 627 Assembly was held at St Andrews on the 20th of July 1641, the Earl of Wemyss appearing as Commissioner, but none of Its acts are of any importance. One was " for drawing up a Catechisra, Con fession of Faith, Directory of Public Worship, and forra of Kirk Govemment." This may be regarded as the comraenceraent of their project to extend Calvinistic Presbyterianisra into England — a scheme which was soon matured by the well known Westminster Assembly, and by the future Solemn League and Covenant. Bishop Guthrie petitioned this Assembly at St Andi-ews, that his benefice might be kept vacant for some tirae, but this was peremptorily re fused. A feud still continued among them about private conven ticles ; and Henry Guthrie, then minister of Stirling, the future Bishop of Dunkeld, fanned the fiame of discord. One of the Co venanting preachers at this Assembly contrived to get himself hanged for murder, which he committed during its sittings. This was a certain Mr Thomas Lamb, who killed a man on the road be tween Edinburgh and Leith, for which he was tried, condemned, and executed. It is surprising that they did not interfere and rescue this wretch. A treaty of peace was concluded between England and Scotland on the 7th of August, and imraediately after the 9th the King left London for Scotland. He arrived in Edinburgh about the middle of the month, but his reception was very different from that of 1633. The prerogatives of the Crown were now usurped by the Estates, and the King was compelled to enter the Palace of Holy- rood under the rebeUious banner of the Covenant. He submitted to the infliction of hearing Henderson preach in the Chapel-Royal, and conforraed himself to the forms and peculiarities of his Cove nanting masters. In July a preparatory raeeting of the Parlia ment was held, in which, among other prelirainary raeasures, the proceedings against the " incendiaries" coraraenced. These were the Earl of Traquair, Sir Robert Spottiswoode, Sir John Hay, Dr Balcanqual, and Bishop Maxwell of Ross ; and in the list of the proscribed, or of those consigned to destruction by the Covenant ers, were the Earl of Montrose, Lord Napier, Sir George Stirling of Keir, and Sir Lewis Stewart of Blackball. Those loyal noblemen and gentlemen were the supporters of the King, and the feelings with which he received their denouncement may be easily understood. On the 17th of August the King attended 628 PLUNDER OF THE CHURCH. [16-42. the Pariiaraent in person, which was adjourned on the 17th of Noveraber, though It rirtually continued its sittings tiU the be ginning of June 1644. It was during the month of November that the King was informed at Holyrood of the horrible massacre In Ireland, which he immediately coramunicated to the ParUament. On the 18th of November he left his kingdora of Scotland, which he was never again to revisit. He created Argyll a Marquis, Lord Loudon and General Leslie were promoted to the rank of Earls, — ^the former of Loudon and the latter of Leven, and four of his attendants were knighted. The remaining patrimony of the Church was consigned In this Parliament to Its Covenanting enemies. The Bishoprics and Deaneries of Edinburgh and Orkney were bestowed on the University of Edinburgh. That of St Andrews obtained L.IOOO sterling per annura out of the Archbishopric and Priory : the Bishopric of Galloway and spirituality of Glasgow were given to its University ; and King's College in Old Aberdeen received the episcopal revenue of that See. The Bishopric of Dunkeld fur nished a portion of Its scanty revenue to the town of Perth for the erection of a bridge over the Tay ; and an Incorporated body of mechanics in Edinburgh, caUed the !Ecmmermen, obtained the re mainder. The Marquis of ArgyU secured the revenues of that See and of The Isles to his own use ; and those of the Bishoprics of Ross, Moray, and Caithness, were appropriated to .other Cove nanters. " These vulgar facts," It is weU observed by a Presby terian writer, " go far to explain sorae of the public phenomena of the Second !Reformation, and to account for the zeal which had been manifested under the banner with Ohrisfs Crown and Covenant In letters of gold inscribed upon its foldings."* Scotland was now left under the sway of a ParUamentary Com mission, controuled, guided, and animated at wiU or caprice by the Covenanting Presbyterians. Another of their General AssembUes was again held at St Andrews on the 27th of July 1642, the Eari of Dunfermline appearing as the King's Coraralssloner. Some months previous to that Assembly a complete rupture had taken place between the King and the English Pariiaraent, and both par ties were preparing an appeal to arms. The delegates of the Scot tish Covenanters had proffered their mediation, and announced their rebelUous project of overturning the Church of England, and • Peterkin's Eecords oftheKirk of Scotland, vol. i. p. 317, 318. 1642.] PROJECTS OP THE COVENANTERS. 629 setting up Presbyterianisra as the raeans of allaying the animosities between the King and his subjects. The royal letter to the Cove nanting Assembly at St Andrews assured It of the King's friendly disposition towards the now dominant Presbyterianisra, and exhort ed the leaders to promote order and obedience to the laws. In their answer they expressed their " great joy and gladness" at this Intimation, with hypocritical assurances of their anxiety to secure loyalty and peace ; but they iraraediately foUowed this insincere statement by a most urgent demand for " unity in religion, and uniformity of church-government, as a raean of a firra and durable union between the two kingdoms, and without which former expe riences put us out of hope long to enjoy the purity of the gospel." A Declaration was sent to this Assembly from the English Parlia ment, the language of which was craftily suited to the principles of their Covenanting confederates, ascribing all their troubles to " the plots and practices of Papists and ill-affected persons, espe ciaUy of the corrupt and dissolute clergy," as they falsely desig nated those of the Church of England ; and to the " Instigation of Bishops and others," who were " actuated by avarice and ambition, being not able to bear the Reformation endeavoured by the Parlia ment." The Covenanters returned an elaborate reply to this com munication, stating their earnest desire for unity of religion — " that in all his Majesty's dominions there might be one Confession of Faith, one Directory for public worship, one public Catechism, and one form of Kirk Government" — that " the naraes of heresies and sects, Puritans, Conforraists, Separatists, Anabaptists," &c. should be " suppressed.^" by which they meant extirpation — and that, " the Prelatical Hierarchy being put out of the way, the work will be easy, without forcing any conscience, to settle In England the go vernment of the Reformed Kirk by Assemblies." It is curious to observe that the Covenanters in this their brief triumph Imitated the alleged conduct of Archbishop Laud and others, whom they accused of endeavouring to assimilate the Church of Scotland to that of England. They concerted a project of establishing Presbyterianism by compulsion in England, with out any toleration whatever, and their proposals were equiva lent to an announcement that they were ready to co-operate with the English agitators to force their humanly devised and repub lican system upon the King and the English nation. This led to 630 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. [1643. numerous negociations, deputations, and new agitations, until they appointed delegates to mediate between the King and the Enghsh Parliament, including Henderson and sorae other leaders, who were Instructed to deraand frora the King a complete uniforraity of reU gion, the Iraraediate disraissal from his service of all alleged Roman Catholics, and his own renunciation of the Church of England. The King declined to accede to those Insolent proposals ; but without entering Into the details of their subsequent proceedings It may be noticed, that as the Covenanters had obtained'the ascen dancy In aU the executive departments of the State, a messenger arrived from the English Parliament during the meeting of a Con vention at Edinburgh in May 1643. He announced that, in con formity to the communications with the last General Assembly, an " Assembly of Divines" was about to be convened at Westmin ster, to regulate the worship and polity of England, and the uni forraity In these raatters between the two kingdoms. This was one of the chief preliminaries to the meeting of the Covenanting Asserably at Edinburgh on the 2d of August 1643, at which Sir Thomas Hope of CraighaU, who was stiU Lord Advocate, appeared as the King's Comraissioner. The proceedings of that meeting were in accordance with those of the Westrainster Assembly, and one of the results was the new bond of rebellion — the Solemn League and Covenant. Of that infamous, intolerant, and blood-thirsty document, or its concoctors, it is unnecessary to say much. The pretended unifor raity of religion, which it enjoined in England, Scotland, and Ire land, was to be achieved by the extirpation, without respect of per sons, " of popery, prelacy, usurpation, heresy, schism, profaneness, and whatever shall be found to be contrary to sound doctrine and the power of godliness." They were also " with all faithfulness to endeavour the discovery of all such as have been or shall be incen diaries, malignants, or evU instruments, by hindering the reforma tion of religion, dividing the King from his people, or one of the kingdoms from the other, or making any faction or parties among the people contrary to this League and Covenant ; that they may be brought to public trial, and receive condign punishment, as the degree of their offences shall require or deserve." This Solemn League and Covenant emanated frora the Covenanting General Assembly at Edinburgh in 1643, and was dated the 17th of August. 1643.] THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. 631 After it was sanctioned. It was carried to London for the concur rence of the English Pariiaraent and the " Westminster Assembly of Divines" — the latter, it is well known, a convention without the royal authority. It was presented to both Houses of Parliament on the 28th of August, and also to the Westrainster Presbyte rian conclave. After some discussion it was approved by them, and by the House of Commons, the raerabers of which were ordered to subscribe It, and aU the people imperatively enjoined to sign, under the penalty of being denounced and punished as Malig nants. On the 25th of September this atrocious charter of a new reign of terror was signed and sworn by both Houses of Parlia ment, the Westminster Presbyterian Convention, the Scottish Covenanting delegates, and many others, in St Margaret's church at Westminster, which probably never had such a congregation within its walls convened for such an unholy purpose. The 13th of October was appointed for its final adoption in Scotland at Edinburgh, when tbe Presbyterian Commission of the Covenant ing Assembly, the Committee of the Estates of Parliament, and the English delegates, met in one of the parish churches, and after devotional exercises In their own way the Solemn League and Covenant was signed and sworn by aU present. On the 22d of October the Committee of Estates Issued an edict, enjoining all subjects In Scotland to subscribe ; threatening recusants with most sumraary punishraent, as enemies to religion, to the King, and to the peace of the kingdoms. The Lords of the Privy Council were imperatively coraraanded to appear on the 2d of November and take the new Covenant. The Marquis now Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Lanark, and other nobleraen and gentlemen who re sisted the mandates of the usurping tyrants, were denounced as enemies to God, the King, and the country ; their estates were confiscated ; soldiers were sent to seize them, and to put to death all who opposed them. Many fled to the Continent, though not a few were compelled by circumstances to comply with the Covenanting injunctions. It was now resolved to proceed to the extirpation of the devoted adherents of the Church of England by the sword. Before the end of November the Covenanting Presby terians were in force under old General Leslie, the Earl of Leven, and on the 19th of January 1644 this army of dangerous fanatics and rebels, consisting of 18,000 foot, and 3,500 horse, crossed the 632 THE SOLEMN LEAGUE AND COVENANT. [1644. Tweed near Berwick, and invaded England. The most dread ful anarchy, bloodshed, and terror, pervaded the two kingdoms. During the march of the Covenanters into England, Archbishop Laud, after a vindictive, unjust, and infamous Imprisonment of three years In the Tower, was tried by the English Parliament to gratify the Scottish Presbyterians, who soon glutted themselves with the blood of the venerable and martyred Primate on the 10th of January. The fate of that great and illustrious Prelate ought ever to raake the Covenanting Presbyterians of Scotland odious to every sincere meraber of the Church of England. On the 15th of July the Scottish Parliament passed an " Act anent the Ratification of the caUing of the Convention, Ratification of the League and Covenant, Articles of Treaty betwixt the kingdom of Scotland and England, and remanent Acts of the Convention of Estates, and Committee thereof." In 1645 the Covenanting As sembly held at Edinburgh ratified and approved the Solemn League and Covenant, which was enforced till the subjugation of Scotland by Cromwell. The Identity ofthe real original of this blood-thirsty docuraent appears to be disputed. An original Is said to be in the possession of the University of Cambridge ; but in September 1843 a statement appeared in the public prints, setting forth that another original of the Soleran League and Covenant was exhibiting in the Museura of Antiquities at Leeds, and that it was the property of a private individual in Glasgow, who had refused four hundred guineas for it, offered by sorae araateur who had evidently raore money than coramon sense. It would be an appropriate present to the sect of Presbyterian Dissenters in Scotland founded in May 1843 by Dr Chalmers and others, aided and abetted by some hundreds of preachers of the Presbyterian Establishment, who left their kirks, and bestowed on theraselves the magnUoquent title, as empty as it Is faUacious, of the " Free Protesting Church of Scotland .'" The Scottish Covenanters concluded their rebeUion and blood shed by the violation of every solemn pledge which they had given to Charles I., who was induced to entrust himself to their pro tection. On the 8th of Deceraber 1646 an agreeraent was made between the EngUsh Parliament and the Scottish Presbyterian army, that the forraer should pay the latter L.400,000 In pay ment of arrears for the surrender of the King to the English com- 1646.] THE SELLING OF THE KING. 633 missioners sent to receive him. Ofthe above sura one-half was to be paid before the Scottish array passed the Border, and the remainder to be secured by the public faith. The King's treatment by the Co venanters before this infamous transaction was concluded, his inter esting correspondence with Henderson on the jus divinum of Epis copacy, and other personal events, are weU known. On the 30th of January 1647 the King was delivered up to the English commission ers ; but the Scottish leaders only received one-fourth of the money, or L.100,000 sterling, the reraainder to be paid within two years and a half ; and it raay be safely assuraed that this raode of settlement, by accepting the raoney then and subsequently doled out to them from time to time In instalments, was fully understood on the part of the Covenanters as a pledge of their acquiescence in the decrees of the English Parliament as to the fate of the unfortunate mo narch. Some Scottish historians have endeavoured to prove that the Presbyterian Covenanters were not guilty of selling the King ; and even Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh is adduced as an authority In their favour. " The Parliament of Scotland" [in 1661], says the Lord Advocate of Charles IL, " taking to their con sideration how much and how unjustly this kingdom was injured by an aspersion cast upon it for the transactions at Newcastle in 1647, at which time the King was delivered to the Parharaent of England, which was caUed in some histories a selling of the King, did by an express Act condemn and reprobate their treaty, and declare that the sarae was no national act, but was only carried on by some rebels who had falsely assumed the name of a Parliament. Nor wanted there raany even hi that Parliament who protested against aU that procedure, and who had the courage and honesty to cause registrate that protestation. And I must here crave leave to expostulate with our neighbours of England for Inveio-h- Ing so severely against our nation for dehvering their King, seeing he was only delivered up to their Parliament, who first imprisoned and thereafter murdered him ; whereas, how soon our rebels discovered their design they carried into England a splendid mighty army for his defence ; and when his murder came to their ears they proclaimed his son their King, and sent Commissioners to treat with hira and bring hira to Scotland ; and when he was arrived, they did contribute their lives and fortunes for his safety."* • Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland from the Eestoration of Charies II. a.d. 634 THE SELLING OF THE KING. [1639. To aU this it may be replied, that Charles II. was not invited to Scotland by the loyal part of the nation, but by the Covenanters, who were In arras against CroraweU and his " sectarian army" for checking and restraining their Presbyterian intolerance. No man knew better than Sir George Mackenzie, that If Charles II. had not conformed to the Solemn League and Covenant the battles of Dunbar and Worcester never would have been fought. No morbid patriotism or party prejudices — no sophistry — no ingenious and elaborate defences — can reraove the Infaray of the charge of seUing the King frora the Scottish Covenanters. It may be conceded that the nation as such was not involved, for the loyal population was ruled with a rod of iron by the dominant faction; but every attempt of the modern Presbyterian vwiters to vindicate the Covenanters from the charges of double-deaUng, dissimulation, bad faith, and sordid treachery, which are too justly laid to their charge, has completely failed, and can be refuted by the most conclusive facts. The very attempt of the Scottish ParUament to rid themselves of this odious stigma Is a proof that they considered It a national disgrace ; and the selUng of Charles I. vrill ever remain an indelible consummation of all the enormities connected with the history of Scottish Covenanting Presbyterianism. The subsequent feeble and vain attempts of the Earl of Loudon and others of the leaders to rescue the King frora the grasp of infuriated and murdering de mocrats offer no paUiatlon. The deed was done at Newcastle on the 30th of January 1647, and Charles I. was judiciaUy murdered on the scaffold at WhitehaU by the sordid means and treacherous agency of the Scottish Covenanters. 1660, by Sir George Mackenzie of Eosehaugh, and edited by Thomas Thomson, Esq. Depute Clerk Eegister of Scotland. Edinburgh, 4to. 1821. 1639.] 635 CHAPTER XVII. FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES OP THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. The people of Scotland are often told of the persecutions calurani ously said to have been Infficted by the Episcopal Church after the Restoration of Charles II. on the Presbyterians. Those unhappy and obstinate enthusiasts are brought forward as contending for civil and religious liberty — as raartyrs for every thing sacred and patrio tic. They are the " Scots Worthies"" andthe '¦^ Cloud of Witnesses;"" while their dangerous and intolerant principles are carefuUy con cealed. In like manner the Covenanting Presbyterians of the reign of Charles I. are also represented as the enemies of political and ecclesiastical tyranny, and the Bishops and Episcopal clergy are delineated in the most odious raanner as the supporters of ar bitrary rule — as Papists, Arrainians, addicted to the most scandal ous vices, and perpetrators of the most atrocious crimes. The pre ceding narrative shews the principles and conduct of the Covenant ing Presbyterians, until it was necessary to restrain them by the strong arra of military power. Their fanaticism, oppression, and cruelties, now come under our notice. As to their fanaticism and impieties, selections from their printed productions would amply shew the deplorable condition in which Scotland was placed under the galling tyranny of the faction. " The pulpits," says Bishop Bumet, " sounded with the ruin of their re ligion and Uberties, and that aU raight now look for Popery and bondage If they did not acquit theraselves like raen. Curses were thundered out against those who went not out to help the angel of the Lord against the raighty, so oddly was the Scriptures applied ; and to set off all this the better, all was carried with so many fast ings and prayers. By this means it was that the poor and well- meaning people were aniraated Into great extremities of zeal, re solving to hazard all in pursuance of the cause." As it respects their writings, we have those, for example, of Samuel Rutherford, 636 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION AND CRUELTIES [1639- one of their greatest saints, which are justly designated a com pound of blasphemy, hypocrisy, obscenity, falsehood, calumny, and nonsense. Yet this Covenanting hero, who Is yet held in great esteem by those in whom the old leaven effervesces, and whose " Letters " to various " godly ladies" contain the most disgust ing ribaldry, was In 1625 compelled to resign an office in the Uni versity of Edinburgh for " some scandal on account of his mar riage." The Earl of Loudon, a great chief of the Covenant, was a man of bad morals. His Countess, by his raarriage with whom he acquired the estates of Loudon, threatened him with a process of adultery, of which she had undoubted proof, if he would not assist the Covenanters, and break certain engagements he had made with the King in England.* Yet Sarauel Rutherford addresses Loudon on one occasion in these terras — " You corae out to the streets with Christ on your forehead, when raany are ashamed of him, and hide him under their cloaks as if he were a stolen Christ." Rushworth collected some speciraens of the fanaticism of the Covenanting Presbyterians of the time, which, as already observed, could be easily extended from their writings. One refused to pray for Sir WiUiara Nisbet, a forraer Lord Provost of Edinburgh, when on his death-bed, because " he had not subscribed the Covenant ;" and another " entreated God to scatter them all in Israel, and to divide them In Jacob, who had counselled thera to subscribe the Confession of Faith authorized by the King." Numbers of their preachers refused to admit to their comraunion those who had not subscribed the Covenant, and classified thera In their addresses before their adrainistration of It as " adulterers, slanderers, and blaspheraers :" and many would not allow children to be baptized except by Covenanting preachers, often compeUing the parents to carry the infants several miles. One declared in a serraon that all " the non-subscribers of the Covenant were Atheists," araong whora he Included the Judges of the Supreme Court and those raerabers of the Privy Council who had refused to sign. Another preached that " as the wrath of God never was diverted from his people until the seven sons of Saul were hanged up before the Lord in Gibeon ; so the wrath of God would never depart from the kingdom tiU the tmice seven Prelates were hanged up before the Lord" — referring to the two Archbishops and the twelve Bishops of Scotland. A third maintained that " though there were ever so " Lament's Chronicle of Fife, 4to. p. 38. 1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 637 many acts of Parliament against the Covenant, yet it ought to be maintained against them all." Another said in his sermon — " Let us never give over till we have the King In our power, and then he shall see how good subjects we are." One also held that " the bloodiest and sharpest war was rather to be endured than the least error in doctrine and discipline." Another strangely wished that " he and aU the Bishops of Scotland were In a bottomless boat at sea together, for he would be weU content to lose his own life so that they lost theirs." In a General Asserably held In August 1639, at which the Earl of Traquair was the Coramissioner, Mr Alexander Carse, who was the buffoon of the Glasgow Assembly, stated, when denouncing the " unlucky bird of Episcopacy," which was " then to be slaughtered" — " There is not so much as a little cockle or darnell of perverse or heretical doctrine that shall spring up, but presently it shall be cut down and trod under ; and if it escape two or three. It shall not miss the fourth. If it shall happen to escape sessions, presby teries, and synodal assemblies. It will happily be digested and concocted in such an asserably as this. — And here for this point I give this Episcopacy an eternal vale!" This miserable rhapsody may be adduced as a favourable specimen of the Covenanting ora tory at the various meetings. Several curious instances are found of their pulpit exhibitions in numerous pamphlets of the day. One of the most ludicrous is the " Redshanks Sermon, preached at St Giles's church in Edinburgh, the last Sunday In April [1638] by a Highland minis ter, London, printed for T. Bates, 1642." Another amusing ver sion of it was printed in 1828, from an original MS. In the posses sion of David Laing, Esq. It is caUed the Redshanks Sermon, pro bably frora a narae given to the Highlanders, who made buskins of the deer's hide. The " Highland minister," or preacher of the Pock- mmity Sermon, by which it Is also known, was Mr James Row, minis ter of Monlevaird and Strowan in the Highlands of Perthshire, who was the son of Mr John Row the Reforraer, minister of Carnock in Fife frora 1558 to 1637, the author of " The Historie of the Kirk of Scotland" during that period. The text of the Redshanks, or Pockmanty Sermon, Is Jer. xxx. 17. and as it was delivered ex tempore, the portion of it printed raerely contains notes of what was said from the pulpit by the preacher, who Is described in a pasquU circulated in 1638, in allusion to the sermon — " a springald 638 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES fl639- pulpit spouter." The latter part of the text states — " Sion is wounded, and I will heal her saith the Lord." — " I need not trouble you," said the preacher, " to set forth who is meant by Sion ; ye aU know well enough that it Is the poor Kirk of Scotland, who is now wounded in her head, In her heart, in her hands, and in her feet. In her head by governraent, in her heart by doctrine, in her hands by discipline, and in her feet by worship." The Red shanks orator illustrates these assertions in a homely and ludicrous manner. " She is wounded in her heart," he says, " which is by the doctrine of the Kirk through the abundance of Popery and Ar minianisra now coramon in our kirks and schools." He says that the said Presbyterian Kirk was " once a bonny gramraar school," and was " wounded in her hands" by a " pilgrimage to Rome, where she was taken stealing of some of their trumpery ; yet when they knew her mind, and saw it was but only a Book of Common Prayer and the Canons of High Commission, which they saw made much for their matter, therefore they let her go, and flat^ tered her to follow the order ofthe mother Kirk in other kingdoras, which she promising to do, then they bound her hands with a silken cord of canonical obedience to the Ordinary, and she took rauch delight to be bound with so bonny a band ; but after they got her fast, they made that silken cord a cable rope, with which they have girded her so fast as she cannot stir." A raost amusing part of this specimen of Covenanting fanaticism is the following — ¦ " Now I come to tell you how she is wounded In her feet, that is in the worship of the Kirk. The office of the feet is to travel withall, and they have made a very hackney of religion : the Kirk was once a bonny nag, and so pretty as every raan thought a pity to ride her, till at last the Bishops, those rank-riding loons, got on her back, and then she trotted so hard as they could hardly at the first well ride her ; yet at last they so cross- legged her and hopshackled her, that she became a pretty pacing beast, and so easy that they took great pleasure to ride upon her." The preacher Ulustrated his ideas by identifying Presbyterianism with Balaam's ass, and alleged that the Scottish Bishops had been riding to Rome with a pockmanty [or portmanteau\ behind them, fiUed with the Liturgy, Canons, and Orders of the High Com mission. One of the most extraordinary instances of their fanaticism com bined with credulity Is the story of the daughter of a preacher 1650.] THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 639 named Mitchelson, one of their female partizans, whora they con sidered a prophetess, and whose raptures in favour of the Cove nant were received as divine coraraunications. Persons of rank visited her in the house of a noted Covenanter, where she lay in a large bedroora, which was daily crowded to the door. Those who justly held this wretched feraale as insane were afraid to hazard their opinion of her peculiar distemper or condition. The story is narrated by Bishop Burnet in his Memoirs ofthe Dukes of Harail ton, and by other writers. " She was acquainted," says a contera porary authority, " with the Scripture, and rauch taken with the Covenant ; and in her fits spoke rauch to its advantage, and much Ul to its opposers, that would, or at least that she wished to, befall them. Great numbers of all kinds of people were her daily hearers ; and many of the devouter sex, the women, prayed and wept with joy and wonder to hear her speak. — She had intermissions of her dis courses for days or weeks, and before she began to speak it was made known throughout Edinburgh. Mr Henry Rollock, who often came to see her, said that he thought It was not good raanners to speak while his Master was speaking, and that he acknowledged his Master's voice in her. Sorae misconstrued her to be suborned by the Covenanters, and at least that she had nothing that sa voured of a rapture but only of memory, and that she still knew what she spoke ; and, being interrupted in her discourse, answer ed pertinently to the purpose. Her language signified little. She spoke of Christ, and called him Covenanting Jesus — that the Cove nant was approved frora Heaven — that the King's Covenant was Satan's Invention — that the Covenant should prosper, but the ad herents to the King's Covenant should be confounded ; and much other stuff of this nature, which savoured at best but of senseless simplicity. The Earl of Airth upon a time, getting a paper of her prophecies, which was inscribed — " That such a day and such a year Mrs Mitchell awoke, and gloriously spoke"" — in place of the word gloriously, which he blotted out, and wrote over It the word gowk- edly, or foolishly, was so much detested for a while among the superstitious admirers of this maid, that he had hke to have run the fate of one of the Bishops by a charge with stones upon the street."* ' History of Scots Affairs from 1637 to 1641 . By James Gordon, Parson of Eothie may, Aberdeen, printed for the Spalding Club, 4to. vol. i. p. 131, 132. 640 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- Early in August 1640, the Earl of Seaforth, accompanied by the Master of Forbes, Dr GuUd, Covenanting Principal of King's College, and others, met in the King's CoUege at Old Aberdeen, from which they adjourned to the cathedral of St Machar. They or dered aU the curiously carved crucifixes and those ornaments which had escaped the fury of the first Reformers to be destroyed. Bishop Dunbar's torab was rautilated, and they " chisseU out the narae of Jesus drawn cipherways J. H. S. out of the timber waU on the front of St Machar's Aisle anent the consistory door ; the crucifix on the Old Town Cross thrown down : the crucifix on the New Town [Cross] closed up, being loth to break the stone ; the crucifix on the west end of St Nicholas' kirk in New Aberdeen thrown down — which was never troubled before."* Guild com menced his career as Principal of King's College by demolishing a church caUed the Snow kirk, and built the coUege-yard waUs with the raaterials. Inserting the hewn stones In the decayed windows of the College. The local chronicler says of this exploit — " Many Old Town people murmured, the same being the parish kirk sorae tirae of Old Aberdeen, within which their friends and forefathers were buried." In 1641, when two-thirds of the revenue of the Bishopric of Aberdeen were granted to King's CoUege, and the re maining one-third to Marischal CoUege, Guild contrived to secure for himself the episcopal residence, garden, and grounds. In 1642 he " caused take down the organ case, which was of fine wainscot, and had stood within the kirk since the Reformation." He soon afterwards completely demohshed the episcopal residence, and gutted it of aU its materials, with which he repaired the College. The barbarous architectural alterations which Guild perpetrated are dolefuUy narrated by Spalding. This Covenanting enemy of every thing venerable for antiquity and curious workmanship was farther accessary in 1642 to the destruction of the " back of the altar in Bishop Gavin Dunbar's Aisle, curiously wrought In wains cot, matchless within all the kirks of Scotland, as smelling of popery — " pitiful," adds Spalding, " to behold." The wood was taken to ornament a hideous gallery which Guild ordered to be con structed within the cathedral, occupying the breadth of the church south and north. The Incident raentioned by Grose in his " Antlqul- • Spalding's History of the Troubles, &c. in Scotland, printed for the Bannatyne Club, vol. i. p. 235. -1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 041 ties of Scotland" is duly recorded by Spalding as occurring under the direction of Guild and his preaching colleague WiUiara Strachan. " It is said the craftsraan would not put his hand to the down- taking thereof [the back of the high altar in Bishop Dunbar's Aisle] until Mr William Strachan, our minister, had put hand thereto, which he did, and then the work was begun. And in downtaking of one of the three timber crowns, which they thought to have gotten down whole and unbroken by their expectation, it fell suddenly upon the kirk's great ladder, broke it in three places, and itself all in blads, and broke some pavement with the weight thereof." Spalding adds his denunciation of the " loft," or gal lery, constructed by Guild " athwart" the church, " which took away the stately sight and glorious show of the whole body of the kirk :" — " With this back of the altar, and other ornaments thereupon, he decorated the front and back of this beastly loft, whereas L.40 would have purchased as much other timber to have done the same, if they had suffered the foresaid ornament to stand." The " fine wainscot, so that within Scotland there was not a better wrought piece," which Guild and Strachan destroyed, is described as " having tliree crowns uppermost, and three other crowns beneath, well carved with golden knaps." * The raagnificent though then and now roofless cathedral of Elgin was also profaned by " Mr GUbert Ross, minister at Elgin, the young laird Innes, the laird Brodie, and some others ;" and this dese cration was mere wantonness, as the church was not used for Divine serrice. " They broke down," says Spalding, " the timber partition wall dividing the kirk of Elgin from the choir, which had stood since the Reformation, near seven score years or above. On the west side was painted in excellent colours, illuminated with stars of bright gold, the crucifixion of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ. This piece was so excellently done, that the colours and stars never faded nor evanished, but kept whole and sound as they were at the beginning, notwithstanding this college or chan- nonry kirk wanted the roof since the Reformation, and no entire window thereunto to save the same frora storra, wind, sleat, nor wet, which myself saw. And, marvellous to consider, on the other side of this wall, towards the east, was drawn the Day of Judgraent. AU is thrown down to the ground. It was said this minister caused • Spalding's History of the Troubles, &c. in Scotland, vol. ii. p. 106. 41 642 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- bring home to his house the timber thereof, and turn the same for serring his kitchen and other uses ; but each night the fire went out whenever it was burnt, and could not be holden in to kindle the morning fire as use is ; whereat the servants and others mar veUed, and thereupon the minister left off any further to bring in or turn any more of that timber on his house. This was marked and spread through Elgin, and credibly reported to rayself. A great boldness, without warrant of the King to destroy churches at that rate ; yet it Is done at command ofthe [General] Assembly, as said was."* These are instances, which could easUy be multiplied, of the unhaUowed proceedings of the Covenanters at what the Presby terians term the Second Reformation, and to which they proudly refer as the " golden age of Presbyterianism," when religion, honour, principle, and truth, were trampled under foot by a faction as daring, unscrupulous, and tyrannical, as ever disgraced the annals of any country. Every thing was prostrated and desecrated by those wUd and desperate men, whose public and private conduct was in unison with their insolent pretensions and their wicked rebeUion. The oppressions practised by the Covenanters, from 1639 to the time of CromweU's victory near Dunbar in 1650, are amply de tailed in the contemporary narratives of the period. The whole kingdom was under the tyranny of Intolerant zealots, who ruled the people with a rod of iron. If the King's friends met in private, they were denounced a,s Plotters by the dominant faction; and if those noblemen attached to the royal cause appeared with any number of foUowers such as their rank entitled them, or who were necessary by the state of the times and the exaraple of Argyll and other Cove nanting chiefs, they were ferociously assailed as a hostile array about to deluge the country with blood. The Covenanters pre tended to the most exclusive infaUibility, while. In their language, aU the opinions and proceedings of the loyal party were infamous and damnable. It was the avowed doctrine of the Earl of Leven, Johnston of Warriston, and others, that every oath should be received with a mental reservation. Persons were ordered to be punished for siraply conversing with Malignants, and to have any intercourse with thera hazarded the lives of those concerned. The censure of excommunication was brought into contempt by its * Spalding's History, vol. i. p. 286. -1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 643 frequency, and its application to iraproper objects. After the Mar quis of Montrose espoused the royal cause, numbers were proscribed for merely speaking to him. His foUowers were designated Banders, and he was hiraself usually styled the excommunicated traitor James Graham. " In time of Presbytery," says a Presbyterian writer, "after the year 1638, ministers who would not 'subscribe the Cove nant, or who conversed with the Marquis of Huntly or the Mar quis of Montrose or who took a protection frora thera, were sus pended, deprived, or deposed ; and gentleraen who took part with Huntly or Montrose were tossed frora one judicatory to another, made to undergo a mock penance in sackcloth, and to swear to the Covenant."* In 1639 the town of Aberdeen was saved from conflagration solely by Montrose, at that time in the Covenanting interest. He resisted the urgent demands of the Covenanting preachers, who ac companied his troops, that both Old and New Aberdeen should be given up to Indiscriminate plunder and then burnt. Forty-eight of the citizens were thrown bound into prison, and a fine of several thou sands of merks was exacted. In BaiUie's "Letters and Journals "are evinced the Covenanting disposition to cruelty in the North of Scot land. Andrew Cant, who was forcibly installed minister at Aber deen, acted as a complete tyrant, and was slavishly obeyed by the Magistrates in every thing which he " daily devised, to the grievous burden of the people."-f- Numbers of the clergy, the Professors in the Colleges, and others, were deposed and persecuted in the most wanton manner. The treatment of the learned Dr John Forbes of Corse and the Aberdeen Doctors is already mentioned. On the brow of the Hill of Corse, In Leochel parish, nearly opposite the castle, is a small natural cave known as the Laird" s hiding-hole, in which Dr Forbes frequently concealed hiraself frora the vengeance of his Covenanting enemies. After the treaty of Berwick he re turned to Aberdeen and often preached ; but he was again deposed for pretended contumacy, and the new persecution occasioned by the Solemn League and Covenant compelled hira to retire to Hol land, where he resided two years. He returned in 1646, and died in his castle of Corse on the 29th of April. Shortly before his • Lachlan Shaw's History of Moray, edition of 1837, 4to. p. 346. t Spalding's History of Troubles, &c. printed for the Bannatyne Club, vol. U. p. 114, 115. 644 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- death this pious and virtuous man applied to be interred beside his wife and his father in Bishop Dunbar's Aisle in the cathedral, but this was refused by the Covenanting rulers, and his body was buried In the church-yard of St Marnan of Leochel without any monuraent. The coraplete edition of his Latin works, published by the Wetsteins, was edited by Dr Garden. " His learning," says Dr Irring, " was such as to obtain the warra approbation of those erainent scholars Vosslus, Usher, Morhof, Emesti, and Cave ; and to this It would be surperfluous to add any commenda tion." In 1644, Aberdeen jvas visited by ArgyU's raen, eight hun dred strong, who spared neither Covenanter nor Anti-Covenanter. The greatest tyranny and oppression at that tirae prevailed. The people groaned under burdens inflicted by the Covenanters, and their enthusiasm in the national movement had greatly subsided. " The country," BaiUie writes, " was exceedingly exhausted with burdens, and, which was worse, a careless stupid lethargy had seized on the people, so that we were brought exceeding low." This state of affairs induced them to resort to their old device of sedi tious agitation, by enforcing a fast day throughout the kingdom. Its compulsory observance in Aberdeen is weU described by Spald ing. " No meat durst be made ready ; searchers sought the town's houses and kitchens for the same ; thus are the people vexed with these extraordinary fasts and thanksgivings upon the Sabbath-day, appointed by God for a day of rest, more than their bodies are vexed with labour on the week day, through the preposterous zeal of our ministers."* Robertson and Hallyburton, ministers of Perth, were deposed for lukewarraness in the cause ; but the latter was restored because " Darae Margaret Hallyburton, Lady of Cowpar," says Bishop Henry Guthrie, " come over the Frith, and with oaths vowed to my Lord Balmerino that unless he caused her cousin to be reinstated he should never enjoy the favour of the Lordship of Cowpar. This communication set Balmerino at work for hira." The fate of Sir John Gordon of Haddo, ancestor of the Earls of Aberdeen, raay be here noticed. He was appointed by the King next in command to the Marquis of Huntly to oppose the Cove nanters in 1639 ; and in October 1643 he protested against the Solemn League and Covenant. The pretended General Assembly excommunicated him and Huntly in AprU 1644, and he feU Into • Spalding's History of Troubles, &c. vol, ii. p. 47, 48. -1650.] OP THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 645 the hands of his enemies soon afterwards. He was tried at Edin burgh on a charge of high treason, found guilty, forfeited, and or dered to be executed by an act of the usurping Estates of Parlia ment. Sir John Gordon was brought to the scaffold with Captain John Logie, a companion in suffering, on the 19th of July, at the Cross of Edinburgh. He was infested in his last moments by the Covenanting preachers, one of whom scrupled not to announce to the spectators an Infamous falsehood, which Sir John instantly contradicted, and his persecutors in retaliation railed against him in the most atrocious style of abuse. The only favour he requested from thera was to be released frora their sentence of excoramunica tion, as it affected the worldly condition of his family, which was granted. While engaged in his devotions Captain Logie was behead ed before his eyes, but he continued unraoved in prayer, concluding in these affecting words — " I recommend my soul to Almighty God, and ray six chUdi-en to his Majesty's care, for whose sake I die this day." He then submitted to the fatal stroke of the machine called the Maiden, and his body was interred by his sorrowing friends in the Greyfriars' churchyard, where Captain Logie was also buried. Sir John Gordon was only thirty-four years of age — " of good life and conversation, temperate, moderate, and religious," when he was thus judiciaUy raurdered ; or, as Spalding says — " borne down by the burghs, the ministers of Edinburgh, the ParUament, Argyll, Balmerino, and the Kirk, because he would not subscribe the Cove nant.* The place of his imprisonraent in Edinburgh was a horrid dungeon in the north-west part of St Giles' church adjacent to the old Tolbooth, and designated in consequence Haddo's Hold or Role, until Its demolition in 1830. The cruel spirit of the Covenanters was particularly conspicuous in February 1645, when a Comraittee of the General Assembly pre sented a remonstrance to the Parliament " anent executing of justice on deUnquents and malignants." This Committee consisted of James Guthrie, who was afterwards hanged himself, David Dickson, Robert Blair, Andrew Cant, and Patrick GUlespie. They pressed the exe cution of aU the prisoners in the Tolbooth of Edinburgh, which the ParUament, after compUraenting the Covenanting preachers for the " zeal and piety" of the Assembly, only delayed lest some of their own friends should faU into the hands of Montrose. Dr Wishart, • History of Troubles, &o, in Scotland, vol. u. p. 249, 250. 646 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- the future Bishop of Edinburgh, and his whole family, were reduced to a state of starvation. The sufferings of that erainent raan ought not to be oraitted. He was deposed by the General Assem bly with his colleague Dr Gladstanes, when both were ministers of St Andrews, and they were succeeded by the Covenanting worthies Samuel Rutherford and Robert Blair. Dr Wishart was detected in a correspondence with the royalists, plundered of all his property, and thrown Into a loathsome dungeon caUed the Thieved Hole, one of the most nauseous parts of the old Tolbooth of Edinburgh, then not the least disgusting prison in the kingdom, where he was alraost kUled by rats. He records of hiraself that he thrice suffered spoliation, imprisonraent, and exile before 1647, for his attachraent to royalty and the Episcopal Church. In January 1645, Dr Wishart petitioned the Estates of Pariiaraent frora the Tolbooth for maintenance to himself, wife, and five chUdren, who were In a state of starvation, but the result Is not stated. The ancient faraily of Irring of Drura near Aberdeen also severely suffered. The father and his two sons were iraprlsoned In the vile Tolbooth of Edin burgh, in which one of the latter died from the cruel treatment he received, and the other son, who was also sick, was only relieved from his prison to be sent to the Castle, whither he was conveyed on a " wand bed." Another instance of their cruelty was their cowardly execution of James SmaU, a messenger from Montrose to the King. This unfortunate individual, who had passed through the Highlands In safety, was recognized on his journey southward by an individual who had known him in England, and he was betrayed to Lord Elphinstone, a raember of the Comraittee of Estates, the uncle of Balmerino. Elphinstone sent him to the merciless tribunal at Edinburgh, and on the 1st of May 1645, the day after he appeared before the Committee, he was hanged by their orders at the Cross " to the great satisfaction of the Kirk .'" This Is one of the many instances of the thirst for blood, particularly for the lives of their religious and political opponents, which characterized the councils of the Covenanters. After the battle of Auldearn the Comraittee of Estates seized Lord Napier of Merchiston, then verging towards seventy years of age, the brother-in-law of Montrose, his lady, who was a daughter of the Earl of Mar, his brother-in-law Stirling of Keir, and his two sisters, one of thera the wife of Keir, who -1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 047 had suffered much for his religion and loyalty, and cast them all into prison. But the Covenanting cruelty during this reign of terror in Scot land was most conspicuous after the defeat of the Marquis of Mon trose at PhUiphaugh near Selkirk in 1645. The massacre of the prisoners taken In that engagement is an indelible atrocity on the annals of Scottish Covenanting Presbyterianisra. The principal slaughter was of defenceless and unresisting prisoners who had sought and obtained quarter; and the court-yard of Newark Castle is said to have been the spot upon which many were shot by order of General David Leslie, the Covenanting commander. Bishop Henry Guthrie states that the preachers complained of quarter " given to such wretches as they, and declared It to be an act of most sinful Impiety to spare thera, wherein divers of the noblemen complied with the clergy"" — meaning the Covenanting preachers, and " the army was let loose upon them, and cut thera aU in pieces." The preachers actually justified this massacre by adducing the case of Agag and the Araalekites, and other allu sions to the Old Testaraent, by which they enforced the duty and lawfulness of their bloody work. In addition to the slaughter of the prisoners, hundreds were deliberately thrown frora a high bridge, and thus destroyed. This fact has been denied by sorae writers, who try to convict Bishop Wishart of invention by assert ing that " frora Berwick to Peebles there was not a single bridge on the Tweed ;" but Sir Walter Scott observes — " There is an old bridge over the Etterick only four railes from PhUiphaugh, and another over the Yarrow, both of which lay in the very line of the flight and pursuit ; and either might have been the scene of the massacre." Though Father Hay transferred the scene of this massacre to Linlithgow bridge, upwards of forty miles frora the field of battle, yet it is to be observed that Bishop Wishart does not mention the Tweed at aU in his narrative, but simply states that the unfortunate victims of Covenanting tyranny were " thrown headlong from off a high bridge, and the raen together with their wives and sucking children drowned in the river beneath." The fate of most of the prisoners of distinction taken on this occasion may be anticipated. The Committee of the Estates were Inclined to spare their lives, but the Covenanting Presbyterian minis ters urged their execution in the name ofthe Kirk ! Ten were marked 648 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- for execution — the Earl of HartfeU, Lord Ogilvy, Sir Robert Spottiswoode, Sir WilUara RoUock, Sir Philip Nisbet, Alexander Ogilvy, younger of Inverquharity, WilUara Murray, brother of the Earl of TuUibardine, Colonel Nathaniel Gordon, Captain Andrew Guthrie, son of the Bishop of Moray, and an officer named Stew art, aU of whom had been delivered Into the hands of the Cove nanters by the peasantry, who found them wandering in tracts un known to thera. Sir WiUiara Rollock was the first who suffered, and on the foUowing day Ogilvy of Inverquharity, a youth of only eighteen ; and it was on this occasion that David Dickson exult ingly uttered the exclaraation which afterwards becarae a proverb — " The work goes bonnilie on ! " With him perished Sir WUliam Nisbet, a brave officer, who had commanded a regiment of royal ists in England. Those butcheries took place at Glasgow. The fate of the others was delayed till the raeeting of the Par liament at St Andrews on the 20th of November 1645. Robert Blair, the Covenanting successor of Dr Wishart, opened the ses sion with a serraon on the eighth verse of thelOlst Psalra. — " I wiU early destroy all the wicked of the land, that I raay cut off aU wicked doers frora the city of the Lord." The Earl of HartfeU, Lord Ogilvy, Sir Robert Spottiswoode, Gordon, Murray, and Guthrie, were conderaned. Murray was not nineteen years of age. They were aU sentenced to be beheaded at the cross of St Andrews on the 20th of January 1646, four days after the sen tence was pronounced. Spottiswoode, Guthrie, and Gordon, were executed on the same day in the South Street of St Andrews, and young Murray, who had been respited to give time to inquire into a pretended plea of Insanity brought forward by his friends, two days afterwards. The dying conduct of those loyal gentle men, who were literally murdered by the Covenanters, was most heroic, pious, and affecting. Though persecuted. Insulted, and de nounced in their last raoments, they displayed a courage and mag nanimity which raust have smote their enemies to the very soul. The Earl of HartfeU and Lord Ogilvy were " appointed to open the tragedy ;" but the latter contrived to escape from prison In the dress of his sister, whom he left behind, and who at the dis covery of the lady, and the flight of their victim, the Covenanters were restrained with difficulty from putting to death. Argyll imagined that Lord Ogilvy had been favoured by the Hamiltons, -1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 649 his relatives, and to mortify thera he procured the pardon of their enemy the Earl of HartfeU. The account of this tragedy by an eye-witness, now published, is worthy of perusal as connected with Sir Robert Spottiswoode. ArgyU had brought with hira to that " bloody Asserably" at St An drews his ward. Sir Ewen Caraeron of Lochiel, then scarcely seven teen years old, and we are told in the Memoirs of Lochiel — " Though that gentleman was too young to make very solid reflec tions on the conduct of his guardian, he soon conceived an aversion to the cruelty of that barbarous faction. He had a custom of visiting the state prisoners as he travelled from city to city ; but as he was ignorant of the reasons why they were confined, so he could have no other view In it but satisfying his curiosity ; but he had soon an opportunity of being fuUy informed." The young Lochiel's Interriew with Sir Robert Spottiswoode took place the night before the execution of that distinguished person and his brave companions, who, after the escape of Lord Ogilvy, were so narrowly watched, that their most intiraate friends and relations were denied access to thera. Lochiel's connection with his guardian Argyll induced the keeper of the prison to ad mit him Into Sir Robert's cell, with whom the young Chief was left to converse. He was cheerfuUy received by Sir Robert, who ap peared as if he was at coraplete liberty, and was not in the least dejected at his approaching fate. Informing the prisoner who he was, and of his visit to St Andrews, Sir Robert exclaimed — " Are you the son of John Cameron, my late worthy friend and acquain tance, and the grandchild of the loyal AUan M'Coildui, who was not only instrumental in procuring that great victory to the gal lant Marquis of Montrose, which he lately obtained at Inverlochy, but likewise assistant to him in the brave actions that foUowed, by the stout party of able raen that he sent along with him ?" Sir Robert then tenderly embraced Sir Ewen, and Inquired how he came to be placed under the guardianship of such a man as Argyll. Young Lochiel explained this to hira as well as he could, and Sir Robert replied — " It is surprising to rae that your friends, who are loyal men, should have entrusted the care of your education to a person so opposite to them in principles, as well with re spect to the Church as to the State. Can they expect you will 650 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- learn any thing at that school but treachery, ingratitude, enthu- siasra, cruelty, treason, disloyalty, and avarice 2" Sir Ewen apolo gised for his friends, and assured hira that ArgyU was as kind to him as if he were his father. He asked Sir Robert why he accused one whom he considered his benefactor of such vices I Sir Robert Spottiswoode rephed that Argyll's kindness and civiUty were the more dangerous snares for one who was then so young, and hoped that he would imitate the loyalty and good principles of his family rather than the example of his patron. He then narrated to Lochiel the history of the rebellion frora its coraraencement, gave him a " distinct view of the tempers and characters of the differ ent factions that had conspired against the mitre and the crown," explained the nature of the constitution of the kingdom, and " in sisted on the piety, innocence, and integrity of the King." Lochiel was astonished and affected at these statements, and, we are told, "conceived such a hatred and antipathy against the perfidious authors of these calamities that the impression continued with him during his life." Sir Robert perceived the influence of his obser vations on the mind of the youthful Chief of the Camerons. " He conjured hira to leave Argyll as soon as possibly he could ; and exhorted him, as he valued his honour and prosperity in this life, and his immortal happiness in the next, not to allow himself to be seduced by the artful insinuations of subtle rebels, who never want plausible pretexts to cover their treasons, nor to be ensnared by the hypocritical sanctity of distracted enthusiasts; and observed that the present saints and apostles who arrogantly assumed to them selves a title to reform the Church, and to compel mankind to be lieve their impious, wild, and undigested notions, as so many articles of faith, were either excessively ignorant and stupid, or monstrous ly selfish, perverse, and wicked." — "Judge always of mankind," said Sir Robert, " by their actions; there is no knowing the heart. Religion and virtue are inseparable, and are the only sure and in fallible guides to pleasure and happiness. As they teach us our several duties to God, to our neighbours, to ourselves, and to our King and country, so it is Impossible that a person can be endued with either who is deficient in any one of these indispensable duties, whatever he may pretend. Remember, young man, that you hear this from one who is to die to-morrow for endeavouring to perform -1650.] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 651 those sacred obligations, and who can have no other interest in what he says than a real concern for your prosperity, happiness, and honour." "Several hours," continues the narrator — said to have been John Drummond of the faraily of Drummond of Balhaldy in Stirling shire, " passed away In these discourses before Lochiel was aware that he had stayed too long. He took leave with tears in his eyes, and a heart bursting with a swell of passions which he had not formerly felt." Captain Andrew Guthrie is not mentioned ; but we are Informed that Lochiel next visited Colonel Nathaniel Gordon — " a handsome young gentleman of very extraordinary qualities, and of great courage and fortitude," and having condoled with him a short time, he waited on William Murray, " a youth of uncommon vigour and vivacity, not exceeding the nineteenth year of his age. He bore his misfortune with a heroic spirit, and said to Lochiel that he was not afraid to die since he died in his duty, and was assured of a happy imraortality for his reward. This gentleraan was brother to the Earl of Tulhbardine, who had interest enough to have saved hira, but It is affirmed by contem porary historians that he not only gave way to but even promoted his trial, in acquainting the Parliament, which then demurred upon the matter, that he had renounced him as a brother since he had joined that wicked crew, meaning the Royalists, and that he would take it as no favour to spare him. Of such violence was that faction as utterly to extinguish humanity, unman the soul, and drain off nature herself ; and it may be observed that an ungovernable zeal for religion is more fruitful of mischief than all the other passions put together. The next day the bloody sen tence was executed upon those Innocents. Two preachers had for some days preceding endeavoured to prepare the people for the sacrifice, which, they said, ' God himself required, to expiate the sins of the land !' And because they dreaded the influence that the dying words of so eloquent a speaker as Sir Robert Spottiswoode might have upon the hearers, they not only stopped his mouth, but tormented him in the last moments of his life with their officious exhortations and rhapsodies. Lochiel beheld this tragedy from a window opposite to the scaffold, in company with the Marquis [ArgyU] and other heads of the faction." After mentioning that their melancholy fate drew tears frora the eyes of 652 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- those spectators who were most prejudiced against them, the narrator continues — " When the melancholy spectacle was over, Lochiel, who stiU concealed the visit he had made them, took the freedora to ask ray Lord ArgyU — ' AVhat their criraes were ? For nothing of the criralnal appeared from their behaviour. They had the face and courage of gentlemen, and they died with the meek ness and resignation of men that were not conscious of guilt. We expected to have heard an open confession from their own mouths ; but they were not allowed "to speak, though I am informed that the most wicked robbers and murderers are never debarred that privilege.' " Argyll, surprised at these observations from a person so young as Lochiel, repUed in an Insidious speech, denouncing the principles of the sufferers ; maintaining that as the crimes of robbery, murder, and the like, were coraraonly committed by " mean people," and " were too glaring, ugly, and odious in their nature to bear any justification," it was " for the benelit of man kind that the criminal should be allowed to recite them in public, because the design was not to make converts but to strike mankind with horror — that the Provost [of St Andrews] did wisely in not allowing the criminals to speak, and especially Sir Robert Spottis woode, for he was a raan of very pernicious principles, a great statesman, a subtle lawyer, and very learned and eloquent ; and therefore the more capable to deduce his wicked maxiras and dan gerous principles in such an artful and insinuating manner, as would be apt to fix the attention of the people, and to impose upon their understanding." Argyll then detailed to his youthful ward his own version of the origin of the war, inveighing against Mon trose and his followers, and would have completely swayed Lochiel " if he had not been wholly prepossessed by the more soUd reason ings of Sir Robert Spottiswoode." The young Chief embraced the first opportunity of returning to Lochaber, becarae a de voted loyalist, and is prominent in raany transactions of Scottish history tiU his death in 1719 at the patriarchal age of ninety.* It is some consolation to know that Argyll, who glutted his hatred by this tragedy, raet with the same fate nearly sixteen years afterwards. Thus feU Sir Robert Spottiswoode with his brave companions " Memoirs of Sir Ewen Cameron of Lochiel, Chief of the Clan Cameron. Edin burgh, 4to. printed for the Abbotsford Club, 1842, p. 76-82. -1650] OF THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 653 in his father's archiepiscopal city of St Andrews — a martyr like them for loyalty, law, and religion, cruelly put to death by those relentless oppressors. It may be said that they were executed by authority of the Parliament, and this is the fact; but the Parlia ment was composed altogether of Covenanters, and was com pletely under the controul of the Covenanting preachers, who In their sermons and exhortations justified the atrocities perpetrated by their advice. Another of many instances raay be given of their thirst for blood. After Montrose had disbanded his array by tho King's order, Argyll returned to Inverary, followed by General David Leslie and his army, who marched into the peninsula of Oantyre against Sir Alexander Macdonald and the Irish auxiliaries. The latter safely escaped to The Isles and thence to Ireland, and the inhabitants submitted on the promise of life and liberty; but a John Nevay, who is appropriately styled a " bloody preacher," seconded by Argyll, persuaded Leslie to disarm the wretched peasantry, and put them all to the sword without mercy. Leslie, struck with horror when it was too late, seeing the infamous Cove nanting preacher Nevay and Argyll coolly surveying the scene of carnage, exclaimed — " Well, Mess-John, have you not for once got your fill of blood?" These words saved eighteen persons, who were carried prisoners to Inverary, where they would have been allowed to starve in the dungeons of the unfeeling and treacherous Argyll if Lochiel had not daily visited them, and secretly convey ed to them provisions.* The Covenanting reign of terror which oppressed Scotland from 1639 to the occupation of the kingdom by Cromwell is affectingly described in the " Memoirs of Lochiel." We are told of this " most cruel tyranny that ever scourged and affected the sons of men " — that " the jails were crammed fuU of innocent people, in order to furnish our governors with blood, sacrifices wherewith to feast their eyes ; the scaffolds daily smoked with the blood of our best patriots ; anarchy swayed with an uncontroverted authority ; and avarice, cruelty, and revenge, seemed to be ministers of state. The bones of the dead were digged out of their graves, and their liring friends were compelled to ransora them at exorbitant sums. Such as they were pleased to call Malignants were taxed and piUaged at discretion ; and if they chanced to prove the least * Memoirs of Lochiel, 4to. Edinburgh, 1842, p. 84. 654 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1639- refractory or deficient in payment their persons or estates were seized. The Committee ofthe [Presbyterian] Kirk sat at the helm, and were supported by a sraall number of fanatical [persons], and others, who caUed themselves the Committee ofthe Estates, but were truly no thing else but the barbarous executioners of their [the Presbyterian] wrath and vengeance. — Every parish had a [preaching] tyrant, who made the greatest lord in his district stoop to his authority. The kirk was the place where he kept his court ; the pulpit his throne or tribunal from whence he Issued out his terrible decrees, and twelve or fourteen sour Ignorant enthusiasts, under the title of Elders, composed his council. If any, of what quality soever, had the assurance to disobey his edicts, the dreadful sentence of ex comraunication was Immediately thundered out against him, his goods and chattels confiscated and seized, and himself being looked upon as actually in the possession of the devil, and irretrievably dooraed to eternal perdition. All that conversed with hira were in no better esteera."* In addition to those parochial " tribunals " of the Covenanting preachers, and the elders whora they constituted as such, subjecting all and sundry to their caprice, their General Asserablies norainated what was called a Commission of Assembly, which in despotic power far exceeded the forraer High Court of Coramission, against which the Covenanters furiously complained during the establishment of the Episcopal Church. Mr Scott, in his notes on the MS. Hospital Registers of Perth, under date 1644, candidly states that " the Commission of the General Assembly was at that time perhaps the most formidable Court that had ever existed in this cou/ntry. All liberty of private judgment, it has been often and justly complained, was taken away by the Commission. The [peaceable] ministers throughout the kingdom were intimi dated, and frequently at a loss how to act so as to please that Court." Those Commissions, which were always composed of the raost turbulent and ferocious of the Covenanting preachers and their specially selected elders, took cognizance of every one who " haunted the company of an excommunicated person," or any one not a Covenanter, or seen conversing or reported to correspond with the Marquis of Montrose, or baring any relationship to or intimacy with Malignants, as the Covenanters designated aU loyal ists and adherents of the Episcopal Church. The Commissioners * Memoirs of Lochiel, Edinburgh, 4to. 1842, p. 87, 88. -1650.] OP THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 655 ordered " inquisition" to be taken with all such persons, of whatever rank, station, or profession, against whom they thundered their curses loud and deep, by which the peasantry were both Intimi dated and excited to acts of violence, and many of the best men in the kingdom were driven into exile to preserve their lives. The execution of the Marquis of Montrose was, on account of the rank and importance of the victim, the last great judicial murder which the Covenanters were allowed to perpetrate. The fate of the great Marquis is affectingly narrated by his eloquent biographer.* In his second attempt in 1650 to raise the royal standard he was surprised and defeated by an inferior force, and he escaped to be basely betrayed by Macleod of Assynt in Suther landshire, from whom he had sought protection, for a thousand bolls of meal ! The Marquis was brought to Edinburgh by the Covenanting General Leslie, received with every mark of indignity which the Presbyterians could devise, publicly insulted, torraented by the preachers, condemned on his former pretended attainder to be executed on a gibbet thirty feet high at the Cross, his head to be placed on the Tolbooth, his arms on the gates of Perth and Stirling, his legs on the gates of Aberdeen and Glasgow, and his raangled body to be buried by the hangraan in the tract on the south of the city known as the Boroughmuir — this last part of the sentence only to be relaxed if the Covenanters removed their mock excomraunication against hira. This inhuman sentence was rigidly inflicted under circurastances of peculiar atrocity on the part of the Presbyterian preachers, who erabittered the last mo ments of their illustrious victim by their blaspherales, revilings, and denunciations. They exulted over the fate of the " truculent traitor,'''' as they falsely called hira — " that viperous brood of Satan, James Graham, whom the Estates of Pariiaraent have since de clared traitor, the Church hath delivered into the hands of the devil, and the nation doth generally detest and abhor ;" and he who, with almost no resources, gained six victories, reconquered the kingdom — the poet, the scholar, the courtier, and the soldier — was numbered by the Covenanters in their impious phraseology among " the troublers of Israel, the fire-brands of hell, the Koraks, the Balaams, the Doegs, the Rabshakeks, the Hamans, the Tobiahs, and Sanballats of the time." Montrose, though he coraraenced his ' The Life and Times of Montrose, by Mark Napier, Esq. Advocate. 656 FANATICISM, OPPRESSION, AND CRUELTIES [1650- public career in Scotland as a supporter of the National Covenant, never had any connection with the Solemn League. " For the League and Covenant," said the Marquis in his dying speech, " I thank God I was never in it, and therefore could not break it." In reference to the charge of cruelty against hira he truly declared — " Never was any raan's blood spilt but in battle, and even many thousands have I spared." Into the details of the invasion of Scotland by Cromwell, his victory over the Covenanting forces under Leslie near Dunbar, and his subjugation of the kingdom. It is unnecessary to enter in the present work. CroraweU returned in triuraph to London, and one of his first proceedings was to depress the Scots, because, in his phraseology, they had " withstood the work of the gospel." An act was passed abolishing royalty in Scotland, and annexing the king dom as a province to the Commonwealth of England, but allowing some representatives to be sent to the English Parliament. Judges were appointed for the administration of justice in the Supreme Courts ; and the people at large, now freed from the odious and in supportable tyranny of the Presbyterian preachers, soon became reconciled to the new government. Though many of them were royalists, they experienced a security which had been unknown since the outbreak for the National Covenant in 1638, and the strong arm of military power afforded them a sufficient protection. It raay be truly said that frora this period, during the whole of CromweU's domination, Scotland was quiet, contented, and compa ratively prosperous. One great cause of this was, the determina tion to prevent the meetings of General A ssembhes of the preachers, though this at first scarcely restrained the Covenanting turbulence. A General Assembly had met at Edinburgh in July 1650, accord ing to the appointraent of a preceding Assembly, and Andrew Cant, described as then rainister of Aberdeen, was elected Moderator, but none of the Acts are printed. Another raet at St Andrews in June 1651, and adjourned to Dundee, where it was held for some days in July, and Robert Douglas was after a noisy discussion chosen Moderator. This meeting terminated in a ludicrous manner. The parties were Inforraed that CromweU's soldiers were marching towards Perth, and Intended to visit Dundee. Panic-struck at this inteUigence a certain Mr Alexander Gordon, who was one of them, and preserved a record of their proceedings transcribed by 1653.] OP THE COVENANTING PRESBYTERIANS. 657 Wodrow, in 1703, states — " The Asserably arose, and dispersed theraselves the best way they could for escaping the enemy and their own safety ; yet some of them, notwithstanding, did fall into the enemy's hands, as Mr Robert Douglas, moderator, and some others." The Acts of this Assembly were never recognized or printed among the Acts of the Presbyterians as a party since the Revolution. A protestation was presented against the lawfulness of the Assembly, dated at St Andrews, 18th July 1651, chiefly on account of " the allowing and carrying on ofa conjunction with the Mahgnant party, and bringing them in to places of power and trust in the army and in the judicatories, contrary to the word of God, the Solemn League and Covenant," and various other enumerated documents, such as Declarations, Warnings, Remon strances, Letters, and Supplications. A third convened at Edin burgh in July 1652, at which the Anti-Resolutionists protested against the lawfulness of those of 1650 and 1651. On the 20th of July 1653, another General Assembly was held at Edinburgh, but no sooner had Mr David Dickson, the moderator, concluded his prayer than Colonel Cotterell surrounded the place of meeting by a body of troops, entered and dispersed the merabers for sitting without the authority of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of England, the commanders-in-chief of the English forces, and the English Judges in Scotland. The Presbyterian preachers, who had for years bearded a King and the whole Government, and at whose command thousands of ignorant enthusiasts repeatedly rose in defence of the Covenants, could now offer no resist ance. It was in vain that Dickson pretended they were " an ecclesiastical synod, a spiritual court of the Lord Jesus Christ, which meddled not with any thing civil" — that their " authority was derived from God" — and that by the Solemn League and Covenant the most of the English soldiers were bound to de fend them. Cotterell was inexorable. " He told us," says BaiUie, who was present, " his order was to dissolve us : where upon he commanded us all to follow him, else he would drag us out of the room. When we had entered a protestation against this unheard of and unexampled violence, we did rise and fol low hira." Cotterell led thera like so many culprits through the streets surrounded by cavalry and foot soldiers, and when a mile frora the city he Inforraed thera that they must " never dare to 42 658 PROSTRATION OF THE COVENANTERS. [1653. meet above three in number," and that they were to leave the city by eight o'clock on the following morning under pain of breaking the public peace. On that day they were commanded to depart by sound of trumpet, or " present imprisonment."* It was nevertheless atterapted to hold a General Assembly at Edinburgh in July 1654, but before the meeting was constituted it was per emptorily suppressed by the railitary. No more General Assem blies were held till the first of the new Presbyterian Establishment after the Revolution. The Covenants were thus utterly prostrated by CromweU, and though the Presbyterian preachers were allowed to retain posses sion of the parishes and enjoy the stipends, they were happily under the only safe controul for. the country at the time — that of railitary law. As it respects the result of Crorawell's proceedings, we have the adralssion of a noted Presbyterian writer of the time, Mr Jaraes Kirkton, who raay be considered the Calderwood of his day : — " The English became peaceable masters of Scotland for nine years following. So, after all the counties of Scotland had formally acknowledged the English for their sovereigns, they ap pointed magistrates, and constituted judicatories to govern the land for their tirae. They did indeed proclaira a sort of tolera tion to dissenters among Protestants, but permitted the gospel to have its course, and presbyteries and synods to continue in the exercise of their powers ; and aU the time of their government the work of the gospel prospered not a little but mightily. It is also true that because they knew the generality of the Scottish rainisters were for the King upon any terms they did not permit the General Assembly to sit, and in this I believe they did no bad office, for both the authority of that meeting was denied by the Protesters, and the Assembly seemed to be more set upon establish ing themselves than promoting religion."'' Kirkton gives a most flat tering account in his own style of the morals and the spiritual con dition of the people, which is rightly pronounced by a very compe tent Presbyterian authority " to be in its leading points an en thusiastic fable. There is in every ecclesiastical record of the time," continues this writer, " the raost redundant and revolting proof that Instead of the unspotted morality on which he [Kirkton] descants, enormities of every kind prevailed, and such records are • BaUUe to Mr Calamy, minister at London, July 27, 1653. 1654.] PROSTRATION OF THE COVENANTERS. 659 unimpeachable evidence."* We have the stateraent of Sir James Turner that " he never saw either public or private sin more abound than in the years 1643 and 1644, when the Solemn League and Covenant was subscribed by many."-f- Baillie, however, gives a less inflated representation of the Presbyterian cause than Kirk ton: — " As for our church affairs" he writes to his friend Mr Spang, 19th July 1654, " thus they stand : — The Parliament of England had given to the English judges and sequestrators a very ample commission to put out and in ministers as they saw cause. Ac cording to this power they put Mr John Row in Aberdeen, Mr Robert Leighton in Edinburgh, Mr Patrick GiUespie in Glasgow ; and Mr Samuel Colville they offered to the Old College of St Andrews, All our Colleges are likely to be undone. Our churches are in great confusion. No intrant gets any stipend tUl he has petitioned, and subscribed some acknowledgement to the English. When a very few of the Remonstrants and Independent party will caU a man he gets the kirk and the stipend ; but whom the Presbytery and the whole congregation call and admit, he must preach in the fields, or in a barn, without stipend." Truly we may well exclaim, after perusing this and other statements — How were the raighty Covenanters fallen ! And what became of the other actors in this said tragedy of the Covenants ? The Earl of Rothes, one ofthe great leaders of the rebellion, died at Richraond-upon-Tharaes, in the house of his aunt the Countess of Roxburgh, on the 23d of August, soon after the Pariiaraent in that month had confirmed a pension of L.10,000 Scots, which had been settled on him for life. Rothes in reality abandoned the Covenanters, but " premature death put an end to all his projects, and perhaps saved hira frora the disgrace of apos tacy ,"-f- Most of the Nobility and gentry, disgusted with the Co venanters, repudiating their religious and political principles, their horrid cruelties and oppressions, and their officious interference in all public and private affairs, left thera to their fate, or could render them no assistance. Baillie writes inl654 — "As for our state this is its case — our Nobility near all wrecked. Dukes Hamilton, the one executed, the other slain ; their estate forfeited ; one part of It * Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin. Edin. Svo. vol. i. p. 626. t Sir James Turner's Memoirs. Edinburgh, 4to. 1829, p. 160. X Appendix to Earl of Eothes' " Eelation," printed for Bannatyne Club, 4to. p. 226. 660 PROSTRATION OF THE COVENANTERS. [1654. gifted to EngUsh soldiers ; the rest wiU not pay the debts ; httle left to the heretrix ; almost the whole name undone with debt. Huntly executed, his sons all dead but the youngest ; there is more debt on the house [family] nor the land can pay : Lennox Is liring as a man buried in his house of Cobham ; ArgyU almost drowned with debt in friendship with the English, but in hatred with the country; he courts the Remonstrators, who are averse from hira ; Chancellor Loudon lives like an outlaw about AthoU, his lands confiscated for debt under a general very great disgrace ; Marischal, Rothes [only son of the Covenanting Earl], Eglinton and his three sons, Crawfurd, Lauderdale, and others, prisoners in England ; and their lands either sequestrated or forfeited, and gifted to English soldiers ; Balraerino suddenly dead, and his son for public debt, comprizings, and captions, keeps not the cause way ; Warriston [Johnston], having refunded raost of what he got for places, lives privately in a hard enough condition, much hated by the most, and neglected by all except the Remonstrants, to whom he is guide. Our criminal judicatures are all in the hands of the English ; our civil courts in their hands also. — The coraraissariot and sheriff courts are all in the hands of the Eng lish soldiers, with the adjunction in sorae places of some few Re monstrants. Strong garrisons in Leith, Edinburgh town and castle, Glasgow, Ayr, Dunbarton, Stirling," and other places. This, then, was the result of the rebellion engendered by the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant. After all the blood which had been shed, the cruelties perpetrated, the infaraous prosecution by the Presbyterians of Archbishop Laud, their selhng of the King, and their war of extermination against those whom they chose to consider Malignants, to say nothing of the bitter hatreds, feuds, and factions, which prevailed among themselves, the Covenanters gained not even one political or reli gious advantage, and all their struggles for supremacy ended in the ruin of themselves. Their principles never permanently triumphed; their Presbyterian successors, when established at the Revolution by mere political expediency, found that the new Governraent would not listen for a raoraent to their pretensions ; and thus ended the " golden age " of the pretended second Reformation. BOOK III. THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF SCOTLAND FROM 1661 TO 1688. CHAPTER L PRELIMINARIES OF THE RE-ESTABLISHMENT OP THE CHURCH. The restoration of the Monarchy in the person of Charles II. in 1660, introduces us to new actors in the public events of the time both in the State and in the Church. Some of the former heroes of the Covenant were still alive at that era of our national history. Among the Nobility raay be noticed the Earl of Loudon, who be came a royalist after the murder of. Charles I., but submitted to General Monk, and died in 1663. The Earl of Eglinton, who also became a royalist, and was detained a prisoner in Hull and Berwick tUl the Restoration, died in 1661 ; the Earl Marischal also died in 1661, and the Earl of Wigton in 1665. The Earl of Cassillis, who never renounced his Presbyterianism, and whose eldest daughter, Lady Margaret Kennedy, by his first Countess, married Bishop Burnet, survived till 1668. The Earl of Haddington, who, how ever, though a favourer of the party, can hardly be considered a Covenanter, died in 1669. The Earl of Lauderdale, afterwards Duke of Lauderdale, and the fate of the Marquis of ArgyU, are subsequently noticed. The Earl of Sutherland died in 1663. The Eari of Home, before 1641 a Covenanter, died in 1666. The Earl of Lothian, who in 1638 manifested the greatest zeal for the Covenant, but became a royalist after the murder of Charles I., survived till 1675. Lord Sinclair, who also became a royalist, died on the foUowing year. Sir Thoraas Hope of CraighaU, who was fatally retained by Charles I. in the office of Lord Advocate, which of all others required the raost active zeal in the royal ser vice, predeceased the Restoration nearly five years, dying in 1646. 662 PRELIMINARI.ES OF THE [1661. We have seen that he was appointed by the King to be his Com missioner to the General Assembly in August 1643 — an office never before or since conferred upon a commoner, and the royalists were so much exasperated at this nomination of an avow ed enemy instead of a friend, that they with very few exceptions refused to attend. Johnston of Warriston occupies a prominent place in the Covenanting Presbyterian raartyrology. Of the Covenanting preachers it may be noticed that Henderson died in August 1646. The cause of his death is variously stated. It Is alleged by Heyiin, Collier, Saunderson, Holllngworth, and other writers of the tirae, that after his correspondence on Epis copacy with Charles I. at Newcastle he retracted all his Presby terian opinions, and denounced the proceedings of the Scottish army against the King ; but this is founded on very disputable authority, although it was subsequently maintained by raen of the highest integrity. It is, however, a matter of little moment. Henderson was interred in the churchyard of St Giles, near tha grave of John Knox ; but when that cemetery was partly convert ed into the Parliament Close or Square his reraains were exhumed, and reraoved to the Greyfriars' burying-ground ; and a monument was erected by his nephew — a homely square pedestal with inscrip tions on three of the sides, surmounted by an urn, at the south west end of the New Greyfriars' church, near the gate leading into the pleasure-grounds of George Heriot's Hospital. Wodrow alleges that in June or July 1662, the Earl of Middleton, the King's Com missioner, procured an order from the Parliament to eraze the in- fiatedLatin inscriptions on Henderson's mnument. This statement Is erroneous, for the Pariiaraent issued no such order. Sir George Mackenzie says that the Committee of Estates, who raet in August 1660, enjoined the inscriptions to be defaced on Henderson's tomb at Edinburgh and Gillespie's at Kirkcaldy. The difference is important, for Wodrow, by assigning 1662 as the year when this unnecessary spleen was authorized, and by connecting It with the Parliament, evidently wished to implicate the Bishops, all of whom, of the second succession, were then consecrated, and sat in that Parliament. In 1660 there were no Bishops In Scotland, and this procedure of the Comraittee was their own act. BaiUie, who is often noticed in the preceding narrative as a zealous Covenanter, died Principal of the University of Glasgow in 1661.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 663 1662. " The " flower of the Kirk," Mr Samuel Rutherford, the author of the book entitled " Lex Rex," which was burnt with every mark of indignity at the Cross of Edinburgh, and beneath his win dows in front of St Salvador's College in St Andrews, died in March 1661. His associate and colleague at St Andrews, Robert Blair, was aUowed to retire to the parish of Aberdour, on the south shore of Fife, where he resided tiU his death In 1666. Andrew Cant, one of the famous apostles of the Covenant, died in 1664, and David Dickson in the previous year. John Livingstone was banished in 1663, and retired to Rotterdara, where he died in 1672. James Guthrie was hanged for high treason on the 1st of June 1661. The above were the principal Covenanting " Scots Worthies" alive at the Restoration, and they were soon succeeded by a race of most violent, suUen, and dangerous fanatics, whose extraordinary conduct as rebels and the enemies of toleration involved many of them in the most suraraary punishment. On the 10th of August 1660 a letter was written by Charles II. to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, to be coraraunicated to other Presbyteries, in which the King declared — " We do also resolve to protect and preserve the governraent of the Church as it is settled by law, without violation." This letter was delivered by Sharp, soon afterwards Archbishop of St Andrews, to Mr Robert Douglas, on the 1st of September. The Presbyterians consider ed this as guaranteeing the support of their systera, and sorae of their writers assert that the King for several raonths after his restoration entertained no design of re-establishing the Episcopal Church. A letter to this effect is cited from the Earl [Duke] of Lauderdale, dated WhitehaU, 23d October 1660, addressed to this Mr Robert Douglas, the moderator of the Covenanting General Assembly in 1649 — a person of very fickle and unsettled mind, who was almost induced to accept the Archbishopric of St Andrews, and whom even the credulous and gossipping Wodrow was inclined to consider a grandson of Queen Mary by a chUd born by her to George Douglas, younger of Lochleven, while she was a prisoner in that castle.* " As to the concerns of our mother Kirk," writes This atrocious calumny against Queen Mary was readily beUeved by the Presby terians, and probably Mr Eobert Douglas was not slow to give credence to a scandal which every one conversant with the history of the unhappy Queen, and especially her imprisonment in Lochleven Castle, knows to be false. 664 PRELIMINARIES OF THE [1661. Lauderdale to the pretended bastard of royalty, " I can only promise my faithful endeavours in what may be for her good ; and indeed it is no small raatter to rae, in serving my master, to find that his Majesty is so fixed in his resolution not to alter any thing in the govemment of that Church. Of this you may be confident, though I dare not answer ; but some would be willing enough to have it otherwise. I dare not doubt of the honest ministers con tinuing in giving constant testimonies of their duty to the King, and your letter confirms me in these hopes ; and they doing their duty, I dare answer for the King, having of late had full content ment in discoursing with his Majesty on that subject. His Majesty hath told me that he intends to call a General Assembly, and I have drawn a proclamation for that purpose, but the day is not yet resolved on. The proclamation shall, I think, come down with my Lord Treasurer [John Earl of Crawford], who says he will take journey this week." Whatever credit may be assigned to these statements, Lauderdale was the avowed friend of the Cove nanting Presbyterian interest, and as the whole power and patron age of Scotland were virtually placed in his hands after the dis grace of the Earl of Middleton in 1662, his principles could not be raisunderstood as those of one of the raost ambitious, designing, and unscrupulous men of his time. After 1638, when he joined the Covenanters, he was a confidential manager of their affairs, and appointed one of their delegates to the Westminster Assembly in 1043. It is true that he suffered considerable hardships, and an Imprisonment of nine years before the Restoration, but for these he was amply rewarded by honours and pecuniary advantages. We are told in a well known journal " that the restoration of Episcopacy [in Scotland], whatever may be thought of its wis dom, must be owned to have been a natural measure."* It Is in deed astonishing, after their rigorous enforcement of the Covenant, their excommunication of the Bishops and others, their undeniable oppressions and cruelties, and their bitter hatred of toleration in any form, that the Presbyterians could expect their system to be sanc tioned as the national establishment after the Restoration. But the proceedings of the Parliament, which met at Edinburgh on the 1st of January 1661, sufficiently intimated that whatever was to be done the Covenants and their supporters were to expect no countenance. * Edinburgh Eeview, vol. xxxvi. p. 29. 1661.1 RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 665 The Earl of Middleton was the King's Commissioner, and the Parliament was opened by a sermon preached by Mr Robert Dou glas. The very first act enjoined the administration of the oath of aUegiance to the members at every Parliament, in which it was declared that the King was the only supreme governor of the king dom over all persons and in all causes.""* This rescinded the acts of August and November 1641, the forraer of which was " anent the oath to be given by every member of Parliament," and pro nounced the " same to be void and nuU in all time coming." The Earl of CassiUis was the only meraber of the Pariiaraent who re fused to take the oath of allegiance, and deserted the raeeting, be cause, says Sir George Mackenzie, he would not allow the King's supremacy in ecclesiastical raatters, which was implied in the oath.-j* This was followed by an act against the noted Covenanting John ston of Warriston, then a fugitive for high treason, depriving him of aU his offices, especially that of Clerk-Registrar, which he held during the Covenanting domination in the Parliament. On the 4th of January an act was passed " that the bodies, bones, and heads of the late Marquis of Montrose and Sir WilUara Hay of Dalgetty should be gathered and honourably buried at his Majes ty's expence," ordering the Magistrates of Edinburgh to " see his Majesty's will and pleasure herein punctually obeyed." Various acts of the Parliament of 1641, affecting the royal prerogative in choosing the Officers of State, the Privy Council, and the Lords of Session, were rescinded. On the 16th of January an act was passed denouncing, generally, all " leagues, councils, or conventions" not authorized by the King and his successors. The body of Colonel George Drummond, another sufferer to Covenanting tyranny, which " was unworthily buried, was to be raised by his friends, and buried where they should think fit." On the 22d, an act was passed annulUng the Convention of Estates of 1643, and " rescinding any acts ratifying the same." The raeetings of Quakers, Anabap tists, and Fifth Monarchy Men, were strictly prohibited. On the 1st of February the " saying of raass, seminary and raass priests, and trafficking papists" were ordered to be punished by the exist- • Acta Pari. Scot, vol vu. p. 7. t An Act was passed against the Eari of Cassillis on the Sth of AprU, declaring him incapable of any public office for refusing to take the oath of aUegiance. Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 162, 163. 666 PRELIMINARIES OF THE [1661. ing laws. The forfeiture of the Marquis of Montrose was honour ably removed and rescinded on the 8th ; and on the following day the Engagement of 1648 was ratified, while the Parliament and Committees of 1649 were rescinded. On the 20th an act was passed " condemning the deUvery of the King," and the act ofthe 16th Jan uary 1647, entitled, " Declaration of the kingdom of Scotland con cerning the King's Majesty's person," was by the same authority ordered to be " expunged out of aU records, and never to be reraembered but with due abhorrence and detestation.'" Two days afterwards a coramission was appointed to visit the Col leges of Aberdeen, consisting of nine or ten noblemen, a number of gentlemen and several ministers, among whom are the naraes of James Sharp, George Hallyburton, David Strachan, and John Pater son, afterwards Bishops. On the 27th all " public rainisters were enjoined to take the oath of allegiance, and acknowledge the King's prerogative," in the latter of which the swearing of the Soleran League and Covenant, or of " any other oaths concerning the go vemment of the Church or kingdom," was peremptorily pro hibited ; and it was declared that the said League and Covenant was not obligatory on the subjects to " raeddle or interpose by arms or any seditious way in any thing concerning the religion and government of the Churches in England and Ireland." This caused the retirement of Lord Balmerino, his relative Lord Cow par, and others from the Parliament. Acts were also passed in favour of a number of parochial incumbents and their families who had been annoyed during the usurpation. On the 28th of March the most iraportant act was passed, annulling, rescinding, and rendering null and void, all the acts of the " pretended Parlia ments" from 1640 to 1648. This was foUowed by an " act con cerning reUgion and church government," in which the King de clared his firm resolution to maintain the true Reforraed Protes tant religion as ^< was established within this kingdom during the reigns of his royal father and grandfather ; " and as to the government oi the Church," continues the act, " his Majesty will raake it his care to settle and secure the sarae in such a frame as shall be raost agree- ableto the word of God,mostsuitabletomonarchical government, and raostcoraplyingwith thepubUcpeace and quiet of the kingdom : And In the meantime his Majesty, with advice and consent foresaid, doth allow the present administration by [kirk] sessions, presbyteries, 1661.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 667 and synods, they keeping themselves within bounds, and behaving themselves as said is, and that notwithstanding of the preceding Act-Rescissory of all pretended Parliaments since the year 1633." At subsequent proceedings of this Parliament the forfeitures and attainders of Sir John Gordon of Haddo, Sir Robert Spottis woode, and other gentlemen who were victims to or sufferers from the Covenanting tyranny, were recaUed and rescinded, and on the 13th of May a " solemn anniversary thanksgiving" for the King's Restoration was enjoined to be observed every 20th of May. On the 15th, Mr John Wilkie, collector of the vacant stipends, was or dered to pay Mr Patrick Wemyss and Mr Jaraes Aitken, " suffering ministers for their loyalty," the former L.2000 Scots, and the latter L.lOO sterhng, out of the vacant stipends in Orkney. On the 28th, the said Mr Wilkie was authorised to pay Mr WiUiam Ogilvie, sometime minister at Kingoldrum — " a suffering minister" — three hundred merks Scots. On the 18th of June a long pro clamation by the King " anent Church affairs," dated WhitehaU, 10th June, was read, extending and explaining the act of the 28th of March ; and ordered to be published at the Cross of Edin burgh and in all the other towns. On the Oth of July was passed an " act concerning the disposal of vacant stipends." This act chiefly alluded to the deprived Episcopal clergy during the Civil War. It set forth that, " considering during those troubles many learned and religious persons in the ministry and universities, for their expressions of duty and loyalty to his Majesty, or not concurring in the confusions of the time, have been deposed or suspended from their charge and ministry, and have been other wise under great sufferings, and they and their famUies reduced to extreme misery and want" — it was enacted that aU stipends of benefices vacant by death, deposition, suspension, translation, or otherwise, shall be " employed for the supply and maintenance towards the reparation of the sufferings and losses of the persons foresaid, and of the wives and bairns of such as are dead" — the act to continue in force seven years, or longer, " as his Majesty shall think fit."* The above were the principal acts of the first Scottish Par liament after the Restoration which had reference directly or indirectiy to ecclesiastical affairs. The condemnation of the Cove- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. v. p. 303. 668 PRELIMINARIES OP THE [1661. nants as iUegal excited the fruitless opposition of the Covenanters. " The ministers," says Sir George Mackenzie, " did begin to thun der after their usual manner, and resolved to issue remonstrances in the ensuing provincial assemblies ; but to prevent any such dis order Rothes was sent to Fife, and Atholl to Perth, and some to each of their other provincial meetings, with power to dissolve them if any such thing had been proposed ; and by their presence all disturbances were then quieted, and Mr Andrew Cant, and raany others who were violent Reraonstrators, were deposed. Such also as preached before the Parliament, who were men picked out for their enraity to rebellion, did inveigh against the Covenant, and the irregular proceedings of these tiraes ; and some were so forward as to recommend Episcopacy as that ecclesiastical go vernment which suited best with monarchy, and was most conso nant to the word of God!"* In this Parliament numerous warrants were issued to grant relief to " suffering ministers," intimating the Episcopal clergy, and to the widows and children of those who were deceased. On the 15th of April, Dr Wishart petitioned the Parliament, shewing that " for his loyalty he had suffered as early, as rauch, as long, as constantly and patiently, as any of his station in the kingdom, being in 16.37 forced to flee to another kingdora frora his charge at St Andrews, and since once and again robbed of all his goods, imprisoned, banished ; and for persisting in his known avowed loyalty, and in that Christian duty of holding up his Majesty's condition and just cause to Almighty [God] in public worship, followed with persecution even beyond seas by the late usurpers, and that even tUl the blessed day of his sacred Majesty's wonder ful restitution." He also states that he is " not only valetudinary, and past sixty already," but that his " poor wife and children" would be destitute " in case Providence should remove him." Mr John Wilkie was ordered to pay Dr Wishart L.300 sterhng " out of the first and readiest of the vacant stipends."-|- On the 21st of June a list of suffering ministers and their widows and children was presented to the Parliament, when various suras were ordered to be paid frora the vacant stipends for " Sir George Mackenzie's Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotlancl, edited by Thomas Thomson, Esq. Edinburgh, 4to. 1821, p. 23. t Acta Pari. Scot. vo]. vii. Appendix, p. 59. 1661.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 669 their losses. The loyalty of the Aberdeen Doctors was not forgotten. The widow and chUdren of Dr Barron were voted L.200 steriing ; the widow and children of Dr Sibbald, L.200 ;* and the widow and chUdren of Dr Ross, L.150. The chU dren of Mr James Hannay, formeriy Dean of Edinburgh, received L.lOO; those of Mr John Brown, Professor in the CoUege of Edinburgh, kiUed at Preston, L.lOO ; those of Mr John Logie, sometime minister at Ruthven, L.50 : the widow of Mr John Heatly, minister at Wamphray, L.50 ; the widow and children of Mr Samuel Douglas, L.lOO ; those of Mr John Fyffe, minister of Foulis, L.lOO; the children of Mr James Drummond, L.50 ; and those of Dr Scrimgeour, L.lOO. To Mr David Mitchel, minister of Edinburgh, was voted the sum of L.200 ; to Dr Panter, formeriy of St Andrews, L.200 ; to Mr John Rose, minister of Birse in Aberdeenshire, L.200; to Mr WiUiam Douglas, minister of Aboyne and Glentanner, L.lOO ; to Mr WiUiam Wilkie, rainister of Govan near Glasgow, L.lOO ; to Mr George Hannay, L.lOO ; and to Mr John Macmath, L.lOO. Several others were voted L.50 each."!- At subsequent meetings of the Parliament Mr WiUiam Colvin was voted L.200. Mr WiUiam Hume, minister of Ayton, 2,400 merks ; Mr WiUiam Annand of Ayr, L.200 : James Maxwell, son of Bi shop MaxweU of Ross, L.200 ; Mr Robert Balcanqual, L.200 ; and sums of L.lOO severally to the widows and children of the de ceased clergy.J On the 5th of July the sum of L.1050 was ordered to be paid, in sums of L.lOO each, and one of L.150, to ten clergy men or their children, and one of the latter was Mr John White ford, described as son of the Bishop of Brechin. On the Oth of July Mr Robert Forbes was authorised to be the sole printer for ten years ofthe Replies of the Aberdeen Doctors to the Covenant ers : Mr Jaraes Rarasay of Linlithgow was voted L.lOO ; and Mr Henry Guthrie, then minister of Kilspindie, L.150. On the 12th of July a sum upwards of L.2000 sterling, exclusive of 2000 merks, • It appears, however, that Mr John Wilkie refused to pay the L.200 to Dr Sibbald's widow, and in consequence "" EUzabeth Nicolson, relict of the deceased Dr James Sibbald," presented a petition to the Parliament ou the 15th of August 1662, complain ing ofthe said Mr WUkie, who refused, not because he wanted funds, for it is stated in the lady's petition that " he has paid and satisfied several persons whom he has been pleased to favour." The Parliament ordered Mr Wilkie, as coUector of |the vacant stipends, to pay the money. Acta. Pari. Scot. vol. vii. Appendix, p. 89. t Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. Appendix, p. 78. X ^^''^- V- 79. 670 PRELIMINARIES OF THE [1661. was ordered to be paid to various clergymen, and the widows and children of others. In sums chiefly varying frora L.50 to L.lOO each. Others are raentioned who were to be recoraraended to the King.* With all these undeniable facts, as recorded in the Minutes of the Parliament, it is really preposterous for the Presbyterians to allege that they were deceived by the King at the Restoration. It is true the Episcopal Church was not in existence till upwards of one year and a half after the return of Charles II. , for Bishop Sydserff of Galloway was the only one of the old Prelates who sur vived, and he appears to have been in England at the time. The King owed no favour to the Presbyterians, who in 1650 took up arms in his favour frora no feeling of loyalty, but because he had conformed to the Soleran League and Covenant. Their principles were completely influenced by their fanaticism, and by their hatred to CromweU's " sectarian army." The proceedings of the Parliament of 1661, therefore, though nothing was said or en acted In favour of the Episcopal Church, sufficiently decided that Presbyterianism would not be established. On the 12th of July the Parliament was adjourned to the 12th of March 1662, and the Earl of Middleton, attended by the Clerk Register, proceeded to Court, carrying with him all the acts passed during the sittings. It appears frora an entry, dated April 29, that Dr Jaraes Sharp, who Is designated one of the King's chaplains, was appointed to accorapany the Lord Chancellor Glencairn and the Earl of Rothes to London. The prudence of Middleton, in " quashing all the fanatic zeal," secured for him a flattering recep tion at the Court, and immediately after his arrival a Scottish Privy Council was called, which was attended by the King and those of the English Privy Council who were appointed merabers of that of Scotland. The grand discussion was on the establishment of the Church in Scotland, and Sir George Mackenzie of Rosehaugh has preserved an account of this important meeting. He states that to surprise the Earls of Lauderdale, Crawfurd, and such others as were suspected of Presbyterianism, the Earl of Middleton was ap pointed to Introduce the subject. Addressing the King his Lord ship said — " May It please your Majesty, you may perceive by the account I have now given of your affairs in Scotland that there is no present government as yet established in that Church. Prea- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vu. Appendix, p. 83, 84, 85. 1661.] RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 671 bytery is, after a long usurpation, now at last rescinded ; the Co venant, whereby raen thought they were obliged to it, is now de clared to have been unlawful, and the acts of Parliament whereby It was fenced are removed ; so that it is arbitrary to your Ma jesty to choose what governraent you will fix there, for to your Majesty this is, by the last act of supremacy, declared to belong. But if your Majesty do not interpose, then Episcopacy, which was unjustly invaded at once with your royal power, will return to its former vigour." This was followed by a speech from the Earl of Glencairn, as Lord Chancellor, the sentiraents in which are extraor dinary, considering the Covenanting and Presbyterian zeal which his Lordship's faraily had evinced frora the Reformation. " The insolence of the Presbyterians," said his Lordship, " had so far dissatisfied all loyal subjects and wise men that six for one in Scot land longed for Episcopacy, by which no rebellion was ever hatched, that government having still owned the royal Interest ; whereas [Calvinism and] Presbytery had never been introduced in any country without blood and rebeUion, as at Geneva, in France during their civil wars, in HoUand, when they revolted from Spain, and now twice in Scotland — once by the Regent Moray, when Queen Mary was banished, and lastly in 1637." The Earl of Rothes here added to Glencairn's stateraents, that though he was too young to have " seen the rise of that innovation [in 1637], yet in 1648 he was witness to their ruiningof the Engagement, and in 1649 and 1650 to their indiscreet usage of his Majesty." The Earl of Lauderdale argued that this was a motion of great importance, on which they required to think seriously, and obtain the most authentic informa tion, as on the result of It depended the peace of the Scottish people, who were not very manageable in religious raatters ; and he suggested that either a General Asserably be caUed, the Provincial Synods consulted, or that the King should summon some of the leading ministers to a conference at Westminster. " AU these three ways," rephed the Earl of Middleton, " tend to continue Presbytery, for it was most probable that [the] rainisters who had governed all of late would have such influence as to choose ruling elders of the same minds, and both would be unwiUing to quit their hold ; or at least, the leading men, whom the inferior clergy durst not disown whUst that Hierarchy stood, durst not quarrel the re^ solutions of their Rabbis, who would adhere to the oath thay had 672 , PRELIMINARIES OF THE [1661. taken, and defend stoutly their own supremacy ; and, therefore, neither a General nor a Provincial Assembly were fit judges, nor could they be now called together, seeing Presbytery was abro gated ; and to call these were to restore them, and to infringe the Act-Rescissory." Silence ensued after this declaration, which was interrupted by the English Chancellor Clarendon, who observing the Earl of Crawfurd carefuUy abstaining from taking any part in the debate, pressed the King that all should express their opinions on a matter with which all were concerned. Sir George Mackenzie declares that Clarendon wanted Crawfurd either to disown Presby terianism, or by maintaining it to displease the King, which would hazard his office of Lord High Treasurer, and transfer it to Mid dleton. Thus corapelled to speak, the Earl of Crawfurd earnestly urged that the Provincial Synods should be consulted, assuring the King that six for one in Scotland were in favour of Presbytery. He contended that the offences of reformers ought not to be charged on the Reformation— that irregularities had attended the raost salutary changes — and that it was better to continue that form of [church] government which was now past all unavoidable hazards and errors, than attempt another which would at first be liable to similar inconveniences. He denied that the Act-Rescissory excluded Presbytery, which had been secured by acts of General Assemblies sanctioned by the late King's High Commissioners, and still unrepealed. The Duke of Hamilton, who was then a sup porter of Lauderdale, and opposed to Middleton, here observed, that the Act-Rescissory was only passed smoothly, because his Mar jesty had promised to continue Presbyterian governraent in his letter to the rainisters of Edinburgh. Lord Chancellor Clarendon, turning to the King, said — " Indeed, Sir, Lauderdale has spoken like a judicious sober man, and has given your Majesty a very secure advice ;* but, Sir, the Earl of Crawfurd has owned all that ever was done in Scotland in their rebellion, and God preserve rae frora living in a country where the Church is independent frora the State, and raaysubsist by their own acts,for then all Churchraen raay be kings." This closed the debate, the King declaring that the raajority were in favour of the Episcopal Church, and that he would settle It with • Sir George Mackenzie observes — " For he [Clarendon] used to compliment Lauderdale, that his Majesty might think he loved his person, and so might not con struct any thing that he said against him as proceeding from malice." 1661.] RE-ESTABLISHMERT OP THE CHURCH. 673 out delay. Clarendon perceived Crawfurd much displeased, and whispered to hira in a kind tone that if he were not such a rigid Presbyterian he [Clarendon] would be his friend and servant. " My Lord," answered Crawfurd, " I was your friend when you needed much my assistance," referring to his intercession by letters with the King on his behalf in 1653, when he incurred the resent ment of the Queen-mother and the Duke of York. The Earls of Glencairn and Rothes were ordered to Scotland, by the advice, it is said, of the Earl of Lauderdale, who disliked the inclination of the former to support the Earl of Middleton's mterest, and a letter from the King, dated 14th August, was pre sented to the Scottish Privy Council on the 5th of Septeraber, which contained the official announceraent of the re-establish ment of the Church. This Important document is as foUows — " Whereas in the raonth of August 1660 we did, by our letter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, declare our purpose to raaintain the governraent of the Church of Scotland settled by law, and our Parliament having since rescinded all the acts since the troubles began referring to that government, but also declared aU these pretended Parliaments nuU and void, and left to us the settling and securing church govemment : therefore, in compUance with that act-rescissory, according to our late proclamation, dated at WhitehaU the 10th of June, and in contemplation of the incon veniencies from the church government, as it hath been exer cised these twenty-three years past, of the unsuitableness there of to our raonarchical estate, of the sadly experienced confu sions which have been caused during the late troubles by the violence done to our royal prerogative, and to the governraent civil and ecclesiastical, settled by unquestionable authority : We, frora our respect to the glory of God, and the good and Interest of the Protestant religion, from our pious care and princely zeal for the order, unity, peace, and stability of that Church, and its better harmony with the government of the Churches of England and Ireland, have, after mature dehberation, declared to those of our Council here our firm resolution to interpose our royal authority for the restoring of that Church to its right government by Bishops, " Sir George Mackenzie's Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland from the Eestoration of Charles II. to IG70, edited by Thomas Thomson, Esq. Edinburgh, 4to. 1821, p. 52-56. 43 674 PRELIMINARIES OF THE [1661. as it was by law before the late troubles, during the reigns of our royal father and grandfather of blessed memory, and as it now stands settled by law. Of this our royal pleasure concerning church government you are to take notice, and to make intima tion thereof in such a way and manner as you shall judge most.ex- pedient and effectual. — Our will is, that ye forthwith take such course with the rents belonging to the several Bishoprics and Deanrles, that they may be restored and raade useful to the Church, and that according to justice and the standing law. And, moreover, you are to inhibit the assembling of ministers in their several synodal meetings throughout the kingdora until our further pleasure ; and to keep a watchful eye over aU who, upon any pretence whatsoever, shall, by discoursing, preaching, re- riUng, or any irregular and unlawful way, endeavour to aUenate the affections of our pieople, or dispose them to an ill opinion of us and the govemment, and tp the disturbance of the peace of the kingdom." It thus appears that no deception or treachery was practised towards the Presbyterians. If they understood the King's declar ation in his letter of August 1660 to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, that he would " raaintain the governraent of the Church of Scot land settled by law " — to refer to the Presbyterian systera which they had established frora 1639 to 1649, it was a most erroneous notion, for which they could only blame themselves. The King, on the other hand, by the phrase settled by laio, now evidently indicat ed the episcopal govemment before the outbreak of the Covenant, which it is undeniable was the legal establishment, solemnly rati fied by several Parliaments ,and General Asserablies. The pro ceedings of the Parliament of 1661, rescinding and declaring nuU and void aU the Parliaments frora 1639 or 1640 to 1649 — the sums voted to the suffering Episcopal clergy, their widows, and children ^the denunciation of the Covenants as illegal — and aU acts in connection with ecclesiastical matters, to say nothing of private information — were conclusive that the Episcopal Church would be re-instated, and the Church was at least as much entitled to be established as Presbyterianisra. Sir George Mackenzie states, that after the King's letter was read the Privy CouncU were sUent, untU the Earls of Tweeddale and Kincardine urged that they should write to the King, and 1661.J RE-ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CHURCH. 675 advise him to consult the provincial synods, by which course, what ever was the result, the King would not be blamed. This, how ever, was opposed, and the Eari of Tweeddale consented to the proclamation which was immediately issued, and a letter was sent to the King, intimating that the Privy CouncU had rendered due obedience to his command. On the 18th of September the Privy Council issued a proclama tion, prohibiting any who were "fanaticaUy principled" to be elected magistrates of royal burghs under severe penalties, and though this was not ratified by an act of Parliament it was in no instance opposed by the burghs. In another letter on the 19th of Novem ber the King ordered the Privy CouncU to enjoin that in aU con gregations Queen Catherine, the Queen his raother, and the Duke of York his brother, should be prayed for by name, and assigned as his excuse for sending such a command to the Privy Council " the not restitution as yet of Episcopacy." " In the same letter hkewise it was ordered," says Sir George Mackenzie, " that a proclamation should be issued against Papists ; and generaUy it was observed in those times that whenever any thing was done In favour of Episcopacy, there was also at the same time soraewhat done against Popery, for allaying the humour of the people, who were bred to believe that Episcopacy was a limb of Antichrist." On the 12th of December aU Presbyteries were prohibited to admit or induct ministers to parishes ; and in obedience to a letter from the King, dated the 2d of January 1662, forbidding the "meetings of all synods and [kirk] sessions," the Privy Council on the 19th " discharged them by express proclamation, which," says Sir George Mackenzie, " was mishked by many as tending to encourage aU profanity, since after that proclamation there was no visible authority ecclesiastic whereby scandals could be punished ;" but we shall soon see that this was a most erroneous opinion. Every arrangement was thus raade for the re-establishment of the Church, and it is undeniable that it would have been achieved without the concurrence and in defiance of the opposition of the individual who was at the time nominated to the Archbishopric of St Andrews. 676 [1661. CHAPTER II. THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. The re-estabUshment of the Episcopal Church being determined by the Governraent, a new consecration was necessary, as Bishop Sydserff, forraerly of GaUoway, was the only survivor of the Spot tiswoode succession of Prelates, and the Church was rirtually ex tinct. The persons selected for the episcopal function to be con secrated in London were James Sharp for the Archbishopric of St Andrews, Andrew Fairfoull for the Archbishopric of Glasgow, James Haipilton for the Bishopric of GaUoway, and Robert Leigh ton for the Bishopric of Dunblane. As a reward of Bishop Syd- seriTs sufferings and loyalty It was resolved to translate him to Orkney, where in his declining years he was less likely to be annoyed by any agitation or clamour. A short account of the Bishops of the Second Consecration is an appropriate introduction. Who in Scotland has not heard of James Sharp, Archbishop of St Andrews ? Execrated by the Presbyterians as their Judas, traitor, and betrayer, and denounced by thera as one of the raost odious, cruel, and immoral of men ; extoUed by their opponents for his dignified conduct, great abilities, and personal rirtues! Heartily hated by one party, sincerely beloved and zealously de fended by another. Archbishop Sharp must have been no ordi nary man thus to obtain the transmission of his narae to posterity through the two extreraes of unmitigated abuse, any aUusion to whom stUl excites his raallgners to a state of Insanity — and of devoted respect, whose atrocious murder by Presbyterian fanatics will never be forgotten. It Is unnecessary to enter into biographical details of the early career of this celebrated Prelate. The Presbyterians, in accord ance with their vindictive principles, were so mean as to asperse 1661.] THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP THE SECOND CONSECRATION. 677 his very birth, and to record the most infamous falsehoods of his parentage, which was a thousand tiraes raore respectable than that of many of their own. His paternal grandfather, David Sharp, a native of Perthshire, became a raerchant of considerable eminence in Aberdeen, and married Magdalene, a daughter of HaUyburton of Pitcur ; and his father, WUliam Sharp, was sheriff-clerk of the adjacent county of Banff. His raother, Isabel Leslie, a daughter of Leslie of Kininvy, was nearly related to the Earls of Rothes, and is described as a woman of extraordinary endowments, held In honour for her wisdora and piety, who lived to see the Restora tion, and, as sorae aUege, her son elevated to the Scottish Priraacy. The Archbishop was born in the castle of Banff, the county town, in May 1618, and was baptized by the episcopal incurabent accord ing to the forra then recognized by the Established Episcopal Church. He was educated at King's College, Aberdeen, where he took the degree of Master of Arts, and heard the prelections of the celebrated Doctors Forbes and Barron ; and he Is aUowed to have greatly distinguished hiraself, and to have given araple Indi cations of his abUities. After he left King's CoUege he went to England, where he appears to have resided during the^turraoils^^of the Covenant in 1638, when he was only twenty years of age. In England he became acquainted with Hammond, Saunderson, and JeremyTaylor, and it is said that he was only preventedjfrom prose cuting his studies at Oxford by the distracted state of the kingdom. At his return to Scotland he raet his relation the Covenanting Eari of Rothes at the house of Viscount Oxenford, a^few miles south of Dalkeith, and this must have been before August 1641, when the Eari of Rothes died, learing his son and heir only eleven years of age. It is said that by the Interest of Rothes he was appointed a regent or professor in St Leonard's CoUege, St Andrews, now umted to St Salvador's CoUege, though this statement is by no means clear, and no less a person than Alexander Henderson Is said to have recommended him to the situation which he obtained Mr James Guthrie, hanged in 1661 for high treason, was at the time a Professor In St Andrews, and he exerted his Influence un successfully against Sharp in favour of a Mr|John Sinclair to whom he afterwards demitted his own professorship. Sharp was on bad terms with Sinclair for some time, and one Sundav he struck him in the presence of the Principal and others at the 678 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OF [1661. coUege table. This, it is aUeged, was caused by Sinclair giring him the lie direct in a discussion which the latter maintained in favour of Episcopacy and against the Covenant ; but it is certain that Sharp made a most ample acknowledgment for this outrage, of which he sincerely repented. At that period he unavoidably conformed, hke many others, to the Presbyterian system esta blished by the Covenanters after 1639. In January 1648 he was admitted minister of the parish and royal burgh of CraU in the east of Fife, to which he was appointed by the Earl of Crawfurd, to whom it is said he was recoraraended by Mr Jaraes Bruce, mi nister of the neighbouring parish of Kingsbarns, who, however, was not altogether disinterested in this matter, for, if we are to credit a ridiculous story told by Wodrow, there was a love-affair between Sharp and Bruce's daughter, whom the future Archbishop intended to make his wife, but this connection never took place. His predecessors in CraU were Mr George Hallyburton, admitted In 1635, and expeUed in 1638, Mr Arthur Myrton, and Mr John Hart.* It is contended by the author of a sketch of Archbishop Sharp's Life, published in 1719, that he was aU along opposed to Presby terianism, or at least to the Soleran League and Covenant ; but it is certain that he must have coraplied with the National Cove nant when he obtained his professorship at St Andrews, and with the Solemn League at his admission to the parish of Crail. This is evident from the fact that he soon obtained the confidence of the raost prorainent Covenanting preachers and defenders of their systera ; but he lived In exciting times, when raany were induced to comply vrith the dominant faction for their own security, or were obliged to leave the kingdom. His affability and pleasing manners rendered him popular with his parishioners, yet he was a strict disciplinarian, and zealous in the discharge of his duty. He soon was invited to become one of the rainisters of Edinburgh, but the Presbytery of St Andrews and Synod of Fife refused to accept his resignation of Crail, and though this was subsequently reversed by the General Asserably, it was prevented by the invar sion of the EngUsh under CromweU. In August 1651 he Incurred ' Catalogue of the Ministers in the Synod of Fife from 1560 to 1700, in Appendix to Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife from 1611 to 1687. Edinburgh, 4to. printed for the Abbotsford Club, 1837. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 679 the displeasure of General Monk, who put hira and several preach ers on board a vessel at Broughty Ferry near Dundee, and sent them prisoners to England ; but he contrived to obtain his liberty by " certain base compUances" to Cromwell according to his Pres byterian enemies, though the nature of these " base compliances" Is not stated. He was probably less violent than his wild com panions, whose fanatical principles he held in detestation. He obtained his liberty, leaving his associates in bondage, and returned to his parish of Crail. These were the principal events of Sharp's life to the time he was sent to London on a special mission to CromweU, though the Presbyterians after his elevation to the Primacy circulated aU kinds of gossipping and scurrilous stories against him. The origin of this mission will be explained by a reference to the state of parties in Scotland before and after the murder of Charles I. In 1648 the " Engageraent," approved by the Scottish Parliament In 1661, was formed for liberating the King, and this caused a violent schism among the Presbyterians, who denounced in their General Assembly those who were connected with it as Engagers. This continued till a new feud was excited by some preachers in the western counties, who in a public remonstrance maintained that it was sinful, and a breach of the Solemn League and Covenant, to associate or have any intercourse with Malignants, including as such all the Engagers, and the royalists who had served under Montrose. They even maintained that it was dishonouring to God to accept their assistance in any way against their comraon enemy Cromwell. This party were known as Remonstrators or Pro testors, while their Presbyterian opponents, who thought differently, were designated Resolutioners. The Resolutioners may be consider ed as the conservatives, and the Remonstrators as republican en thusiasts, both parties bitterly hating each other, yet submissively courting CroraweU. Sharp was accordingly sent to London as the agent of the Resolutioners, and Jaraes Guthrie, then minister of Stirling, Patrick Gillespie, and others, were deputed to manage the affairs of the Remonstrators. Sharp and Guthrie were thus again brought into collision, and probably Guthrie's treatraent of him at St Andrews commenced that animosity which con tinued between thera during the whole of their after life. It is probable that Sharp was selected for this raission on account of 680 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OF [1661. the connections he had formed in England. Bishop Burnet says of him — " He had been long In England, and was an active and eager man. He had a very smaU proportion of learning, and was but an indifferent preacher : but having some acquaintance with the Presbyterian ministers In London, whora CroraweU was then courting rauch, he was by an error that proved fatal to the whole party sent up in their narae to London, where he continued for some years soUciting their concerns, and raaking hiraself known to all sorts of people." This outline of Sharp's character, however, raust be received with suspicion, as Burnet was his personal eneray, and the Bishop of Salisbury delineated his foes In the raost un scrupulous raanner. He adds that Sharp then " seeraed raore than ordinary zealous for Presbytery ;" and when on one occasion Dr Wilkins, afterwards Bishop of Chester, who had married Crorawell's sister, declared to hira his belief that If order was not restored the Protector would be compelled to set up Episcopacy In the kingdom, apparently meaning both England and Scotland, Sharp " could not bear the thought, and rejected It with horror." If there is any truth In this story. Sharp would doubtless " reject with horror" any " Episcopacy" which such a man as Cromwell could possibly " set up." The future Primate so much distinguished hiraself at London by his talents and address that CroraweU is said to have remarked to some of his friends — " That gentleman after the Scotch way ought to be styled Sharp of that Hk!" As long as he was con nected with the Presbyterian party for whom he acted, his piety, zeal, and general conduct, were the themes of their loudest praise. The erainent " flower" Samuel Rutherford on one occasion em braced hira affectionately, declaring that " he saw that out of the most rough and knotty tiraber Christ could make a vessel of mercy;" and BaiUie, after expressing his horror at the Protestors, adds — " The great instrument of God to cross their evil designs has been that very worthy, pious, wise, and dUigent young man, Mr James Sharp." But his negotiations with CroraweU, Monk, and others before the Restoration, are affairs with which the Episcopal Church had no concern, though these materlaUy affected his circumstances and influenced his change of sentiments. His abilities recom mended hira especiaUy to General Monk, who at Coldstreara indu ced him to draw up the able declaration of his own intentions, which 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 681 prepared the English nation for the great event of the restoration of the raonarchy. In a word. Sharp was eraployed by the Resolu tioners to attend to their interests at London and at Breda. Now, those very Resolutioners were actually hesitating about the prin ciples they were inclined to adopt. They sent a deputation to Breda to assure King Charles II. that they were attached to his Interest, and were happy to hear of his constancy to the Protestant rehgion — " that for theniselves they were no enemies to moderate Episcopacy, and only desired not to be pressed with such things In God's worship as by many were reckoned indifferent, and by ten der consciences unlawful." Mr Robert Douglas, who was a great leader of the Resolutlonists, declared. In allusion to the measures projected by the English Privy Council to reinstate the Church of England, that "whatever kirk-government be settled there [In England] wiUhave an influence upon this kingdom, for the generality of the new upstart generation have no love to presbyterial govern ment, but are wearied of that yoke,, feeding theraselves with the fa/ncy of Episcopacy, or moderate Episcopacy." These, however, were not the real sentiments of Mr Robert Douglas, but his recorded admission of the state of public feeling ; for in a serraon which he preached, on the 1 st of May 1660, at the opening of the Synod of Lothian, if we are to credit Wodrow he stated — " The governraent of presbytery is good, but Prelacy is neither good in Christian pohcy or civU. Some men say, May we not have a raoderate Episcopacy ? But it is a plant God never planted, and the ladder whereby Anti christ mounted his throne. Bishops got caveats, and never kept one of them, and wiU just do the like again. We have abjured Episco pacy; let us not Uck it up again." Yet notwithstanding this senseless ravmg, Wodrowthus corroborates in his own way the public feeling towards Presbyterianism described by Douglas; — " Our NobUity and gentry were remarkably changed to the worse. Few of such as had been active in the forraer years were now alive, and those few were marked out for ruin. A young generation had sprung up under the EngUsh government, educated under penury and op pression ; their estates were under burden, and many of them had little other prospect of raending their fortunes but by the King's favour, and so were ready to act that part he was best pleased with. Several of the raost leading managers and members of ParUament had taken up a dislike to the strictness of Presbyterian 682 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OF [1661. discipline. Middleton had not forgot his excomraunication, or the pronouncing of it, and others had been disgusted at their being obliged to satisfy for their lewdness and scandals, and upon this turn they were willing to enjoy a little more latitude."* AU this is another conclusive proof of the oppressions and cruelties inflicted on the people by the Covenanting Presbyterians during their do mination. Wodrow asserts that the letter frora the King to Douglas and the Presbytery of Edinburgh, delivered by Sharp on the 1st of September, was his own " penning." In addition to the declara tion that the King was to " protect and preserve the governraent of the Church of Scotland as it is settled by law,"" it was stated in the letter — " We will also take care that the authority and acts of the General Assembly at St Andrews and [adjqumed to] Dun dee 1651, be owned and stand in force until we shall call another General Assembly, which we purpose to do as soon as our affairs will permit." Now, although Wodrow designates the words — " as it is settled by law''" — a " double-faced expression," there was no Inconsistency in the reference to the General Assembly convened at St Andrews in 1651, and adjourned to Dundee, where it ter minated in a ludicrous and abrupt manner. The legality, so far as it went, of that -Assembly was acknowledged by the Resolutioners, frora whom Sharp was the delegate to London ; while it was vio lently denied and denounced by the Remonstrators or Protesters, such as James Guthrie, Patrick Gillespie, and others — by Wodrow himself, who raved against it as a " packed meeting." But it is impossible in these limits to enter minutely into the Presbyterian feuds and disputes. Wodrow acknowledges that Sharp designed this letter against the Protesters,-f- and this is an important admis sion in favour of the Archbishop. It was also in accordance with the King's announcements tothe Privy Council andthe Pariiaraent that until the ecclesiastical constitution of the kingdora was pro perly arranged, the several kirk-sessions, presbyteries, and synods, were in the raeanwhile to continue, on the condition that " the rainisters wUl keep within the compass of their station, meddling only with matters ecclesiastic, and promoting our authority and interest with our subjects against all opposers; and that they wUl take special notice of such who, by preaching, or private conven- • Wodrow's History, vol. i. foUo, 1721, p. 20. f Ibid. vol. i. p. 14. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 633 tides, or any other way, transgress the limits of their caUing by endeavouring to corrupt the people, or sow seeds of disaffection to us or our government." AU the negotiations of the Presbyterians with Charles II. were conditional. They were to acknowledge him as their sovereign only if he conformed to the Solemn League and Covenant ; but as the King was restored without any terms, and without the aid of the Presbyterians, they as a party had no claim upon him. When General Monk commenced his march from the North of England to London In January 1660, Mr Robert Douglas, and other leading men of the Resolutioners, applied to him to re ceive Sharp as their representative. During the seven following months Sharp was in close comraunication with the principal persons of all parties ; with Monk, and the chief of the English and Scottish Nobility then in London ; with the Episcopal clergy and the Presbyterian ministers there ; and with the King and the members of his Court. He set out for Breda on the 4th, and returned to London on the 26th of May. While thus en gaged he maintained an active correspondence with Douglas and other preachers. Those letters are now preserved in the Library of the University of Glasgow, but a very elaborate abstract of them is given by Wodrow.* It was evidently the opinion of Douglas, with which Wodrow coincides, that Sharp was persuaded to abandon the Presbyterians at Breda, where he was much in the company of Lord Chancellor Clarendon, and often with the Eing, who treated him with marked attention and famiUarity. Previous to this he had been elected Professor of Ecclesiastical History in St Mary's CoUege, St Andrews ;t and while at Breda he was appointed chaplain to the King for Scotiand, with an annual salary of L.200. Wodrow is accused of garbling Sharp's letters to Douglas, but this is denied by Dr Burns of Paisley, who states In his Glasgow edition of Wodrow's History that he com pared the letters with the abstracts, and asserts " without hesita tion, as a general result of the inquiry, that whUe the historian does by no means conceal his design of exposing Sharp's treachery, • In his Introduction to his " Histoiy of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland from the Eestoration to the Eevolution." t On the 16th of January 1660. Catalogue ofthe Ministers of the Synod of Fife, in Appendix to Selections from Minutes of the Synod, printed for the Abbotsford Club Edinburgh, 4to. 1837. 684 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OF [1661. he had it In his power frora these docuraents to have held him up to detestation in still blacker colours had he quoted all the ex pressions of devoted affection — all the solemn protestations of attachment to Presbytery — aU the specimens of mean adulation — and all the bitter vituperations against his opponents, which these letters contain." This is strong language, but when we consider the peculiar opinions and partizanship of Dr Burns, and his bitter hatred to the Episcopal Church, it is what was to be expected from him ; and it Is as impossible for a Roman Catholic to cease from abusing Luther as it is for a Presbyterian to write with temper on Arch bishop Sharp. Without disputing the correctness of Wodrow's abstract of the letters to Douglas, they in reality afford no evi dence of his insincerity, and there is no reason to believe that he was unfaithful to the cause of his mission. We have seen that the Resolutioners actuaUy intiraated to Charles II. at Breda that they were " no eneraies to moderate Episcopacy." When Sharp returned to Scotland, in the beginning of September 1660, he re ceived the thanks of his friends for his conduct ; and he distinctly declared to them that " he had found the King very affectionate to Scotland, and resolved not to wrong the settled government of the Church ; but he apprehended they were mistaken who went about to establish the Presbyterian government!" The fears entertained by the Presbyterians of the re-establish ment of the Episcopal Church are indicated in BaiUie's letters to Sharp. In one, dated April 16, 1660, the former writes in re ference to the expected restoration of the King — " If it please God to work out this wonder, his only work, marvellous in our eyes, and more In the eyes of the posterity, to bring horae our sweet prince in peace, / think in this case the greatest pull will be about Episcopacy ;"" and he then says to Sharp — " Concerning this great difficulty, I suggest unto you this ray advice to cause set with all possible speed sorae serious and judicious pen, I think Dr Reynolds' were the fittest, in a few sheets of paper to print the tenets and point out the writings of the present leaders of the Episcopal party — Dr Taylor, Mr Pearce, Dr Hararaond, Mr Thorn- dyke, Dr Heyiin, Bishop Wren, Bishop Brarahall, and others."* In a letter to BaiUie, dated at Edinburgh, 5th September 1660, Sharp writes — "His Majesty hath been pleased to send by me a gracious " BaiUie's Letters and Journals, edited by David Laing, Esq. vol. iii. p. 400. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 685 letter to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, to be communicated to aU the Presbyteries In Scotland, which I am confident will satisfy all who are satisfiable : it wiU be printed, and within a day or two a copy transmitted to you. However the affairs of the Church of Eng land may be disposed, which I see are tending to Episcopacy there, the blame whereof ought not to be laid on the King ; yet we need fear no violation of our settlement here. If the Lord give us to prize our own mercy and know our duty. I have brought a letter from some city ministers, bearing an accoimt of their late proceed ing to an accommodation for moderated Episcopacy ; and the Church contests there are swaUowed up by those who are for Pre lacy in the former way, and those who are for a regulated Episco pacy. The King, by his declaration, which will speedily be pub hshed, wUl endeavour a coraposing of these differences until a Synod be called."* On the 13th of December Sharp again wrote to BailUe — " I shaU only teU you this, that I ara confident at this ParUament there vrill be no meddling with the matter of our Church ;" and BaUlie replies — " If the Pariiaraent meddle with our Covenants they will grieve many, and me with the first ; for the time you can help raany things [as much] as any man I know, but be assured no man's court lasts long." Sharp wrote to BaiUie In January 1661, announcing that he had secured to him the presen tation frora the King to be Principal of the University of Glasgow, and complaining of some riolent conduct exhibited by the Synod of Glasgow. Various of BaiUie's letters to Sharp are preserved, but they contain no allusions to the contemplated ecclesiastical arrangements of any importance. BaiUie nevertheless anticipated the abrogation of Presbyterian ism, and we find him thus vsriting, in a short letter to Sharp, dated 15th April — " The matter of our changes be near my heart; I think they wiU hasten my death, yet I make no noise about them." Five days afterwards he addressed a long letter to the Earl of Lauderdale, complaining of the passing of the Act-Rescis sory on the 28th of March, annuUing the Covenanting ParUaments between 1640 and 1649 inclusive — " pulUng down," he says, " aU our laws at once which concerned our Church since 1633. — If you have gone with your heart to forsake your Covenant, to coun tenance the introduction of Bishops and [Service] Books, and * BailUe's Letters and Journals, vol. iu. p. 410. 686 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. strengthening the King by your advice in these things, I think you a prirae transgressor, and liable among the first to answer to God for that question, and opening a door which in haste will not be closed, for persecution of a multitude of the best persons and most loyal subjects that are in all the three dominions. — If you or Mr Sharp, whom we trusted as our own souls, have swerved towards Chancellor [Clarendon] Hyde's principles, as now we see many do, you have rauch to answer for." On the 23d of April, which was the day of the King's corona tion, Sharp preached before the Scottish Pariiaraent, and on Monday the 29th he set out frora Edinburgh to London with the Earls of Glencairn and Rothes, as appointed by the Parliament. , Before he left Edinburgh he wrote to Baillie — " I am commanded to take a new toil, but I tell you it is not in order to a change of the Church. I easily foresee what occasion of jealousy and false surmises this my journey will give, but whenever the Lord shaU return rae, I trust my carriage through the Lord's help shaU be such as my dear friend Mr BaiUie will not conderan me. The reasons of my journey cannot be coraraunicated in this way, but you may think they are pressing, else I may be charged with exceeding folly at this tirae to enter upon the stage." On the 29th of August BailUe wrote a reply to this letter, which he sent to Sharp at London, addressing him as Dear James. " What you are doing there now," he says, " I can leam from no man. I am sorry that none of your old friends keep correspondence with you at this so necessary a time. For myself, I rest on what you wrote to me when you went from this, that your journey was not for any change in our church. Divers times, since the King came home, by your letters you raade us confident there was not any change intended for us. Blessed be God, hitherto there has been none offered. What now there araong you raay be in agitation you on place know. You were the most wise, honest, diligent, and successful agent of the nation in the late dangers of our church in CromweU's tirae ; your experience and power now are greater. In this very great danger apprehended by many of other changes and sorer troubles from the Episcopal party both here and there, I hope God shall make you [an] happy Instrument to prevent aU our fears, and to aUay all our present sorrowful perplexities, as you have oft been before. Let others think and speak of you as 1661.] THE SECONO ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 687 they please, and in their folly give you matter of provocation, if you were not wise, grave, and fearing of God, yet you shall deceive us notably, and do us a very evident evU turn, before I believe it. Since first acquaintance you have ever been very faithful and loving to myself on all occasions." Baillie then requests two favours from Sharp. The one was that he would " help the Col lege [of Glasgow] in its very great necessity, not one of the Pro fessors having gotten a sixpence of stipend, nor will get in haste ;" and the University being L.IOOO behind for " last year's table," in addition to upwards of 25,000 merks of debt contracted by the aUeged extravagance of BaiUie's predecessor, Mr Patrick Gilles pie. The other favour was — " If his Majesty be pleased to send for any from this to speak with anent our Church, as he has twice declared he purposes, you would see effectually that I be none of them ; for neither am I able, in this my sixtieth year, and frequent infirmities, for any such journey, whether by sea or land, nor does my mind serve to give advice for the least change in our Church, as ye well know."* This letter induced Sharp to exert himself in behalf of the College of Glasgow ; and BaiUie wrote to him on the 1st of October — " I was glad when I looked on the double of my last to you, to find your mistake to be clean the con trary way. Whatever grief my heart has from our changes, and is like to have till I die, I hope it shall stand with terms of great respect to you, from whom I have received so many favours, and stiU expect to receive raore." He concludes famUiarly — " Jaraes, 1 doubt not of your kindness, and if I did, I would not thus trouble you with my letters ;" signmg hiraself " your twenty year old friend and servant."-}- It thus appears that Dr Sharp up to October 1661 was the pro minent man of his party, and held in the highest repute as " wise, grave, and fearing of God." His great abUities are amply certified by Baillie, who, however, was so perverted in his judgment by Covenanting prejudices, that he forgot his own episcopal ordina tion, and that he had once recorded his attachment to the episco pal function in the strong stateraent — " Bishops I love."' It is unnecessary to enter into detaUs respecting Sharp's conforraity to the Episcopal Church, and his defection frora Presbyterianism. One point is clear, that he betrayed the interest of no party, for * BailUe's Letters and Journals, vol. iii. p. 473, 474. f ^bid, vol. iii. p. 482. 688 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OF [1661. he had ably and efficiently performed the duties assigned to him while acting as the delegate of the Presbyterians. After this he was undeniably a free agent, and as such was entitled to change his opinions as much as any other man. His case, raoreover, was not singular, for nine other Prestyterlan rainisters of the moderate party, ov Resolutioners, most of whom were ordained before the out break ofthe RebeUion, became Bishops ofthe newlyrestored Church. The charge that Sharp was bribed by the offer of the Archbishop ric of St Andrews is unworthy of notice, but it was, after all, no very great matter as It respects income, and in 1831 the whole revenue of the See, as paid to the Scottish Exchequer, was only L.1544. BaiUie narrates the defection of Archbishop Sharp with less acrimony than could have been expected. He says — " At that time it was that Dr Sheldon, now Bishop of London, and Dr Mor ley, did poison Mr Sharp our agent, whora we trusted, who piece and piece in so cunning a way has trepanned us, as we have never win so much as to petition either King, Pariiaraent, or Council. My Lord Hyde [is] the great rainister of state who guided all, and to whom at his lodging in Worcester-house the King weekly and oftener uses to resort, and keep counsel with him some hours ; and so with the King Mr Sharp became more intimate than any raan alraost of our nation. It seems he has undertaken to do in our Church that . which now he has perforraed easily, and is still in acting. He had for co-operators the Comraissioner [Middleton], ChanceUor [Glencairn], and Rothes. Lauderdale and Crawfurd were a while contrary, but seeing the King peremptory they gave over."* This is a very different story from the extraordinary asser tion of Bishop Burnet that the Act-Rescissory of 1661 was sug gested at the Privy Council table In a drunken bout. Dr M'Crie's way of accounting for the restoration of the Episcopal Church Is worthy of the Presbyterian sect to which he belonged. We are gravely told — " Charles II.'s maxim was that Presbyterianism was not fit for a gentleman. His dissipated and irreligious courtiers were of the same opinion, and therefore Episcopacy was re-esta blished." This is a most extraordinary speciraen of arriving at a self-coraplacent conclusion. Archbishop Sharp's presentation-charter to the Primacy and * Principal BaUUe to Mr WUUam Spang, May 12, 1662, Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. iU. p. 484, 485. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 689 See of St Andrews by the King, is dated Whitehall, 14th Novem ber 1661. It sets forth that " in the time not long since past, during nearly twenty-three years of disorder, many acts were passed in pretended Parliaments and pretended judicatories in tbis our ancient kingdom of Scotland, for the total extirpation of the eccle siastical constitution by Archbishops and Bishops, contrary to the stability, law, and constitution of the Church of our said kingdom, and to the prejudice of our royal power and prerogative, which things, by the act of the new session of our Parliament, held at Edinburgh on the 1st day of January last, are to be held, and are declared nuU and void from the beginning, so that the cIvU and ecclesiastical authority Is now restored and renewed, according to the laws ordained preriously to that most wicked rebeUion and tumult ; and because, during that tirae, raany who were appointed to the various functions of Archbishops and Bishops in our said kingdora, besides Deans and raerabers of Chapters, are deceased, and their offices vacant, so that they cannot now be chosen accord ing to the order prescribed by our dear grandfather James I. of etemal and glorious memory in his Parliament held at Edinburgh A.D. 1617 ; and considering also that the supplying of the said functions of Archbishops and Bishops in our said kingdom of Scotland rests with us since the death or deposition of the late in cumbents, and particularly of the Archbishopric of St Andrews since the death of John [Spottiswoode] the last Archbishop, Pri mate and Metropolitan of Scotland; and being assured of the piety, prudence, erudition, and fidelity of our beloved Master James Sharp, Rector of the University of St Andrews, as one well qualified for our service In the Church ; therefore, by our royal authority and power, of our own free wiU and accord, we have raade, created, and appointed, and by these presents do make, create, and appoint. Master James Sharp, Archbishop of the said Archbishopric of St Andrews, and Primate and Metropolitan of our whole kingdom of Scotland, giving and granting to him during his whole life the said Archbishopric of St Andrews, with aU the benefices thereunto annexed." The words make and create in this document are to be understood as referring to the temporalities which the King was entitled to bestow as patron ; for Archbishop Sharp was ca nonically consecrated to the spiritual or episcopal function by those who only were competent to invest him with that authority 44 690 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. which the sovereign could not confer. The " lands, lordships, baronies, abbacies, provostships, mansions, castles, towers, forti- lages, manors, places, gardens, meadows, mills, woods, fisheries," are enuraerated ; but all these, though apparently very impor tant In the charter, were In reality insignificant, as the pro prietors had surrendered to Charles I. on certain conditions a smaU annual feu-duty or superiority frora these lands as a pro vision for the Archbishop, under the name of Bishop's rents. It Is admitted even by Wodrow that the aggregate annual amount of all the revenues of the Bishops after the Restoration did not exceed L.5000 sterling, and some of the Prelates had not above L.250. We have seen that the sura of L.1544 only was derived from the Archdiocese in 1831, and applied to temporal purposes. " This, however," says Mr Lyon, " does not include the profits of the re gality and coraraissary courts, as also the fines for corapositions and intromissions, which must have been considerable. I should con ceive the income must have been equal to L.4000 of our money, and even this was a small sura for so weighty and expensive a charge, and greatly below what it had been previous to the Refor raation."* The sum of L.130 was to be deducted from Arch bishop Sharp's revenue, and paid to the Principals of St Salvador's, St Leonard's, and St Mary's Colleges, forming the University of St Andrews, tiU a similar sura was procured from some other source. The clause in Archbishop Spottiswoode's charter, obliging him to lay aside the surplus of his income above 10,000 merks for the rebuilding of the cathedral, was withdrawn from that purpose, and ordered to be applied by Archbishop Sharp to the erection of a suitable residence for himself and his successors, on account of the ruinous state of the castle of St Andrews, the ancient residence of the Archbishops. The " right, privUege, liberty, benefice, and quotes of testament," granted by Charles I. at the foundation of the Bishopric of Edinburgh in 1633, were excluded from Arch bishop Sharp's charter.-f- The Archbishopric of Glasgow was conferred by a similar pre sentation-charter on Andrew Fairfoull. He Is stated to have been a son of John FalrfouU of the town of Anstruther in Fife, • History of St Andrews, Episcopal, Monastic, Academic, and Civil, by the Eev. C. J. Lyon, M.A. Edinburgh, 1843, vol. u. p. 69. t History of St Andrews, by the Eev. C. J. Lyon, M.A. vol. ii. p. 68, 69, 381 -388. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 691 who was probably John Fairfoull, mentioned as minister of An struther Wester in 1613, and who died in 1 625.* Archbishop Gladstanes, in a letter to King James, dated November 24, 1609, says if this Mr John FalrfouU, who irritated the King by praying for the " banished rainisters," that he had summon ed him to answer for his " foolish behaviour" in the presence of Lord Scoon, the Magistrates and Town-Council of St Andrews, and that he was censured — " the one part voting for his warding in Blackness, of which number I was one ; the other greater part decerning him to be confined in the burgh of Dundee." His in duction to Anstruther was opposed in 1610 by the people, who preferred a Mr John Dykes, and who petitioned Archbishop Glad stanes in his favour.-f- Bishop Keith says that Fairfoull was chaplain to the Earl of Rothes. He was minister of North Leith near Edinburgh in 1638, when he signed the National Covenant, and he is mentioned by Baillie under the name of Forfair, which is probably a raisprint. J He was at the Covenanting General Assembly in 1641 ; and in 1643, as " every Assembly was troubled with the plantation of Edinburgh," it was proposed to reraove hira thither. In 1647 he was suspected of being " favourable to Malignants," and he took an active part against the dominant faction during the following year. Bishop Keith says that Fairfoull was afterwards minister of Dunse. " It is reported on good grounds," he adds, " that King Charles II. having heard hira preach several times when he was in Scotland in the year 1650, was pleased upon his restoration to inquire after Mr. FalrfouU, and of his own mere motion pre ferred hira to this See on the 14th of Noveraber 1661." The Presbyterians describe Archbishop FalrfouU as " possessed of con siderable learning ; better skiUed, however. In physic than in theo- ''ogy — 3, pleasant, facetious companion, but never esteemed a serious divine." This is an important admission frora avowed enemies, and proves that he was a very eminent, pious, and distinguished person. As a specimen of the conteraptible scandal in which the • Catalogue of the Ministers in the Synod of Fife from 1560 to 1700, in Appendix to Selections from the Minutes of the Synod, printed for the Abbotsford Club, 4to. 1837. t Wodrow's Biographical Collections— Archbishop Gladstanes to King James, Glas gow, printed for the Maitland Club, 4to. 1834, vol. i. p. 269, 270, 276. X BailUe's Letters and Journals, vol. i. p. 64. 692 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. Presbyterians indulged, to render their opponents odious, and ma lign their private characters, the gossipping Wodrow relates the foUovring anecdote on the authority of a person nanied Hastie ; — " That Archbishop FalrfouU was my Lord Rothes' chaplain, and my Lord Colvin [ColviUe], from whom ray narrator had this, and some others, were coramending him for a smart man. ' Yes,' says Rothes, ' he has learning and sharpness enough, but he has no more sanctification than my grey horse.' That the Bishop used to go out to a gentleman's house near St Andrews, and there aU the Sabbath play at cards and drink. That one day one of the ser vants carae into the roora. ' Have you been at serraon ?' says the Archbishop. ' Yes,' says he. ' Where was the text?' ' Remem ber the Sabbath day to keep It holy,' says the servant."* As to the opinion of such a person as the Earl of Rothes on sanctification it was utterly worthless, and the reader need hardly be reminded that all the rest of the above gossip is a vile falsehood ; yet such were the scandals busUy circulated, and credulously beUeved, by the Presbyterian preachers and peasantry. The Presbyterians represent Mr James HaraUton, the Bishop- elect of GaUoway, as a man whose abUities were not " above medio crity, and his cunning was more remarkable than his piety." He was the second son of Sir James Hamilton of BroomhiU, and younger brother of Sir John Hamilton, created Lord Belhaven in 1647. He was admitted into holy orders by Archbishop Law of Glasgow in 1634, and was Inducted minister of Carabusnethan in Lanark shire, where he continued tiU the Restoration. He Is sarcastically mentioned by BaiUie as one of the preachers before the Parliament in 1661 . " They took a way," he observes," to nominate to them selves preachers ; Mr Douglas indeed began, but was no raore em ployed ;" and after mentioning several who were " passed by," BaiUie continues — " As aU we of the West [were], except Mr James HaraUton of Caranethan and Mr Hugh Blair, but In aU the nooks of Scotland men were picked out who were thought incUn- able to change our church-government ; and according to their Invectives against what we were lately doing, were printed good or feckless divines at the pleasure of a very rascal, Tom Sincerfe, the diumaller, a profane atheistical papist, as some count him." • Wodrow's Analecta, printed for the Maitland Club, 4to. Edinburgh, 1842, vol. i. p. 38. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 693 This diatribe refers to Thomas Sydserff, son of old Bishop Syd serff, who edited and published the first diurnal in Scotland, printed weekly under the title of Mercurius Caledonius. The first number appeared on the 31st of December 1660, but it was of short duration, as it appears to have terminated on the 28th of March 1661. It was probably begun by Sydserff to annoy the Presbyterians, and BaiUie states that It was stopped by order of the King.* Sydserff, some tirae after his father's death, opened a theatre In the Canongate of Edinburgh with a company of come dians, and was the author of a play entitled " Tarugo's Wiles," printed at London in 1668. The fourth of the Bishops-elect of the Second Succession was the celebrated Robert Leighton, who was in London at the time of the Restoration, and was norainated to Dunblane. Though the son of Alexander Leighton, the author of " Zion's Plea against Prelacy" — a most violent tirade for which he was severely pu nished by sentence of the Star-Chamber in 1630, Leighton never was a thorough Presbyterian. He was born in Edinburgh in 1627, and educated at that University, under Robert Rankine, Professor of Philosophy, and James Fairlie, Professor of Dirinity, Bishop of Argyll In 1637. His defection frora Presbyterianisra and the Covenant was in opposition to his father's weU known principles. As the particulars of Leighton's pubhc life are weU known, it is only necessary in this sketch to shew In what estiraa tion he was held by his contemporaries, and it wiU be seen that even such a man as Leighton is universaUy reputed to have been did not escape from the venom of slander. The foUowing iUustrations are additions to those inserted in the volume which Is the continuation of the present narrative.-f Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees, now Moredun, near Edinburgh, Lord Provost of the city in 1649 and 1659, was an erainent raerchant, and In religion a zealous Presbyte rian Covenanter. In the course of his frequent journeys to London on business he becarae acquainted with the elder Leighton, who entrusted his son to his care, to be educated at the University of Edinburgh. " The father entreated, and the son was present,' says Sir ArchlbalilStewart Denham, Bart., " to train him up In the " BaiUie's Letters and Journals, vol. iu. p. 468. t History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Eevolution to the Present Time. By John Parker Lawson, M.A. Edinbui-gh, Svo. 1843, p. 11, 12, 13, 14. 694 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. true Presbyterian form, and Robert was strictly enjoined with his father's blessing to be steady in that way. WhUe attending the University he was expelled for writing a satirical stanza on the Lord Provost of Edinburgh's name [Aikenhead], and the raany piraples on his face." Leighton was afterwards Principal of the University of Edinburgh, previous to which he had been Presbyterian rainister of Newbattle near Dalkeith, but he was always noted, and in con sequence much disliked by his Covenanting brethren, for his mild ness, moderation, and diligent discharge of his vocation. He care fully avoided raixing or Interfering with the distractions of that period after his return from the Continent in 1641, and settlement at Newbattle when Presbyterianism becarae Irlumphant, and never made the pulpit the arena of political discussions. He rarely at tended the raeetings of the Presbytery, and when asked if he had complied with their usual custom of preaching twice a year to the times, he answered in the language of severe reproof — " For God's sake, when all my brethren preach to the tiraes, suffer one poor person to preach about eternity." Wodrow, however, declares that " it was ordinary for Bishop Leighton, when minister at Newbattle, to engage the communicants at the Lord's table to the Covenant,"* but this is very Improbable, and is at variance with his general character. " When Episcopacy becarae fashionable after the year 1660," continues the Coltness writer, " he forgot his father's Injunction, and was Bishop and Archbishop, amicable composer of parties, and what not, In Scotland ; and in the end, disgusted with all, he threw himself free, and ended his days in a kind of monastic life in England."-f- Wodrow records a sarcastic anecdote of Leigh ton, which displays the feelings of the party. " The same person [Sir James Stewart] told Mr Muir that being big [intimate] with Bishop Leighton, he said — ' Sir, I hear your grandfather was a Papist, your father was a Presbyterian, and suffered rauch for it in England, and you a Bishop \ What a mixture Is this V Leigh ton Is made to reply — ' It Is true. Sir, and ray grandfather was the honestest raan of the three.' "j BaiUie sneers at his style of preaching, which he calls the " new guise" introduced by hira and a certain Mr Hugh Binning — " conteraning the ordinai-y way of exponing and dividing a text, of raising doctrines and uses," but • Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. ii. p. 361. t Coltness CoUections. Printed for the Maitland Club, 4to. 1842, p. 22, 23. X Ibid. 4to, vol. i. p. 26. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 695 " running out In a discourse on sorae common head in a high, ro mancing, unscriptural style, tickling the ear for the present, and moving the affections in some, but leaving little or nought to the memory and understanding."* Wodrow mentions that Mr Wil liam Guthrie, a weU known Presbyterian preacher, occasionally resorted to Newbattle to hear Leighton preach, and " his re mark," says Wodrow, " was, that In the time of hearing him he was as in heaven, but he could not bring one word with hira almost out of the church doors, referring to his haranguing way of preaching without heads."f As he was indebted to the Enghsh for his appointment as Principal of the University of Edinburgh, BaiUie says of him under date 1658—" Mr Leighton does nought to count of, but looks about him in his chamber."| Wodrow explains this statement by an account of Leighton's habits as Principal, on the authority of a person who pretended that he obtained the information from his man-servant — " That frequently once a week or fourteenth night, Leighton, when Principal of the CoUege, used to shut himself up in the roora above the Library, and discharged any body to have access to hira, and that for two days. He had nothing with him but his Bible, and sometimes he had a candle lighted at night ; frequently not ; and a choppin of ale and a bit of bread ; and his servant declares that at the third day when he came out there would scarce have been any of the ale and bread made use of. This monkish retire ment, and other things, give great ground for suspicions of his Inclinations to Popery." || But Wodrow Inserts a different state ment of Leighton's alleged principles — " I am told that Arch bishop Leighton when at Edinburgh, was very much suspected to be an Arian, and vented several things in conversation that tended that way."§ Again, a certain Mr Robert Stewart told Wodrow that the " late [Lord] Advocate, Sir James Stewart, did express his suspicions to him that the late [Archbishop] Leighton was an Arian."1T The foUowing is a specimen of the ridiculous trash which Wodrow collected of the sayings of Leighton. He was conversing one day with a person naraed Law, who becarae one of * Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. in. p. 258, 259. t Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. U. p. 349. t Baillie to Spang — Letters and Journals, vol. iii. p. 365. II Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. i. p. 327. § Ibid. vol. ii. p. 212. T /6id. vol. u. p. 361. 696 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. the ministers of Edinburgh after the Revolution. The subject of charity was Introduced, on which Leighton expatiated. Law said that Mr David Dickson often observed that " people should not raake a fool of their charity." Leighton is made to reply that " he did not know what Mr Dickson meant In these words ; but the Scripture raade a fool of charity, since it said that fools bear all things, and charity beareth aU things !"* The eccentric Mr WiUiara Guthrie, who resorted to Newbattle to hear Leighton preach, held a different notion of fools. He was preacher at Fenwick in Ayrshire before the Restoration, and was coraraonly called the Fool of Fenwick — a soubriquet which he bestowed on hiraself in the title-pages of his printed serraons. Bishop Bumet, who knew Leighton intlraately for twenty-three years, speaks of hira in the raost enthusiastic strain : — " He had the greatest coraraand of the purest Latin 1 ever knew In any man ; he was master of both the Greek and Hebrew, and of the whole compass of theological learning, chiefiy in the study of the Scriptures. But that which excelled all the rest was, he was pos sessed with the highest and boldest sense of Divine things that I ever saw in any raan ; he had no regard for his person, unless it was to raortify It by a constant low diet that was like a perpetual fast. He had both a contempt of wealth and reputation ; he seemed to have the lowest thoughts of hiraself possible, and to de sire that other persons shonld think as meanly of him as he did himself. He bore all sorts of ill usage and reproach like a man that took pleasure in it. He brought hiraself into so composed a grarity that I never saw him laugh, and but seldora sraile, and he kept himself in such a constant recoUection that I do not remem ber that I ever heard him say one Idle word. He had been bred up with the greatest aversion possible to the whole frame of the Church of England ; but he quickly bore through the prejudices of his education. His preaching had a sublimity both of thought and expression in it. The grace and gravity of his pronunciation were such that few heard him without a very sensible eraotion ; I ara sure I never did. His style was rather too fine, but there were a majesty and beauty In it that left so deep an impression, that I cannot yet forget the sermons I heard him preach thirty years ago ; and yet with this he seemed to look on himself as so • Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, p. 348, 349. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 697 ordinary a preacher that while he had a cure he was ready to employ others, and when he was a Bishop Ik^ chose to preach to small auditories, and would never give notice beforehand. He had indeed a very low voice, and so could not bo hoard by a great crowd. He soon came to see the foUies of the Prosbytoi ians, and dishke their Covenant, particulariy their enforcing it, and their fury against aU who differed from thom. He found they were not capable of large thoughts ; theirs wore narrow as their tempers were sour, so he grew weary of mixing with them. Yet aU the opposition that he made to them was that he preached up a more exact rule of life than seemed to them consistent with human nature, but his own practice did outshine his doctrine. He en tered into a great correspondence with many of the Episcopal party, and with my own father In particular, and did wholly sepa rate himself from the Presbyterians. At last he left thera, and withdrew from his cure, for he could not do the things imposed on him any longer." Leighton had a brother weU known at the Court, and whose character was the very reverse — " for," says Burnet, " though he loved to talk of great sublimities in religion, yet he was a very immoral man." This was Sir Ehsha Leighton, who when secre tary to the Duke of York became a Roman Catholic, or " was a Papist of a form of his own." He was in great favour with Charles II., to whom he recommended the ascetic Principal of the Univer sity of Edinburgh, and Leighton was induced to accept the Bishop ric of Dunblane — " a smaU Diocese as well as a Uttle revenue ; but the Deanery of the Chapel-Royal [of Holyrood] was annexed to that See ; so he was wUling to engage in that, that he might set up the Common Prayer in the King's chapel, for the rebuilding of which orders had been given." Burnet alleges that Bishop Shel don of London dIsUked Leighton's " great strictness," yet " he thought such a man as he was might give credit to Episcopacy in its first Introduction to a nation much prejudiced against it." Ac cording to the same authority Sharp also opposed Leighton's ap pointment ; but Burnet's recorded opinions of the Scottish Primate render his statements suspicious, or at least they must be received with caution. Numerous anecdotes are chronicled by Wodrow against the Scot tish Bishops of the second consecration, and particularly against 698 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. Archbishop Sharp. The Presbyterians believed that aU the sermons he preached whUe rainister of Crail were " copied out of EngUsh books." It is alleged that one day he raentioned to the celebrated Nonconforralst Calaray that he believed the King Intended to re store the Episcopal Church in Scotland. Calaray replied that he could not believe that such an iraprudent attempt would be raade. " I assure you," said Sharp, " of It, and he has raade unworthy rae [Arch]bishop of St Andrews." Calamy answered — " That wUl cer tainly be grievous to the hearts of all serious persons." " Sharp," adds Wodrow, " took God to witness he embraced that place only to encourage such, and keep them from persecution."* — " There goes a story that when Leighton, who I suppose about this tirae was Bishop of Dunblane, and was in a meeting with Sharp, Arch bishop of St Andrews, he frequently termed him my Lord, and did not add your Grace to it ; and the Archbishop said huffingly — ' My Lord ! no more ?' ' Aye,' says Leighton, ' my Lord is more than either you or I should have.' "¦]- The reader is to observe that this veracious colloquy Is merely told as " there goes a story."'' The following is from a fourth hand, for Mr Wodrow was not very particular as to his sources of Information, and the other party mentioned was Mr James Wood, Professor of Divinity at St An drews, respecting whora Baillie, in a letter to Sharp dated 17th Deceraber 1660, satirically says — " My service to James Wood, if his archiepiscopal pride will permit him to accept it, but, I let hira Weill to wit that the Archbishops of Glasgow were large and proud as ever St Andrews could be." — " A little before Sharp's turning," says Wodrow, " he was rauch jealoused [suspected] al raost by all except Mr James Wood. One day in a meeting of ministers they fell a speaking about Sharp. Mr Wood did defend him. One of them went pretty far, and alleged Mr Wood was drawn over by hira, at which Mr Wood said he would know what truth was In it. He [Wood] was told — ' Sir, you are a man of far more experience and prudence than I, but allow rae to tell you Sharp will shift you, and bring on another discourse, and therefore keep him by the point.' Mr Wood went to him [Sharp], and after a little comraon conversation he said — ' Brother, you see the way how matters are like to go, and the Parliament are going on at a strange rate. It is the raind of several brethren a Testimony • Analecta, vol. i. p. 90. t Ibid. vol. i. p. 327. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 699 should be given against this way, and particularly Episcopacy, and for the Covenants.' Mr Sharp never noticed what he said, but as soon as he was done he says — ' Mr Wood, my Lord Coramissioner [Middleton] wonders you do not visit him. He has a great value for you.' Mr Wood presently took his drift, and says — ' Mr Sharp, you do not answer rae ray question. Do not wave rae this way.' When he found he was In earnest, and would not be diverted. Sharp feU in a great rage, and said — ' What ! will you testify against the Parliament 2 You [wiU] find frost In that I see ' — or some expression to this purpose — ' to have all such meetings upon any such head declared seditious and treasonable, and raeet if you dare.' Mr Wood came back to the ministers, and told them he believed now, and found all was true, and narrated what is above. After all was overturned, and Prelacy set up, Mr Donaldson meets Mr Wood in Edinburgh, and though Mr Donaldson was a pretty violent Protester, Mr Wood erabraced him with a great concern. After a little conversation, Mr Donaldson asked Mr Wood's thoughts of their differences now. ' Alas ! ' says Mr Wood, ' I see now the Remonstrants were in the right ; the Resolutions have ruined us. For my own part I still [always] hated breaches and separation, and that made me do as I did."* We are farther told by Wod row — " When Mr Sharp was beginning to appear in his own colours, and his vUlany to appear, a little before he went up to Court and was consecrate, he happened to be with Mr Douglas, and in conversation he termed Mr Douglas brother. He checked him, and said — ' Brother ! No raore brother, James ! If my con science had been of the make of yours, I could have been Bishop of St Andrews sooner than you.' "-(- The preceding anecdotes are specimens of the gossipping trash coUected by Wodrow, and indicate the private conversations of the then Presbyterian preachers. Every scandal, however false, Ira- probable, or trifiing, was readily beUeved, and industriously pro pagated in their circles, and was the topic of their low ribaldry and indecent ridicule. Mr WilUam Veitch, a weU known fana tical preacher, is adduced by Wodrow as his authority for an other example of paltry malignity. This Veitch was standing at a shop door In the ParUament Close of Edinburgh, with the before ' Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. U. p. 117, 118, 119. t Ibid. vol. u. p. 136, 137. 700 THE SCOTTISH BISHOPS OP [1661. raentioned Wood, " about the year 1660 or 166[2], a little after Sharp was raade Archbishop, and the OhanceUor's or Commis sioner's coach came up, and Sharp carae to him [Wood], and there were mutual caressings just before the shop door. Mr Wood said to Mr Veitch, pointing to Sharp — ' 0 false and perfidious traitor, who hath betrayed the Church of Scotland, If thou die the coraraon death of men, I know nothing of the mind of God.' This was in deed a prophetic afflatus, being eight or nine years before that Prelate's death."* Wodrow was here in gross error as to dates, for if there is any truth In this atrocious language said to be uttered by Wood, it was eighteen years before the murder of the Arch bishop. " I am told," says Wodrow, " that about 1673, [Arch bishop] Sharp was preaching in St Andrews, and citing that pas sage — ' whoremongers and adulterers,' the woman Isobel Lindsay rose up in the church, and charged him with guilt, but was removed and gagged for some days." This Infamous woman. It appears, was suborned to accuse the Archbishop of criralnal Intercourse with her, and this falsehood was readily believed by his enemies. Again — " Mr George Barclay was at St Andrews when the [Arch] bishop made his first serraon after he was Archbishop, and heard hira speak to this purpose — ' I could have lived with Presbyterians all ray days, but their divisions were so great that the King saw fit to set up Episcopacy, and has been pleased to name me to this See, and those that will not submit shall be forced to it by sword and law.' "f — " Mr Warner tells me he was, before [Arch] bishop Sharp's death, in conversation with two ladies of good sense, and very serious. They told him that the [Arch] bishop, when he and they were talking about religion, and one In the company said somewhat of the insufficiency of blaraelessness and raorality for sal vation, the [Arch] bishop returned — ' Be you good raoraUsts, and I wiU warrant you.' " Yet this sarae Wodrow could complacently refer to the Archbishop when he complimented a Presbyterian. " I hear," he writes, " when Mr Robert Blair died, that Arch bishop Sharp, when he heard of It, said he was the man of the most powerful gift of prayer he ever knew."J The following is another specimen of the Presbyterian hatred and superstition, re lated by Wodrow, on the authority of a person naraed StirUng. — • Analecta, vol. U. p. 250. t Ibid. vol. U. p. 253, 300. X Analecta, vol. ii. p, 353, 354. 1661.] THE SECOND ANGLICAN CONSECRATION. 701 " That Lauderdale had no liking to Bishop Sharp ; that he said to the Lord MelviUe, who told It to my Informer, that he was per suaded Sharp would not die a common death ; that the Bishop had two signs of this, which he had not ordinarily observed to fail him — ^hopping when he walked like a pyet [raagpie], and winking with one eye, and another of keeping his thumb in his fingers when he spoke ; and, added the Duke — ' My Lord, I never knew one who had these signs who died an ordinary death.' ' And,' says he, ' there is a good friend of yours and mine, the Earl of Argyll, who has one of these signs, his keeping his thurab bowed close in his hand.' This was long before any of their deaths." But it is unnecessary to proceed farther with such contemptible scm-rUity. Archbishop Sharp evidently cared little for the scan dals circulated against hira by his enemies. Although he knew weU their dispositions, and the many falsehoods, perversions of facts, and gross misrepresentations, which they uttered In refer ence to his pubhc and private life, there is no intimation to be found that he ever troubled himself about the matter, or that those scandal stories gave him the slightest uneasiness. He associated with the principal Nobility and gentry of the kingdom in his time, and was intimate with their families, yet It is curious that they never discovered any irregularities in his conduct. He was a man who made the Presbyterians quaU before him, and if he was a de serter of their cause, he was no more so than were Alexander Henderson, Robert BaiUie, James Guthrie, and many others, who apostatized from Episcopacy. 702 [1661. CHAPTER III. THE RETALIATION. It is a glorious maxim of Christianity to return good for evil, in opposition to the practice of rendering evil for evil which charac terizes the world ; but in peculiar and exciting times the cruelties inflicted by a dominant faction often Induces their opponents when triumphant to retaliate in a summary manner. That this was the case before the Restoration is now admitted by the Presbyte rians. " We cannot," says Mr Peterkin, " pass on from this nar rative of the battle of PhUiphaugh, without recording that the successful commander, David Leslie, tarnished his laurels by a cold-blooded massacre of the prisoners he had captured, at the in stigation, it has been confidently affirmed, of the Covenanting clergy. — A more atrocious outrage against all the usages of civil ized warfare never was committed, save in the modern times of Spanish barbarity ; and these hapless men. It must be remembered, were taken prisoners while bearing arms under the commission and In the cause of their lawful sovereign, whose title and authority the Covenanters at that time did not impugn, but on the contrary affect ed to vindicate and uphold. If in future turns of fortune the Cove nanters became the victims of bloody persecution, let it not be for gotten that this system of wholesale murder originated in the massacre at Newark Castle!"* The writer attempts to soften these just ad missions by referring to the alleged ravages comraitted by the Mar quis of Montrose, but that nobleraan has been successfully vindi cated, and it is proved that raany of his proceedings were so many provocations occasioned by the conduct of his opponent, the Cove- " Eecords of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander Peterkin, Esq. Svo. 1838, vol. i. p. 442. 1661.] THE RETALIATION. 703 nanting Marquis of Argyll.* " The picture which Scotland exhibit ed at the time referred to," continues Mr Peterkin, " would be in complete were we to omit mention of the executions in form of law which soon after followed the raassacre of Newark." He then enumerates the judicial murder by the Covenanters of Sir Robert Spottiswoode and many others, with which the reader is already famUiar, and adds — " Thus commenced the bloody war of party revenge which for nearly forty years afterwards polluted and dis honoured the annals of Scotland." One of the most expressive intimations of the prostration of the Covenanters was the extraordinary honour paid to the remains of the Marquis of Montrose, when his enemy Argyll was in the Tol booth of Edinburgh waiting punishment for his cruelties and re beUion. In compliance with the order addressed by the King and the Parhament to the Magistrates of Edinburgh, the mutilated remains of the Marquis were collected, his body dug from the ignoble grave in the Boroughmuir, his head removed from the spike on the top of the Tolbooth, and his limbs brought from the towns of their dispersion. They were conveyed to the Chapel- Royal of Holyrood, and the body lay in state in that venerable pile. A grand public funeral on the 14th of May proceeded up the Canongate and High Street — those very streets through which the Marquis eleven years before was led with every mark of bar barous and inhuman indignity. The body of Montrose was in terred with due solemnity in the south aisle of St Giles' church in the presence of the Privy Council, the Officers of State, the principal NobUity, the Magistrates of the city, and a large assemblage of spectators. Within the then adjacent Tolbooth, Argyll heard the strains of raartial rausic which resounded in the streets at this honour rendered to the rautilated reraains of his once dreaded enemy, and the gloomy adherents of the Soleran League and Covenant saw enough to reraind them that their triumph was annihilated. The Marquis of ArgyU is included araong the " Scots Worthies" in the Presbyterian book so called, and all the Presbyterian writers extol hira as a patriot and a martyr. ' It would be easy to shew that he has no claim to such distinctions. His enraity to Charles I. is undeniable, and his plunder of the ecclesiastical • Life and Times of Montrose, by Mark Napier, Esq. Advocate. 704 THE RETALIATION. [1661. property In the Diocese of ArgyU and The Isles proves that he had other than religious reasons for evincing his zeal In the Covenant ing cause. We have seen his activity In the judicial murders per petrated by the Covenanters, when the best blood in Scotland was shed on the scaffold for loyalty to the King ; and ArgyU was a raan who would have raade every adherent of the Episcopal Church a victim to his dark designs, his cruel disposition, and his un bounded ambition. To trace his career through the whole of the Covenanting doraination would occupy too rauch space in the pre sent narrative. He opposed the " Engagement" formed in 1648 to attempt the rescue of Charles I., and in September or October that year he had an Interview with Cromwell at Mordington near the English Border. He escorted CromweU and Lambert to Edinburgh, and those noted personages affected to renew the Solemn League and Covenant ; the "Engagement" was denounced ; and aU concerned In it were suramoned to appear before the Par liament appointed to meet in Edinburgh on the 4th of January 1649- It is even asserted, though denied by the defenders of the Covenanting rebeUion, that ArgyU, in his several interviews with Cromwell at that tirae, approved of the intended trial and murder of Charles I. This charge has been denied, by referring to the losses which he afterwards sustained and the hardships he endured for proclaiming Charles IL as King, in opposition to Cromwell, and for his sanction of the deputation sent to that Prince in HoUand ; but it could be demonstrated that these were caused by his well known duplicity, his fickleness, and his own projects of arabition. Argyll made no effort to save his brother-in-law, George second Marquis of Huntly, who was exempted in 1647 by the Parliament from pardon for his loyalty In the cause of his sovereign, taken pri soner that sarae year In Strathnaver in Sutherlandshire, sent to the Castle and Tolbooth of Edinburgh, andafter reraaining In prison from December of that year was tried on the 16th of March, and on the 22d beheaded at the Cross of Edinburgh. The Noble Family of Gordon were almost ruined by the tyrannical faction of whom Ar gyll was the prominent leader, and notwithstanding his connection with those who invited Charles II. to Scotland in 1650, he con trived to raake his peace with CroraweU ; and frora 1653 to the Restoration he took possession of their estates, to repay himself for a large sura of money which he lent to the Marquis of Huntly, 1661.] THE RETALIATION. 705 making Gordon Castle his usual residence. He submitted to the subsequent usurpation of Cromwell, under whose son Richard he actually sat in ParUament for the county of Aberdeen. It is said that ArgyU refused to assist at the trial of, or concur in the sentence of death passed on, the Marquis of Montrose, but this requires confirmation. A traditionary anecdote shews the feelings cherished by his faraily towards his great rival. On the south side of the Canongate of Edinburgh is a large raansion belonging to the Earls of Moray designated Moray House. Beneath the win dows of the principal apartraent is a conspicuous stone balcony, overhanging the pavement of the street. When the Marquis of Montrose was brought to Edinburgh in 1650, and conducted up that street with every mark of cruel indignity which Covenanting hatred could devise, Argyll and his Marchioness [Lady Margaret Douglas,a daughter ofthe second Earl of Morton], and his son Lord Lorn, witnessed that treatment of the Marquis from the balcony in company with Lady Mary Stuart, eldest daughter of the then Earl of Moray, to whom Lorn a few days previously had been mar ried. While the Marquis was passing imder the balcony on which the marriage party were stationed, the Marchioness insulted him in his misfortunes by spitting upon him ! ArgyU placed the crown on the head of Charles II. at the Covenanting coronation in Scone, but it ought to be remembered that he did so on the condition that Charles was to be rather King of the Solemn League and Covenant, than King of England, Scotland, and Ireland. It was then also currently reported that the King intended to marry one of ArgyU's daughters, of which the foUowing account is given : — " When the King came to Scotland, Argyll made great profes sions of duty to him, but said he could not serve hira as he desired unless he gave some undeniable proof of his fixed resolution to support the Presbyterian party, which he thought would be best done by marrying into some famUy of quality that was known to be entirely attached to that Interest, which would in a great mea sure take off the prejudices both kingdoras had to hira upon his mother's account, who was extremely odious to all good Protes tants, and thought his own daughter would be the properest match for him ; not without some threats if he did not accept the offer."* Argyll's power was then of so much Importance to the King In his Lord Dartmouth's MS. notes on Burnet, cited in Eose's Observations on Pox, p. 176. 45 706 THE RETALIATION. [1661. desperate circurastances, that, though the raarriage was declined, he pledged himself in a letter, dated Perth, 24th September 1650, to create the Marquis when restored to the throne Duke of ArgyU, appoint hira Knight of the Garter and one of the Lords of the Bed- Chamber, " hearken to his counsels," and " see him paid L.40,000 sterling due to him." Nevertheless, with all his pretended loyalty, Argyll at the re quest of General Monk attended a Privy Council of the usurping government, and was present at the ceremony of proclaiming Cromwell as Lord Protector. His vacillating coqduct throughout his whole career is notorious. So impressed with this were his best friends, that after the Restoration they advised him to keep out of the way on account of his compliances with the usurpation ; but he disregarded this prudent admonition, and he resorted to London to compliraent the King, carrying with him the letter above mentioned, containing the promise ofthe ducal honours in the Peerage and the payment of L.40,000. He appeared at Whitehall on the 8th of July, but as soon as his name was announced the King refused to see hira, and with an angry stamp of his foot enjoined Sir William Teraple to obey his orders, which were to con vey hira to the Tower. Argyll was confined in the Tower till De cember, when he was sent to Leith on board a ship of war, to be tried before the Parliament at Edinburgh. He narrowly escaped ship- vsT-eck during the voyage, and on his arrival at Leith he was in stantly committed to the Castle of Edinburgh. On the 18th of January an act was passed authorizing Sir James Lament of Inverinn, " for himself, and in name and behalf of his friends, fol lowers, tenants, and vassals," with concurrence of the Lord Ad vocate Fletcher, to cite the Marquis of Argyll, Campbell of Ard kinglas, and another Carapbell, and certain others, before the Estates of Parliament, for "certain crimes of treason." And because the said Marquis and his associates resided in the High lands and mountainous parts, where it was impossible for heralds who were strangers to travel, and Sir Jaraes Lament, " being of long time debarred from his estate, is not in a capacity to spend great sums upon heralds for executing the letters" of citation at the dweUings of the defenders, John Donald, messenger-at-arms, " who perfectly knows the whole country of Argyll, and Isles thereto adjacent, and knows the defenders by face, and where 1661.] THE RETALIATION. 707 their houses lie," was employed to undertake the legal form of a personal citation at their usual residences. On the 5th of Febru ary, in compliance with a petition from the Marquis of Argyll, six advocates were nominated by the Parliament for his defence. On the 13th of that month he was brought before the Parliament, and his indictment was read, consisting of fourteen articles, com prehending an enumeration of all the transactions in Scotland since 1638. The Earl of Middleton, though Lord High Commis sioner, is accused of conducting the trial without rauch regard to justice, in the expectation of obtaining a grant of Argyll's estate, but the truth or falsehood of this charge has no connection with the charge of high treason. Middleton inferred, frora Argyll's secret interviews with Cromwell, that the abrogation of the treaty of Newport and the surrender of Charles I. were the results of those conversations ; but on this point the Marquis was defended by Sir John Gilmour, Lord President of the Court of Session, and the accusations of treason were limited generally to his compliance with the usurpation. His two sons Lord Lorn and Lord Neil Campbell were in London interceding in his behalf, and as it was doubtful whether the Parliament would be able to convict him on points in which many of them were as equally guilty him self, the Earls of Glencairn and Rothes, accompanied by Dr. Sharp, were sent to Court, and undeniable evidence was furnished by General Monk, who possessed some of Argyll's private letters. These were sent by post to the Earl of Middleton, who submitted them to the Parliament. On the 24th of May he was condemned tobe beheaded by_the instrument called the Maiden — the. Marquis of Montrose, son of the great Marquis, alone refusing to vote, alleging that he had too much reason to feel resentraent for the injuries Argyll had Inflicted on his famUy to constitute him an Impartial judge. On the 27th the sentence was inflicted at the Cross of Edinburgh, and his head was placed on the spike at the west end of the Tolbooth, where that of the Marquis of Montrose had for eleven years been fixed. Such was the remarkable vicissi tude of civil dissensions. His headless body was taken to the Magdalene Chapel in the Cowgate, where it lay tUl his friends conveyed it to the faraily burying place at Kilmun on the inlet called the Holy Loch in Argyllshire. His head occupied the spike on the Tolbooth tiU the 8th of June 1664, when the King 708 THE RETALIATION. [1661. granted a warrant to take It down, and it was interred with his body at Kilraun. It wiU thus be seen that ArgyU was no martyr to the Presbyte rian cause, though he died expressing his faith in that persuasion; and that the proceedings against him, whether cruel or otherwise as they raay be riewed, were altogether political. Not a word con nected with religion is mentioned in his indictment, and the im portant fact ought to be recollected that during the whole of 1660 and 1661 there was no Episcopal Church in Scotland. This remark applies to the case of a person of a very different though not less dangerous character in his own way and vocation, who was also tried and conderaned by the Pariiaraent at the same time, and executed for high treason a few days after Argyll. Mr James Guthrie, Presbyterian preacher first at Lauder and afterwards at Stirling, another of the Covenanting " Scots Worthies" was the party concerned. This person is described as a son of the laird or proprietor of Guthrie, and in consequence he must have been a near relative of Bishop Guthrie of Moray, and a connection of Bishop Henry Guthrie of Dunkeld, the latter of whora was the episcopally or dained rainister of Stirling before the Glasgow Assembly of 1638. Bishop Henry Guthrie and his colleague, Mr John AUan, were deposed from their ministry In the town of Stirling for Malignancy, or loyalty, by a Comraission of the Covenanting General Asserably In Noveraber 1648, and James Guthrie was appointed to succeed him by the sarae authority in 1649. His religious principles in early life, and in which he was educated, were very different frora those for which he was afterwards conspicuous. " Mr Guthrie," says Wodrow, " was at first of the episcopal way, and so far engaged In it that he courted one of the Bishops' daughters. I have not learned the particular way how he was brought off from that way."* It is probable that a disappointment In this love affair had its due influence, but his change of sentiments is gene rally ascribed to the influence of the " flower of the Kirk" — Samuel Rutherford. At Stirling he became noted for his zeal in defend ing the Solemn League and Covenant, and he was soon considered the leader of the Protesters or Remonstrators, who were opposed to monarchy, and to certain conditions proposed by the King and • Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. u. p. 158. 1661.] THE RETALIATION. 709 sanctioned by the Coramittee of Estates. Ho had excommuni cated the Earl of Middleton publicly at Stirling, an act which that nobleman never forgave. Guthrie's violent Covenanting and re publican principles were well known, and the influence he exer cised over his followers induced the Government after the Restorar tion to proceed against hira as a dangerous person. He and some Covenanting preachers held a meeting at Edinburgh to concert a " supphcation" to the King, but they were all apprehended, and imprisoned in the Castle. Guthrie was next reraoved to Dundee, and again brought back to Edinburgh. On the 10th of April he was brought to the bar, and the indictment of high treason, which BaUlie describes as " tartly drawn," was read. He was accused of conspiring against the authority and dignity of the Crown, utter ing " treasonable, seditious, and contumelious speeches In pulpits, schools, and otherwise, to the disdain and reproach of his Majesty's progenitors and Council" — of " so far as in him lay alienating the affections, and brangling the loyalty of his Majesty's people, to the great encouragement and advancement of that bloody usurper Oli ver CromweU" — and that he " declaimed or uttered divers and sundry wUd, seditious, and treasonable remonstrances, declarations, petitions, instructions, letters, speeches, preachings, declamations, and other expressions tending to the vilifying and contemning, slan der, and reproach of his Majesty and his progenitors." Among the specified charges in the indictment, the second was that his " bit terness and unsatiable malice were such " that he " caused print in 1663 a seditious pamphlet, called The Causes of God"s Wrath,"" which contained " expressions of so high and treasonable a nature as that it deserves to be publicly burnt by the hands of the hang man." Various other offences are enumerated, particularly that he had endeavoured to " sow sedition among his Majesty's sub jects, and render his Majesty and his Government hateful and contemptible to them, as If his Majesty intended to subvert the true Protestant reUgion, and bring in Popery and Idolatry among them." It was farther alleged against him that in his sermons at Stirling and other places he spoke against the King's authority and laws, and " did protest for remeid of law against his Majesty for a pretended grievance, as he termed it, in conven ing him before his Majesty and confining him." But probably 710 THE RETALIATION. [1661. the most serious accusation was the following — " That you. In Stirling at a meeting with certain ministers and ruling elders in 1650, or 1651, most treasonably raoved and offered as your judg ment, that his Majesty should not only be barred the exercise of his royal power, but that his person might be received and Im prisoned In the Castle of StirUng ; and when answer was made thereto that they might as well proceed to the taking of his life as the Imprisonment of his person, you did reply that it was not yet seasonable nor time to speak to that, but it was necessary to do the one before the other."* Guthrie's defences or replies to those charges are of great length, discussing minutely all the points. Baillie says that the indict ment was " wittily answered, yet he defended all he had done ; justified the matter of the Remonstrance, Protestation, Causes of God's Wrath, and fathered all on the discipline of the church and acts of Assemblies, even his declinature of the King and Parliament at Perth, when cited for treasonable preaching." -f- He maintained the supremacy of the Solemn League and Covenant, denounced the Church of England, Malignants, and Prelacy, and contended that the acts of the Covenanting General Assemblies were superior to law and government ; but he denied the proposal to Imprison the King in Stirling Castle, declaring that the same was " an unjust and false aspersion ; he had never such a purpose in his heart, much less did he utter any such words ;" and he introduced some legal technicalities in addition, even admitting it was true, to shew that this part of the libel was " irrelevant." He concluded by as serting that " what he has spoken, written, or acted, in any of these things wherewith he was charged, hath been raerely and singly frora a principle of conscience ; that according to the weak raeasure of light given hira of God he raight do his duty in his station and calling as a rainister of the gospel," and as conscience in itself was not a sufficient plea, " he doth hurably say that he hath founded his speeches, and writings, and actions In these things, so far as he was accessory thereto, upon the word of God, and the Confes sions of Faith and doctrine of this Church, and upon the National " Indictment ag;ainst Mr James Guthrie, sometime minister at Stirling, in Appen dix to Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 34, 35, 36. f Baillie to Spang, without date. Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. iii. p. 467. 1661.] THE RETALIATION. 711 Covenant, Soleran League and Covenant, Solemn Public Acknow ledgment of Sins and Engageraent unto Duties, and upon the laws of the land and declared judgment of the kingdom."* This was followed by " Testimonies out of the Declarations and Public Papers of the Kirk and Kingdom of Scotland in defence of the fifth stept [part] of the ninth article of The Causes of Gods Wrath,"'' a long document, In which the King and the Government were assaUed in no very polite language. On the 11th of April " RepUes " were presented by the Lord Advocate to Guthrie's defences, to which he prepared a most voluminous answer, the reading of which evinces that the Parliament exercised toward him extraordinary patience. On the 15th the libel or indictment was found " proven," and on the 28th of May sentence of for feiture was pronounced against him as guilty of high treason, his property was ordered to be confiscated, his chUdren and posterity declared incapable of possessing any office, lands, and goods with in the kingdom, and he was ordered to be hanged at the Cross of Edinburgh on Saturday the 1st of June at two o'clock in the after noon, thereafter to be decapitated, andhis head fixed on the top ofthe Nether-Bow Port or gate, between the High Street and the Canon gate. A similar sentence was ordered to be infiicted on the same day, and at the same hour and place, on Lieutenant WiUiam Govan for high treason, by deserting to CromweU's army in 1651; but Sir George Mackenzie states that he was condemned because it was erroneously believed that he was on the scaffold at the mur der of Charles I. before Whitehall. ¦(- Govan's head, according to the barbarous custom of the age, was ordered to be set up on the West Port of Edinburgh. The sentence was Inflicted on Guthrie and Govan on the 1st of July. The former, enthusiastic in the political and religious prin ciples he advocated, met his fate with fortitude and cheerfulness. He delivered an address on the scaffold, maintaining all for which he was to suffer, and recommending those who heard him to adhere to the National and Solemn League and Covenant. BaiUie says — " After many days hearing, persisting obstinately, he was condemned to be hanged, and his head to be set on the Nether- Bow. Though few approved his way, yet many were grieved to * Mr James Guthrie's Defence, in Appendix to Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vu. p. 36-42. t Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, 4to. 1821, p. 51. 712 THE RETALIATION. [1661. see a minister so severely used."* After hanging for some time Guthrie's head was struck off, and placed on the Nether-Bow Port, where it remained for twenty-seven years before it was taken down and buried, by a person naraed Henderson at the hazard of his life. The headless body of this dangerous political enthusiast was carried Into that division of St Giles' known as the Old Kirk, where it was dressed by nurabers of Covenanting females, who went thither for that purpose, many of whom dipped their hand kerchiefs in his blood as a meraorial of him. It is recorded that while the zealous dames were engaged in preparing Guthrie's body for the grave, a young man, who was afterwards discovered to be a surgeon in Edinburgh named Stirling, suddenly appeared among thera, silently poured over the corpse a bottle of odoriferous per- furaes, and Instantly departed araid the approval of the females, one of whom said — " God bless you. Sir, for this labour of love." Guthrie's principles were furiously opposed by the Presbyterian Resolutioners, and Baillie repeatedly raentions hira in strong lan guage of censure and vituperation, though he disapproved of the sentence against him. " Mr Guthrie," he says, " I ever opposed his way, but see that none get the King persuaded to take minis ters' heads. Banishment will be worse for them than death."-f- The next Covenanter against whora the Parliament proceeded was Johnston of Warriston, who had become one of CromweU's peers by the title of Lord Warriston. Burnet of Criraond, then in exile, wrote to his brother-in-law, this very Johnston of Warriston, when expostulating on account of the Covenanting treatment of Bishop Sydserff — " Be not toQ violent, then ; a/nd do as you would be done to, for you know not how the world will turn yet!" But John ston of Warriston disregarded this prudent advice, and no man more richly deserved the punishment he suffered for his political intrigues, treasons, and connection with the Covenanting and Crom- wellian usurpation. He was educated as a lawyer, but early plunged Into the polemical disorders of the times, took a prorainent share in opposing the introduction of the Liturgy, and was, as we have seen, the clerk of the Glasgow General Assembly of 1638. As literally the minion of the Covenanting leaders, he was deeply * BaiUie to Spang — Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. iii. p. 467. t BailUe to the Earl of Lauderdale, 13th April 1661. Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. iii. p. 459. THE RETALIATION. 713 1661.] impUcated In all the transactions of the momentous times in which he Uved. Restiess, ambitious, and covetous, he was disappointed of several offices of preferment by superior interest, jet he was knighted by Charies I. in 1641, and was appointed an Ordinary Lord of Session for life with a liberal pension. Sir Archibald Johnston nevertheless opposed the " Engagement " for the rescue of the King, eventually sat ra Crorawell's House of Lords, though aletter from Archbishop Sharp, quoted by Wodrow, Intimates that through him he attempted to negotiate with Monk for the preser vation of his places or the payment of his debts, which the Arch bishop decUned. He was particularly obnoxious to the Restoration Government, and orders were sent to Scotland for bis apprehen sion, but he received timely notice, and escaped to Hamburgh. 0n the 1st of February the Pariiament issued a sumraons of high treason against Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, John Home of KeUo, WUliam Dundas of Magdalens, and others, which by their flight was according to the usual custom " several times called at the bar and at the great door of the ParUament House." In May the depositions of several witnesses were taken against Sir Archibald Johnston in his absence, and on the 15th of that month sentence of forfeiture was pronounced against hira for treason, his arms were torn by the Lord Lyon in the Parliament House and at the Cross of Edinburgh, his property forfeited and confiscated, and he was ordered to be apprehended wherever he could be found, and executed at that Cross as a traitor. A reward of 5000 raerks was about the same tirae offered to any who would seize him. This was in 1661. He remained sorae time in Hamburgh, and early in 1663 ventured to Rouen for the recovery of his health. A plot of the Commonwealth partizans was about that time discovered, and one of the conspirators, to save his life, offered to reveal Johnston's place of concealment. This was accepted : he was seized, brought to London, and after an imprisonraent of several weeks in the Tower, was sent to Scotland. The Privy CouncU ordered him to be conducted from Leith to Edinburgh on foot bareheaded, and he was placed under a strong guard in the Tolbooth, his wife and famUy prohibited from any access to him, though this was soon rescmded. He was brought before the Parliament on the 8th of July to receive sentence In terms of the forfeiture against him, and he appeared In such an agony of mind that he ran hither and thither 714 THE RETALIATION. [1661. on his knees begging mercy. This fear or imbecility was ascribed by his friends to the treatment of a physician named Bates, who by means of drugs and inordinate bleedings was accused of irapairing his intellect ; but others aUeged that it was assumed In the hope of obtaining mercy. The Chancellor Glencairn wept when he beheld his fallen condition, and though the Parliament was incUned to spare his life, the Earl of Lauderdale delivered a long speech against hira while the vote was caUing, and he was ordered to be executed. It is said that the Bishops who now sat In Parharaent openly in sulted and ridiculed his situation ; but this is a mere Covenanting tradition, and is unworthy of notice, though such a man as John ston of Warriston, after all the miseries he had assisted in inflict ing on the Episcopal Church, could hardly expect much compas sion from that quarter. He was, however, conderaned for high treason, and not for his opposition to Episcopacy. He was exe cuted on the 22d of July 1663 at the Cross of Edinburgh, on " ane gaUows," says Nicoll, " of extraordinary length," and his head was set up on the Nether-Bow. He met his fate with resolution and cheerfulness, which confirmed the suspicion that his former imbe cility was feigned. The Presbyterian writers describe him as a person of great learning, eloquence, and surpassing zeal and piety. Sir George Mackenzie admits his abilities and his habits of devo tion. His character, as may be expected, has not suffered any detraction from his nephew Bishop Burnet. BaiUie states that Samuel Rutherford was only prevented by death from a prosecution for high treason, and " Mr Gillespie had gone the same way, had not his friends persuaded him to recant his Remonstrance, Protestation, compliance with the English, and to petition the King and Pariiaraent for raercy ; all did agree to supplicate the King for hira ; and now [1661 ] he has obtained liberty to abide at Ormiston [near Tranent], or six miles about It, till the 1st of March." He mentions several others who fol lowed GiUespie's example, and one named Mackmath, described as " Mr Rutherford's servant at London four years, raade rainister of Glasgow, was found guUty and banished." Mackmath expected the same fate as James Guthrie, and prepared a speech for the scaffold, which is preserved by Wodrow. " All the rest of the Imprisoned ministers," writes BaiUie to Spang, " are set free, some upon one satisfaction, and some upon another." 1661.] 715 CHAPTER IV. THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. On the 12th of December 1661, the Scottish Privy Council issued a proclamation, which was published at the market cross of every town, enjoining that in future all presentations of ministers to parishes were to be directed to Bishops, and strictly prohibiting the Presbyterians from exercising the functions of admission and induction. This completely annihilated the Presbyterian systera, by altering the mode of admission to benefices to the state in which it was before 1638. On Sunday the 15th, Archbishops Sharp and Fairfoull, and Bishops Harailton and Leighton, were solemnly con secrated in Westminster Abbey by Dr Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Morley, Bishop of Worcester, afterwards of Winchester, Dr Richard Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, afterwards Archbishop of York, and Dr Hugh Lloyd, Bishop of Llandaff. Archbishop Juxon of Canterbury was prevented from taking a part in the consecration by the infirmities of old age, and Archbishop Frewen of York by some other cause. On this occasion Sharp and Leighton were ordained deacons and presbyters before their consecration to the episcopate. Wodrow relates an anecdote on this important subject, on the authority of a person who said his Informant " had the accompt" from Bishop Hamilton — " That only two of them were re-ordained, that is. Sharp and Leighton ; that when Sharp got the gift of the Arch bishopric of St Andrews from the King he came to Juxon, Bishop of London [Archbishop of Canterbury] with the order, and he says—' This is very good, but, Mr Sharp, where are your orders? You must be ordained presbyter before you can be consecrate Bishop.' He said he behoved to consult with his brethren, and re turned, and told them they behoved to be re-ordained. Mr Hamilton and the other [FalrfouU] said they were ordained be fore the year 1638 by Bishops. Mr Leighton said — ' I wiU yield ; I am persuaded I was In orders before, and my ministrations are 716 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. valid, and what they do is only cumulative and not privative ; and though I should be ordained every year I wiU submit."* Little dependence can be placed on such stories, especiaUy those recorded by Wodrow, whose sources of information were most extraordi nary, and whose superstitious credulity is undeniable ; yet it Is possible that Leighton may have expressed himself in language similar to the above. Sharp himself at first objected to re-ordina tion, and referred to the consecration of Archbishop Spottiswoode, but he was overruled, and consented. It thus appears that only two of the four consecrated Bishops, frora whom the Scottish Episcopal Church derives its present Succession, were without or dination, and that the defect was supplied by investing them with the office of deacons and presbyters previous to the consecration.-|- Baillie states that the newly consecrated Bishops remained in London " some raonths longer than was expected, that they might be sufficiently instructed in the English way ."J It appears that all their expenses In England were defrayed by the King, which probably included their " feast to all the Scots and many of the English nobUity," on the evening of the day of consecration. They set out from London for Scotland together in the same coach, but when they reached Morpeth, Bishop Leighton for sorae reasons of his own left them, and arrived at Edinburgh sorae time before them. It is said that he wished to avoid the ceremonial of a pubhc entry into the city which he knew was to take place, and it is probable that in Edinburgh, where he was conspicuous, his Inclinations were against such a display. Nicoll, who was an eye-witness, gives an account of the public reception of the Bishops in Edinburgh. — " Upon the Oth day of January an act and pro claraation foUovring thereon. Issued out by the King's appointraent, that all respect and reverence should be given to the Bishops, or daining all and sundry sheriffs, bailies of baileries and regalities, pro vosts and bailies of burghs, justices of peace, and all others bear ing office within this kingdora, should see this act put in execution ; and now the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Archbishop of Glasgow, • Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. i. p. 90. f The above statement will correct the notice of the Second Consecration in the Author's " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Eevolution to the Present Time," Svo. 1843, p. 15, 16. X Letters and Journals, 4to. vol. iii. p. 486. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 717 and the Bishop of GaUoway, being upon their journey toward Scot land, and having come down frora Court the length of Berwick, a great number of the NobUity, barons, gentlemen, burgesses, in and about Edinburgh, rode out to raeet thera corae to Cockburnspath, others to Haddington, and raany at [to] Musselburgh, and with all reverence and respect received and erabraced them in great pomp and grandeur, with sound of trumpet and aU other courtesies re quisite. This [was] done on Tuesday the 8th day of April.* On Wednesday, the 7th of May, the first consecration by the Bishops of the new Succession was held in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood by Archbishops Sharp and FalrfouU, and Bishop Hamil ton. NicoU says, that it was " long looked for, but could not be effectuated until his Majesty's Comraissioner carae frora Court to countenance that work." A great concourse of the Nobility, gen try, and others were then In Edinburgh to attend the approaching meeting of the Parliament, and the Lord Provost, Magistrates, and CouncU, attended the consecration in their robes. The admis sion into the church was by written " passports." The two Arch bishops and the Bishop of GaUoway entered the church frora the Palace, " clothed," says NicoU, " in their white surplices under their black gowns, except their sleeves, which were all of them white, of delicate cambric and lawn." A sermon was preached before the consecration by Mr James Gordon, minister of Drumblade in Aber deenshire, from 2 Cor. iv. 5, and we are told that he acted his part very learnedly. " The Archbishop of St. Andrews," says our local diarist, " sat there covered with his episcopal cap, or four-nooked bonnet; all that was said by the [Arch]bishop was read off a book, and their prayers likewise were read. The first prayer was the Lord's Prayer, and some short prayer or exhortation ; after that next was the Behef read, and some little exhorta(tion after it ; thirdly, the Ten Commands read, and after them some words of ex hortation; — much more to thispurpose not necessary to be written." NicoU says that the consecration was performed " very hand somely and decently ."-|- It appears that Leighton was absent in his town of Dunblane, and Sydserff had been norainated to Orkney. The seven Bishops consecrated on this occasion were George Hallyburton for Dunkeld, David Strachan for Brechin, John Pater- * NicoU's Diary, printed for the Bannatyne Club, 4to. Edinburgh, 1836, p. 363, 364. t Ibid. 4to. 1836, p. 365, 366. 718 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. son for Ross, Murdoch Mackenzie for Moray, Patrick Forbes for Caithness, Robert WaUace for The Isles, and David Fletcher for Argyll. David Mitchell, Bishop-elect of Aberdeen, and George Wishart, Bishop-elect of Edinburgh, were absent in England, and did not return tiU the 24th of May. They were consecrated on the 1st of June at St Andrews. It Is commonly stated that all the above Bishops were mere Presbyterian ministers, but such is not the case. They had been ordained by the Bishops of the Spottiswoode Succession, and were in holy orders as deacons and presbyters. It is undeniable that many of the most violent Covenanters, such as Henderson, Baillie, Dickson, and others, were sirailarly situated ; for previous to 1638 all the parochial clergy of Scotland were episcopaUy or dained, collated, and Inducted by the Bishops of the respective Dioceses. Such men as Sharp and Leighton entered public life after 1638, when the Bishops for the most part had retired from Scotland. A few notices of the Bishops consecrated in the Chapel- Royal of Holyrood on the 7th of May 1662 may be here introduced. Bishop Hallyburton before the Restoration had been one of the ministers of Perth. Before his removal to Perth he was admitted minister of Crail by Archbishop Spottiswoode in 1635, from which he was deposed for resisting the Covenant in 1638 or 1639. He was thus a predecessor of Archbishop Sharp in Crail, and his Presbyterian successors in that parish before the Primate were Arthur Myrton and John Hart. Mr Scott, in his Perth MS. Registers, says of Bishop George Hallyburton — " Whatever his political principles were, his life and conversation were irreproach able ; but he seems ever after what he suffered in the affair of [the Marquis of] Montrose to have inclined to the royal party, and as far down as 1655 was under ecclesiastical prosecution. Mr Wodrow, therefore, was not fully informed when he said in his History that Mr George Hallyburton had made many changes." Of several of the Bishops consecrated at Edinburgh In 1662 little personaUy is known, and the vile scurrilities recorded by Kirkton and other Presbyterians against thera are utterly worth less. Bishop Strachan of Brechin was a near relative of the Earl of Middleton, and was of the ancient family of Strachan of Thorn ton in Kincardineshire, on whom the honour of a Baronetcy of Scot land was conferred in 1625, in the person of Alexander Strachan of 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 719 Thornton. Bishop Strachan before his consecration was incum bent of the parish of Fettercairn in Kincardineshire, in which is the Earl of Middleton's estate of Fettercairn or Middleton, and the old part of the mansion of Fettercairn House was the Earl's family residence, tlis initials, coronet, and arras, with the date 1670, are on the old cross of Fordoun in the village market place, that date being the year of its removal thither. The estate of Fettercairn was purchased from the heirs of Lady Diana Middle- ton in 1777. Bishop John Paterson of Ross, was rainister, first at Foveran, in Aberdeenshire, and afterwards one of the ministers of Aberdeen. Bishop Mackenzie of Moray was descended from a younger son of Mackenzie of Gairioch, in Ross-shire, a raost ancient family, on whom a Baronetcy of Nova Scotia was conferred in 1629, in the person of Kenneth Mackenzie, the ancestor of the Noble Family of Seaforth. Bishop Mackenzie was born about 1600, ordained by Bishop Maxwell of Ross, and became chaplain to a regiment under Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden. After he returned from Gerraany he became successively minister of Contin, ofthe town of Inverness, and of Elgin, the cathedral town of the diocese of Moray. Bishop Forbes of Caithness was the son of the turbulent Pres byterian minister of Alford in Aberdeenshire, who figures in the pretended Aberdeen Assembly. Bishop Wallace of The Isles was minister of a parish in Ayrshire before his elevation to the episco pate. Bishop Fletcher of Argyll was the brother of Sir John Fletcher, appointed Lord Advocate at the Restoration. He was one of the ministers of Edinburgh before 1638, afterwards of Mel rose, and continued incumbent of that parish till his death. Baillie says that Bishop Fletcher at first refused the See of ArgyU, the " rent being nought." It is stated of him that in Melrose he was " much respected during his ministry for his benignity, public spirit, and attention to the education of the people. The schoolhouse was built with funds bequeathed by Bishop Fletcher, as Is commemo rated by a Latin Inscription on the wall."* Bishop MitcheU of Aberdeen is already mentioned as one of the ministers of Edinburgh, and as deposed by the Covenanting Assembly in 1638. He retired to England, and is said by Keith to have obtained a benefice, but he endured considerable hardships * New Statistical Account of Scotland — Eoxburghshire, p. 68, 69. 720 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1 662. during the Civil War. In 1661, he was one of the Prebendaries of Westminster, and was raade Doctor of Divinity at Oxford. Bishop Wishart of Edinburgh, who was consecrated with Bishop MitcheU, is already raentioned as chaplain to the Marquis of Montrose, and a severe sufferer for the royal cause. He was translated from Monifieth in Forfarshire in 1626 to be second minister of St An drews, and he was deposed in 1639 for refusing to take the Cove nant. Bishops Wishart and Mitchell are the special objects of BailUe's vituperation, and the Presbyterian writers assail their personal characters with the most wanton abuse. Wodrow speaks of Bishop Wishart as a man who could not refrain frora coramon swearing even on the public streets, and alleges that he was a known drunkard. " He published something in divinity," says this credulous collector of scandal — " but then I find it reraarked by a very good hand, his lascivious poems, compared with which the most luscious parts of Ovid, De Arte Amandi, are raodest, gave scandal to all the world." The reader need hardly be reminded that few statements are of less value than the Presbyterian tradi tion of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries of the habits of their opponents. Baillie writes to his friend Spang, dated May 12, 1661—" The guise now is, the Bishops will trouble no man, but the State will punish seditious ministers." In this letter he gives an account of Archbishop Fairfoull's favourable reception in Glasgow, and of his interview with him. " Our Bishop the other week took a start to come to Glasgow. The Chancellor [Glencairn] convoyed him, with Montrose, Linlithgow, Callender, and sundry more noblemen and gentlemen, with a number of our town's folks, both horse and foot, with all our bells a ringing, brought them to the Tolbooth to a great collation. He preached on the Sunday soberly and well, but Mr Hugh Blair in the afternoon ridiculously worse than his ordinary. Sorae of my neighbours were earnest that the Chancel lor and he [the Archbishop] should have a collation In the College on Monday morning. Against this I reasoned much, but was overruled, to our great and needless charge ; two hundred pounds paid not our charge. Mr John Young raade the [Arch]BIshop a speech of welcorae beside my knowledge. The ChanceUor, my Noble kind scholar, brought in aU to see me In ray chamber, where I gave them sack and ale the best of the town. The [Arch]BIshop 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 721 was very courteous to rae. I excused my not using his styles [title], and professed my utter difference frora his way, yet behoved to entreat his favour for our affairs of the College, wherein he pro mised UberaUy."* Wodrow teUs a story of Archbishop Fairfoull, much of course to his disadvantage, which occurred either in 1662 or 1663. The Earl of EgUnton had requested his son-in-law, ChanceUor Glencairn, to intercede with the Archbishop in favour of Mr WiUiam Guthrie, the presbyterian preacher of Fenwick, who had resolved not to conforra. When Glencairn went to Glas gow he waited on the Archbishop. " At parting," says Wodrow, " he told him he had one favour to ask, and- the [Arch]bishop answered — Anything [that] lay in his power to do he would do it. The ChanceUor desired hira to spare and no way raolest Mr WiUiam Guthrie. The Archbishop took it very short, and an swered — ' My Lord, that cannot be done ; he Is a turbulent dis affected person.' The ChanceUor said little more, but came down stairs. At the stair-foot the laird of RowaUan and some other gentlemen that would not go up with the ChanceUor were wait ing. RowaUan observed the Chancellor in a mighty coraraotion, and as he carae down the buttons were springing off his coat and vest. ' What is the matter, my Lord V says he to him : ' you seem to be troubled at somewhat.' The Chancellor said — ' Woes me ! we have advanced these raen to be Bishops, and they wiU trample on us all !' "f Were Wodrow's excellent friends the Cove nanters tolerant to the episcopal clergy during their domination ? The Church was thoroughly organized in 1662, the Episcopal Succession had been conferred, and the lawful Bishops again fiUed the ancient Dioceses. But the Presbyterians had to encounter other humihations. In most of the royal burghs the Soleran League and Covenant was publicly burnt with every raark of con tempt amid the acclamations of the people, whose principles were now those of devoted loyalists, and many of whom were delighted at their emancipation from the merciless bondage of what Wodrow himself admits to have been " the strictness [tyranny] of Presbyterian discipline."'' No town was more conspicuous in such demonstra tions of dislike to the forraer Covenanting taskraasters than was the ancient royal burgh of Linlithgow on the 29th of May 1662, • Letters and Journals, 4to. 1842, vol. iu. p. 486, 487. •f Analecta, vol. i. p. 284. 46 722 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. the anniversary of the King's Restoration. That was " an event," it is appropriately observed, " which called forth a universal expres sion of loyalty, yet we question if anywhere in Scotland, and we may almost add England, were such striking proofs given of sin cere joy as were exhibited in the humble burgh of Linlithgow. It is generally known that the inhabitants celebrated its anniversary by burning the Solemn League and Covenant."* We are told that " the persons who distinguished themselves on this occasion were Mr Mylne [formerly] one of the Bailies, [then Dean of Guild] and Mr Rarasay, the rainister of the parish. The conduct of the latter is the more remarkable, as he had not only taken the Cove nant himself, but pressed it upon others with extreme rigour."-}- It appears, however, that all the Magistrates, George third Earl of Linlithgow, and a number of gentlemen, were present at the burning of the Soleran League and Covenant. They attended the parish church in the forenoon and heard a suitable serraon from Mr Ramsay, after which they assembled In an open space in front of the Town-House, where a large table was covered with luxuries, and the ancient beautiful fountain or public weU, of which the pre sent fine structure is an exact model, discharged from its many carved mouths the choicest wines instead of water. A Psalm was sung, and grace said by Mr Ramsay, and the viands were then dis tributed among the crowd. At the Cross four pillars were erected supporting an arch, on one side of which was placed the figure of an old virago, with the Solemn League and Covenant in the hand, and the words — " A glorious Reformation!" On the other side was the figure of a Covenanter, the hand holding the " Remonstrance," and the well known Covenanting raaxim — " No association with Malignants!" A figure designed to represent the devil surmount ed the arch, with a label in the mouth, on which were the words — " Stand to the Cause."" Beneath this ironical caricature, distaffs, repenting-stools, horse-collars, wooden dishes, and spoons, were depicted. Within the arch were painted a " Committee of the Estates,''" with the words — " Act for delivering up the King''" — " A Commission of the Kirk"" — and " Act of the West Kirk"" [of Edin- • Chambers' Picture of Scotland, 12mo. Edinburgh, 1830, vol. ii. p. 43. t Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xiv. p. 573. The local writer, the Presbyterian minister of the parish in 1795, adds — " Changing his prin ciples with the times he was first made Dean of Glasgow, then Bishop of Dunblane, and afterwards raised to the See of Eoss." 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 723 burgh. In the centre of the arch was suspended the following lines, the production of a local rhyme : — " From Covenanters with uplifted hands ; From Eemonstrators with associate bands : From such Committees as govemed this nation ; From Kirk-Commissions and their Protestation ; Good Lord deliver us." Behind the arch was exhibited Rebellion in the disguise of Reli gion in a devotional posture, with Rutherford's " Lex Rex" in one hand, and Guthrie's " True Causes of God's Wrath" in the other. Above was inscribed — " Rebellion Is as the sin of witch craft ;" and around were scattered acts of the Covenanting Par liaments, General Assemblies and Coraraissions, Protestations, De clarations, and other Covenanting docuraents published during the twenty years previous to 1660. When the King's health was drank the pile was set on fire, amid derisive shouts and an explo sion of fireworks, from the ashes of which arose two figures of angels bearing the foUowing rhyraing verse — " Great Britain's monarch on this day was born. And to his kingdom happily restored : The Queen's arrived ; the Mitre now is worn ; Let us rejoice — this day is from the Lord. Fly hence all traitors who did mar our peace j Fly hence schismatics, who our Church did rent ; Fly Covenanting, Eemonstrating race ; Let us rejoice that God this day hath sent." The Magistrates then accompanied the Earl of Linlithgow Into the court of the Palace, where the usual loyal demonstrations were again made ; and this severe burlesque on the Covenanters, who would have hanged every one concerned in It if they had then been powerful, was concluded by a procession through the town.* The reception of Archbishop Sharp in Fife, when he took pos session of his See, Is reported by a local contemporary, and proves that he was not unpopular In the county. He crossed the Frith of Forth from Edinburgh on the 15th of April, and dined at AbbotshaU, In the mansion so called long since reraoved, at that time the residence of Sir Andrew Ramsay, formerly Lord Provost of Edinburgh. He then proceeded to Leshe House, the seat of the Earl of Rothes, accompanied by several noblemen and gentlemen, * The above is lugubriously narrated by Wodrow in his " History," vol. i. p. 151, 152. 724 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. where he remained during the night. On the following day the Arch bishop left Leslie House for St Andrews, attended by the Earl of Rothes and sixty persons on horseback. In the way he was com plimented with addresses from individuals and the corporations of several ofthe burghs, particularly Falkland, Auchtermuchty, Cupar- Fife, and Crail, who had been previously advised to raeet the Arch bishop by the Earl of Rothes. About one hundred and twenty horseraen frora St Andrews and the neighbourhood raet the Pri mate, and we are assured that the escort was at one time calculated to consist of 700 or 800 raen on horseback. The Nobility were the Earls of Rothes and KeUie ; the second Earl of Leven, who was the grandson of the Covenanting General Alexander Leslie the first Earl, and the nephew of Rothes; and Lord Newark, the other Covenanting General David Leslie defeated by CroraweU at Dunbar, created Lord Newark in 1661. Nurabers of the Fife shire gentry were also in the procession. During the progress the Archbishop rode on horseback, having the Earl of Rothes on his right and the Earl of Kellie on his left. When he approached St Andrews he was raet by his son, afterwards Sir William Sharp, and by two of the clergy, Mr William Barclay, formerly deposed by tbe Covenanters from Falkland, and Mr WilUam Corarle of St Leonard's College. The Archbishop entered the ancient archi episcopal city amid the congratulations of the inhabitants, and resided in Archbishop Spottiswoode's former house within the pre cincts of the Priory at the east end of South Street, close to St Leonard's College. Rothes, Kellie, Newark, and a nuraber of gentlemen supped, and some remained with him during the night, and Rothes and others dined with him on the following day. On Sunday forenoon the Archbishop preached in the town church from the passage, 1 Cor. xi. 2 — " For I determined to know nothing among you save Jesus Christ, and hira crucified." The contera porary chronicler states — " His sermon did not run much on the words, but in a discourse of vindicating himself, and of pressing of Episcopacy, and the utility of It ; shewing since It was want ing there had been nothing but troubles and disturbances both In Church and State." On the 30th of AprU the Archbishop re turned to Edinburgh, to preside at the consecration of the Bishops in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood, accompanied by about fifty horseraen, most of them from St Andrews, halting for a short 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 725 time at Lundie, a mansion between Largo and Leven, the pro perty of Lundie of that Ilk, with whose family he was acquainted. He came there with only five or six horseraen, which intiraates that the escort had left him.* The Parliament raet at Edinburgh on the 8th of May, the Earl of Middleton again representing the King as Lord High Commissioner. The names of the two Archbishops and of all the Bishops appear on the roll. The first act passed was " for caUing in the Bishops to the Pariiament" — that " considering the Clergy did always in the right constitution of Parliament represent the first Estate, and that now Archbishops and Bishops being restored, it is fit the Parliament be returned to Its ancient constitution, and the Clergy have their place and vote as formerly." The Earls of Kellie and Wemyss, Lord Torphichen, Sir Robert Murray of Blackbarony, WiUiam Cunningham, and Andrew Carstairs, the burgesses re spectively for Edinburgh, Ayr, and St Andrews, were constituted a deputation to " go and in his Majesty's narae invite the Arch bishops and Bishops to come and take their place, and vote in Parliament, as in former times before these troubles began." The Archbishop of Glasgow and the Bishops of Galloway, Dunkeld, Moray, Ross, Brechin, Caithness, and The Isles, were asserabled with Archbishop Sharp in his lodgings when the deputation ap peared. They proceeded to the Pariiaraent, the two Archbishops walking between the Earls of Kellie and Wemyss, and the seven Bishops attended by barons, gentlemen, and the magistrates of Edinburgh In their robes. They were addressed in a congratu latory speech frora the throne, the act restoring them was read, they took the oath of allegiance and the oath of Parliament, and they were added to the Lords of the Articles. They afterwards dined in Holyroodhouse with the Lord Commissioner, who walked with them in procession from the Parliament House near St Giles' church, preceded by six raace-bearers, three gentleraen ushers, and the purse-bearer uncovered, accorapanied by the Lord Chancellor Glencairn and a number of the Nobility. A select party of mem bers of the Pariiaraent sat down with the Bishops " at four of the clock to ane suraptuous entertalnraent, and reraained at table tiU eight." On the 13th of May It was resolved that aU the members should • Lament's Chronicle of Fife from 1649 to 1672, Edinburgh, 4to. 1816, p. 183, 184. 720 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. be regular In their attendance, under the penalty of L.12 Scots from each of the Nobility and Bishops absent, L.6 Scots from every baron, and L.3 from every burgess. Those who appeared after the rolls were called were to be fined one half of these sums. An act was also passed fining each Archbishop, Bishop, and noble man, who did not attend at all after the 27th of May, L.1200 Scots, each baron or commissioner from a county, L.600 Scots, and every burgess from a royal burgh, L.300 Scots. None were to be allowed access to the Pariiaraent except the eldest sons and heirs of the Nobility, the Judges, certain officials, and the Clerk Register's deputies and servants. The Nobility and the Bishops were exclusively to occupy the benches, and the seats of all the other merabers were distinctly arranged.* On the 27th of May a long act was passed, entitled — " Act for the restitution and re-es- tablishraent of the ancient governraent of the Church by Arch bishops and Bishops." It set forth that his Majesty and Estates of Parliament, " taking to their serious consideration that in the beginning of, and by the late rebellion within this kingdom, in the year 1637, the ancient and sacred order of Bishops was cast off, their persons and rights were injured and overturned, and a seeming party among the clergy factiously and violently brought in, to the great disturbance of the public peace, the reproach of the Re formed religion, and violation of the excellent laws of the realni for preserving an orderly subordination in the Church," whereby the rights and prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of Parliament, and the liberty of the subject, have " suffered by the Invasions made upon the Bishops and episcopal government, most agreeable to the word of God, most convenient and effectual for the preservation of truth, order, and unity, and most suitable to mo narchy and the peace and quiet of the State; therefore his Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates of Parhament, hath thought it necessary, and accordingly doth hereby redintegrate the state of Bishops to their ancient places and undoubted privileges In Par liament, and to all their accustomed dignities, privileges, and juris dictions, and doth hereby restore them to the exercise of the epis copal function, presidency in the Church, power of ordination, in flicting of censures, and all other acts of church discipline, with advice and assistance of such of the clergy as they shaU find to be • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 371. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 727 of known loyalty and prudence. And his Majesty, with advice foresaid, doth revive, ratify, and renew all acts of any former Par liaments, made for the establishment, and in favour of this ancient government." The acts of the Privy Council since the 1 st of June 1661, "in order to the restitution of Bishops," were declared "vaUd and effectual ;" and to remove all doubts or scruples which from " former acts or practices may occur to any concerning this sacred order," his Majesty " doth therefore, of certain knowledge, and with advice foresaid, rescind, cass, and annul, all acts of Parliament by which the sole and only power and jurisdiction within this Church doth stand in the Church, and in the General, Provincial, and Presbyterial Assemblies and Kirk Sessions." The first act of the Parliament of James VI. in 1592, sanctioning Presbyterianism, was repealed, and declared " null and void in all time coming ;" the sixth act of the Pariiaraent of 1609 was ratified and renewed ; and " ordains that In all time coming the quotes of testaments be paid into the Archbishops and Bishops In their respective Dioceses as formerly ;, and rescinds and annuls the 28th act of the last ses sion of this present Parliament anent the quotes of testaments, and declares the same void in aU time coming," without prejudice to the then coraraissaries, their clerks, and fisoals ; that " no act, gift, lease, or deed, passed by whatsoever authority since the in terruption of the government by Archbishops and Bishops in the year 1637, to the prejudice of their rights, patronages, &c., per taining to the several Bishoprics, stand valid or be in force ; but that the said Archbishops and Bishops may have their claim, right, and possession for the year 1661, and all years foUowing, to what soever was possessed by, or by the laws of the kingdora was due to, their predecessors in anno 1637."* Other enactraents are enu merated respecting the lands held off the Bishops, and other legal matters. This Act, it is said, was prepared by Archbishop Sharp. On the 11th of June was passed the important " Act concerning such benefices and stipends as have been possessed without pre sentation from the lawful patrons," and was intended seriously to affect the Covenanting incumbents. " His Majesty, with advice and consent of his Estates of Pariiaraent, doth statute and ordain that all these ministers who entered to the cure of any parish in burgh or land within this kingdom in or since the year 1649, at " Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 372, 373, 374. 728 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. and before which tirae the patrons were most injuriously dispossessed of their patronages, have no right unto, nor shall receive, uplift, or possess, the rents of any benefice, modified stipend, manse, or glebe, for this present year 1662, nor for any year following, but their places, benefices, and kirks, are ipso jure vacant ; yet his Majesty, to evi dence his wiUingness to pass by and cover the miscarriages of his people, doth, with advice foresaid, declare that this act shall not be prejudicial to any of these ministers in what they have possessed or is due to them since their admission ; and that every such rainister who shall obtain a presentation frora the lawful patron, and have coUation from the Bishop of the Diocese where he liveth betwixt and the 20th of September next to come, shall from thence forth have right to and enjoy his church benefice, manse, and glebe, as fully and freely as if he had been lawfully presented- and ad raitted thereto at his entry, or as any other rainister within the kingdom doth or may do." The patrons were enjoined to grant presentations to aU the then incumbents, and those of the latter who refused to be so " provided before the 20th of September were to be held as demitted, the patrons were to present betwixt that day and the 20th of March 1663 ; and if they neglected, the pre sentations were to lapse to the Bishop of the Diocese, jure devo luto, " according to former laws."* Various sums were ordered by the Parliament to be paid to nuraerous " suffering rainisters," andthe " relicts and bairns" of others, from the vacant stipends. An act was passed on the 31st of July regulating the teinds belonging to Bishops and other bene ficed persons," enjoining them to be collected according to the De crees-Arbitral pronounced in 1633 by Charles I. On the 7th of August an act was passed, constituting the chapter of the Diocese of ArgyU to consist of the Dean, Archdeacon, Treasurer, Chancellor, Chantor, and three incumbents. Mr James HaraUton, Mr John Smith, and Mr George Hutchison, were discharged from their office as ministers of Edinburgh by a special act for refusing to "join and concur with the Bishop In the acts ofthe church discipUne, con form to the laws and acts passed in this Pariiament In that behalf." On the 3d of September the Archdeaconry of The Isles was consti tuted. On the 5th the National Covenant and Solemn League and Covenant were ordered to be renounced by a signed declara- • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 376. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 729 tion " by aU persons In pubUc trust."* On the 9th an act an nounced " the King's Majesty's gracious and free pardon, act of indemnity, and oblivion, to all except " such persons who have been forfeited or declared fugitives in this present Parliament, or by the Committee of Estates since August 1660, especially the Marquis of Argyll, Johnston of Warriston, and certain others. Eatifications were given to Archbishop Sharp of the Archbishop ric, Priory, and Abbey of St Andrews ; to Bishop Strachan of Brechin and his successors ofthe monastery of Arbroath; to Bishop Fletcher of Argyll of the jurisdiction of the commissary-court of that Diocese; and to Bishop Wishart of theBishopric of Edinburgh. On the above date the Parliament adjourned to the 20th of May 1663. One ofthe last acts was an " Act containing some excep tions frora the Act of Inderanlty," fining a great number of per sons in aU the counties who had been conspicuous in' the Covenant ing cause, and, as is narrated at length in the act, had grasped at sovereign authority in those Parliaments, aggravated by numer ous insults to the King and Royal Faraily. Wodrow sums up the whole of those fines at L. 1,017,353, Scots, or upwards of L. 84,779 sterling — a large sum to be exacted in a country so poor as Scotland then was; but this was the procedure ofthe Government, with which the Church had no concern. Few were fined in the counties of Had dington, Peebles, Selkirk, Linlithgow, Fife, Dunbarton, Inverness, Ross and Cromarty, Moray, Nairn, Bute, Aberdeen, Banff, For far, Kincardine, Caithness, and Sutherland. In Berwickshire, Sir William Scott of Harden, an ancestor of Sir Walter Scott, was fined L.18,000 Scots. The counties where the fines were to be exten sively levied were those of Edinburgh, chiefly the city ; Lanark, " The great design of that act," says Sir George Mackenzie, " was to incapacitate the Earl of Crawfurd from being Treasurer and Lauderdale from being Secretary ; but Lauderdale laughed at this contrivance, and told them he would sign a cart full of such oaths before he would lose his place ; and though Crawfurd was thereafter tumed out of his office, yet Middleton missed it ; and thus we see how God disappoints such as endeavour to ensnare their native'country with unnecessary oaths and engagements. But that which I disliked extremely in this new oath was, that it should have been put to Advocates, who are no persons properly in public trust, and yet were forced to take this oath because it was pretended they had taken the Covenant ; and yet this was an iU consequence, for by that rule the Declaration should have been forced upon all the nation." Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland from the Eestoration of Charles II., 4to. p. 64, 65. 730 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. Dumfries, Roxburgh, Ayr, Perth, Renfrew, Stirling, Wigtown, Kirkcudbright, and Argyll.* These were the principal acts of the Parliament of 1662 in re ference to the Episcopal Church. Several petitions for relief from the clergy and their relatives who had suffered for their loyalty were presented. Mr James Boyd, who appears to have been a son of Bishop Boyd of Argyll who died in 16.36, represented his case, and on the 3d of June Bishop Wallace of The Isles and Mr John Bell, Provost of Glasgow, reported to the Lords of the Ar ticles — " His losses by fining [and] Imprisonment [are] notourly to us and all who knew him, his fine being the seizing upon his raoveable fortune to the value of L.500 sterling, his imprisonment four months in Tarbet, and his banishment nine years, to be in whole in loss to the value of L.IOOO sterling. — It is humbly over tured that out of those who have failed in the observance of the last solemn anniversary [the 29th of May] he may have such money applied to his use as your Lordships shall think fit, he being a Bishop" s son, which we humbly conceive not to be contrary to the former Act of Parliament establishing the same." On the 10th of June he was voted L.500 sterling frora the arrested stipends of those who had not observed the anniversary of the King's Restora tion. Mr. David Foulis, a " suffering minister," formerly of Ox- nam parish in Roxburghshire, and his son, who suffered great pri vations and exile for resisting the Covenant, the father leaving behind him seven children " to the charity of their friends," were voted L.lOO sterling from the vacant stipends ; the same sum was granted to Mr Martin MacgiUivray, minister in the island of Mull ; and also to the " distressed relict and seven poor children" of Mr Henry Elliott, minister of Bedrule In Roxburghshire. The eldest daughter of Dr Alexander Gladstanes, Archdean of St Andrews, and consequently the grand-daughter of old Archbishop Glad stanes, was voted L.lOO sterling as a remuneration for the depo sition and exile of her father in England, where, she alleged, " he lived a long time in great hardship, having left behind him his wife, family, and small children, whereby the petitioner's deceased father's sufferings were exceeding great, besides the want of two years' stipend which was owing hira the tirae he was thrust from * Wodrow's History, vol. i. Appendix, p. 57-69. Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 420-429. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 731 his charge."* Other cases occur which it is unnecessary to enu merate. One of the most liberal awards was that to a certain Mr Eobert Watters, described as a " musician," who for " exercising the office of precentor, in singing of the psalms at all sermons preached in the Parliament House to the members of Parliament during the two sessions from the 1st of January 1661," was ac tually voted L.lOO sterling from the stipends forfeited by those who refused to observe the day of the King's Restoration.-f- On the 10th of September the Privy Council at Holyroodhouse issued an " Act for holding of Diocesan Assemblies," which was proclaimed on the 13th. It set forth that as all Synods, Presby teries, and Kirk-Sessions, had been prohibited on the Oth of Janu ary untU these were authorised by the Archbishops and Bishops in their respective Sees — " considering that the Lords Archbishops and Bishops have aU this session of Parliament been engaged to attend the service thereof, and now are to repair to their re spective Sees, for exercising the government and ordering the affairs of the Church, according to that authority which is settled and established upon thera by the laws, and for that effect have resolved to hold their Diocesan Asserablies in the Dioceses of St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Dunkeld, Brechin, and Dunblane, on the second Tuesday of October next, and in the Dioceses of Galloway, Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, Caithness, Isles, Argyll, and Orkney, on the third Tuesday of the said raonth" — all incumbents were enjoined to resort to those Diocesan Synods under pain of being treated as " contemners of his Majesty's authority. Incurring the censures provided In such cases ;" and all who held any other ecclesiastical meetings were to be " holden henceforth as seditious." To enforce the observance of this act the Earl of Middleton, accompanied by the Chancellor Glencairn, and a number of the NobUity and gentry, proceeded into the western counties, and at Glasgow he held a Privy Council on the 1st of October, when an act was published " discharging " aU incumbents " who had no lawful presentations from the patrons, [and] who would not receive collation from the Bishops." According to Sir George Mackenzie this act threw out two hundred of the preachers, and was con sidered imprudent, as " tending to irritate a country which was • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. Appendix, p. 86, 87, 88. t Ibid. p. 94. 732 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. fond of its rainisters, and as that which joined them all in one comraon discontent."* As the Covenanting Presbyterians had expelled aU incumbents in the most sumraary raanner who resisted the National Covenant, many of their preachers even now felt some thing of that severity which they had unsparingly inflicted on their opponents. The ob servance of the anniversary of the King's Restoration by cessation frora labour, attending Divine service, subscribing the oath of aUe giance, presentations to benefices, and ordination and collation by Bishops, were enjoined by law, and those who refused were to be considered as forfeiting their rights as incumbents. The result is thus stated by Nicoll : — " At this time sundry of the rainistry came in to the Archbishops and Bishops, and submitted themselves to them and to their orders, and gave their oaths to them as their Or dinaries, and received new presentations from thera conform to the act of Parliament. Others of the ministry refused to give obedience, and therefore were convened before the Lords of the Articles, and for their disobedience were suspended, silenced, and ImprIsoned."-|- The names of three of the ministers of Edinburgh deposed by the Parliament for refusing to acknowledge episcopal authority are already noticed, and it was intimated to the others that they would incur a similar censure if they were refractory. It appears frora the local diarist that with the exception of Mr Robert Lawrie, Dean of Edinburgh and incurabent of Trinity College Church there, all the ministers, then only five altogether, were prohibited from preaching after the annual election of the Magistrates for refusing to acknowledge episcopal authority. " All the sermons," he says, " were by strangers, who were not much liked by the auditors, who fled their kirks, and wandered to .others." But this state was of no long continuance. On the 5th of Noveraber, Mr Joshua Meldrura frora Kinghorn, Mr John Robertson from Dysart, and Mr Archibald Turner from North-Berwick, were In ducted ministers of Edinburgh. The sermon was preached by Mr John Robertson In the " East [High] kirk" of St GUes, in presence of the Earl of Middleton, Chancellor Glencairn, others of the Nobility, and a large congregation. After the sermon Bishop Wishart went into the pulpit, and declared that the three persons above named, • Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, p. 77, 78. t NicoU's Diary, 4to. 1836, p. 374. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 733 who were sitting with the Provost, Magistrates, and some of the elders, " were caUed and chosen to be ministers of Edinburgh, which being done, these three ministers were received and embraced by the Provost, BaiUIes, and some of the elders appointed for that business." The Magistrates entertained the Bishop and clergy at dinner. It may be here observed that Mr John Paterson, from Ellon, was admitted minister of Edinburgh on the first Sunday of January 1633, and Mr William Annand on the first Sunday of February. The former was afterwards raised to the Archbishopric of Glasgow. The latter was the son of Mr William Annand, minister of Ayr, who was attacked by a mob of females on the streets of Glasgow for defending the Liturgy in 1637, as already related, and was deposed by the Glasgow Assembly. His son, who was a most distinguished and pious person, becarae a student in University College, Oxford, in 1651; but though placed under a Presbyterian tutor, he embraced every opportunity of hearing the episcopal divines who during the Comraonwealth preached clan destinely in and around Oxford. He was ordained by Dr Thomas Fulwar, Bishop of Ardfert in Ireland, and officiated some tirae at Weston-on-the-Green near Bicester in Oxfordshire, where he be came distinguished as a preacher. After the Restoration he pub hshed two treatises in defence of the Episcopal Church, which seem to have procured for hira the patronage of the Earl of Mid dleton, who appointed hira his chaplain, and in that capacity he returned to Scotland. He becarae successively rainister of the Tolbooth and Tron churches in Edinburgh, the latter properly caUed Christ Church. Nicoll observes that the city was about the end of 1662 divided into six parishes. He states that of those six parish churches four belonged to the Chapter — Trinity College, the Tron, the East or High church in St Giles', and the Grey friars' church.* The same local chronicler preserves some notices of Bishop Wishart's first Diocesan Synod held at Edinburgh on the 14th of October. It was attended by fifty-eight incumbents; and the Lord Advocate, Lord Tarbert, and the Lord Provost and Magistrates of Edinburgh were present. Bishop Wishart preached the sermon on PhU. iv. 5 — " Let your moderation be known unto all men ; the Lord is at hand." Two ministers of each Presbytery were • Diary, 4to. 1836, p. 389. 734 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. appointed by the Bishop to prepare the business of the Synod, whora he terraed the Brethren of the Conference ; and as It was not intended to offend the prejudices of even the Presbyterians by in troducing any Liturgy, the following was the enjoined mode of cele brating Divine service. The prayers were all exterapore, but the Lord's Prayer was to be introduced once, or even twice, at the discretion of the minister ; the Doxology was to be revived, and sung at the end of the metrical Psalras ; and the Apostles' Creed was to be repeated at the Sacrament of Baptism by the parents of the child, or by the rainister. It was enacted that morning and evening prayers should be held In every town and populous parish. It appears that some years before 1653 the devotional exercise of singing Psalras and reading the Scriptures publicly in the congre gation was abandoned by the Covenanting preachers, who occu pied their followers exclusively with their own lectures. The people, however, were dissatisfied with this novelty, and the practice of singing the Psalms was restored, at least In Edinburgh, In 1653 ; but In 1 662 the public reading of the Scriptures was again intro duced, and the Doxology was added to the Psalms. " This," says NicoU, " now brought in by the authority of the Bishops with greater devotion than ever before, for all the people rose at the singing — Glory to the Father, &c." Our diarist, however, says in another place — " But all this did not please the people, for there was rauch haitrent of the Bishops araong thera, favouring still their own ministers, and their doctrine, and hating Episcopacy." At Bishop Wishart's first Diocesan Synod it was intimated that all incumbents were to conform to the Act of the Privy Council held at Glasgow on the 1st of October, and were to accept of collation to their benefices from the Bishop before the 25th of November, otherwise the Bishop was to proceed against them and appoint others to the parishes. This indulgence, we are Informed by Nicoll, " did move many of them to come in and accept collation frora his hands before the day appointed, and to submit themselves to the prelatical orders." It is also stated that all the Bishops " became indulgent to the rainisters that refused to obey their orders, and gave many of them liberty to preach openly till the [first] day of February 1663 ; but this licence and liberty were refused to such as were pannelled [under prosecution], and to such whose kirks were prorided to other ministers during their 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 735 disobedience." This resulted frora an Act of the Privy Council to the same effect published on the 23d of December, which contains some significant allusions to the conduct ofthe Covenanting preach ers. The Act reminded those of them who iUegally continued to officiate as ministers ofthe parishes that they had been "indemnified for what they possessed," and again peremptorily enjoined them to apply for presentations to the lawful patrons, and to the Bishops of the Dioceses for collation. It referred to the Act of the Privy Council at Glasgow on the 1st of October, by which all such preachers who thus openly defied the Government were " charged to remove them selves and their families out of their parishes ; but in the hope that they be reclaimed, and conform theraselves tothe Church nowre-esta- blished,the Privy Council had, at the solicitation of those Bishops who were then in Edinburgh, extended the time to the 1st of February 1663, and all who refused after that date were " thenceforth to be esteemed and held as persons disaffected to his Majesty's Govern ment." Those of thera In the Dioceses of Glasgow, Argyll, and GaUoway, were to reraove beyond the bounds of their respective Presbyteries, but they were not to locate theraselves in the Dioceses of St Andrews and Edinburgh; and, wherever they chose to reside, two of them were not to be allowed in one parish. Those within the Dioceses of St Andrews and Edinburgh were to remove north of the Tay ; all of them who held public or private meetings under pretence of religion were to be prosecuted as seditious persons ; and those who had been wilfully absent from the Diocesan Synods in October were not to leave their parishes before the next Diocesan Synods, without the written warrant of their respective Bishops. The people were strictly en joined to resort to their own parish churches, or if on any Sunday there was no Divine service, to attend the nearest parish church which was open ; with intimation that if any persisted in acting otherwise, or went out of their parishes on Sundays, they would be punished as Sabbath-breakers, and a fine of twenty shil lings [Is. 8d. sterling] exacted from each, to be given to the poor. And as violent sermons had been recently preached to large as semblages of the peasantry at the celebration of the Holy Com munion, which was thus perverted from the object of its institu tion as " a special raean and bond of love and unity, duty and obedience, among Christians," parish ministers were enjoined to 736 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. employ only one, or two at most, of their brethren, unless the Bishop sanctioned more, to assist thera on such occasions. No person was to be admitted to the Sacraraent without a certificate of his or her residence frora the minister of the parish. This Act was published at the Cross of Edinburgh and in aU the royal burghs. The second day afterwards was Christmas-Day, which was solemnly observed in Edinburgh. Bishop Wishart preached in the High Church — " wherein," says Nicoll, " were much people asserabled," and the Earl of Middleton, the Chancellor Glencairn, and all the NobUity then In Edinburgh. After the sermon an in junction was issued by " tuck of drum," that the reraaining part of the day was to be observed as a holiday, that no labour of any kind was to be allowed, and that the shops were to be closed under the penalty of L.20 Scots from those who refused. NicoU observes that the year 1662, when the Church was re-established, was " by God's goodness and raerciful providence in all the parts of it wondrous blessed : in the spring, in the sumraer tirae, and harvest, producing multitudes of corn of all sorts, with pears, apples, abun dance of nuts, great and fair, the like never seen heretofore, so that the streets of Edinburgh were fiUed full of all these sorts of fruits on every side in all parts of the town, and sold remarkably cheap." The order for coUation from the Bishops to the several parishes, after obtaining presentations frora the lawful patrons, involved subraission to episcopal ordination in the case of the Presbyterian preachers. This was made imperative, and the only exceptions were the clergy then alive, and able to discharge their functions, who had been ordained by the Bishops of the Spottiswoode Suc cession before 1638, or those ordained in England and Ireland. We have seen that Archbishop Sharp and Bishop Leighton were obliged to be ordained deacons and priests before their consecration in England, and all the Bishops invested with the episcopal function in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood and at St An drews in May and June 1662 had been ordained by the Bishops before 1638. This is an important distinction, and partly explains the injunction by the Acts of Parliament and of the Privy Council making collation from the Bishops indispenslble. Rather than coraply with those Acts many of the Presbyterian preachers, who are described as " intruders" into the parishes, sustained a treatment similar, though more gentle, to that which they had 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 737 inflicted on those clergy who opposed the Covenant and would not renounce Episcopacy. Upwards of one hundred and fifty were also deprived for not obeying the suraraons of the Bishops to attend the Diocesan Synods ; but we have the explicit testimony of Bur net that aU this was transacted without Archbishop Sharp's know ledge, and the Primate repeatedly stated that he was glad he had no hand in the proceedings of the Privy Council.* There is ample proof that many of the Acts of the Privy Council were the sugges tions of the Earl of Lauderdale, the seeming friend of, but in reality the bitter eneray to the Church, and yet a raan who now held the Covenanting Presbyterian preachers and their adherents in utter contempt. The Presbyterian writers allege that nearly four hundred of their preachers were deprived throughout the kingdom, and we are told that Scotland never saw such a day as that on which they took leave of the parishioners. It is singular that the Presbyterians persist, in defiance of historical facts, to monopolize all the suffering for the Covenanters. They were offered the fairest terms if they would conform to the Church established by law; no Liturgy violated their superstitious prejudices ; the Five Articles of Perth were not re suscitated and made imperative ; no Book of Canons was renewed ; and no Court of High Coraraission at that tirae existed. These were their old grievances, not one of which was now proposed ; and If their consciences prevented them from submitting to episcopal ordination and diocesan authority, they had no right to enjoy those temporalities with which the State conditionally endowed the in cumbents of an Established Church. But the Presbyterian writers forget that this nonconforraity of nearly four hundred preachers frora 1662 to 1666, and their expulsion frora the parishes as illegal intrud ers, are not without their parallels even in Scottish history. The reader need only recollect the tyrannical depositions and merciless expulsions of the Episcopal clergy frora their parishes, for resisting the Covenant after 1638, when several hundreds were plundered, ruined, and driven into exile. Many of those persecuted clergy died in the greatest poverty during the Covenanting reign of terror and CromweU's domination, and others of them never returned from England and Ireland. But we may also refer to the hun dreds of the Episcopal parochial clergy who were expeUed from • Bishop Burnet's History of His Own Times, vol. i. p. 215. 47 738 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662. their parishes in the raost Indecent and cruel manner after the Revolution of 1688 by Presbyterian mobs, for acting siraUarly to the preachers of 1662 — not conforming to the existing Government. Nay, we raay refer to 1843, when the " Non-intrusionists" in the Pres byterian Establishment left it to the number of sorae hundreds, set up a rival systera under the magniloquent title of the Free Pro testing Church, and assaUed their former brethren and associates In language as atrocious, infamous, scurrUous, and false, as ever their Covenanting predecessors applied to the Episcopal clergy. And yet, as a proof of the restlessness of Presbyterianism — of its grasping propensities, its intolerable claims, and Its malevolent principles, tbe Disruptionists left that Establishment with which they had been connected on account of no persecution from the State, no threatened change of doctrine or discipline, and no de signed innovations, but simply because they were not allowed to be above all law civil or ecclesiastical. The Presbyterian Disruption of 1843 will yet do much to explain and clear from aspersion the much vilified Bishops and clergy of Scotland after the Restoration ; and bad as the Government then was, it will even defend sorae of the pubhc men of that age from the odiura with which the Pres byterians load their characters. Wodrow inserts a list which he caUs " A roU of ministers who were nonconformists to Prelacy, and were banished, turned out from their parishes, or confined, with some account of those who con formed not to Prelacy ;" but he also inserts the names of those who conformed, some of whom had been episcopally ordained, and the others were soon afterwards ordained by the Bishops. Wodrow's list is not very correct, but is probably the only one now access ible. The expulsion of the illegal incumbents of the parishes was considerable in the counties of Edinburgh, Haddington, Linlithgow, and particularly the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Ayr, Kirkcud bright, and Wigton. The kingdora was then divided into thirteen Provincial Synods ; yet it appears from Wodrow's own stateraent the sentiraents of the rainisters in favour of Episcopacy and Presby terianism were almost equally divided. Fifteen of them in the Pres bytery of Perth conforraed, and only six were refractory. Through out that extensive county and in Stirlingshire only twenty-one were deprived. Including Jaraes Guthrie, hanged in 1661, and the rainis ter of Little Dunkeld, who is, however, supposed to have conformed. 1662.] THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. 739 lu the Synod of Fife, a county containing more parishes than any other of Uke extent In Scotland, twenty-eight ministers conformed in 1662, not including those of the city of St Andrews, and twenty- six were deprived from 1662 to 1667. A list of both parties is given in the " Selections from the Minutes of the Synod of Fife from 1611 to 1687," but the above does not include those who were aUowed to continue in the parishes by taking the oaths of allegiance — a fact which evinces the leniency of the Government. In the counties north of the Tay, which comprise almost four-fifths of the kingdom, only thirty-eight were eventually deprived, and all other hundreds of the parochial clergy and the population may be said to have relinquished Presbyterianism. Even in Argyllshire and the Western Islands the great majority submitted to episcopal ordination and diocesan jurisdiction. In the county of Dunbar ton six out of the thirteen parochial incumbents conformed. These are facts, even according to Wodrow's list, which un deniably prove that the opposition to the Episcopal Church was chiefly concentrated in the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Ayr, Dum fries, Kirkcudbright, and Wigton. In Berw iokshire, Roxburghshire, and Selkirkshire, one third of the parish ministers conformed, and in the Presbytery of Kelso alone, then consisting of ten parishes, only three of the incumbents were refractory. In the Presbytery of Dalkeith, south and east of Edinburgh, eight of the fifteen minis ters conformed. Wodrow raentions prorainently those who were banished, but he produces only four in his hst, who were Robert TraU of Edinburgh, the noted John Livingstone of Ancrura, John Brown of Wamphray, and Robert Mackward of Glasgow, who were aU banished for their seditious principles by the Government. Three of those men — Livingstone, Brown, and Mackward — died in HoUand. Some of them who were prosecuted for their turbulence bound themselves to retire from the kingdora within a specified time, and others were confined to particular towns and localities. Admitting that between three and four hundred ministers were com peUed to leave their parishes, yet, without referring to what had occurred after 1638, to the results of the Revolution of 1688, and to the extraordinary drama in 1843, it must be recollected that the above three or four hundred were only one-third of the parochial ministers, and that aU the rest corapUed. It Is possible that many of those who conformed would have preferred Presbytery, and in 740 THE CONSECRATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS. [1662 some counties the tendencies of the peasantry, excited by violent sermons and harangues, were weU known; nevertheless raany thou sands in Scotland were of a different opinion, many more were pas sive, and many quietly acquiesced with the prevailing party. In a word, the opposition to the Episcopal Church was undeniably con fined chiefly to the western counties and to some parts of Fife, and even in those districts it was principaUy among the lower orders. But the Presbyterian writers ought to recollect that there were other sufferers than their Covenanting heroes. During the short and fearful doraination of Presbyterianism in England raore than one half of the clergy of the Church of England were reduced to the raost abject privations, because they would not renounce the Liturgy and subscribe the Covenant. It is alleged by Dr M'Crie that the first Pariiaraent after the Restoration " was packed by the Court, and slavishly submissive to its wishes ; and that there was not then a party in Scotland worthy of being naraed which desired the restoration of Episco pacy." Such an aUegation as the former Is generally brought for ward by all discontented and disaffected persons against institutions which they denounce ; and as to the latter, the party " not worthy of being named" comprized not less than the whole Nobility of the kingdora, and the representatives of the counties and royal burghs. Nicoll expressly states, under date May 1662 — " At the ratifica tion of Episcopacy, and restoring thera [the Bishops] to their honours, dignities, and offices, little opposition was made, except sorae Lords of Erection, and David Leslie, newly adraitted a tera poral Lord [created Lord Newark], who, having heard him dis sent, did laugh and smile at his refusal, [he] having received such late favours from his Majesty to tie him to the King's obedience and lawful courses, did refuse to vote in favour of the Bishops, and made many of the merabers of Parliament to laugh and jest. This David Leslie, perceiving them to laugh, did publicly say — That he saw the day that they durst not laugh at him." 1663.] 741 CHAPTER V. ADMINISTRATION OP THE CHURCH DURING ITS ESTABLISHMENT. In 1663 Archbishop Sharp appointed parochial kirk-sessions, and the several Presbyteries and Diocesan Synods were constituted. As it respects the raode of conducting Divine service in the Epis copal Church of Scotland after the Restoration, it is already stated that no Liturgy was attempted to be Introduced, which was probably a misfortune, as the Covenanting claraour would not have been more violent. The Westminster Directory for public worship, however, was set aside, and the former raode before 1637 was authorized. Readers of the Scriptures were revived In the towns ; the clergy, as previously observed, were enjoined to use the Lord's Prayer and the Doxology ; and parents and others who presented chUdren for baptlsra were to give an account of the profession of their faith and belief in the Apostles' Creed. The Holy Cora- munion was administered in the Presbyterian form of sitting at long tables ; no organs were in the churches ; and the only dis tinctive dress of the clergy was the black gown. Even the Bishops rarely appeared in their episcopal habit. In short, the whole was extemally Presbyterian, and the only difference was in the constitution of the Church. But the great point for which the opposers of the Episcopal Church contended after the Resto ration was the acknowledgment of what they called the Kingship and Headship of Christ. No Christian, and certainly no member of the Episcopal Church, or of the Church of England, denies that doctrine in Its proper, intelligible, and orthodox sense ; but the" real object of the Presbyterians was to render their preachers and elders In their official capacity Independent of the State, and above the controul of the Government. It was a supremacy or 742 ADMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH [1663. kingship in their own favour as in their halcyon days of the Solemn League and Covenant, and it was for this, not for their Presbyterian principles in the abstract, or for the effects of them on an ignorant, fanatical, and bigotted peasantry, that the Covenant ers were severely punished from the Restoration to the Revolu tion, after which latter event even the new Government would not listen one moment to their pretensions. No liberties were secured by those Covenanters who after the Restoration renounced their allegiance, took up arms against their sovereigns, and by their own conduct and principles incurred the sumraary punishraent ofthe law. They again contended not for liberty to worship God according to their consciences, but for the former supreraacy of the Covenant,. and for the utter extirpation of the Episcopal Church and all its members. The unhappy fate of many of them is to be deplored, and it is scarcely possible to peruse the narrative of the sufferings of those raistaken, obstinate, and fanatical persons without regret, yet the Revolution would have occurred in England though not a single peasant In Scotland had been executed as a dangerous and re bellious subject ; and that which took place in England in 1688, raight have been protracted but could not have been prevented in Scotland. It is also to be reraembered that when the Episcopal Church of Scot land again fell after 1688, it was not by violence and sectarian ty ranny, as in 1638. It was the voluntary and conscientious though probably imprudent act of the Bishops and clergy, who refused to take the oaths of allegiance to King William or acknowledge his Govemment, otherwise it is not too rash to assert that the Episco pal Church might have been the ecclesiastical establishment of Scotland at the present time. The raode of presentation to benefices during the establishraent of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, especially frora 1662 to 1688, deserves a passing notice. The mode of electing the two Arch bishops and twelve Bishops was similar. The Chapter of a vacant See elected the person recoraraended by the King, whose patent under the Great Seal confirmed the election of the Chapter, by which the right of the Bishop-elect, as he was then called, was legalized to the spirituality of the See. A royal mandate was after wards issued for the consecration, at which three Bishops at least were to be present, in conforraity to the decision of the third Canon of the First CouncU of Nice, to which the first of the Scot^ 1663.] DURING ITS ESTABLISHMENT. 743 tish Canons of 1617 refers. Upon the consecration the King ought to have raade a second grant of the temporality of the See, but as the first grant was understood to comprehend the whole this soon fell into disuse. The Bishop could not intermeddle with the temporalities until he did homage, and swore obedience to the sovereign, which completed his right, and he was then entitled to the revenues from the date of his election. Ever}' Scottish Bishop had his Chapter or council, consisting of an Archdeacon, Dean, and certain ministers of parishes w ithin the Diocese, and by their advice he exercised spiritual jurisdiction and managed the temporal affairs of the Diocese with which he was concerned. We have seen that after the Reformation all patronages con nected with the lordships and baronies of the Roman Church in Scotland were in 1587 annexed to the Crown. Those which be longed to Archbishops, Bishops, or their Chapters, were restored to them in 1606. The lay patrons also acquired their right of presentation to parishes, and continued to exercise it from the Reformation to 1649, when they were deprived of their right by the 39th Act of the Covenanting Pariiaraent of that year. By the Act-Rescissory of 1661 the patrons were restored to the right of presentation, which they possessed till 1690, after the Revolution, when the election of the parochial incumbents of the Presbyterian Establishraent was vested in the heritors and elders of the parish. This continued till the patrons were again restored by the famous act of the tenth of Queen Anne, and the Crown then assuraed the patronage of all the parish churches which formerly belonged to the Bishops and Chapters. During the establishraent of the Church, if the Bishop refused induction, the patron could complain to the Archbishop, and if he also refused, the Privy Council might grant warrant for letters of horning against the Bishop, charging him to perform bis duty. If he continued obstinate, the patron was allowed by the Act of 1612 to retain the vacant stipend. But if no opposition was offered by the Bishop of the Diocese, three different forms were necessary in the ceremony of admitting a parochial incumbent after episcopal ordination. The first was a written presentation by the patron to the properly quahfied individual, who delivered It to the Bishop. The second was the collation, or a document signed by the Bishop, approving of the party presented, conferring on him the vacant 744 A.DMINISTRATION OF THE CHURCH [1663. benefice, and enjoining a certain number of the incurabents to in duct hira. The third was the induction, performed by the Pres byters deputed by the Bishop, which was simply accompanying the presentee to the parish church, putting him in possession by placing him in the pulpit, and delivering to him the Bible, and the keys of the building, on which the new incumbent took instruments in the hands of a public notary. Collation by the Bishop was indis- pensibly necessary in the case of all parochial ministers, but pre bends and benefices which had no cures of souls could be held by the siraple nomination of the patron, and without any interpo sition of the Bishop, unless to confer ordination if the person was a lajTnan. In those parishes in the Bishop's Diocese of which he was himself the patron, as he could not properly present to himself, he collated without presentation. If he was patron of a parish in another Diocese, it was necessary for him to present in common form to the Bishop of that Diocese.* In default of the patron not presenting within six months to a vacant parish the nomina tion devolved on the Bishop. Such was the ecclesiastical procedure of Scotland from 1606, at least from 1612 to 1638, and frora 1662 to 1688. The Episcopal clergy of the Second Succession during the latter period were con- teraptuously designated curates by the ignorant peasantry — and this senseless, ridiculous, and absurd epithet, which originated with the field preachers, conventiclers, and other wild raen, is often re tained by the violent Presbyterian writers. In the liturgical language of the Church of England all presbyters and deacons are curates, and hence we pray in the Moming and Evening Service, for " Bishops, and Curates, and all congregations coraraitted to their charge." But the word as applied derisively by the Carae- ronlans and other Presbyterian fanatics in Scotland to the Episco pal parochial clergy was unraeaning, contemptible, and malicious. Those clergy were not the curates of the Scottish Bishops in any sense, and they were as much the regular and legally inducted in cumbents as any Established Presbyterian rainister has been or is since the Revolution. They were in full possession of the stipends of the parishes, and in teraporalities were completely in dependent of the Bishop. It might as well be said that every such * Erskine's Institute ofthe Law of Scotland, Lord Ivoi7's edition, foUo, 1824, vol. i. p. 101, 102, 106, 107, 108. 1663.] DURING ITS ESTABLISHMENT. 745 Presbyterian minister is a curate oi the local Presbytery, Pro vincial Synod, or General Assembly, aU of which by the present law act in place of the former Bishops. In reality, the word was in numerous cases applied by the Presbyterian Disruptionists of 1843 in several of their scurrilous prints to those who succeed ed them in the parishes which they reluctantly resigned, with the varying charitable epithet of stipend-lifters. But although the Scottish Episcopal clergy had been literally curates, they were so in the canonical view — not as hired to perform the duties of another, but simply inducted parish priests or presbyters, simUar in some respects to those who hold perpetual curacies in England, so far as the presentation by the patron is concerned, who being usuaUy the impropriator of the rectory to which the curacy is appendant, presents a person in holy orders, who is licensed by the Bishop of the Diocese, and admitted to aU its rights and privileges. But as no such curacies ever existed in Scotland, the Episcopal clergy were also equivalent to English rectors and vicars, because they were aU collated, or instituted, and inducted.* In 1663, when the parishes vacant by the expulsion of the Covenanting Presbyterian preachers were to receive new incum bents, much opposition was manifested, especiaUy in the counties of Kirkcudbright and Dumfries, andthe chief ringleaders were feraales. The Privy CouncU found it necessary to inquire into the tumults of those misguided women and their abettors, and appointed the Earls of LinUthgow, GaUoway, and Annandale, and others, as a commission of inquiry to proceed to Kirkcudbrightshire, accom panied by one hundred horse and two hundred foot, with power to suppress aU meetings and insurrections. Nurabers of the women were apprehended, some of whom were sent prisoners to Edin burgh, others were punished, and several bound over to keep the peace. New magistrates were appointed for the burgh of Kirk cudbright, who signed a bond obliging themselves and all the in habitants to behave loyally, to conform in aU ecclesiastical and cIvU affairs, and to protect the Bishop of GaUoway, the minister of the town, and other ministers established by lawful authority. The conduct of Lord Kirkcudbright on this occasion was disastrous to " I thought that the EngUsh of curate had been an ecclesiastical hireUng.— No such matter; the proper import of the word signifies one who has the cure of souls."— Cottier on Pride. Johnson's Dictionary, by Eev. J. H. Todd, 4to. London 1818, vol. i. 746 ADMINISTRATION OP THE CHURCH [1663. his family. That Peerage was conferred by Charles I. In 1633 on the ancient faraily of the Maclellans of Bombie, whose ancient castle in ruins, built In 1582, is a conspicuous object in the town. John third Lord Kirkcudbright was so zealous a Royalist that he raised a regiment of foot for the service of Charles II. in 1653. At that tirae he was almost sole proprietor of the parish, and It is said that he actually depopulated two villages on his estate, carrying all his vassals to Ireland, whence it Is supposed they never returned. The rural or landward portion of the parish never recovered this expatriation. Lord Kirkcudbright's conduct incurred the ban of Cromwell, and the fines and expenses he incurred nearly ruined his estate. It was the peculiarity of that restless and improvident nobleman never to be on the side of those who could render him any service, and after the Restoration he opposed Charles II. A riot broke out in Kirkcudbright at the induction of the Episcopal incumbent, at which his Lordship, not from any religious principles, for of these he was apparently destitute, but from love of mischief, and because he delighted in popular turraoil, declared that if the clergyman took possession of the parish church it would only be over his body, and that he would hazard his fortune in the matter ; at the same time he admitted that if the clergyman came in by his presentation he could raise a sufficient nuraber of men to prevent any disorder. His Lordship was apprehended for his share in the riot, and sent a prisoner with others to Edinburgh. The proceedings against him are not recorded, but he died in 1664, and by his personal imprudence his creditors so completely sold the estate during the minority of his son, who died while a youth in 1669, that his successors in the title, which is now ex tinct, never afterwards possessed an acre of the ancestral property of the once powerful Maclellans of Bombie. The vacant parishes were fiUed up with difficulty on account of the want of properly educated persons. From 1639 to the Resto ration, a period of twenty-two years, the Universities of Scotland had been in the hands of the Covenanting preachers, who had ex pelled all the former Professors and students, and had supplanted them by persons of their own nurturing and principles. The regu lar candidates for the office of the ministry who were properly qualified, or who were inclined to accept episcopal ordination, were in consequence very few in 1 663, yet numbers were obtained from the 1663.] DURING ITS ESTABLISHMENT. 747 northern counties, where Presbyterianisra and the Covenant had never been popular. Those persons who were thus inducted araid much opposition into the vacant parishes in the western counties are commonly represented as illiterateor half educated youngmen, whose moral conduct was as deficient as their talents and acquirements. Bishop Burnet raust needs be the accuser of his brethren, and he thus scurrilously writes of thera — " They were the worst preachers I ever heard. They were ignorant to a reproach, and many of them were openly vicious. They were a disgrace to their order and the sacred profession, and were indeed the dregs and refuse of the northem parts. Those of them who were above contempt or scandal were men of such violent tempers, that they were as much hated as the others were despised." And Dr M'Crie, improving on this statement, asks — " Who but hj-pocrltes, infidels, and pro fligates and dastardly souls, would have submitted to the opinions of such men, or have abandoned their own [Presbyterian] minis ters 2" Now, it is very possible that some of the Episcopal clergy who succeeded the ejected Covenanting preacb^ers may have been iUiterate, and some may also have been irregular in their lives ; but if so, it can be easily proved that not a few of the Presbyter ians were in the same situation, and it must be recollected that the accusers of the Episcopal clergy were their bitter enemies — per sons who, having been well taught by the Glasgow General As sembly of 1638 in the libels against the Bishops, scrupled not to invent all manner of falsehoods, scandals, distortions of facts, and reckless insinuations, completely blinded by their local prejudices against strangers, and their wretched enthusiasm. Rival sects have often applied to their opponents similar opprobrious terms, and the extraordinary epithets and language bestowed habitually by the adherents ofthe so caUed Free Church, or Disruptionists of 1843, towards their former brethren who remained in the Presbyterian Establishment, which they contemptuously designated the Residu ary, ought to make us suspect the accusations of ignorance and Improper conduct brought against the Episcopal clergy. Every one In Scotland knows the manner in which the Presbyterian Establishment is mentioned pubhcly in speeches, pamphlets, and other writings, by the very men who previous to May 1843 ate Its bread, and associated with its incumbents as brethren. The terms God-dishonouring, Christ-denying, soul-destroying, are among the 748 ADMINISTRATION OP THE CHURCH. [1663. gentlest epithets, whUe the Disruptionists speak of themselves as if aU the learning, talent, piety, eloquence, and zeal in Scotland were concentrated in their own persons ; and all the ignorance, imbeci lity, worldliness, stupidity, laxity, and carelessness, not to mention worse accusations, characterized every one who remained within the pale of the Establishment. Its adherents are described as not Christians — as persons with whora no real Christian can associate or hold any intercourse; the so called '¦'¦Residuary"" Presbyterian Establishraent is represented by Dr Chalraers and others as a great moral nuisance which must be removed that the kingdom of God, or what they call the kingdom of God, may be advanced — so Erastianized a,s to be utterly worthless, contemptible, and sinful. It Is designated " an antichristian Establishment,"" a " Synagogue of Satan,"" a " pernicious institution,"" a " Residuary Corporation,"" whose adherents are " guilty of the very sin of him who would hand over the Lord of the Church bound and fettered into the hands of his enemies."" In the opinion of the " Presbyterian Review" these Presbyterian Separatists " cannot esteem those of the [Pres byterian] Establishment even [as] brethren, or have any commu nion or co-operation with them ;" and a newspaper, notorious In Edinburgh for Its falsehoods, slanders, and scurrilities, has re peatedly advised the people to view the parochical incurabents of the Establishment as the only excommunicated men in the parishes. The verysame epithets bestowed by the Donald Cargills, the Richard Camerons, the Alexander Pedens, and the rest of the fanatical fraternity, on the Bishops and episcopal clergy after the Restoration are now profusely applied to the ministers of that very Presbyte rian Estabhshraent with which, previous to May 1843, the represen tatives of those Covenanting preachers were connected — and which is now the object of their malevolence, hatred, and avowed warfare. Such an ebullition of party malice and uncharitableness shows the great caution with which the statements of the Presbyterians, as to the conduct and acquireraents of the Scottish Bishops and clergy before the Revolution, ought to be received ; but such wiU probably be the occasional effervescence ofa systera which appears iraposslble to be iraproved. 1663.] 749 CHAPTER VI. CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. In February 1663, Dr MitcheU, Bishop of Aberdeen, died in that city in the eighth month only of his episcopate. This excellent and learned Prelate was interred in his cathedral church of St Machar in Old Aberdeen. He was succeeded in the See by Alex ander Burnet, son of Mr John Burnet, a parochial incumbent, who was related to the ancient family of Burnet of Bams, in the parish of Mannor and county of Peebles. Bishop Keith states that Bishop Alexander Bumet was born in 1 614, and that he acted as a sort of lay chaplain or preceptor in the family of the first Earl of Traquair — that after the Covenanting rebeUion commenced he retired to England, where he took holy orders, and obtained a rectory in Kent, from which he was ejected for his loyalty in 1650. He went to the Continent, and attached himself to the service of the exiled King, to whom he rendered himself useful by the cor respondence he maintained in England. At the Restoration he became chaplain to Lieutenant-General Andrew Rutherford, a Scottish officer in the French service, who was created Lord Eutherford in January 1661. That nobleraan, who is stated to have been the cousin of Bishop Alexander Burnet's father, was soon afterwards appointed Governor of Dunkirk, at which his chap lain officiated as pastor of an Episcopal congregation. Lord Rutherford was advanced to the dignity of Earl of Teviot in 1663, and appointed Governor of Tangiers, where he was kUled in May 1664, in a sally against the Moors, and, dying without Issue, the titles became extinct. It appears that Bishop Alexander Burnet was only a few months in the See of Aberdeen, or " Alexander, Archbishop of Glasgow," appears in the " Commission for planta tion of kirks, and valuation of teinds," appointed by the Parlia ment on the 11th of September 1663. Bishop Alexander Burnet 750 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1663. was consecrated at St Andrews by Archbishop Sharp — "sorae other Bishops," says Lament, " being present at the time." In the spring of this year Mr Gabriel Semple and Mr John Welsh, the former the expelled minister of Kirkpatrick-Durham, and the latter of Irongray, In Kirkcudbrightshire, began the prac tice of field-preaching, or holding conventicles, which soon spread over that part of the kingdora, and was the cause of rauch severity by their seditious conduct and principles to the parties concerned. Meanwhile the coraraemorations of the Church were not neglected in Edinburgh and elsewhere. In the month of February, as we are Informed by Nicoll, a proclamation was issued for observing Lent ; and Ascension Day, which fell that year on the 28th of May, was " kept in Edinburgh and many other parts of the kingdom."* The following day, the anniversary of the Restoration, was " uni versally kept and set apart as ane holyday unto the Lord, in all the churches of Scotland, and specially in Edinburgh, and In all the churches thereof, before noon." In the afternoon the most loyal rejoicings were manifested ; the Cross was decorated with branches ; the Magistrates proceeded thither, " drank merrily, broke their glasses, and threw them and their sweatmeats and comfits on the High Street ;" and dancing, music, ringing of bells, and firing of artillery from the Castle, accorapanied the arause- ment. " There was nothing lacking," says NicoU, " to make this day honourable." Before the meeting of the Parliament we find Archbishop Sharp proceeding to London to support the Earl of Middleton's Interest, but finding that Nobleman in disgrace, he was Induced to adhere to the Earl of Lauderdale, the decided eneray of the Church. The Earl of Rothes was appointed Lord High Comraissioner to the Parliament, and produced his patent to the Privy CouncU at a meeting in Holyroodhouse on the 15th of June. On that occasion Archbishops Sharp and Fairfoull were appointed Privy Council lors, which Sir George Mackenzie says was not for any kindness which Lauderdale felt towards them, but " to let the Episcopal party see that though they had been informed he would ruin them with Middleton their protector, yet they had been led in error, and were to expect frora hira greater shares of favour if they complied with his interest. Rothes likewise had the chief hand in St • Diary, 4to, 1836, p. 390, 391. . 1663.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 751 Andrews' promotion, for St Andrews' mother having been a Leslie, and Rothes being in one shire with him, thought it his interest thus to oblige him."* The Parliament which had been prorogued from the 20th of May met on the 18th of June. The two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Dunblane, Caithness, Argyll, and Orkney, appear on the roll as present. It is stated by the Presbyterians that Bishop Leighton of Dunblane seldom attended the Parliaments but the records refute this as sertion. On this occasion Dr Burnet, then Bishop of Aberdeen, preached the sermon. The Bishops elected as Lords of the Arti cles from the Peerage, the Duke of Harailton, the Marquis of Montrose, and the Earls of Erroll, Mar, Eglinton, Haddington, CaUander, and Annandale, who in turn norainated an equal nura ber of the Bishops — the Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Dunkeld, Brechin, Caith ness, and The Isles. The Acts of this Parliament connected with the Church were comparatively few. On the 10th of July, the day on which the royal patent in favour of the Duke of Monmouth, cre ating him Duke of Buccleuch, was presented, an Act was sanctioned " against separation and disobedience to ecclesiastical authority ;" which was a repetition of the Acts of 1661 and 1662, ordering all ministers who continued to preach, without having obtained pre sentations and collations, to be punished as " seditious persons and contemners of the royal authority," and to be dispossessed of the parishes in which they persist in preaching in contempt of law. The people were enjoined to resort regularly to their own parish churches on Sundays, and all other meetings were declared to be " seditious, and of dangerous example and consequence." Viola tors of the Act were to be fined according to their rank after con viction. Each nobleman, gentleman, or proprietor, was to forfeit the fourth part of his annual rental ; and each yeoman, tenant, or farmer, such a proportion of free moveables as the Privy Council should determine. Another Act allowed those ministers who offi ciated in the parish churches, and were duly qualified before and in 1662, one half of the stipend due for that year. But probably the most important Act was the one passed on the 21st of August for " the establishment and constitution of a National Synod." It ' Memoirs of the Affairs of Scotland, p. 116, 117. 752 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1663. sets forth that his Majesty, by " virtue of his prerogative-royal and supreme authority in causes ecclesiastical," and for " the honour and service of Alraighty God, the good and quiet of the Church, and the better government thereof in unity and order," — constituted and appointed a National Synod, of which the Arch bishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, the Bishops of these two Pro vinces, the Deans, Archdeacons, the Moderators of the respective " Exercises" or Presbyteries sanctioned by Diocesan authority, and one presbyter or minister elected by the Moderator and raajority of the incumbents of each of the said " Exercises " or Presbyteries, were to be members. Representatives were also to be sent from the Universities — one, or two if necessary, from St Andrews, one from Glasgow, one from King's and one from Marischal Colleges In Aberdeen, and one frora Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St Andrews was always to preside in the National Synod, which was to consult and determine " on such pious matters, causes, and things concerning the doctrine, worship, discipline, and govern ment of this Church," as might frora tirae to time be delivered by royal authority to the said Archbishop. The King was always to be represented in this National Synod by his Commissioner, without whose presence no meeting could be held, and no " act, canon, order, or ordinance" would be valid and binding on the Bishops, clergy, and other persons concerned, unless agreed and ratified by a raajority of the National Synod, and in conformity to the laws of the kingdom.* Various Acts were passed granting sums to " scholars " out of the vacant stipends in ArgyU and The Isles, the erecting of schools, and relief to " suffering ministers." By an act on the 11th of October every Archbishop and Bishop were to pay annually, out of every 1000 merks of their revenues from 1664 to 1668, the sum of L.50 to the Universities, as an " exemplary testimony of their piety and zeal for the advancement of learning and religion ;" and the parochial clergy were to pay L.40 out of every 1000 merks of their stipends, and so on in pro portion, as the stipends were valued by the Bishops. A Committee was appointed to sit at Edinburgh, consisting of the two Arch bishops, the Bishops of Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and four others — one from each of the Universities, of which Coraraittee the Arch bishop of St Andrews, and in his absence the Archbishop of • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii, p. 449, 455, 456, 465. 1663.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 753 Glasgow, was to be president. This was the last meeting of the first Parliament of Charles IL, in which, on the Sth day of July, John ston of Warriston was ordered to be executed at the Cross on the 22d, and the sentence was inflicted as already narrated. The Parliament rose on the 9tb of October, and Archbishop Sharp soon afterwards returned to St Andrews, as appears frora the following notice in the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod : — " St Andrews, 27th October 1663. — The Archbishop and Synod, hear ing of the great profanation of the Sabbath by people travelling on the Lord's Day, do appoint each minister in his several charge to look more narrowly to this, and especially the ministers in burghs deal with the Magistrates for restraining that sin."* The other notices in the record of the Diocesan Synod of Fife at this period are meagre, chiefly local, and connected with cases of dis cipUne. NicoU states that Bishop Sydserff, forraerly of GaUoway, and then of Orkney, died at his residence in Edinburgh on the 29th of September, and was buried on Sunday the 4th of October, five days before the Parliament rose. His body was deposited in the aisle of St Giles' Church, and two funeral sermons were preached on the day of interment in that part of the edifice now known as the High Church — in the forenoon by Mr William Annand, and in the afternoon by Bishop Wishart, " who," says our diarist, " described his birth and progeny, of what family he descended, his piety, learning, his travels abroad, his life and conversation, his sufferings for the gospel, and all others his gifts and graces." Bishop Burnet speaks in the raost favourable manner of Bishop Sydserff, who was a very eminent man. The following notice by NicoU intiraates that he was rauch respected : — " His funeral was very honourably celebrated, and his corpse convoyed to the grave by aU sorts of people, both of Nobles, Bishops, gentlemen, and commons."f Bishop Sydserff, though he had been in the See of Orkney little more than one year, bequeathed 400 merks to the poor of the parish and burgh of Kirkwall. Bishop Sydserff was succeeded In the See of Orkney by Andrew Honyman, first admitted assistant and successor to Samuel Cun ningham, minister of Ferry-port-on-Crag, on the Fife side of the ' » Printed for the Abbotsford Club, 4to. 1837, p. 182. t Diary, 4to. 1836, p. 400. 48 754 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1663. Tay, near Dundee, frora which he was removed to be second minis ter of St Andrews In 1642. He was episcopally ordained after the Restoration, appointed Archdeacon and first rainister of St Andrews in 1662, and consecrated Bishop of Orkney on the 11th of April 1664. He was the author of two rare pamphlets entitled " Submission to Church Government," published at Edinburgh in 1662, and the " Survey of Naphtah," printed in 1668.* Wodrow records some of the common Presbyterian scurrility in circula tion against Bishop Honyman. A certain Mr George Hutchi son told the person who told Wodrow that " when Episcopacy was coming in about 1660, the Presbytery of St Andrews ordered him [Honyman] to draw up a Testimony against it, which he did, and It was approven by the Presbytery. Honyraan brought It to Mr [Robert] Douglas and Mr Hutchison to revise, which they did, and adraired it. That after Sharp carae to St Andrews he was made Dean, but even then he was not thorough-paced, but was still checking and ruffiing at the Bishops. When some told several of his reflections to Sharp, says he — ' I know how to stop his mouth by a Bishopric.'" On the authority of a fourth hand we are told by the same Wodrow that at a meeting of ministers, attended by " Mr [Samuel] Rutherford, Mr Wood, Mr Honyman, Mr Donaldson, and others, they fell upon the de bates about the Protests and Resolutions. Mr Wood said pretty much to defend the Resolutions ; Mr Rutherford spoke not a word ; Mr Honyman took up the discourse, and spoke in favour of them. Mr Rutherford fell on him with great warmth, and abused him pretty severely. When they came out, Mr Donaldson says to Mr Rutherford — ' Sir, I thought you dealt not fairly just now. You let Mr Wood go without saying any thing ; but when Mr Hony man spoke, though he said less than Mr Wood, you fell on him like a falcon.' " The " flower of the Kirk" is made to answer — " I know Mr Wood to be an honest man, though he raay be wrong • The pamphlet entitled " Naphtali, or the Wrestlings of the Church of Scotland," is ascribed to Sir James Stewart of Goodtrees, Bart, and Mr James Stirling, Presby terian minister at Paisley. The former was Lord Advocate after the Eevolution. Bishop Honyman's reply is — " A Survey of the Insolent and Infamous Libel entitled Naphtali" in Two Parts. It was answered, probably by the above persons, in " Jus PopuU Vindicatum, or the People's Eight to defend themselves and their Covenanted Eeligion vindicated, being a Eeply to the First Part of the Survey of Naphtali," 12mo. 1669. 1663.] AND STATE OP THE KINGDOM. 755 in this raatter, but Mr Honyman Is a knave, and will prove so."* Such gossip as this reflects no discredit on the character of Bishop Honyman. NicoU records that Dr Andrew FalrfouU, Archbishop of Glas gow, died at his residence in Edinburgh on the 2d of November, and yet, as already noticed, we find his successor Alexander Bur net mentioned as Alexander Archbishop of Glasgow in the proceed ings of the Pariiaraent in September. Our local diarist, however, so narrates the death of Archbishop Fairfoull that the error must be in the record of the Pariiaraent. Probably Bumet is designated on the roll as elected to Glasgow. Archbishop Fairfoull's body was carried to St Giles' Church, where it lay tiU the 11th of No vember, when a sermon was preached at four in the afternoon by Mr John Hay, parson of Peebles and Archdean of Glasgow, in the High Church, frora Eccles. xii. 5 — " Because raan goeth to his long horae, and the mourners go about the streets." A large congregation assembled, and after the serraon the Archbishop's body was reraoved frora the front of the pulpit, and conveyed in a carriage to the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood, where he was interred near the east end of the edifice. The funeral was conducted by torch light. The procession down the High Street and Canon gate was preceded by four trumpeters, two heralds, and two pursuivants, aU the Nobility then in Edinburgh, the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Lord Provost and Magistrates, and a number of gentlemen, " some In coach, others on foot," and " what else could contribute to the honour of such a raan's funeral was not wanting : — numbers of coaches both before and after the corpse."^ The Lord Chancellor followed with the purse and Great Seal carried before him, and Archbishop Sharp and other Bishops then in Edinburgh attended the funeral. It is already stated that Bishop Burnet of Aberdeen was the suc cessor of Archbishop FalrfouU in the See of Glasgow. The former was succeeded in Aberdeen by Patrick Scougall, son of Sir John ScougaU of that Ilk, episcopally ordained to the parish of Dairsie by Archbishop Spottiswoode in 1636, removed to Leuchars in 1645, and to Salton In Haddingtonshire in 1658. Bishop ScougaU was consecrated on Easter 1664. He was the father of the celebrated Henry ScougaU, Professor of Divinity in King's • Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol.i. p. 37, 38 ; vol. U. p. 118. 756 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1664. College, Old Aberdeen, the author of " The Life of God in the Soul of Man," published by Bishop Burnet In 1691, and often re printed as a work of eminent piety, written in an eloquent style without enthusiasm. The character of Bishop Scougall Is ably delineated by Bishop Burnet as a pious and worthy man who was universally esteemed in his Diocese,* and portraits of him and his son are in Pinkerton's " Iconographia Scotica, or Portraits of Illustrious Persons of Scotland."-f- Nicoll thus notices the episco pal appointments under date February 1664 : — " Mr Burnet was admitted Archbishop of Glasgow in January; likewise Mr ScougaU, Bishop of Aberdeen ; [and] Mr Honyman, Bishop of Orkney. In February 1664, Archbishop Sharp returned from the Court with a grant of precedence before all the Nobility as Priraate. The warrant for this very questionable advanceraent at the tirae, though it excited no great claraour, was dated at WhitehaU, 16th January, and is a renewal of the order of precedence granted to Archbishop Spottiswoode by Charles I. in 1636. On the same day a High Commission was nominated under the Great Seal of Scotland, con sisting of the two Archbishops, the Bishops of Edinburgh, Gallo way, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, Argyll, and The Isles, the Lord Chancellor Glencairn, the Lord Treasurer Rothes, the Duke of Hamilton, the Marquis of Montrose, the Earl of Argyll, and nine other Earls and six Barons, the Lord President of the Court of Session, the Officers of State, Sir Jaraes Turner, and several gentle raen, the Provosts of St. Andrews, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Ayr, and Durafries, and the Dean of Edinburgh. It erapowered any five of thera, an Archbishop or Bishop being always one, to enforce the several Acts of Parliament and of the Privy Council " for the peace and order of the Church, and in behalf of the government thereof by Archbishops and Bishops." The Roman Catholics are speciaUy denounced, and all are ordered to be punished as dis affected and seditious persons who resort to conventicles. Those " ministers who Intrude theraselves illegally into parish churches — all preachers who corae from England or Ireland without testi monials or permission from the Bishops of the Dioceses ; aU such persons who keep raeetings and fasts, and the adrainistration of the Sacraraent of the Lord's Supper, which are not approven by • Preface to Life ofBishop Bedell, 12mo. London, 1685. X London, 4to. 1797, vol. U. 1664.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 757 authority ; aU who speak, write, or print, to the scandal, reproach, detriment of the State, or government of the Church or kingdora now established ; all who conteran, raolest, or injure ministers who are orderly, and obedient to the laws ; all who do not ordinarly attend divine worship, administration of the Word and Sacrament performed in their respective churches by ministers legally autho rized for taking the cure of these parishes, and in which those persons are inhabitants." The commissioners were to censure or depose rainisters, and punish by " fining, comraltting, and incar cerating them and all other persons who shall be found trans gressors as aforesaid." The Commission was to continue till the 1st of November, or till it was dissolved by the King. The Lord Chancellor Glencairn, the ninth Earl of that title, died on Whit Sunday. The disease which caused his death is said to have been occasioned by the alleged insult of the right of pre cedence before the Lord Chancellors and all Peers granted to Arch bishop Sharp as Primate. The truth or falsehood of this Is now of little moraent. Glencairn died in the raansion of Belton in Haddingtonshire. His body was brought to Holyroodhouse, where it lay in state until the 28th of July, when the Earl was magnifi cently interred at the public expence in the south-east of St Giles' Church at Edinburgh. Archbishop Burnet of Glasgow preached the funeral sermon, in which he extolled his Lordship's piety, loyalty, temperate and virtuous conduct, and eminent abilities. We have seen that the Earl of Glencairn was one of the chief pro moters of the re-establishment of the Episcopal Church, and he is consequently no favourite of the Presbyterians. He was undeni ably a wise and prudent nobleman, who discharged the duties of his high office with firmness and moderation. It Is said that a breach took place between him and Archbishop Sharp, who complained to the Court that he was dilatory In exacting obedi ence to the laws for conforraity, and that unless more vigorous measures were adopted it would be Impossible to preserve the Church. Something like this may have occurred, but really so many charges are brought against the Primate by his political and sectarian enemies, that it is difficult to believe any statement on such questionable and unscrupulous authority.* ' An excellent portrait of the Lord Chancellor Glencairn is in Pinkerton's " Scottish Gallery of Eminent Persons," 4to. 1799, vol. ii. Plate 44. 758 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [16^5. At the death of Glencairn the Great Seal was delivered to Arch bishop Burnet of Glasgow until a sucessor was appointed to the office of Lord ChanceUor. Archbishop Sharp, who thoroughly under stood the Earl of Lauderdale's designing and treacherous policy towards the Church, made a strong application In his own favour in opposition to that nobleman, who was also his personal enemy ; and though unsuccessful himself, he obtained the appointraent for the Earl of Rothes. The Primate and the Earl were summoned by the King in August to proceed to the Court. Rothes returned about the end of October, and arrived In Edinburgh invested with various offices of trust and dignity, in addition to the one which he held of Lord High Comraissioner to the Pariiaraent. It is stated that he was then also norainated Lord ChanceUor, but this is er roneous. In the Convention of Estates which raet at Edinburgh on the 2d of August 1665, when Archbishop Sharp and Bishop Wishart of Edinburgh were the only Prelates who attended, the Archbishop produced the royal warrant under the Great Seal con stituting the Earl of Rothes Lord High Comraissioner, and the King in his letter to the Convention norainated the Archbishop to preside. It Is recorded that " the King's Majesty having by his letter aforesaid appointed the Archbishop of St Andrews, in regard there is no Lord Chancellor, President of this Convention, he ac cordingly accepted of the office."* Rothes was not Lord Chan ceUor tUl 1667. Bishop George Hallyburton of Dunkeld, who had been long in a declining state of health, died at Perth on the 5th of April 1665.-f- Mr Scott candidly records in his Perth MS. Registers that " his life and conversation were irreproachable." He was succeeded in the See of Dunkeld by Henry Guthrie, already raen tioned as minister of Stirling, who was deposed In 1648 by a coraraittee of the Covenanting General Asserably for favouring the Engageraent to rescue Charles I. He was reponed by the Synod of Perth and Stirling in July 1655, having, though episco pally ordained, conformed to the then Presbyterian system, and was admitted minister of Kilspindie, a parish near Perth partly in the Carse of Gowrie, In which he continued tiU his consecra tion. WhUe at Kilspindie he wrote his " Memoirs, containing an * Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vu. p. 529. t Perth MS. Eegisters, in Advocates' Library, Edinburgh. 1665.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 759 Impartial Relation of the Affairs of Scotland, Civil and Ecclesias tical, frora the year 1637 to the Death of King Charles I." the impartiality of which, however, is often questioned, and sorao parts of it bitterly assailed by Sir Jaraes Turner. This narrative, which forms a striking contrast to most of the other tediously written histories of that time, was published by Crawfurd in 1702. Bishop Henry Guthrie, as previously noticed, was the son of John Guthrie, minister of Cupar- Angus, and was educated at the Uni versity of St Andrews, where he distinguished himself by his pro gress in the Latin and Greek languages. His abilities. In connec tion with the great respectability of the family of Guthrie of that Ilk, of which he was a relative, attracted the notice of the Earl of Mar, with whom he resided some years as chaplain, and by whose interest he became rainister of Stirling, to which he was episcopally inducted. With raany others so situated he took the Covenant in 1638, but he was never considered zealous in the cause by its supporters. On the 3d of October 1641, he preached before Charles I. in the Chapel-Royal of Holyrood at Edinburgh, and he delivered a speech in the Covenanting General Asserably of 1643, when an English deputation presented a letter frora the Westminster Assembly and the Declaration of the English Par liament, in which they very charitably proposed to " extirpate Episcopacy root and branch." The Covenanters found it neces sary to overawe him, and their treatraent of him at Stirling is previously related. During his retirement at Kilspindie, Bishop Guthrie Investigated the whole subject of church-governraent, and became convinced before he accepted the Diocese of Dunkeld that " a parity in the Church could not possibly be maintained so as to preserve unity and order among them, and that a superior authority must be brought in to settle them in unity and peace." Although the acts and proclaraations of the Privy Council and Commission were numerous for the regulation of the Church and conformity to Its constitution and government, and had a very salutary effect in many parts of the kingdom, yet in several dis tricts the Covenanting Presbyterian preachers maintained their influence with the peasantry. Nurabers of thera were prosecuted, especially In the Dioceses of Glasgow and Galloway. Some of those persons, who are still considered by their adrairers as pro digious sufferers, forgetting what was inflicted on the Episcopal 760 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1665. clergy after 1638 by the Covenanters, conducted themselves In the most insolent and audacious manner. One of thera, named Alex ander Smith, who had been expelled from the parish of Colvend in Kirkcudbrightshire, was apprehended in Leith, and carried be fore the Commission Court, for preaching violent sermons to pri vate audiences in that town and in Edinburgh. Archbishop Sharp and the Earl of Rothes were present. He chose to reply to some of the questions propounded to him in the contemptuous style of Covenanting malice and impertinence. When mentioning Arch bishop Sharp's name, he so comported himself that Rothes asked him — " If he knew to whora he was speaking V" " Yes, my Lord," replied Smith, " I do, I speak to Mr James Sharp, once a fellow minister with myself." For similar disrespectful language he was sent to the Thieves" Hole in the Tolbooth, and his violent conduct caused him to be put in irons. Probably this was unnecessary severity, but we must recollect the state of the times, the exclu sive and dangerous principles of the then Presbyterians, who were the declared enemies of toleration, and the great provocation which the Government continually received from those enthusiasts ; never theless those raen are continually represented as the best and most pious of mortals by the Presbyterians, while their opponents are delineated in the raost odious raanner, and aU the Covenanting offal repeated against them. And yet, notwithstanding all these mis representations, we have their own Kirkton thus avowedly admit ting in his peculiar way that the peasantry would have been peace able If left to themselves. " Truly," he says, " at this tirae [1665] the curates' auditories were reasonably throng ; the body of the people In most parts of Scotland, " waited upon their preachings ; and if they would have been content with what they had. In the opinion of many they might have stood longer than they did ; but their pride vowed they would be raore glorious and better followed than the Presbyterians, and because respect would not do it, force would."* The latter part of this passage abounds with gross per version of facts, and the undeniable narrative of the proceedings after the Revolution, when the Scottish Bishops refused to transfer their allegiance to WilUara III. is a coraplete refutation of the very veracious Mr Kirkton's statements. • Kirkton's Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland, edited by C. K. Sharpe, Esq. 4to. p. 221. 1665.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 761 On the 7th of December two proclamations were issued by the Privy Council, the one against preachers officiating in private houses, and against them that " did lodge them," says NicoU, " or reset them in their houses, or suffered their children to be bap tized [by them]." The other enjoined those who persisted to officiate in the parish churches without Diocesan authority to re move — prohibiting two of them to reside in the same parish, or to come within three miles of any royal burgh, or within six miles of Edinburgh or any cathedral church.* During this year the celebrated Bishop Burnet was admitted into holy orders by Bishop Wishart of Edinburgh, and pre sented by the influence of Sir Robert Fletcher of Salton to the parish of Salton in Haddingtonshire, which had been kept vacant for him during his absence on the Continent in 1664. He thus became the successor of Bishop ScougaU, already noticed as pro moted to the See of Aberdeen, and it appears that he was inducted on the 29th of January 1665. Burnet soon became popular in this parish, of which he continued incumbent till 1669, and the Presbyterians resorted to his ministry, though he was probably the only clergyraan at the tirae in Scotland who used the English Liturgy in Divine Service. It is raentioned to his honour that he preached twice every Sunday and once during the week — that he catechized regularly thrice every week, by which he was enabled to examine all his parishioners thrice during the year — that he visited the sick twice every day — that he adralnistered the Holy Communion four times in the year, personally instructing all who gave notice of their intention to coraraunicate — and that he gave m charity that which reraained of his incorae above the necessary expenses of his faraily. Sorae substantial raemorials remain at Salton of Burnet's incumbency. He bequeathed 20,000 merks for the education of thirty poor children and other purposes, the value of which sum is stated to be L.2000, the interest yielding the annual sum of L.80. The parochial schoolraaster derives L.6 annually ; the teacher of another school In the vUlage of West Salton founded and endowed by General Fletcher with a house and field, L.20 ; and the poor of the parish L.IO, from Burnet's bequest. Even the Estabhshed Presbyterian incumbent receives L.5 to purchase books for his raanse library. The thirty children, * Wodrow, vol. i. Appendix, p. 84, 85. NicoU's Diary, p. 442. 762 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1665. whose clothing costs about L.35, and L.26 aUowed to the school masters for their education, are locally designated Bishops, and the gallery in the parish church Is known to the inhabitants as the Bishop" s loft.* As Bishop Burnet died in 1715, twenty-five years after the establishment of Presbyterianisra, he raust have Intended the children to be educated In that systera. While at Salton in 1665, Burnet prepared a memorial of the aUeged abuses of tbe Scottish Bishops, which exposed him to their resentment. He accused thera of acting inconsistently with their functions — of being " remiss" — some of thera not residing In their Dioceses, and "those who did seeraed to take no care of them." He accused them of shewing " no zeal against vice" — that " the raost eminently wicked in the country were their particular confidents" — that " they took no pains to keep their clergy strictly to rules and do their duty ; on the con trary there was a levity and a carnal way of living about them that very much scandahzed him." Having resolved to be solely responsible for the consequences of those serious accu sations, Burnet set to work without mentioning his project to any one. " I laid my foundation," he states, " in the constitution of the Priraitive Church, and shewed how they had departed from it by their neglecting their Dioceses, meddling so much in secular affairs, raising their families out of the revenues of the Church, and above all, by their violent prosecuting of those who differed from them." He sent copies of the accusations to those Bishops with whom he was personally acquainted, and states that Arch bishop Sharp was alarmed, suspecting that he had been induced to draw up this raemorial by sorae of the Earl of Lauderdale's friends. His account of what followed Is curious, considering the celebrity of the individuals concerned. " I was called before the Bishops, and treated with great severity. Sharp called it a libel. I said, I had set my name to It, so It could not be a libel. He charged me with the presuraption of offering to teach ray superiors. I said, such things had been not only done, but justified in aU ages. He charged rae for reflecting on the King putting thera on his CouncUs. I said, I found no fault with the King for calling thera to his Councils, but with them for going out of that which was their proper province, and for giving ill counsel. Then he charged • New Statistical Account of Scotland — Haddingtonshire, p. 112, 113, 125, 126. 1665.] AND STATE OP THE KINGDOM. 763 me for reflecting on sorae severities, which, he said, was a re proaching public courts, and censuring the laws. I said, laws might be made in terrorem, not always fit to be executed ; but I only complained of clergymen pressing the rigorous execution of them, and going beyond what the law dictated. He broke out into a great vehemence, and proposed to the Bishops that I should be summarily deprived and excoraraunicated ; but none of them would agree to that. By this raanageraent of his the thing grew public. What I ventured upon was variously censured, but the greater part approved of it. Lord Lauderdale and his friends were delighted with It ; and he gave the King an account of it, who was not ill pleased at It. Great pains were taken to make me ask pardon, but to no purpose. So Sharp let the thing fall."* Such is Burnet's narrative, and the presumption of his conduct is at once evident when we have his own declaration that he was then only twenty-three years of age. He admits that he was " variously censured," though the " greater part approved," which was to be expected, because the said " greater part " coraprehended the Presbyterians and the political enemies of the Church, who were certain to " approve " any charge against the Bishops. It is impossible to ascertain the extent of the truth or falsehood of those accusations, and when we recollect Burnet's notorious parti ality, and his unscrupulous representations of the characters, lives, and acquirements of those whom he disliked, his reflections on the Bishops of his native Church may be received as mere matters of opinion. But his gross exaggerations wiU be more apparent by a very brief examination of his statements. He asserts that some of the Bishops did not reside within their Dioceses, but he does not specify the number. Now, with the exception of Bishop Fletcher of Argyll, who continued minister of Melrose, all the other Bishops resided constantly in their Dioceses, and were only absent when attending Parliament or the public business connected with the Church. Burnet was not the personification of the whole of Scotland, and it was impossible for him to know practically the mode in which the resident Bishops "took care" of their Bioceses. His assertions that they " shewed no zeal against vice," and that the " most evidently wicked in the country were theu- particular confidents," are of no more iraportance than * Burnet's History of His Own Times, vol. i. p. 216. 764 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1665. they are really worth. As to their " raising their families out of the revenues of the Church," this is such a false and outrageous accusation that it deserves to be received with contempt, and is one of the many proofs that Burnet's opponents were not far wTong in accusing him of enormous lying. Where were those revenues ? The two Archbishops were Uraited enough in incorae. Bishop Fletcher at first refused the See of Argyll, as BaUlie admits, because there was no income ; Kirkton asserts that Dun blane was the " poorest " of all the Bishoprics ; and those of Edin burgh, Dunkeld, Brechin, Galloway, The Isles, Ross, and Moray, are admitted by Presbyterian writers to have been Completely dilapidated upwards of sixty years before the Restoration of Charles II. As to the charge against the Bishops of " violent prosecuting of those who differed frora thera," it is undeniable that the prose cution, whether " violent " or otherwise, was carried on by the Government and not by the Church ; and if the Bishops advised stringent and harsh measures, allowances niust be made for the Infirmities of human nature, the provocations and insults they received, the infaraous lies and scandals circulated against them, and the equally " violent " conduct of the Presbyterian preachers, whose Intolerant principles are too well known — men who would have extirpated by the sword, and without mercy, every person in Scotland who differed from themselves. But let the reader con trast the above raisrepresentation of this very Bishop Bumet with his testimony in another work respecting the Scottish Bishops, and the falsehood of one or other of his statements Is at once apparent. " I shall not," he says, " add rauch of the Bishops that have been in that Church [of Scotland] since the last re- establishraent of the order [in 1661], but that I have observed, among the few of them I had tlie honour to be known particularly, as great and as exemplary things as ever I met with in all ecclesiastical history. Not only the practice of the strictest of all the ancient Canons, but a, pitch of virtue and piety beyond what can fall under common imitation, or be made the measure of even the most angelical rank of men; and saw things In thera that would look liker fair Ideas than what raen clothed with flesh and blood could grow up to. But of this I will say no more, since those that are concerned are yet alive, and their character is too singular not to make them to be easily known, if I, enlarged upon it, as if I naraed thera." After pro- 1666.] AND STATE OF THE KINGDOM. 765 nouncing a high eulogium on Bishop Scougall of Aberdeen, whom he justly delineates as one of the most pious, dignified, and up right men of his time, Burnet concludes — " And now I have done with this digression, which not being at all foreign to my design of raising the credit due to that venerable Order, I shall make no apology for It."* Thus wrote Bishop Burnet in 1684, for his Life of Bishop Bedell was not published till 1685, and by contrasting the above recorded statements with his accusations against the Scottish Bishops in 1665, when he was only twenty-three years of age, the reader wiU easily estimate the value of the renowned Bishop of Sahsbury's opinions. Another instance of Burnet's unscrupulous conduct to serve his particular purposes is worthy of notice. In 1672 he published his " Vindication of the Authority, Constitution, and Laws of the Church and State of Scotland," which was thought such a public service that he was offered a Bishopric. It is a defence of the royal prerogatives of the Crown and the estabhshraent of the Episcopal Church in Scotland against George Buchanan's political admirers and the whole fraternity of the Presbyterians, and was dedicated to the Earl [then Duke] of Lauderdale. When afterwards censured for representing the cha racter of Lauderdale In a very different raanner from what he had done in his Dedication, he rephed that " the book was wrote when the Duke was the King's Commissioner in Scotland, and dedicated to him at his own request ; and that If what had happened a year and a half after that had given him other thoughts of that minis ter of State, it was no proof that he wrote disingenuously at that time."t On the 8th of February 1666 the Privy CouncU Issued a pro clamation, founded on two acts of Pariiaraent in the reign of James VL, for punishing the writers, printers, and venders of .scandalous and seditious libels, conderaning a pamphlet entitled "An Apologetical Narration of the Suffering Ministers of the Kirk of Scotiand since August 1661." This is said to have been the production of John Brown, the expeUed preacher frora the parish of Wamphray In Dumfriesshire, already mentioned as one of the four who were banished for nonconformity. It was ordered to be burnt by the coraraon executioner on the High Street of « Preface to Life of Bishop BedeU. t Cited in the " Biographia Britannica," folio, vol. ii. p. 1035. 766 CHANGES IN THE EPISCOPATE [1666. Edinburgh near the Cross on the 14th of February. Those per sons south of the Tay who had copies of it in their possession were enjoined to transrait to the sheriffs or their deputes ofthe respec tive counties before the last day of February, and those north of the Tay before the 21st of March, under the penalty of L.2000 Scots, to be exacted " without any favour or defalcation." Few incidents of importance occur in the history of the Church during the spring of 1666. In the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod of Fife is the following notice under date 25th April. At St Andrews — " It was resolved if any person be Inclined to Popery or Quakerism, to be reported to the Archbishop. Moderators are to take notice of the uniforraity of ministers In their practice of causing the Creed to be recited at baptisms, and of singing the Doxology, and of making use of the Lord's Prayer in public." This allusion to Quakerism deserves a brief notice. The principles of that extraordinary sect of religionists had been introduced into the South of Scotland about 1653, and we find, among others, an ancestor of Sir Walter Scott becoming a Quaker. It was not, however, till 1662 that the tenets of the Quakers were first publicly professed, and they had travelled as far north as the episcopal town of Aberdeen. Three of the citizens became converts, and the Magistrates considered this innovation too serious to remain unnoticed. Those persons were summoned before the civic author ities, who ordered them to be banished from the town, and pro hibited the inhabitants to admit them into their houses under severe penalties. In 1663 and 1664 a few of thera were Im prisoned in the common jail. One convert to Quakerism, named Alexander Jaffray, otherwise a very respectable citizen, was sum raoned by Bishop Scougall, and through hira by Archbishop Sharp, at the instance of Mr. George Meldrura and Mr John Menzies, the clergymen of the town, before the High Court of Comraission. If we are to credit Friend John Barclay, the " Arch bishop hiraself, who condescended to confer with Alexander Jaffray, could get no advantage in argument against him ; nevertheless, to satisfy these ministers, the sentence of the Court was that he should be confined to his own dwelling-house, and keep no meet ings therein, nor go any where without the Bishop's licence, under the penalty of a fine of 600 raerks Scots raoney, which Is L.33, sterling." Another of them named Urquhart was excommunicateS 1666.] AND STATE OP THE KINGDOM. 767 this year by Mr WUliam Forbes, whose " own daughter, Jane Forbes," says Friend John Barclay, "was convinced of the ti-uth(!) and joined the people called Quakers."* Those rtdigionists had miraculous interpositions in their favour as woll as the Presby terian preachers, who mortally hated them. The young lady's father was ordered to pronounce excommunication against her, which he was resolved to perform, in the hope that it would reclaim her from any connection with the sect, and " had uttered some kind of prayers previous thereto when he was suddenly struck by death at the very time he had purposed to deliver that sentence." This veracious Quaker tradition would have been an excellent story for Mr Robert Wodrow. We are told that in the " ninth raonth 1666, George Meldrum, accounted one of the chief rainisters of Aberdeen, preached a whole sermon expressly against the people oaUed Quakers," and ecclesiastical proceedings were soon after wards commenced against Friend Alexander Jaffray. Bishop ScougaU conferred with the Quaker, in presence of his brother and his son, and some controversy subsequently ensued between Jaffray and Mr Meldmm. The sentiments of the Presbyterians respecting Quakerism may be inferred from one of their historians : — " Tbis great man [Meldrum] was remarkably useful, with his coUeague Mr Menries in Aberdeen, against the Quakers and Jesuits ;" and " on the 2d of June 1663, they made a very good act against the Quakers ; but the Bishops gave the Council so much to do against the Presbyterian nonconformists, that these people were suffered to rest in quiet, for they mightily increased during this reign.""!- On the 30th of January 1 666 the Earl of Lauderdale wrote to Archbishop Sharp, promising that no one should be raised to the episcopate in future without his approval. The purport of this arrangement is not very clear. Bishop Paterson of Ross also wi'ote to the Primate, coraplaining of the irapohcy of exiling the " westland gentlemen," as he designates the Covenanting leaders, in the northern Dioceses, because they had In several instances " alienated the hearts of many who were of another principle be fore,'" and he " begs these gentleraen raay be recaUed, that they * Diary of Alexander Jaffray, Provost of Aberdeen, with Particulars of his Subse quent Life, in connection with the rise of the People called Quakers in the North of Scotland; by John Barclay, Svo. London, 1833, p. 241, 242. t History of the Church of Scotland from the Eestoration to the Eevolution, by WilUam Crookshank, Svo. London, 1749, vol. i. p. 150, 159. 768 STATE OP THE KINGDOM. [1666. spread not their infection any more." Yet the leniency of the Governraent at this period is adraitted by Wodrow, who says^ — " In the beginning of this year Presbyterian rainisters had some conniv ance, and were permitted to live In their hired houses when turned out of their livings. The call of the importunate multitude was not so great as afterwards, and generally they only preached to, their own families and a few neighbours who now and then stole into their houses. Field preachings, unless it were in some places in the South, where the people would not hear the curates, were but very rare. The meetings of the episcopal rainisters In cities and towns, except where they were openly profane and vicious, were as much frequented as they could well expect."* This usual allegation of profanity and vice against the episcopal clergy evinces the despi cable malignity of feeling which pervaded such men as Wodrow, who, not content with attacking the principles or opinions oi their opponents, defamed their private lives and moral characters. But were the Presbyterians themselves iramaculate? Let this very Wodrow answer. " I hear," he says, " of several [Presbyterian] ministers, since the Revolution, that have been guUty of terrible sins." The crimes of the persons whora he raentions by name are too infamous to be here stated, and he adds — " What need of the deepest hurailiation for these things !"•[- Nicoll mentions that a meeting of the Bishops was held in the beginning of May this year, probably at Edinburgh, after which, on the 4th, Archbishop Sharp went to London. The object of this meeting, or of the Primate's journey, is no where stated. It Is probable that the ravages of the great " Plague " in London in duced him to return without proceeding thither, for we are told that on the 30th of May " there went a proclamation through Edinburgh, discharging all trade and traffic with England, by reason of the pest now Increasing." * Wodrow's History, foUo, vol. i. p. 236, 237. t Wodrow's Analecta, 4to, 1842, vol. 1. p. 269, 270. 1666.] 769 CHAPTER VII. DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH AND PLOTS OF ITS ENEMIES. To investigate the Presbyterian raartyrologies, frora the two pon derous foho voluraes of Wodrow, and the rabid edition of that work by Dr Burns of Paisley, to the " Cloud of Witnesses"" and " Scots Worthies,""* would be not worth the time required for such a task. Neither is it necessary to allude to the misrepresentations and scurrilities in which the more recent admirers of the Covenanters in Charles II's reign delight to Indulge against the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and especially its clergy, or, in their language, curates. Those persons are for the most part men of narrow rainds, educated in aU the prejudices of the Presbyterian sects to which they belong, bitter in their hatred of the Church generally, and of the Church of England in particular, while their fulrainations, when they men tion the Scottish Episcopal Church of the past or the present time, prove that many of them would willingly act the grand draraa of 1638 if they had the power. It raust attract the notice of every inquirer into the history of that period, that for years after the Eestoration tho Presbyterians had scarcely a man of rank and influence among them. Even Lord Lorn, the son of the Covenant ing Marquis of ArgyU, who was restored to his grandfather's title of Earl of Argyll under the Great Seal in October 1663, and on the same day obtained a grant of the Earldom, was one of the noblemen specified in the warrant for the High Comraission in 1664 to assist with the Archbishops, Bishops, and others, in putting down conventicles. He also raised 2000 men to suppress the in surrection which broke out at the end of that year. The great misfortune of Scotland during the seventeenth century was the want of an educated middle class of society, to whose • The " Cloud of Witnesses" and " Scots Worthies" are the titles of two well known volumes popular among the Scottish Presbyterian peasantry. 49 770 DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH [1666. calm and unbiassed judgment the controversies which then agi tated the comraunity could be subraitted. The great mass of the people were chiefly of two classes — masters and vassals, the latter generally guided by the opinions of their superiors. In the High land counties the Chiefs for nearly a century afterwards ruled their Clans in the most despotic raanner, having hereditary jurisdiction oi pit and gallows, or power of life and death, which they exercis ed towards criminals in the most capricious and summary manner. To such serfs the word of the Chief was law, his wishes were theirs, and they were ready to embark in any enterprize at his comraand, without troubling themselves as to the justice or expediency of the cause. In raany parts of the Lowlands matters were little better. Even in Haddingtonshire previous to 1775 the great proportion of the people, who were then colliers and salters, were In the condition of slavery. They were literaUy sold with the property to new purchasers ; and the consequence was that in this state of bondage their morals were vitiated, their prejudices perpetuated, and their education corapletely neglected. The inhabitants of the towns had a very limited Intercourse with each other, and in many cases were animated by fierce resentments occasioned by forraer jealousies, quarrels, and rivalries. The trade and commerce of the kingdom were insignificant ; agriculture was in a wretched state ; the roads were everywhere deplorable ; no newspapers or periodicals ; no post-office facilities for correspondence ; and no public conveyances. All this was the bane of the population, which caused many mi series and severities to be inflicted on offenders, for which their obstinacy gave too much provocation. Having no public sources of information, they were easily misled and excited by enthusiasts, and they pertinaciously adhered to the principles which they im bibed from such channels. Never was there a more monstrous perversion of truth than to ascribe the sufferings of the Covenanters as inflicted at the instance of or occasioned by the Episcopal Church. If the Covenanters were persecuted, it was for rebellion against the Government, and what ever opinions may be formed of that Governraent it was the only lawrful one of the tirae. It is indeed sickening to peruse the de tails of the torments and executions of the field-preachers and other unfortunate persons at that period ; and the wUd heroism or enthusiasm, even in their case, cannot fail to excite In the 1666.] AND PLOTS OP ITS ENEMIES. 771 abstract a degree of admiration which induced some of thera to exclaim under the gibbet — " Farewell, sun, moon, and stars ; fare well, world and time ; farewell, weak frail body ; welcome eternity ; welcome angels and saints ; welcome Saviour ofthe world ; and wel come God the Judge of all."* We can only deplore that so many of them sacrificed their lives in a cause for which even the Revolution procured no advantage — a cause utterly incompatible with toleration. Impartial government, or civil and religious freedora. The following remarks on the conduct of the Covenanters in the reign of Charles II. by a Presbyterian are judicious and pointed — " But when It is considered that all that was atterapted by the Government was to establish Episcopacy In Scotland instead of Presbyterianisra, one cannot help regretting that the Covenanters should have exposed themselves to such hardships for the one system raore than the other. — Who that has ever read and considered the Liturgy, or seen the decent and orderly manner in which the public service is conducted in the English churches, would be alarmed although Episcopacy were to be established in Scotland during the next session of Parliament ? And who but enthusiasts, or people who were misled, would have exposed themselves to hardships, and thrown away their own lives, murdered others, risen up in open rebellion against the Governraent, and endured such hardships as the Covenanters did to extirpate Episcopacy, and establish Pres byterianism on Its ruins, in either Scotland or England ? Epis copacy is admitted by all Presbyterians to be every way as sound and pure as Presbyterianism in every thing that relates to the doctrines of grace."-f- The origin of the insurrection against the Government towards the end of 1 666 is never fairly stated by the Presbyterian writers. It was not so much on account of the opposition of the mass of the peasantry to the Church, as the result of the fines authorized by the ParUament to be levied from aU who were disaffected, or who contravened the acts of Pariiament and Privy Council by for saking their parish churches, or who were supposed to resort to • The above were the dying words of the young field-preacher named Hugh Mackail, taken prisoner in the skirmish at Pentland, and executed for his concern in that insurrection. t History of the Eencontre at Drumclog and Battle at BothweU Bridge in 1679, by WnUam AitoD, Esq. Sheriff-Substitute, HamUton, Svo. 1821, p. 27, 28. 772 DIFFICULTIES OP THE CHURCH [1666. field-preachings or conventicles. Such compulsory measures would now be justly reprobated by all classes, but in that age they were considered necessary to preserve order and secure obedience to the Government. The names of Whig and Tory had then been intro duced as epithets of bitter reproach ; the former, as is well known, being the soubriquet applied to the Presbyterian conventiclers — what was called Whig indicating milk turned sour ; and the latter appellation said to be derived from Irish banditti, whose usual phrase, when ordering people to stand and deliver, was their ver nacular word toree, or give me. Sir James Turner, who was a kind of literary soldier of fortune, described by his enemies as a man of a " furious temper, and dissolute life," but which, from his own " Memoirs" seems to be a very unwarrantable assertion,* was sent Into the Diocese of GaUoway at the head of a military force, who were quartered on the suspected delinquents, and exacted the fines authorized by the Parliament. The Presbyterians accuse Sir James Turner of compeUing pay ment of the fines in the most arbitrary manner, without proof or legal conviction, and of perambulating the district, and receiving lists from the clergy of those who refused to resort to the parish churches. His own statement is probably the most accurate, especially as he was evidently a man who would have scorned to distort the truth. He says — " In the month of March 1665, I was the second tirae commanded to that Stewartry [Kirkcudbright] with a party, consisting of 120 foot and 30 horse, to put the laws concerning Church ordinances in execution, the people having been extremely outrageous to their ministers and disobedient to disci pline. I stayed about two months in that country, and reduced it to an indifferent good order, by cessing on some, and by both cess- ing and fining many, and by fair means prevailed with raany, so that the rainisters thought if I had been permitted to have stayed longer they might have had comfort in their charges by a toler able compliance of their parishioners. Sorae raoney I exacted sparingly frora those of whose obedience I had hopes, but frora such as the ministers and I judged obstinate I took some raoney, and bonds for aU they were found to be duly owing, as twenty shUlings Scots [Is. 8d.] for every Lord's day they had absented themselves • The " Memoirs of his own Life and Times, by Sir James Turner, from 1632 to 1670," from the original MS. 4to. Edinburgh, 1829, are worthy of perusal. 1666.] AND PLOTS OF ITS ENEMIES. 773 from their parish churches. — I assured the persons who gave the bonds, that upon testificates frora their several ministers of their frequenting the church and dishaunting conventicles, it was pro bable their bonds would be retumed to them for little or no money at aU ; and this I thought fit to shew thera at parting." Sir James Turner was again sent by the Government to Kirkcudbrightshire in 1666, at the instance of Archbishops Sharp and Burnet, to whora the clergy had coraplained of the violence of the people. He cora- manded 120 foot ; and 30 horse were ordered to follow hira for " bringing in the parliaraentary fines as they were called." — " I was sufficiently erapowered," he says, " with orders and Instruc tions frora ray Lord Commissioner [Rothes] for cessing, quarter ing on, and fining persons disobedient to church ordinances, neither had at aU any order to cite or process formally the contemners and disfrequenters of churches, and those who raarried and baptized with outed ministers, for they knew less than I which of their parishioners frequented conventicles. They might, indeed, miss them out of their churches, but could not tell where they were. I was commanded to make Inquiry after such, and to bestow liberally upon intelligence, both to find them out and the fugitive ministers whom I had order to apprehend, and to find out such who har boured them, and to quarter on them, and fine thera. And by this means I was raore able to inform the Bishop and ministers of these disorderly meetings, and who were at them, than they could inform me."* Sir James Turner mentions the declaration of a preacher to himself,j that " nothing would satisfy his party but the downfall of Episcopacy and the restoration of Presbyterian government." Acting on these principles, and enraged at the levying of the fines, a rebeUion broke out in Durafries in the beginning of Noveraber 1666, and having surprized Turner in that town they resolved to murder him, but finding that his orders were more stringent than his enforcement of them they spared his life, though they detained him a prisoner. He gives a raost arausing account of his intercourse with their leaders whUe in their custody. He was told that It would be " just both with God and raan to put him to death on a Sabbath-day, in regard, said they, he had forced many precious Christians to transgress the Sabbath by hindering thera to hear * Sir James Turner's Memoirs, p. 140, 141, 142, 143. 774 DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH [1666. their lawful pastors in hills and woods, and forced them to go to church to hear dumb dogs, for so they qualified conforra rainisters." One of their preachers naraed Welsh edified hira with a " tedious discourse of the Covenant, which, as he [Welsh] said, had raade Scotland glorious in the eyes of the nations." On another occa sion two of thera visited hira, and he called for sorae ale purposely to hear thera ask a blessing. " It fell to Mr Robinson to seek the blessing, who said one of the most bombastic graces that ever I heard in ray life. He summoned Almighty God very imperiously to be their secondary, for that was his language : ' And if,' said he, ' Thou wilt not be our secondary, we will not fight for Thee at aU, for it is not our cause but Thy cause, and if Thou wilt not fight for our cause and Thy own cause, we are not obliged to fight for It.' — This grace did more fully satisfy me of the folly and injustice of their cause than the ale did quench my thirst." On the following day — " Mr Gabriel Semple did himself enter in a discourse with me of Episcopacy, Presbytery, and the Covenant. I was very free with hira, declaring ray raind concerning all the three. Then he Inquired of me whether I thought vice and sin were not more punished in the time of Presbytery than they were now in the time of Episcopacy. I answered that though I should grant that to be true, yet it would militate only against the Bishops' persons, and not at all against their functions ; but that he might see I would not grant him that either, I told him I never saw either public or private sin more abound than in the years 1643 and 1644, when the Solemn League and Covenant was subscribed by many. He pursued that discourse no farther, but told me I was in disgrace with the King, deserted by the Bishops, and threatened with death by the General ; and that I might easily rid myself of aU these difficulties by signing the Covenant." The Insurgents renewed the Soleran League and Covenant at Lanark, and published a raanifesto. In which they pretended sub mission to the King on the condition that Presbyterianism was to be established and their preachers restored to the parishes. They mustered 2000 strong, commanded by a mUitary leader designat ed Colonel WaUace. On this occasion Sir James Turner narrowly escaped instant death by only one vote. " Let now all people of Irapartial judgment determine," he says, " whether this army of pretended saints spent this Lord's day as Christians ought to do ; 1666.] AND PLOTS OF ITS ENEMIES. 775 and those who raake Sabbath-breaking a crying sin, how wiU they excuse this crew of rebellious hypocrites, who begun that day's work in the raorning with stealing a silver spoon and a night-gown at Douglas, and spent the rest of the day most of them in exer cising in a military way, and the rest in plundering houses and horses, and did not bestow one hour or minute of it in the Lord's service, either in prayers, praises, or preaching : but they made a good amends at night for omitting the duties of the day by pass ing one act for renewing the Covenant, and another for murdering me whenever they should think fit." The Insurgents now advanced towards Edinburgh, though re duced by desertion to little raore than 1000 raen. Thoraas Dalyell of Binns in Linlithgowshire, who had entered the Russian service as a Ueutenant-general and was elevated to the rank of general, took the field against thera. It is related of this erainent cavalier officer, who fifteen years afterwards raised the celebrated and dis tinguished regiment the Scots Greys, who were intended to keep the unruly Covenanters under restraint, that to testify his grief for the murder of Charles I., to whom he was devotedly attached, he always afterwards allowed his beard to grow. By a bold march from Edinburgh across the Pentland Hills, about six miles from the city, he intercepted the Covenanting force endeavouring to return to the western counties on the evening of the 28th of No vember. A conflict ensued on the locality known as RuUion Green in Glencorse parish — a rising ground a short distance to the south of Turnhouse Hill, the south-east elevation of the Pentland range. The insurgents received the first charge with firmness, but this was only momentary, for they soon fell into confusion and fled. About forty were kiUed on the spot, and a hundred and thirty were taken prisoners, several of whom were preachers. A stone, caUed the Martyrs" Tomb by the admirers of the Covenanters, is erected on the field to the raeraory of those who feU. The prisoners were brought to Edinburgh, and raany of thera were executed, sorae having been inhumanly tortured by order of the Privy CouncU. This was the usual vengeance inflicted on cap tive Insurgents, and if an undue severity was then exercised the Presbyterians ought to recoUect that they never manifested any sym pathy for the fate of the numerous persons, some of them of the first rank In Scotland andEngland, who perished for their connection 776 DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHUECH [1667. with the Enterprizes of 1715 and 1745. Ten of the RuUion Green rebels were hanged In Edinburgh, and thirty-flve before their own houses in different parts of the country, but it is to be observed that all of thera could have saved their lives on condition of renouncing the Covenant, with which they obstinately refused to comply.* Archbishop Sharp Is accused of purposely concealing a letter from the King to the Privy Council procured by Archbishop Burnet, ordering such of the prisoners as simply promised to obey the laws to be set at liberty, and the obstinate or Incorrigible sent to the plantations ; and that by this criminal delay the young preacher Hugh Mackail, who would otherwise have escaped, was tortured by the instrument caUed the iron boot. It Is impossible to ascertain whether this charge against the Primate is true, though if it were it is a raatter which personally concerns hiraself, and the Episcopal Church was not and could not be responsible for his individual acts. One fact is now ascertained, that during the trial and ex ecution of the insurgents Archbishop Sharp was not in Edin burgh during the greater part of the raonth at aU, and took no part in the judicial proceedings against them. He was at his own residence in St Andrews; and a certain Matthew Mackail, de scribed as an apothecary, the cousin of the preacher Mackail, actually proceeded to St Andrews to solicit his interference on behalf of his relative. On the 2d of January 1667, the King wrote a short letter to Archbishop Sharp, thanking him for his services in suppressing the insurrection ; and on the 4th of May the Privy Council received a letter from the King enjoining due respect to be shewn to the clergy. During this year the Primate seems to have been oc cupied with the Internal affairs of his Diocese. In the minutes of the Synod of Fife is this note, under date 1st October. — " The Lord Archbishop and Synod appoint that the Corarau- • NicoU thus records the execution of the insurgent prisoners — " Upon the 7th day of December, [General Dalyell] presented them to the Privy CouncU, who caused execute, headed and quartered, ten of these persons at the Market Cross of Edinburgh ; item, upon the 14th day of December, there were also execute at the Market Cross of Edinburgh four of these compilers with the rebels. Upon the 26th of December there were six men hanged at Edinburgh Cross, commonly called the Whigs, whereof Mr Hugh Mackail, expectant mini.ster was one, and Humphry Colquhoun, merchant in Glasgow, was another, with other four, who aU of them pretended they died for God and the Covenant. Upon the 19th of December there were four men hanged at Glas gow, who were commonly called the Whigs," Diary, p. 452, 453. 1668.] AND PLOTS OP ITS ENEMIES. 777 nion be given In each church at least once in the year at a convenient time about the end of March or in AprU, and this to be marked in the Presbytery book." It is said that in the be ginning of 1667 the Primate was ordered by Rothes at the com mand of the King to remain within his Diocese, superintend the education of George fourth Marquis of Huntly and first Duke of Gordon, whose faraily were then Roraan Catholics, and resort no more to Edinburgh. The object of this prohibition is not stated, and it is probably not true, for we find the Archbishop writing to Rothes from London that year, severely reproving hira for his immoral life ; and his letters to that nobleman, it is well ob served, " do hira much credit as a candid friend and sage adviser." The Archbishop says that he had been two days much at Lambeth, and in a conversation at Worcester House he found since Rothes left London, that attempts had been made to do himself " ill offices," and Injury to the Earl. He thus honestly tells Rothes the ac counts of his habits which were circulated in London — " That you are unfit to prosecute the King's service, not at all concerning yourself in it, being dissolute, lascivious, and wholly given up to foUow your pleasures ; caring for none, and being Intimate with none, but such kind of persons who are without brains or raorality, whom you keep always about you for drinking, carding, dicing, and [worse], so as your famUy and way give the example to all looseness throughout the country."* Before the end of the year he again took his place in the Privy Council, and it is admitted that he acted with great moderation. His alleged severity to the Covenanters may have resulted from a knowledge of their plots against his life, of which he had soon an undoubted instance. On the 11th of July 1668, while quietly sitting in his coach in the High Street of Edinburgh, opposite the alley known as the Blackfriars' Wynd, waiting for Bishop Honyman of Orkney, a field-preacher named James Mitchell attempted to assassinate the Archbishop by shooting at him. This Mitchell appears to have been the same person with whora Sir Jaraes Turner came Into contact while he was the prisoner of the Covenanters at Douglas In Lanarkshire. " I was accosted," he says, " by one Mitchell, whom I had never seen before, a preacher, but no ac tual minister, who spared not to raU sufficiently against aU autho- ' Kirkton's History, edited by C. K. Sharpe, Esq. note, p. 261, 262. 778 DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH. [1668. rity both supreme and subaltern." Wodrow describes MitcheU as a " preacher of the gospel, and a youth of much zeal and piety (!), but perhaps had not those opportunities for learning and conver sation which would have been useful to hira. I find Mr TraiU, [Presbyterian] rainister at Edinburgh in the year 1661, recom mending him to sorae rainisters in Galloway as a good youth that had not much to subsist upon, and as fit for a school or teaching gentlemen's children. He was at Pentland, and is excepted from the inderanlty." It appears that this wretched person had been rejected by the Covenanting Presbytery of Dalkeith for ignorance, but he afterwards obtained a situation in the family of a country gentleman, from which he was dismissed for licentious intercourse with the wife of the gardener. He resorted to Edinburgh, be carae intiraate with the infamous Major Weir, a Covenanting hy pocrite notorious in the local annals of the city, afterwards exe cuted for the most disgusting crimes, and was by that worthy re coraraended to the niece of Johnston of Warriston, a noted fanatical lady. Mitchell frequented field-preachings, was zealous for the Covenant, and joined the insurrection which was extinguished by General Dalyell at RuUion Green near the Pentland Hills. He contrived to escape, and was denounced as a traitor. Such was the " youth of rauch zeal and piety"" eulogized by Wodrow and the other writers of his party. Archbishop Sharp on this occasion had been visiting his brother afterwards Sir William Sharp, whose residence was opposite the Blackfriars' Wynd, and he had seated hiraself in his coach distri buting charity to the poor. Bishop Honyman was in the act of stepping into the coach beside the Primate, when Mitchell, who was disguised by an old wig, came forward and discharged a loaded pistol. The shot designed for the Archbishop was re ceived by Bishop Honeyman in his left arm above the wrist, and he was so seriously wounded that, though he lived a few years after wards, his physicians were obliged to open it every year for what Bishop Burnet calls an " exfoliation." As this atrocious attempt at murder was perpetrated on the afternoon of a suramer day, and on the principal street of the city, great excitement prevailed. Accord ing to Wodrow's gossip — "the cry arose, Aman was killed; and some rogues answered it was but a Bishop, and all was calmed very soon. The two Bishops made all the haste they could to the house where 1668.] AND PLOTS OP ITS ENEMIES. 779 they had been." Burnet asserts that the Priraate was " so uni versally hated that, though this was done in full day-light, and on the High Street, nobody offered to seize the assassin." This, however, is not the fact. Wodrow narrates that Mitchell walked towards a neighbouring alley caUed NIddry's A\^ynd after firing the pistol, where a man offered to stop him, but the assassin presented another pistol, and the person was afraid to seize him. He pro ceeded down the alley into the Cowgate, and entered another of the numerous steep lanes which lead thence to the High Street. He went to the house of one Fergusson, an ejected preacher, assumed a different dress, and then very deliberately returned to the street, where, indeed, he was less likely to be suspected, and hypocriti cally affected the greatest anxiety to discover the assassin who had, as was rumoured, klUed the Priraate in his coach. The Archbishop was greatly affected by this atrocious atterapt on his life. Bishop Burnet tells us that he subsequently waited on him to congratulate him on his escape, and that the Primate was " much touched," and " put on a show of devotion." He said with a very serious look — " My times are wholly in thy hand, O thou God of my life." Bumet adds — " This was the single expression savouring of piety that ever fell from him in all the conversation that passed between hira and me ;" but it will be readily conceded, especially after Burnet's abuse of his ecclesiastical superiors in 1665, when he was only twenty-three years of age, that his inter course with the Archbishop was very limited and superficial. More over, the Primate had no connection with Burnet, whose parish of Salton is in the Diocese of Edinburgh, and still less with the College of Glasgow, to which Bumet was removed as Professor of Divinity in the following year. Though Mitchell escaped at this time the due punishraent which his infamous attempt deserved, Archbishop Sharp had viewed him so carefully after he fired the pistol, that he was able to recognize him some years afterwards in an extraordinary manner when meditating a similar atrocity. Meanwhile he concealed himself in the garden of Sir Archibald Primerose, then Clerk Register, during that night, and on the following raorning he thought it prudent to leave the town with a certain Major Learmonth and two other heroes of the battle of RuUion Green ; and escaping to Holland, he was not seen in Scotland till 1673. During that interval he is 780 DIFFICULTIES OP THE CHURCH [1668. said to have rambled through HoUand, England, and Ireland, and his attempt to assassinate the Archbishop was so much extolled by the Covenanters, that when he returned his fanaticisra and vanity induced hira to hazard it again, but the result, as will be seen, was very different. As soon as Mitchell's outrage was intimated to the Privy Coun cil they assembled, and offered a reward for his apprehension. They also sent an account of it to the King, In which their official narrative is — that " Saturday last in the evening, as the Arch bishop of St Andrews and Bishop of Orkney were going abroad, the Archbishop being In his coach, and the other stepping up, a wicked fellow standing behind the coach did shoot the Bishop of Orkney beneath his right hand, and broke his left arm a little above the wrist with five balls, and iraraediately crossing the street went down a lane and escaped." The indecent exultations of the Presbyterian writers at the accident which befell the Bishop of Orkney is too infaraous to be omitted. Wodrow, in recording the atterapt of his " youth [Mitchell] of much zeal and piety,"" records that " people could not help observing the righteousness of Provi dence in disabling Bishop Honyman ;" and another of the malevo lent fraternity states that " God, as it were, beat the pen out of his hand by a bullet that lighted on his arm and wrist." This alludes to Bishop Honyman's pamphlet entitled the " Survey of Naphtali." On the 18th of July the Earl of Lauderdale wrote to Archbishop Sharp, congratulating him on his escape from as sassination, and condoling with the Bishop of Orkney for his severe wound. It is unnecessary to inquire into the sincerity of this epistle. During this year Bishop Leighton of Dunblane Is said to have brought forward an "Accommodation," or ' ' Comprehension Scheme," to counteract the influence of those " hot fiery preachers," as they are designated by Bishop Burnet, who itinerated through the western counties and inflamed the already excited peasantry. It was pro posed to diminish greatly the authority of the Bishops, to aboUsh their negative voice In the ecclesiastical courts, and to leave them little more than the right of a president or raoderator araong the Presbyters. If a negative was on the occasion necessary. It was to be exercised by the King, or sorae lay person authorized by the Crown, if the Bishops considered such to be indispenslble. Yet, 1669.] AND PLOTS OF ITS ENEMIES. 781 according to Burnet's account, Leighton was not very sincere or sanguine in his project, for we are told that " he went indeed very far in the extenuating the episcopal authority ; but he thought it would be easy afterwards to recover what seeraed necessary to be yielded at present." The Earl of Kincardine was opposed to any treaty with the Presbyterians. He de clared, says Burnet, that " they were a trifling sort of disputa tious people ; they would fall into much wrangling, and would subdivide among themselves ; and the young and ignorant raen among them, that were accustomed to popular declamation, would say here was a bargain raade to sell Christ's kingdom and his prerogatives." He proposed, therefore, as their principles and tempers were well known, that " reasonable and expedient con cessions " should be offered and passed into laws ; and then they might be induced to submit to what they could not avert. Bishop Leighton concurred in this view of affairs ; but it was decidedly and successfuUy opposed by the Earl of Lauderdale. " He said," we are told by Burnet, " a law that did so entirely change the constitution of the Church, when it came to be passed and printed would be construed In England as a pulling down of Episcopacy ; unless he could have this to say In excuse for it, that the Presby terians were willing to come under that model." He raaintained that as the whole responsibility would fall on hira, he would not expose himself to any hazard till he knew the result. " So," con tinues Burnet, " we were forced to try how to deal with them in a treaty ;" and that treaty was the proposed " Indulgence."* In 1669 the field-preachings became so numerous in the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, Ayr, and Kirkcudbright, that a proclamation against them was issued on the 8th of April. Such assemblages were declared Ulegal and treasonable, and every proprietor on whose ground they were held was to be liable to a fine of L.50. That this proclamation was warranted by the exigencies of the times cannot be denied. The field-preachings, though pretended to be held for religious purposes, were In reality armed meetings for the inculcation of sedition and rebeUion ; and, taught by past experience it was prudent, in the Government to prevent the extension of this Intolerant and dangerous confederacy. We have the testimony of Mr Robert Law, a Presbyterian preacher who accepted the Indulgence subsequently mentioned, as to the • History of his own Times, folio, vol. i. 274, 275, 276. 782 DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH £1669- principles of his field-preaching contemporaries. — " These minis ters," he says, " that stirred up the people, pretended they were the only pure and sound Presbyterians in the land with those that followed them ; and all others, ministers and people, whether indulged or not indulged, that did not follow their way, were apostates and backsliders from the truth, whereas there never was any among the Prelates pretended to more authority, and prac tised more prelatic practices than these did ; for they disowned the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, run upon ministers' charges at will, made rents and divisions among the people, and made it their work to separate from their ministers and congregational assemblies, and gloried wlien their principles took any footing in the land ; and indeed they gained upon the unsolid and mutable professors raore than could have been expected."* What an accu rate representation this is of the conduct and principles of the Seceders from the Presbyterian Establishment in 1843 ! The " Accommodation," or " Comprehension Scheme," proposed by Bishop Leighton, was followed by another. The Government, by command of the King, had repeatedly offered that all would be protected who promised to obey the laws for the future, and signed a bond of peace. Numbers took advantage of this condition, but the more violent would accept of no terms at variance with the Solemn League and Covenant. In the spring of 1669 Archbishop Sharp was called to London, and his ememy Bishop Bumet ad mits that he entreated the King to pursue moderate measures to wards the field-preachers, although they deserved no such lenity, for they had excited their followers in several districts to commit gross outrages on the clergy, breaking into their houses, maltreat ing them and their families, destroying their furniture, and plun dering without mercy. In reality, so dangerous were the pro ceedings of the " fanatics," as Sir James Turner designates the Covenanters, that some of the clergy were compelled to leave their parishes in the Diocese of Galloway, and the churches were con sequently vacant. The result of Archbishop Sharp's recommenda tion of lenity to the King, which was supported by the Earl of Tweeddale, although the Primate had no concern in it, was the proclamation of the Indulgence by the advice of the Earl of Lau derdale, dated Whitehall, 7th June 1669. Bishop Burnet narrates the origin of this raischievous project, and confesses that he was a Law's Memorialls, edited by C. K. Sharpe, 4to. p. 156. 1669.] AND PLOTS OF ITS ENEMIES. 783 principal party In the concoction of the said Indulgence. The purport of it was, that the most peaceable and popular of the expeUed preachers were allowed to be settled in vacant parish churches, without acceding to any terms of submission to the Church and diocesan authority, and annual salaries of about L.20 sterhng were offered to the others till they were similarly provided. The proclamation enjoined the Privy Council to allow sueh persons to preach and exercise their functions in the parishes in which they formerly resided if the churches are vacant, and to allow the patrons to present to other vacant churches those preachers who were approved by the Privy Council. Such of them as subsequently were coUated by the Bishop of the Diocese, and attended the Epis copal Presbyteries and Diocesan Synods were to enjoy the stipends hke the other clergy; but those who refused were raerely to be allow ed the manse and glebe, and a collector of the stipends in those in stances was to be appointed, who was to pay to the " Indulged " preachers such an annual raaintenance as would be awarded by the Privy Council. All who were restored, and allowed to exercise their ministry in this raanner, were enjoined by royal authority to attend parochial kirk-sessions. Presbyteries, and Diocesan Synods, as was done by the ministers before 1638; and those who refused were to be confined within the bounds of the parishes in which they preached until they gave assurance that they would conform. They were not to admit to the Communion any persons from other parishes, nor baptize their children, nor celebrate marriages, without the permission of the minister of the parish to which they belonged, unless it was vacant. All who transgressed this injunction, or induced the people to desert their own parish churches, were to be silenced upon complaint of the Presbyteries to the Privy Council for " shorter or longer time, according to the degree of the offence or disorder ;" and those against whora coraplaints were lodged a second time were to be silenced " again for a longer tirae, or alto gether tumed out," as the Privy Council should see cause. Those who uttered seditious discourses or expressions in the pulpit or, elsewhere were to be " Immediately turned out, and punished ac cording to law and the degree of the offence." Finally, as by this proclamation all pretence for keeping conventicles was taken away, and due provision had been made by it for the spiritual improve ment of aU subjects, whether Episcopal or Presbyterian, the Privy Council were enjoined to proceed against those who preached with- 784 DIFFICULTIES OP THE CHURCH [1669. out authority, and held conventicles, and their hearers, " with aU severity as seditious persons, and contemners of the royal authority." We shall subsequently see the effect of this precious systera of Indulgences, which no ecclesiastical establishment, in whatever way constituted, could tolerate or approve, and the bitter contentions which those who accepted them excited araong the Presbyterians. Other parties this year again attracted the notice of the Church. On the 21st of April, as recorded in the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod of Fife, order was to be taken with the Quakers in Kincar dineshire, who " Interrupt some ministers in the time of public wor ship, and speak reproachfully of ministers." This probably refers to the vicinity of Stonehaven, the county town of Kincardineshire, near which is the mansion of Ury, then the seat of the celebrated Quaker convert Robert Barclay, who distinguished himself by his zeal in the cause of that singular sect in Scotland ; and whose father. Colonel David Barclay, when Imprisoned after the Resto ration in the Castle of Edinburgh with Swinton of Swinton in Berwickshire, had been induced by that gentleraan in 1666 to adopt the notions and peculiarities of the Quakers. In the Diocesan Synod it is also recorded — " Moderators are to inquire of all rainisters within their bounds if they preach twice every Sabbath, and if they ordinarily keep at home." Meanwhile the second Parliament of Charles II. met at Edinburgh on the 19th of Octo ber. The two Archbishops and aU the Bishops, with the exception of those of Edinburgh, Dunkeld, and The Isles, appear on the roll as present, and the Earl of Lauderdale presided as the Lord High Commissioner. Archbishop Sharp preached the opening sermon, in which he contended that the three asserters of uncontrouled ecclesiastical supremacy were now the Pope, the King, and the General Assembly of the Presbyterians, and in a long discourse he disproved or refuted all their claims. The discussion which the Primate Introduced on the King's supreraacy referred to an act which he well knew Lauderdale had fraraed. Sorae of his sentiraents iu this sermon gave considerable offence in high places, and It was even thought that he would be suspended from the exercise of his episcopal functions. The Church was re presented among the Lords of the Articles by Archbishop Sharp, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Aberdeen, Ross, Brechin, 1669.] CHURCH AND ITS ENEMIES. 785 Dunblane, and Orkney, who were chosen after the King's letter was read. Lauderdale, in his opening speech, dwelt chiefly on two topics — the Church, and the Union ofthe two kingdoms then again projected, but which was subsequently abandoned. He recom mended the preservation of the Established Church, affected great zeal for episcopal government, and assured the Parliament of the King's determination to maintain It inviolable. Lauderdale's sin cerity may be inferred from the very first Act Introduced into this ParUament, the projecting of which had been pointedly noticed and censured by Archbishop Sharp in his serraon. It Is entitled an " Act for asserting his Majesty's Supreraacy over aU Persons and in all Causes Ecclesiastical," and is commonly known as the Assertory Act. It not raerely ratified the royal supreraacy in the proper and intelligible sense as set forth in forraer Acts, in oppo sition to the Papal and Presbyterian claims, but absolutely de prived the Church of all ecclesiastical controul whatever, and vested its very constitution and discipline absolutely at the will or the caprice of the King. It declared that " the ordering and disposal of the external government and policy of the Church doth properly belong to his Majesty and his successors as an inherent right of the Crown ; and that his Majesty and his successors may settle, enact, and emit, such constitutions, acts, and orders, concern ing the administration of the external governraent of the Church, and the persons eraployed in the sarae, and concerning all ecclesias tical meetings and matters to be proponed and deterralned therein, as they, in their royal wisdom, shall think fit." AU former Acts and clauses of Acts contrary to the above were rescinded, and de clared nuU and void.* This arbitrary Act was passed on the 16th of November, and a greater infringement of the authority or a raore infamous subversion of the constitution of any branch of the Church Catholic is probably not to be found in the annals of any Christian legislature. Bishop Burnet conjectures that Lauderdale knewtheDuke of York's Roraan Catholic feelings, and, having insinuated hiraself into the favour " of the heir-apparent to the Crown," that " he intended to establish himself in it by putting the Church of Scotland whoUy In his power; but that was yet a secret to us aU in Scotland." If this was reaUy the case, it proves that Lauderdale was one of the most unprin- * Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vii. p. 554. 50 786 THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE [1669 cipled politicians of his age. He is accused of cajoling the Presby terians, pretending that it would limit the authority of the Bishops by making thera solely dependent on the King ; he admitted that It was a transference of ecclesiastical matters to the Crown ; yet the King could easily be Induced in favourable circurastances to change aU in a sudden, if " a dash of a pen would do it ;" and he irapressed the Nobility that they " needed fear no more the insolence of the Bishops when they were at their mercy, as this would make them." Burnet's account of the matter is worthy of notice as that of a contemporary. " Sharp," he says, " did not like it, but durst not oppose it. He made a long dark speech copied out of Dr Taylor, distinguishing between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, and then voted for it ; so did all the Bishops that were present ; sorae absented themselves. Leighton was against any such Act, and got some words to be altered in it. He thought it might be stretched to ill ends, and so he was very averse to it ; yet he gave his vote for it, not having sufficiently considered the extent of the words, and the consequence that might follow on such an Act, for which he was very sorry as long as he lived ; but at that time there was no apprehension in Scotland of the danger of Popery. Many of the best of the episcopal clergy were highly offended at the Act. They thought It plainly made the King our Pope. The Presby terians said it put him in Christ's stead. They said the King had already too much power in the matters of the Church, and nothing ruined the clergy more than their being brought into servile com pliances and a base dependence upon Courts. I had no share in the counsels about this Act. I only thought it was designed by Lord Tweeddale to justify the Indulgence, which he protested to me was his chief end in it; and nobody could ever tell me how the words ecclesiastical matters were put in the Act. Leighton thouo'ht he was sure they were put in after the draught and forra of the Act were agreed on. It was generally charged on Lord Lauder dale ; and when the Duke's religion carae to be known, then all people said how rauch the legal settleraent of our religion was put in his power by this raeans. Yet the preamble of the Act being only concerning the external government of the Church, it was thought that the words ecclesiastical matters were to be confined to the sense that was Umited by the preamble."* The only other Acts passed in this ParUament connected with * Bishop Burnet's History of his Own Times, foUo, vol. i. p. 284, 285. 1669.J CHURCH AND ITS ENEMIES. 787 the Church were one to protect the clergy, their famiUes, and pro perty, from the violence of the Covenanters ; and one regulating the suspensions of the stipends and benefices. On the 15th of December the forfeiture of the insurgents at Pentland in 1666 was ratified, among whom were the noted field-preachers, Gabriel Semple, WiUiara Veitch, John Crookshanks, and Alexander Peden, the last of prophetical celebrity among his credulous followers. On the 23d an Act was passed confirming the revocation of the forfeiture of the Covenanting Marquis of ArgyU, and the grant of the Earldom of the same to his son in 1663 ; but a protest was entered by Bishop ScougaU of Aberdeen, In the name of Bishop Fletcher of ArgyU, assisted by the Earls of DunfermUne, King horn, and Marischal, that this " Ratification " was not to " pre judge them of the payraent, or relief of such sums of money as are owing to thera, by this Earl of Argj'U's father." The Parlia ment adjourned on the 23d of December till the 8th of June 1670. During the meeting of this ParUaraent the future Bishop of SaUsbury was appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, in which he continued four and a half years, with very little satisfaction either to the Episcopal clergy or to the Presby terian party. Kirkton, who may be said to intimate the senti ments of the latter, attacks Burnet in the coarsest and most scur rilous manner. After lamenting that In the Scottish Universities the Professors loved to " foUow England," and made the learned theological works of " Hararaond, Thorndyke, Sherlock, Taylor, and such," their text-books, Kirkton assails Burnet's Dialogues, and refers to him as a specimen of the " soundness and zeal " of what he terms a " Scotch curate's faith." He accuses Burnet of " Popish errors," and so far a Socinian that he " scoffs the blessed Trinity ;" " but," says Kirkton, " he professes hiraself a man of that high strain of moderation and charity that he has a bosom for every sect that wears the name of Christian, except only an un pardonable dissenter firom his Church ; yet he was thought fit to be a father In our Church, and placed in Glasgow College to breed our young dirines ; and what a fry his disciples were the Lord knows better than the godly people of Scotland, who refused to hear or own them." This venom Is probably a retaliation for the satirical attacks on the theological studies and acquirements of the then Presbyterians. Burnet left Salton on the 18th of Noveraber to assume his professorial duties at Glasgow. He narrates in his 788 THE DIFFICULTIES OF THE CHURCH. [1669. own way the state of affairs. " The clergy came all to me, think ing that I had some credit with those that govemed, and laid their grievances and coraplaints before me. They were very Ul used, and were so entirely forsaken by their people, that in most places they shut up their churches. They were also threatened and affronted on aU occasions. On the other hand, the gentlemen of the country came much to me, and told me such strange things of the vices of some, the follies of others, and the indiscretions of them all, that though it was not reasonable to believe all that they said, yet it was impossible not to believe a great deal of It. And it was not easy to know what ought to be believed, or how matters were to be represented ; for 1 found calumny was so equally practised on both sides, that I came to mistrust every thing that I heard. One thing was visible, that conventicles abounded, and strange doctrine was vented in thera. The King's supremacy was now the chief subject of declamation. It was said, ' Bishops were indeed enemies to the liberties of the Church ; but the King's little finger would be heavier than their loins.' " A committee of the Privy Council, consisting of the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Kincardine, and others, were appointed to visit the western counties, and repress the disorders committed by the field-preachers and their ad herents. They pimished some, and threatened the Indulged preachers and the peasantry with great severity if they persist ed in their violent conduct. Burnet says that he " was blamed by the Presbyterians for all which this committee did," and " by the Episcopal party for all they did not ; since these thought they did too little, as the others thought they did too much. They consulted with me, and suffered me to intercede so effectually for those whom they had put in prison that they were aU set at liberty. The Episcopal party thought I intended to make myself popular at their cost, so they began that strain of fury and calumny that has pursued me ever since from that sort of people, as a secret enemy to their interest, and an underminer of It." This complaint of IU usage by Bishop Burnet is most ludicrous, when we recollect that he was a man who raised against himself a host of enemies in his native country, retaliating In after life by assailing that Church whose ordination he had received, and vihfying the lives and cha racters of its Bishops and clergy In the most unscrupulous manner. Burnet was undoubtedly a reraarkable man, but he was one of the keenest of partizans in his " Own Times." 1670.] 789 CHAPTER VIII. FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. Various parties are mentioned as the projectors of the irreligious Assertory Act, investing the King with the supreme and uncon trouled ecclesiastical administration of the discipline and constitu tion of the Church. It is alleged that it was intended to protect the Scottish Government from an impeachment of high treason for superseding Acts of Parliament by acts of the Privy Council. According to another statement it was contrived by the Pres byterians to paralyze the Church, and is said to have been gene rally known at the time as the suggestion of Mr Robert Douglas and " several of his brethren, in concert with some of the King's Ministers, to secure and justify the Indulgence, and raake it as good as legal." This Mr Robert Douglas, already noticed as the correspondent and calumniator of Archbishop Sharp, had pru dently taken advantage of the Indulgence, and obtained the pa rish of Pencaitland in Haddingtonshire. By the Assertory Act the King could deprive the Bishops of their Sees at pleasure, and this was soon verified in the case of Archbishop Burnet of Glas gow, whom his namesake Bishop Burnet misrepresents in his usual manner, as " meddling too much In what did not belong to him and he did not understand, for he was not cut out for a Court, or for the Ministry ; and he was too remiss in that which was proper ly his business, and which he understood to a good degree, for he took no manner of care of the spiritual part of his function." These unfounded accusations are refuted by the Presbyterians. Kirkton says that Archbishop Burnet was " a man of the best morals among them;" and Wodrow adraits the sarae, borrow ing, however, from his friend a charge of simony against him 790 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. [1670. for " regress" to his See after he had been turned out ; and both affirming that he was a " mighty bigot for the English ceremonies and forms, and as forward to have all the usages of that Church Introduced Into Scotland as if he had been educated by Bishop Laud." In other words, the Archbishop, who had spent much of his life in England, loved the Liturgy and ritual of the Anghcan Church. Kirkton and Wodrow also observe of Archbishop Burnet, that at his first Diocesan Synod of Glasgow he held a public ordi nation, and five or six persons, who are Insolently called curates, were admitted by hira into holy orders to " inure the West of Scotland to these novelties." This was, of course, an awful crime in the eyes of such men as Kirkton and Wodrow. The Episcopal writers raay with equal propriety retaliate by assaUing the " novel ties" of Kirkton, Wodrow, and their successors. Archbishop Burnet had complained to the King of what he con sidered Lauderdale's unnecessary severity to the Covenanters after the suppression of the insurrection at RuUion Green. The King listened to his statement,- and sent instructions to Lauderdale to adopt raore lenient raeasures. Archbishop Bumet had also offended both Lauderdale and Tweeddale, who were his avowed enemies, by Informing the King and the English Bishops that Scotland was in danger of returning to the forraer Covenanting disorder and misrule by the favour openly evinced towards the disaffected Cove nanters by the Earl of Tweeddale, who had obtained a complete ascendancy over Lauderdale. As, however, he was strenuously opposed to the interference of the King in the affairs of the Church, he was sumraoned before the Privy Council before the Parharaent raet, and ordered to confine hiraself to his Dio cese " tiU his offences were further considered." The great ob ject of this undue stretch of power was to prevent hira de nouncing the Assertory Act of the Royal Supremacy in Parlia ment. Archbishop Burnet would have been deprived of his See at that time, but his eneraies were afraid that the obnoxious Act would be in jeopardy when the clergy saw such an illegal and un canonical result. " But," says Sir George Mackenzie, " how soon that Act was passed, his Majesty by a letter, as Supreme Head of the Church, declared his See vacant, and he was moved to resign it into his Majesty's hands, which some blamed as an act of too great despondence and fear in him ; but he was induced to do it 1670.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 791 by the vows they made to pursue him as a traitor if he did not ; the ground of which process they intended to found upon the former letter, which was said to be the lying betwixt the King and his people. But to this It was answered by some of his friends that he needed not fear that accusation, seeing it was palpable now to the world that the fanatics had been assisted by some CounciUors ; for by the Indulgence many of thera were reponed to their former ministry. Thus he went off the stage, generally ad mired even by the fanatics theraselves for preferring his conscience to his gain, and for fearing nothing but to offend it." Bishop Burnet, notwithstanding bis scurrilous attacks on the Archbishop, acknowledges his personal worth. " By the Act of Supreraacy," he says, " the King was now raaster, and could turn out Bishops at pleasure. This had Its first effect on Burnet, who was offered a pension if he would submit and resign, and was threatened to be treated more severely If he stood out. He complied, and retired to a private state of life, and bore his disgrace better than he had done his honours. He Uved four years in the shade, and was generaUy pitied. He was of himself good-natured and sincere, but was much in the power of others." The " Indulgence" issued in 1669 is preriously raentioned. By this project upwards of forty ofthe ejected preachers were allowed to officiate within the parishes they forraerly held if vacant, or In par ticular districts assigned to each, on the conditions already specified. Bishop Burnet ascribes this extraordinary and absurd atterapt to treat with the Presbyterians to the Earl of Tweeddale, and asserts that it was opposed by Bishop Leighton, who " thought nothing would bring on the Presbyterians to a treaty so rauch as the hopes of being again suffered to return to their benefices ; whereas if they were once admitted to thera they would reckon they had gained their point, and would grow raore backward." Bishop Burnet, who had not then removed to the Professorship of Divinity at Glasgow, was requested to visit the western counties, and give a " true ac count of matters ;" but he seems to have consulted chiefly Anne Duchess of Hamilton in her own right, who had great Influence with the ejected preachers. " She had much credit araong thera," says Burnet, " for she passed for a zealous Presbyterian, though she protested to me she never entered into the points of contro versy, and had no settled ppinion about forms of [church] govern- 792 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1670- raent ; only she thought their rainisters were good men, who kept the country in quiet and order. They were, she said, blameless in their lives, devout in their way, and diligent in their labours. The people were all in a frenzy, and were in no disposition to any treaty. The prominent men araong thera were busy in conventicles, in flaming thera against all agreements ; so she thought that if the raore moderate Presbyterians were put in vacant churches the people would grow tamer, and be taken out of the hands of the mad preachers that were then most in vogue. — This seemed rea sonable, and she got many of the raore raoderate of thera to come to rae ; and they all talked in the same strain." It was impossible that such a raischievous, iraprudent, and lati tudinarian system as the Indulgence could be productive of any salutary results. Archbishop Burnet and his clergy indignantly denounced It in their ordinary Diocesan Synod held at Glas gow in October 1669, and moved an address to the King cora plaining of it as illegal, and likely to be fatal to the peace and stability of the Church. This address was written by Mr Arthur Ross, then one of the rainisters of Glasgow, afterwards successively promoted to the Sees of ArgyU, Glasgow, and St Andrews, whom Bishop Burnet maliciously designates an " ignorant man, and violent out of measure;" and the address Itself as "full of acrimony." It was sent to the King, who called it a " New Western Remon strance," and so enraged Lauderdale that he revenged himself by Archbishop Burnet's expulsion from the Diocese of Glasgow. The Indulgence was also illegal, for the Act restoring the Episcopal Church in 1662 expressly declared that those only were eligible to benefices who acknowledged the authority of the Bishops, and accepted collation and institution from them. The annual sum of L.20 sterling, ordered to be paid to those ejected preachers who were disposed to accept the Indulgence, but who could not be provided with churches at the time, was riewed as a bribe to be silent, and was refused. The others, whose re markably tender consciences prevented them from acknowledging diocesan authority, wiUingly took their collations to the parishes from the Privy Council ; and one of them named Hutchison thanked their Lordships for the same in a speech delivered for himself and his brethren, pretending that they had " received their ministry frora Jesus Christ, with fuU prescriptions frora Hira for 1670.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 793 regulating thera therein, and in the discharge thereof accountable to Him ;" but that they would now, having " free liberty of the exercise of their ministry under the protection of lawful authority, the most exceUent ordinance of God," behave themselves as loyal subjects, praying that " the Lord may bless his Majesty in his person and govemment," and the Privy Council, for this " singular moderation." Those of them who were thus aUowed to return to the parishes of which they were the Covenanting incumbents be fore the Restoration offered no scruples ; but others hesitated to take possession of the churches appointed for them till the kirk- session and parishioners chose them, and gave them what is known in Presbyterian phraseology as a " Call " to officiate araong thera. Others also maintained that the choice of the people ought to be free, and not limited to the preachers nominated by the Privy Council — " which looked," observes Bumet, " like an election upon a conge d'elire, with a letter naming the person, with which they had often diverted theraselves." But all these doubts were at last overcome, and each preacher went to the parish or district to which he was appointed. The people received them at first with enthusiasm, but this soon subsided, and the Indulgence eventually proved a complete failure. The more violent of the Covenanters, who would accept no favour from the Government except on their own terms, denounced the " Indulged " preachers as ferociously as the episcopal clergy, and spoke of them in language of bitter hatred and scorn as enemies of the gospel. " The stop put to the Indulgence," says Burnet, " made many conclude that those who had obtained the favour had entered into secret en gagements. So they came to caU thera the King"s Curates, as they had called the clergy in derision the Bishops" Curates. Their caution brought them under a worse character of dumb dogs that could not bark ! Those who, by their fierce behaviour, had shut themselves out from a share of the Indulgence, began to call this Erastianism, and the civil magistrates assuraing the power of sa cred matters. They said this was visibly an artifice to lay things asleep with the present generation, and was one of the depths of Satan to give a present quiet in order to the certain destruction of Presbytery : and it was also said there was a visible departing of the dirine power frora those preachers. They preached no raore with the power and authority that had accompanied them at 794 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. [1670. conventicles ; so many began to fall off, and to go again to conven ticles. Many of the preachers confessed to me that they found an ignorance and a deadness among those who had been the hottest upon their raeetings beyond what could have been iraagined. They that could have argued about the intrinsic of the Church, and Episcopacy and Presbytery, upon which all their sermons had chiefly run for several years, knew very little of the essentials of religion. But the Indulged preachers. Instead of setting them selves, with the zeal and courage that became them, against the follies of the people, of which they confessed to myself they were very sensible, took a different method, and studied by raean com pliances to gain upon their affections, and to take them out of the hands of some fiery men that were going up and down among them. The tempers of some brought thera under this serrile popularity, Into which others went out of a desire to live easy."* On the 6th of January 1670, the Earl of Lauderdale announced to the Privy Council that Archbishop Burnet of Glasgow had re signed his See into the King's hands, and his name was erased from the list of the Privy Councillors. Bishop Leighton of Dunblane was appointed to administer the affairs of the Diocese of Glasgow as a kind of Comraendator, which he accepted about a year after wards with the utmost reluctance. It Is laraentable to find a man like Leighton becoming the tool of Lauderdale under the Assert ory Act investing the King with ecclesiastical authority, and in truding Into another Diocese, the Bishop of which had been un justly and uncanonically deprived ; but his accommodating spirit precluded hira frora discerning his usurping position. His subse quent dissatisfaction and resignation of the See, with his retire raent into England, raay have been the result of sorae compunctions of conscience in this matter. In the sumraer of 1670, a project was concerted at London by the Earl of Tweeddale, the Earl of Shaftesbury, and Sir Robert Murray, with which Bishop Leighton was connected, which shews the practical tendency of the arbitrary Assertory Act. It seeras to have been the revival of Leighton's " Accommodation," or " Com prehensive Scheme ;" and the Church was to be governed by Pres byteries and Synods, the Bishops having no other authority than that of constant raoderators, while all ecclesiastical power was to " Burnet's History of his Own Times, folio, vol. i. p. 282, 1670.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 795 be derived frora the King. This appears from a docuraent dated WhitehaU, Oth July, containing certain rules and instructions for the Scottish Bishops written by the Earl of Tweeddale, and sanctioned by the King, a copy of which was obtained by Arch bishop Paterson of Glasgow in 1680, from the original deposited at Ham in Surrey, and which, in the Archbishop's hand-writing, is preserved in the Episcopal Chest at Aberdeen. The " Instructions" were eight in number, and after a preamble approving of the prac tice of the Bishops for sorae years preceding of exercising the government and disciphne of the Church in Presbyteries and Dio cesan Synods in conjunction with presbyters, the said " Instruc tions" set forth : — 1. That the systera was to continue, and that Presbyteries raeet monthly, and Synods annually in May or June. 2. That every person lawfuUy presented to a parish church, who produced his certificates of having qualified by taking the oaths of aUegiance and supremacy, shall be tried and examined in the usual manner ; and if approved by the Bishop and Presbytery, due notice shall be given, and a day appointed by the said Bishop and Presbytery for the ordination and admission of the presentee, when the parishioners were to be warned to assemble, and one of the presbyters to preach, after which the people were to see their " designed minister" soleranly ordained by the Imposition of the hands of the Bishop and presbyters there present, and " be exhorted to yield due reverence and obedience to him and his ministry in the same." 3. That the rules and duties of the ministerial office were fully expressed in the forra of ordination ; [but Archbishop Pater son here remarks that no form of ordination was or had been ap pointed, and consequently the form here alluded to is unknown, and would not have indicated the Office of Ordination either in the EngUsh or Scottish Liturgy]. 4. That the Bishops reside constant ly in their Dioceses except on urgent occasions, and preach every Sunday in one or other of the parish churches, when not prevented by old age, sickness, or other Impediments. 5. That every minister and church-session look after the relief of the poor, and the repair ing and preservation of the fabric of the parish church, as enjoin ed by law ; and exercise discipline towards those guilty of public scandals and gross offences, being responsible for the sarae to the Presbytery, who in turn were to be accountable to the Bishop and Diocesan Synod. 6. That in addition to the particular visits of the 796 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1670. parishes within their Dioceses by the Bishops, summer risita tions were to be held by the Bishops, moderators, and presbyters. 7. That a National Synod was to be called, consisting of the Arch bishops, Bishops, Deans, and others, evidently in terms of the Act of 1666, whenever the Crown considered such a Synod necessary. 8. That aU ministers of the Church of Scotland attend their re spective Presbyteries and Diocesan Synods, and not absent them selves on any pretence whatever." These " Instructions" were ordered to be recorded in the Books of the Privy Council and duly published, with an intimation that the King Intended " to add and enact such further ordinances and constitutions as he shaU judge needful or useful for the promoting piety and true religion, and for the establishment of peace and good order in the Church." Never was a more flagrant, unconstitutional, and arbitrary attack made on any portion of the Church Catholic than that aimed by these " Instructions" on the Episcopal Church of Scotland. It is well described by one of its own Bishops at the tirae that they " struck at the very root and foundation of the Church." Some of them were unobjectionable, but they set at deflance all ecclesiasti cal power and jurisdiction when we consider the source frora which they originated, and are another instance ofthe evils ofthe unhappy Act Assertory of the King's exclusive supremacy. Even Lauderdale saw the miserable consequences which wouldinevitably ensue from their promulgation, and he rendered thera nugatory and inopera tive by procuring a " Private Instruction " from the King on the 7th of July, authorizing him at his return to Scotland as Lord High Commissioner to propose them to the Pariiaraent or not as he saw cause. They were never published, and thus the Church escaped the degradation prepared for it by worldly politicians, ira- placable enemies, and false friends. Bishop Leighton's connection with this affair induces little respect for his meraory. The Parliament met on the 22d of July, the Earl of Lauderdale presiding as Lord High Commissioner. Archbishop Sharp, and the Bishops of Galloway, Aberdeen, Brechin, Caithness, and Dunblane, were present. On the 30th an Act was passed, authorizing certain persons to treat concerning the projected Union with England, and the ParUament was adjourned to the 3d of August. On that day a very stringent Act " against such who shaU refuse to depone against delinquents," and particularly " keepers of conventicles, or 1670.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 797 other unlawful raeetings," was passed, the punishment for which was to be " fining and close Imprisonment, or banishment, by sending them to his Majesty's Plantations in the Indies, or elsewhere." On the 13th an Act was passed to secure the lives of tbe parochial clergy from the violence of the Covenanters, who had " of late m several places, in the night-time, invaded and broken in upon ministers' houses, assaulted and wounded their persons, and pur sued them for their lives." This offence was declared punishable by death and forfeiture of goods, and a reward of 500 merks to informers. The next Act was against conventicles. It enjoined that " no outed ministers who are not licensed by the Council, and no other persons not authorized or tolerated by the Bishop of the Diocese, presume to preach, expound Scripture, or pray, in any meeting except In their own houses, and to those of their own family ; and that none be present at any meeting without the family to which they belong ;" declaring " all such as do the con trary to be guilty of keeping conventicles," and incurring the penalty of imprisonment, until they find security to the extent of 5000 merks not again to commit the offence, or oblige them selves to remove out of the kingdom. Every male and female proprietor of land who was found guilty was to be fined the fourth part of his or her annual rental ; each tenant, L.25 Scots ; each cottar, L.12 Scots ; and each serving man a fourth part of his yearly fee. The field-preachers who disobeyed the Act were to be punished with death and confiscation of goods. A reward of 500 merks was also offered to informers. On the 17th of August an Act was passed against " Disorderly Baptisms," declaring that the " disorderly carriage of some persons in withdrawing from the ordinances of the sacraments in their own parish churches, and pro curing their chUdren to be baptized by persons not publicly author ized or aUowed, is highly scandalous to the Protestant religion, and tends exceedingly to the increase of schism and profanity." AU were enjoinedto bring their children for baptism to their own parish ministers, or to Indulged Presbyterian preachers, under the penalty of everyproprietor offending to be fined the fourth part of his annual rental, everyperson above the degree of a tenant, L.lOO Scots; every " inferior merchant or considerable tradesman, and every tenant labouring land," L.50 Scots ; every " meaner burgess, tradesman, inhabitant within burgh, and every cottar," L.20 Scots ; and every 798 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHUBCH. [1670. servant In " half a year's fee." On the 20th was passed an " Act against separation and withdrawing frora the public raeetings for Divine worship," the offenders to be fined in several specified sums according to their rank. This Act, and that of the 13th against Conventicles, were to be In force for only three years, unless " his Majesty should think fit to continue them longer." On the 22d an Act ratified the " rights " of King's CoUege In Old Aberdeen.* It has been said that in the Act which rendered the field- preachers liable to capital punishraent, Lauderdale inserted on his own responsibility a clause which protected the Roman Catholics, to gratify, it is suspected, the Duke of York. Bishop Burnet aUeges that the Earl declared to him, that " he had put In these words on design to let the party know they were to be worse used than the Papists themselves." It is, however, remarkable that not a word of this clause occurs in the Act, and there is not the slightest allusion to the Roman Catholics, or any promise of protection Intiraated to them. The Act itself against the field-preachers was undoubtedly severe, and was opposed by all the Bishops present In that session of the Parliament. Leigh ton is reported to have declared that the " whole complex of it was so contrary to the common rules of humanity, not to say Christianity, that he was ashamed to mix In councUs with those who could frame and pass such Acts." On Lauderdale rests the whole odium of this iniquitous, odious, and intolerant statute against those unfortunate and misguided, though obsti nate and dangerous field-preachers who, nevertheless would have been as tyrannical and oppressive against their opponents. The extraordinary hallucination under which raany of them laboured, that they were bound by the Divine comraand to extirpate by force all the raembers of the Episcopal Church, and the constant incul cation of this horrid doctrine on their ignorant and deluded fol lowers, rendered stringent measures against them absolutely neces sary ; but the punishment of death for preaching in the fields was an enactment which on no principles can be justified. " Thus," says the author of the " True and Impartial Account" of the life of Archbishop Sharp, " the ecclesiastical establishraent [Episcopal Church of Scotland] had to grapple not only with the sober as weU as wild Presbyterians, and missionaries from Rome, and other • Acta Pari. Scot. vol. vin. p. 7-12, 26, 27. 1671.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. 799 despicable feUows in their shape, but also with bosora enemies, and some who owed most to the royal bounty, and their underlings." In the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod of Fife a notice of the discipline of the Church occurs, under date 5th October 1670. The Lord Archbishop and Synod enjoined all " persons marrying disorderly," by resorting to the Border for that purpose, to be " dilated to the civil magistrate, that they may be fined according to law, and that they may be put to a public declaration of their repentance, and be suspended from the Sacraraent for violating the order of the Church." Bishop Leighton assuraed the charge of the Diocese of Glasgow, which he had accepted in the most uncanonical manner, in 1671. His friend Bishop Burnet gives a long and very partial account of the preliminary proceedings, at some of which the historian of his " Own Times" was present. Leighton held a Diocesan Synod of the clergy, and in a sermon which he preached, and also in public and private conferences, he exhorted them, according to Burnet, " to look up more to God, to consider themselves as the ministers of the cross of Christ, to bear the conterapt and IU usage they raet with as a cross laid on them for the exercise of their faith and pa tience, to lay aside all the appetites of revenge, to humble them selves before God, to have raany days for secret fasting and prayer, and to meet often together that they might quicken and assist one another in those holy exercises, and then they might expect bless ings from Heaven upon their labours." AU this was in reply to the numerous complaints of " desertion and iU usage" which were pre ferred In the Diocesan Synod. Bishop Burnet affects to fix a stigma on the personal religion and piety ofthe persecuted Incumbents by asserting — " This was a new strain to the clergy ; they had nothing to say against It, but it was comfortless doctrine to them, and they had not been accustoraed to it. No speedy ways were proposed for forcing the people to come to church, nor for sending soldiers among them, or raising the fines to which they were liable ; so they went home as httle edified with their new Bishop as he was with them." This is a very unfair representation. Burnet well knew that the clergy had no connection with the levying of the fines, which was done by authority of the civil government ; and all they wanted was protection frora the murdering propensities of their enemies. The advices of Leighton were very pious and proper ; but when It 800 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. [1671. is recollected that the lives and property of the clergy and their farailies were daily raenaced, and the raost outrageous violence committed against them by breaking into their houses, as the Acts of Parliament sufficiently Intiraate, it was truly a " comfortless doctrine " which Leighton set forth to suggest no remedies, and propose no plan, to secure the individual protection of the incum bents. It is not, therefore, a matter of much surprize If they re turned to their horaes as " little edified " with Leighton as " he was with them." After his Diocesan Synod a tour was undertaken In various dis tricts by Leighton, accorapanied by Burnet, to ascertain the senti ments of the " most erainent of the Indulged rainisters." The ob ject of this journey was to persuade them to listen to proposi tions of peace, and they were told that sorae of thera would soon be summoned to Edinburgh for an adjustment of differences, where they would be received with the utmost sincerity — " meet," says Burnet, " with no artifices nor hardships, and if they received these offers heartily they would be tumed into laws, and all the vacancies then in the Church would be filled by their brethren." It is stated that they listened with the utraost indifference to these suggestions, were scarcely civil, not so much as thanking Leighton for interesting himself In their affairs ; and the more crafty among them, especially Hutchison, who is expressly naraed, pretended that it was a matter which concerned them all, whereas they were merely individuals — " others," says Burnet, " were more metaphysical, and entertained us with some poor arguings and distinctions." Leighton began to be discouraged, yet he resolved to attempt a negotiation. About the assembling of the Parliament in 1670, six of those Presby terian ministers were summoned to Edinburgh, and Leighton held a long conference with them before the Earls of Lauderdale, Rothes, Tweeddale, and Kincardine. Archbishop Sharp declined to be pre sent, but he sent Paterson, afterwards Archbishop of Glasgow, to hear all that passed, and bring him a correct account. Leigh ton, according to Burnet's report, dwelt on the " mischief of our divisions, and of the schism that they had occasioned." We are told that he maintained — " For his own part, he was persuaded that Episcopacy, as an order distinct from presbyters, had con tinued in the Church ever since the days of the Apostles — that the world had every where received the Christian religion from 1671.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 801 Bishops — and that a parity among clergymen was never thought of in the Church before the middle of the last century, and was then set up rather by accident than on design ; yet, how much so ever he was persuaded of this, since they were of another raind, he was now to offer a teraper to them by which both sides might preserve their opinions, and yet unite in carrying on the ends of the gospel and their rainistry." He reminded them that their own moderators were not of Divine institution, and he proposed that they should acknowledge constant Moderators, to be appointed by the King, which could be no such encroachment on their func tion as to disturb the peace of the Church. Leighton's arguments made a considerable Impression on the parties. Hutchison, who was one of them, requested a consultation with his friends in the presence of Lauderdale as the King's Coramissioner, which would protect them frora the charge of holding an illegal raeet ing. This was granted ; but the conduct of the Presbyterian preachers so disgusted even Lauderdale, that he could scarcely restrain his rage. Archbishop Sharp opposed the propositions ; the parochial clergy were alarraed at the results which would foUow if they were accepted ; and the raore violent of the Cove nanting preachers, who would listen to no terms, were loud and fierce in their denunciations of what they called the Black Indul gence ; yet Bishop Burnet boldly states that " the far greater part of the nation approved of this design." Leighton sent six of the most eminent of the Episcopal clergy, including Burnet, Into the western counties to preach in the vacant churches, and to explain the proposed " Accommodation" to the people. It appears from Burnet's account that he and his coadjutors were tolerably well received by the vain, pedantic, and obstinate peasantry during the three months they were so em ployed, and " In that time there was a stand In the frequency of conventicles ; but as soon as we were gone a set of those hot preachers went round all the places where we had been, to defeat aU the good we could hope to do." The Presbyterians at length determined to reject the offers. They believed an absurd report that the King disliked the Church of England, and was no longer inclined to support the Church in Scotland, and that the con cessions were raerely artifices to preserve Episcopacy. They raain tained the obligation of the Covenant as Involving their doctrine 51 802 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1671. and discipline, and they expressly deraanded liberty to hold ordi nations without Bishops. They were rerainded In reply that their Covenant was not infallible — that they had theraselves made alterations of more importance than acknowledging moderators appointed by the King — and that CromweU prohibited General Assemblies, though they continued to preach ; " but," says Burnet, " all was lost labour ; hot men among them were positive ; and all of them were full of contention. — In conclusion, nothing was like to follow on this whole negotiation. We who were engaged on it had lost all our own side by offering it, and the Presbyte rians would not make one step towards us." Leighton held another meeting at Paisley, whither he was at tended by Burnet and a few others. About thirty of the Presbyte rians appeared, and two long conferences ensued. They expressed themselves in a most insolent manner towards Leighton, but he bore their irritating language with his usual raeekness. Another consul tation was held in the house of the Earl of Rothes at Edinburgh, when the concessions were finally refused. Leighton told the Presby terians — " His offers did not flow from any mistrust of the cause ; he was persuaded Episcopacy was handed down through all the ages of the Church from the Apostles' days ; perhaps he had wronged the order by the concessions he had made, yet he was confldent God would forgive It, as he hoped his brethren would excuse it : — therefore the continuance of our divisions raust lie at their door both before God and man. If iU effects followed upon this he was free of all blame, and had done his part." In 1671 died Bishop Strachan of Brechin, a memorial of whose episcopate long existed in the " orlodge," or clock, on the steeple of the cathedral. Bishop Strachan was succeeded in the See of Brechin by Mr Robert Lawrie, son of Mr Joseph Lawrie, minister succes sively at Stirling and Perth. Bishop Lawrie had also been minister at Perth. His induction was opposed in April 1641 because he had not corapleted his twenty-fifth year, which had been declared by the Covenanting General Asserably the age of those " capable of the rainistry." The Magistrates, Presbytery, and Kirk-Session, were nevertheless in favour of his iraraediate induction, and it was re ferred to the Provincial Synod, before whora he preached, and was " unanimously declared capable of the ministry at Perth." He was soon afterwards ordained in the Presbyterian forra. He was 1671.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 803 removed to Edinburgh in 1644, as incumbent of Trinity CoUege parish In that city. Bishop Lawrie conformed to the Church at the Restoration, was ordained by Bishop Wishart, and was no minated Dean of Edinburgh. " He was a man" says Mr Scott, " of a very peaceable temper, and an excellent preacher."* As the revenue of the See of Brechin was far below L.lOO sterling annually. Bishop Lawrie retained the incurabency of Trinity Col lege church. It is stated in the records of the Town-Council of Brechin, 17th Septeraber 1674, that Mr John Dempster, school master, is employed by the Bishop to supply his charge as minis ter," because " the Bishop was called to be preacher" at a place not mentioned. Bishop Wishart of Edinburgh, the chaplain of the Marquis of Montrose, and the eloquent historian of his achievements, died in July at his residence in the Canongate. He was interred in the Chapel-Royal of Holyroodhouse, where his monument, with a long poetical inscription in Latin, Is still seen on the north side of the ruined edifice. On the 29th of August, the Earl of Lauder dale wrote to Archbishop Sharp respecting a successor to Bishop Wishart, stating his opinion that no presb}-ter should be elevated at once to that See, but that one of the Bishops, of considerable experience, should be translated to the Scottish metropolis, and a presbyter consecrated for the See so vacant. His Lordship also requested the Primate to mention whom he considered sufficiently qualified to fiU the important See of Edinburgh. The suggestion of the Earl was set aside by Archbishop Sharp, and Mr Alexander Young, a native of Aberdeen, who had been minister of Cramond on the shore of the Frith of Forth near Edinburgh, and reraoved to St Andrews in September 1663 as first minister, was promoted to the See. He had been also Archdeacon of St Andrews, which accounts for the influence of Archbishop Sharp in his favour. Bur net says — " Four Bishops happened to die that year [1671], of whom Edinburgh was one. I was desired to raake my own choice, but I refused them aU." This Is inaccurate, as the deaths of the two Bishops above noticed are only recorded as occurring in 1671. The enforcement of the laws against Conventicles raarked the spring and suraraer of 1672. The Parliament met on the 12th of June, the Earl of Lauderdale, created Duke of Lauderdale • Perth MS. Register of Baptisms in the Advocates' Library at Edinburgh, 804 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1672. on the 2d of May, presiding as Lord High Comraissioner. The Bishops present were the Priraate, and the Bishops of Edin burgh, Galloway, Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, Brechin, and Argyll. Bishop Mackenzie of Moray and Bishop Fletcher of Argyll, were nominated to supply the vacancies among the Lords of the Articles occasioned by the deaths of Bishops Wishart of Edin burgh and Strachan of Brechin, and on the 17th of July the newly consecrated Bishops Young and Lawrie took the oaths required by law. On the 16tli of August an Act was passed " against such as do not baptize their children," enjoining the same penalties as the Act of 1670 against " Disorderly Baptisms." On the 4th of September an Act was passed referring to the Act of 1670 against Conventicles, and explaining the meaning of the word pray in the case of unauthorised preachers, which it was declared " Is not to be understood as If thereby prayer in famihes were discharged [prohibited] by the persons of the faraily, and such as shall be present, not exceeding the number of four persons be sides those of the family." This Act against Conventicles is the raore reraarkable as It seeras to have been revived against the clergy and members of the Scottish Episcopal Church after the suppres sion of the Enterprize of Prince Charles in 1746. On the 10th the stipends of vacant parishes to 1679 inclusive, were ordered to be paid to the Universities for the encouragement of learning. On the 11th Archbishop Sharp procured a " Ratification" of his right to appoint the four Comraissaries of Edinburgh, against which Bishop Young of Edinburgh protested, and the Priraate at the same time lodged a counter protest. The Archbishop promoted the interests ofthe University of St Andrews by procuring a "ratifi cation of his Majesty's gift of raortification for maintaining certain Masters and Professors there," granted under the Great Seal in 1668. The annual sum of L.50 sterling was to be paid to the Profes sor of Hebrew and Oriental Languages in St Mary's College, who was to deUver a weekly " lesson of theology" in that College " as he shall be appointed by the Archbishop." A similar sura was to be awarded yearly to the Professor of Medicine and Anatoray, or of Matheraatics : 800 raerks Scots annually to the Provost of St Salvador's^ 100 of which were to be paid to each of the Professors of Philosophy ; 1000 raerks to the Principal of St Leonard's Col lege, who was to pay 100 raerks to each of the four Professors ; 1672.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. 805 and the Professor of Humanity was to receive an increase of sti pend to the value of 200 raerks. In this year another Indulgence was extended to eighty of the Presbyterian preachers in the western counties, the greater nura ber of whora accepted the proffered boon, but others refused to submit to any terms, pretending that their ministerial office flowed from Christ, and that the civil magistrate could not interfere. In defiance, therefore, of the severe penalty of death and confiscation of property for preaching in the fields, the Covenanters who rejected the Indulgence continued to preach in raoors and sequestered places chiefly in the counties of Lanark, Ayr, Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, Wigton, and Fife, and they were duly attended by their adherents. They were designated Hill Men, from resorting to the mountains ; Wild Men, from the extravagance of their principles and demands ; Cameronians, frora the field-preacher Richard Cameron ; and Co- venanters, because they and their adherents were keen supporters of the Covenant. As it respects their conduct in Fife some infer ences may be drawn from an entry in the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod. On the Oth of October 1672 the " Lord Archbishop and Synod" enjoined the several Presbyteries to report to the next Synod the names of those " chaplains and schoolmasters disaffect ed to the governraent of the Church," who alienate persons frora " peaceable subraission to their pastors and attendance on the public worship of God," by " lecturing and conventicllng." The administration of the Diocese of Glasgow by Leighton was a complete failure. Instead of conciliating the more violent Pres byterians, his proceedings tended to inflame their discords. It Is true that he occasionally was courageous enough to exercise his episcopal authority, but it produced no salutary results. We have seen from the gossipping traditions of him collected by Wodrow that he was held in no great respect by his Presbyterian contem poraries, some of whom considered hira an Arian, others a "Papist," and aU of thera ridiculing his ascetic life. In 1672 he seriously resolved to resign the See of Glasgow, and on the follow ing year he determined to retire. But Leighton appears to have been long disagreeably situated in Scotland, and Burnet assigns as his reason for relinquishing the See of Glasgow that " he had gained no ground on the Presbyterians, and was suspected and hated by the Episcopal party." In 1665 It is stated that Leighton 806 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1672. announced to the clergy of the Diocese of Dunblane his resolution to resign that See, and he went to London to Intimate his inten tion to the King. His undoubtedly gentle and retiring disposi tion was grieved at the severities which the obstinate Covenanters drew upon themselves, and which the ignorant peasantry were taught to believe as eraanating from the Church. The King, it is farther alleged, was moved at Leighton's recital of the state of the kingdom, censured some proceedings of Archbishop Sharp, and pro mised a lenient enforceraent of the laws ; yet all these assertions are at variance with the denunciations of the " Fanatics," in the royal letters addressed to the Parliament. Charles prevailed with Leighton to retain the Bishopric of Dunblane, and so far fulfilled his promise as to suspend the functions of the new High Commission. In 1 669 Leighton went again to Court, and had^two audiences of the King on behalf of the nonconformists, at one of which his endea vours were seconded by Bishop Wilkins of Chester, and the " In dulgence," which eventuaUy dissatisfied both parties, soon afterwards was announced. Bishop Keith states on private information that Leighton found his diocesan authority of little avail as the mere com raendator, and he procured a conge cTelire to the Chapter to elect hira Archbishop, which was done on the 27th of October. When the Assertory Act, however, was known in England, and especially the uncanonical and arbitrary deprivation of Archbishop Burnet, re monstrances were addressed to Charles II. by Archbishop Sancroft of Canterbury and several ofthe English Bishops on that most extra ordinary grasp of royal power, representing to the King that such an exaraple might be extended to England, and that a hostile monarch In concert with unprincipled advisers might utterly ruin the Church. In the case of Leighton's election to the Archbishopric of Glasgow the Duke of Lauderdale refusedto ratifyit by theusual letters-patent from the King, but the letters-comraendatory entitled him to the revenues of the See. Bishop Keith farther states on the personal Information of Bishop Rose of Edinburgh, that " the election flowed frora the Archbishop [Leighton] himself, and not from a conge d'elire, and that was one ofthe reasons why It was not ratified by the King. Whether this did give a disgust to Dr Leighton, as some apprehended, or that It proceeded from his profound humility and self-denial, it is, however, certain that he went up to 1672.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OP THE CHURCH. 807 London, and resigned the Archbishopric as a burthen too great for him to sustain."* Leighton proceeded to London in 1672, and with very consider able difficulty obtained permission to resign the Archbishopric in 1674, when he resolved to retire. He seeras to have been convinced of his utter inabiUty to discharge the duties of the Diocese, and he was glad to obtain the aid of his suffragan the Bishop of Gallo way. The Earl of Lauderdale wrote to Bishop Harailton, dated WhitehaU, Oth August 1673 : — " I am commanded to show you that because of the large extent, and the many difficult affairs, of the Diocese of Glasgow, It is his Majesty's pleasure that you do all the assistance you can to the present Archbishop in the ordi nation of intrants to the ministry, and any other business relating to that Diocese wherein you may be helpful to him." Leighton transmitted this to Bishop HamUton, to whom he thus wrote on the 1st of September : — " Being remanded back to this station for a little time I desired the enclosed, though I have found your Lord ship very ready to assist me upon such occasions as this relates to ; because if they shall frequently occur, as possibly they may, it might seem not so regular and warrantable to trouble you with them without this signification of his Majesty's pleasure, which wiU sufficiently excuse and justify us both in these instances. But at meeting I may, God wiUing, give you a better account of the business, and the reason that caused such a thing to be desired by your Lordship's brother and humble servant." In reference to this correspondence it Is stated by a contemporary — " Had the above Archbishop known men as well as books, there had little need for these letters. He was a very learned man, very pious, aild knew nothing of the Imave, so that the hypocrite of ordinary letters, from whatever quarter, with a dejected whining counten ance, and a lai-ge pretence to piety, seldom went away without his designs. But not so with the Bishop of Galloway. He had been the butt of their maUce too long not to know where their poison ous schismatical trash lay ; therefore they were obliged to produce better testimonies and endure more strict examination. This the Archbishop knew very well to be his [own] faUing, and had no design at aU to return to Glasgow, neither would he, if he had not got this letter for the Bishop of GaUoway's assistance, with a pro- * Catalogue^of Scottish Bishops, edited by BishoF Eussell, p. 267-269. 808 FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. [1672. raise of no long stay, so weary was this good soul of that country, and of the obstinacy In it ; yet he abode until he heard of our good Bishop's death, upon which he imraediately laid down his charge, and went to London."* Leighton attended the Pariiaraent which raet in November 1673, and his name occurs on the roll as Archbishop of Glasgow. Mr James Rarasay was appointed his successor in the See of Dun blane that year, and also attended that Pariiaraent. He is already noticed as rainister of Linlithgow at the Restoration, and promi nent in the burning of the Solemn League and Covenant in 1662. At the tirae of his elevation to Dunblane he was minister of Ha milton and Dean of Glasgow. Archbishop Leighton finally resigned the See of Glasgow in 1674, and returning to Edinburgh, he resided some time in the University, where the chair he had himself occupied was worthily filled by Mr William Colville, who had been nominated at the tirae of his own election. He soon afterwards went into England, and spent the reraainder of his life with his sister, the wife and finally the widow of a gentleman named Lightwater or Lightmaker, of Broadhurst in the parish of Horstead-Keynes in Sussex. He had another sister who raarried a gentleman named Rathband. He lived in pious seclusion, occasionally officiating in the parish church, and in others In the vicinity. In 1679, an attempt was made to induce him to return to Scotland at the suggestion of the Duke of Monmouth, who obtained for him a grant of L.200 sterling frora the King till he could serve the sovereign in a " stated eraployment," and he was enjoined to transmit to Charles from " time to time, characters both of men and things ;" but this negotiation was never concluded. In 1684, Leighton was urged by his friend Burnet to visit London, and meet the Earl of Perth, Lord Chancellor of Scotland, with whora he had been intiraate. In the hope that this " angelical man," as Burnet desig nates him, might revive some of those " good principles " which were " now totally extinguished " in the Earl. When he reached London, Burnet says that he was surprized to find him hale and active, his hair still black, and retaining much of his natural viva city, quickness of conception, and strength of raeraory. He spoke, however, of his work and journey through life as concluded, and * Account of the FamiUe of Hamilton of BroomhiU, p. 59, 60. 1672.] FARTHER DISCOURAGEMENTS OF THE CHURCH. 809 was seized next day with a pleurisy, which continued for about twelve hours, when he expired without pain or convulsions, in the 74th year of his age, on the 25th of June. He died in an inn in Warwick Lane in the arms of Burnet, and was interred at Hor stead-Keynes. Leighton was never married, and, with the excep tion of a small token of grateful acknowledgment to his sister and her son for their kindness to hira while he was their guest, he be queathed his property to pious and charitable uses. His Works were first published by the Jaraes Fall, D.D., Principal of the University of Glasgow, who was deprived by the Government for nonconformity to Presbyterianism after the Revolution, and was coUated to the precentorship of York Cathedral. Some traditions still exist of Leighton's episcopate at Dunblane illustrative of his siraplicity and exemplary life. His usual pro menade in that decayed city is known as the Bishop"s Walk. He left his books to the clergy of the Diocese of Dunblane, and his sister and her son erected the tenement at their own expense in whieh his Library is preserved, endowing it with the sum of L.3(J0, the interest of which is applied to the repair of the building, the salary of the librarian, and the purchase of books. Various ad ditions have been made to the number of volumes from bequests, and from the grant by Leighton's relatives ; but the Library has been shamefuUy neglected, and it is stated that during fifty years prerious to 1842 about seven hundred volumes had been lost. The Library comprises exceUent editions of the Classics, several works of the Fathers, many of the theological treatises of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth centuries, and some of the following century, but very few of more recent times. After the Revolution the Library fell into the hands of the Presbyterians, and Leighton's nephew placed it under the controul of seven trus tees, one of whom was the then Viscount StrathaUan, whose right is now invested in the Earls of KinnouU, three gentleraen and their heirs-male, the minister of Dunblane, and two other parochial incumbents chosen by the Established Synod of Perth and Stirling. Previous to 1843 the building was repaired at the expense of L.lOO, and is now fitted up as a subscription reading-roora. The records of the Diocesan Synod of Dunblane, from 1662 to 1688, are extant. Including of course the whole of Leighton's episcopate.* • New Statistical Account of Scotland— PeriAsAire, p. 1039, 1040, 1041. 810 [1673. CHAPTER IX. THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. In 1673 the Quakers in Aberdeen again encountered the opposition of the Magistrates, who sent a memorial against thera to the Privy CouncU, and the clergy applied to Archbishop Sharp, complaining that " the Quakers' schism was prejudicial to the interest of the Church, and that by using a separate burial-place they prevented the payment of the fees customary on these occasions." This re fers to a most unwarrantable act which the civic authorities per petrated. They had preriously enjoined all male Quakers to be apprehended at their next convention, imprisoned in the jail, and their meeting-house to be closed. The Quakers, nevertheless, per severed in maintaining their peculiar tenets in defiance of every indignity ; but lest it should be supposed that they suffered solely because they were opposed to the Episcopal Church, it may be here observed that Wodrow and other Presbyterian writers approve of all the proceedings against them, and coraplain that they were not sufficiently prosecuted. The Quakers had appropriated ground on the east side of the street called the Gallowgate in Aberdeen for the interment of their dead. The Magistrates caused the walls of this cemetery to be demolished, and the body of a child, which had been buried three days previously, was disinterred by their order, and burled near the adjoining fishing village of Footdee at the mouth of the Dee. In consequence of a report that the Quakers had abstracted the body, and filled the coffin with stones to deceive the Magistrates, another disinterraent took place, which satisfied thera that the rumour was unfounded. The Quakers, who are not without their superstitions, have a tradition that in consequence of this very harsh conduct on the part of the civic 1673.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 811 authorities an unusual mortahty of children occurred in Aber deen that year, and the favourite grandchild of one of the Ma gistrates who was most active In the affair was on the following day accidentally kUled by his servant. This, however, did not lessen his opposition, and " going on" in what the Quaker Bar clay caUs " his usual course of wickedness, among similar acts often causing the waUs of the burial-place and premises to be pulled down," he was soon afterwards " suspended in his career by a faU which fractured his leg." It is stated that the Ma gistrates nevertheless continued to remove every corpse interred in the Quakers' ground, and they continued so to act until they were prohibited by the Privy Council. In June 1673, nineteen of the Aberdeen Quakers were summoned before the Privy Council at Edinburgh and fined, but before the money was exacted a pro clamation was issued remitting all penalties for nonconformity ex cept those already paid, or engaged to be paid by the bond of the parties or other securities. In 1673 another attempt was meditated against the life of Archbishop Sharp by the field-preacher Mitchell already mentioned. This man returned to Scotland that year, married, and hired a shop, in which his wife sold brandy and tobacco, within a few doors of the Archbishop's residence in Edinburgh. Mitchell was held in great repute for his previous attempt on the Primate by the Co venanters. His shop was a secret resort of their leaders, wiio often discussed in it their intrigues with Holland. Mitchell had not been long in Edinburgh before he was apprehended as a suspi cious person from his external appearance, for he is described as a " lean hoUow-cheeked man, of a truculent countenance, and had the air of an assassin as much as a man could have." Two pistols, in size like those he formerly possessed when he wounded Bishop Honyman, which were found each to be loaded with three bullets, were taken in his possession. He was conveyed by Sir WUliam Sharp, then Keeper of the Signet, to his brother the Archbishop's residence. Though a crowd rushed into the house the Primate at once recognized Mitchell, and approaching him, said — " You are the man." He was soon afterwards brought before the Privy CouncU, at which the Duke of Lauderdale presided. Mitchell on that occasion refused to confess, but he acknowledged his guilt to a committee appointed to deal with him, which he signed in 812 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1673. the presence of Lauderdale, his brother Lord Hatton, then Trea surer-Depute, the Lord Chancellor Rothes, and others of the Privy Council, who adhibited their names as witnesses. In Fe bruary 1674 he was brought to trial, when after his Indictment was read he denied the whole, and retracted his confession. Sir John Nisbet, the Lord Advocate, desisted from the prosecution, and the Privy Council committed Mitchell a close prisoner to the Bass Rock in the mouth of the Frith of Forth. He continued on the Bass till the latter end of December 1677, when he was again called up to answer for his criminal designs. The Scottish Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 12th of No vember, the Duke of Lauderdale representing the King as Lord High Commissioner, and the Lord Chancellor Rothes presiding. On roll as present are Archbishop Sharp of St Andrews, Leighton, styled Archbishop of Glasgow, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Brechin, Dunblane, Caithness, and Argyll. In the King's letter it Is stated that " one of the principal reasons of keeping this session of Parliament was to the end [that] effectual courses may be laid down for curbing and punishing the insolent field conventicles, and other seditious practices which have since the last session too much abounded." — " You are our witnesses," says the royal document, " what Indulgences we have given, and with what lenity we have used such dissenters as would be peaceable ; and how rauch our favours have been abused. You have made many good laws, but still have failed in the execution against the contemners of the law. We must now, therefore, once for all lay down such solid and effectual courses as the whole king dom raay see that we and you are both in earnest ; and that if fairness will not, force must compel the refractory to be peaceable and obey the laws." Only four Acts were passed by this Parlia ment, which was adjourned from tirae to tirae, and dissolved by royal proclamation dated the 19th of May 1674. A variety of events occurred in 1674. On the 29th of April we find the Diocesan Synod of Fife unanimously approving of an over ture or raemorial to Archbishop Sharp, entitled a " representation of the grievances of the Church to the Lords of the Privy Council" prepared by the Priraate and the " Brethren of the Privy Confer ence," which was delivered into " the Lord Archbishop's hands for transmission." This document complains of the " increase of 1673.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 813 Popery" and the " defection of some into Quakerism;" the frequency of field-preaching, and assemblages of multitudes in the fields and private houses ; disorderly marriages ; the " refusal of delinquents to submit to the just censures of the Church for scandalous mis carriages condemned by the word of God and laws of this king dom :" the " licentiousness of persons openly profane, who are encouraged by this example ;" the " unheard of intrusion into and invading the pulpits of the godly and orderly ministers of this Church, and the barbarous profanation of places dedicated to the service of God :" the " open and ordinary profanation of the Lord's day by persons who, pretending necessary dispatch of busi ness, do cause great disturbance in the several parishes through which the common road lieth, threatening and forcing hirers of horse, boatmen, and other people, to serve their worldly lusts and designs ; as also by the tra\'elling of multitudes of people on the Lord's Day to conventicles at a distance." The conduct of the Duke of Lauderdale at this period of his administration was marked by his political insincerity and dupli city to both the Episcopal Church and the Presbyterians. His notorious immorality, and his licentious intercourse with Elizabeth Murray, who succeeded her father the first Earl of Dysart as Countess in her own right, are facts well known and disgraceful even in that profligate age. His Duchess, who was the second daughter of the first Earl of Home, died at Paris in 1671, and in February 1672 he married the Countess of Dysart, then the widow of Sir Lionel Talmash, Bart. She is described as a person of such remarkable beauty, fascinating manners, and varied accomplish ments, that Cromwell himself could scarcely resist her attractions. Lauderdale and his second Duchess made a tour through many parts of Scotland after their marriage, and were received and at tended with almost regal respect. The odium of his administration fell upon the Church, and the Bishops and clergy were accused of exciting his severe proclamations. Another misfortune was that no party could depend upon his pohcy. At one time he rigidly in sisted on conformity, and threatened the discontented preachers who were sanctioned by the " Indulgence." We find him writing to the Privy Council in 1673 — " Because some of thera are dis pleased, forsooth, with the late Indulgence, you shaU secure thera from the fear of any more of that kind, and let them know that if. 814 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1673. after all the lenity used towards them, they stiU continue refrac tory and untractable, the whole of the royal power shaU be em ployed for securing the peace of the Church and Kingdom from their seditious practices." This decisive language contained much truth, but it was rendered altogether ineffectual by Lauderdale's subsequent conduct. After the prorogation of the Parliament in 1674 he and the Earl of Tweeddale were suramoned by the King to Court, and as a combination had been formed to deprive him of his power "and infiuence, he thought proper to connect himself with the Presbyterians, by announcing a pardon on the 4th of May to aU resorters to field-preachings and other meetings previous to that day, founded, as is alleged, on a letter from the King. This " act of grace," as Kirkton calls It, was proclaimed some days afterwards with due solemnity in presence of the Magistrate ; " but," says Kirkton, " though this act was not very fuU in itself, it had this effect, to be looked at by the common people rather as an encouragement for the time coraing than as a re raission for what was past ; and from that day forward the truth was Scotland broke loose with conventicles of all sorts in houses, fields, and vacant churches ; hence conventicles were not noticed, the field conventicles blinded the eyes of our State so rauch. The parish churches of the curates in the raeantime came to be like pest-houses ; few went to any of them, and none to some, so the doors were kept locked. In the West there were not many, in regard of the Indulged ministers ; nor in the North, In regard of the disposition of the people there, who were never zealous for a good cause."* The " good cause" means Presbyterianism, this sneer at the northern counties indicating that the people were almost universally in favour of the Episcopal Church. Kirkton states that in the spring of this year the field- preachers and their adherents began " to act very high ; alraost all of them preached, not only in houses, but went to the fields or vacant churches." He says that the common talk of the peasantry was about the success of the last Sunday's conventicle, the preach ers, the numbers and enthusiasm of the audiences, the doctrines taught, the " change among the people : how sorae tiraes the soldiers assaulted thera, and some kiUed of them ; sometiraes the soldiers were beaten, and some of them killed ; and this was the " Kirkton's History, edited by C. K. Sharpe, Esq. p. 343. 1674.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 815 exercise of the people of Scotland for six ye.ars time," or to the Battle of BothweU Bridge in 1679. It is easy to estimate the misery which all this fanaticisra would engender and foster among the people by Lauderdale's proceedings, the barriers it op posed to doraestic, social, and intellectual improvement, the igno rant prejudices It would perpetuate, and the hatred it would excite. It is singular that the Scottish Bishops had nevertheless the most implicit confidence in Lauderdale. Kirkton in his ironical style says — " Lauderdale had a party in the Parliament who stuck by him at that time. Among these were Argyll, Kincardine, and Stair, with whose heifer he ploughed most ; but we must not for get the good Bishops, who stuck by the Commissioner as one man." In those letters of the Bishops who survived the Revolution, which are stUl preserved, the writers mention Lauderdale and his brother Lord Hatton as the sincere and determined supporters of the Church; but that sincerity was very questionable which en couraged the field -preachers and their followers at one time and denounced them at another. It is undeniable that he opposed the Presbyterians, but all his proceedings were characterized by ca price, interest, and individual aggrandizement. The open field-preachings began in Fife early in 1674 under the auspices of two noted leaders — Blackadder and Welsh — the latter the grandson of that John Welsh who was banished by King James. On the 2d of January the former collected a large as semblage at Kincaple — a mansion upwards of two miles frora St Andrews, at which Welsh was also present. Archbishop Sharp was from home, but his wife sent a body of militia who were ac companied by a crowd frora St Andrews, and a nuraber of the stu dents, to disperse the conventicle. After some violent altercation the proprietor of the mansion appeared, and asked the occasion of this disturbance on the Sabbath-day. The officer produced a warrant signed by Chancellor Rothes to apprehend hira and his brother on the previous year. " I see," was the reply, " you have an old order from the Chancellor to that effect, which was extorted from him by the Prelate. If you intend to execute it now you may, but you wiU see the faces of men." According to the Presbyterian tradition Blackadder some weeks afterwards held another conven ticle at Kincaple. Archbishop Sharp, who was then at horae, sent for the Provost of St Andrews, and desired hira to call out 816 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1674. the railitary, disperse the meeting, and apprehend the preacher. " My Lord," the Provost Is made to reply, " the railitia are gone there already to hear the preaching, and we have none to send." This story is one of the many fictions which are still credited. Encouraged by Lauderdale's act of indemnity, Welsh and other preachers forcibly entered parish churches In Fife and held forth to their followers. The Covenanters took possession of the parish church of Cramond and others near Edinburgh, and intruded themselves Into the Magdalene Chapel in that city one Sunday. During this sumraer another attempt was projected against Arch bishop Sharp ostensibly by female enthusiasts secretly abetted by the preachers. On the 4th of June, while he was passing through the Parliament Close at Edinburgh to attend a meeting of the Privy Council accompanied by the Lord Chancellor Rothes, many hundreds of women had assembled with a design to murder him, and the daughter of Johnston of Warriston was to give the signal. Rothes, who knew their intentions, diverted this wo man by some general conversation, and the Archbishop entered the council-room in safety.* Wodrow says that one of them seized him rudely by the throat, designating him Judas Iscariot, and exclaiming — " Ere all was done his neck behoved to hang for It ;" but as this Incident is not raentioned by any other writer, it is probably one of the usual fictions of the tirae. Three of those woraen, including Johnston's daughter, were imprisoned for a short period. " During the furies of the Covenant," as Mr C. K. Sharpe observes, " riotous assemblages of the female sex were very fre quent in Edinburgh. One Mistress Kelty, at the head of a regi ment of pious sisters, threw a stone at the head of the Duke of Hamilton in 1648, for which her hand was ordered to be cut off; ' but he procured her pardon,' says Burnet in his Memoirs of the Duke, ' and said the stone had missed him ; therefore he was to take care that their sentence should miss her.' " The proceedings of the field-preachers had been represented to the Government, and a letter from the King to the Privy CouncU was read, requiring them by the aid of the military and standing force diligently to apprehend " preachers at conventicles, invaders of pulpits, and ringleading heritors." A committee was appointed, at the head of which were Archbishop Sharp and the Officers of * Sir George Mackenzie's Memoirs, 4to. p. 272, 273. 1673.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 817 Crown, and of the State, assisted by the Earls of ArgyU, Linlith gow, Kinghorn, Wigton, and Dundonald. John Welsh, Gabriel Semple, John Blackadder, and seventeen other field-preachers, were ordered to be apprehended, one of whom was a person named Forrester, minister of Alva, who had been induced to join the party, and was deposed by the Diocesan Synod of Dunkeld, which was ratified on the 4th of May by Bishop Guthrie. For Welsh and Semple, who were particularly obnoxious, a reward of L.400 ster hng was offered, and for the others 1000 merks. The city of Edinburgh was fined L.lOO sterling, to be levied frora those who were present, for allowing the conventicle in the Magdalene Chapel. Inglis of Craraond was ordered to pay L.1036 Scots as the cost of hearing six Covenanting sermons In his parish church ; a gentle man in Fife, for " harbouring" Welsh in his house one night, was ordered to pay 2000 merks, though Kirkton says that when Welsh lodged in his house he was from home ; and eleven heri tors were fined upwards of 5500 merks for attending his field- preachings. Two proclamations followed, the one against those who resorted to conventicles ; landlords and masters were to be re sponsible for the fines incurred by their tenants and servants ; and magistrates were authorized to compel all persons whom they sus pected to produce security for their good behaviour. The other was against the field-preachers in terras of the Acts of Parliament. The King also intimated to the Privy Council that the military in Ireland and at Berwick were in readiness to serve in Scotland, and repress aU conventicles and other seditious meetings. As it respects the field conventicles, the Diocesan Synod of Glasgow in October 1673 had complained of their injurious effects on the morals of the people. In addition to the undeniable charges of fanaticism, sedition, and abuse of the King and Governraent, the Diocesan Synod aUeged that " incest, bestiality, murder of children, besides frequent adulteries, and other acts of wickedness," were the results of those meetings. The Presbyterians denounce these ac cusations as foul and false aspersions, originating in exasperation at the numerous field asserablages, and the violent treatment which the clergy experienced from the Covenanters. Such writers ought, however, to recollect that their predecessors in 1638 scrupled not to accuse the Scottish Bishops and clergy of similar crimes, and that not one of them has evinced the candour to deplore those vUe 52 818 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1674. and wicked caluranies. It is possible that the Diocesan Synod of Glasgow exaggerated the raatter, but it cannot be denied that such proraiscuous congregations of raen and woraen in wild and remote localities were dangerous to the raorals of an excited peasantry, and that the inflaramatory harangues addressed to thera in the coarsest and often in no very modest language would lead many into illicit intercourse. Long after the Revolution the dreadful immorahty which resulted frora the annual Presbyterian raode of adrainis tering the Sacraraent, when the practice of what is called tent- preaching In the open air was prevalent, was adraitted by the more enlightened of the Presbyterian ministers theraselves, and the kirk-session records of the parishes corroborate the fact. Every one is farailiar with Burns' " Holy Fair,"" and that exqui site effusion of the Scottish poet did raore to extinguish those ex traordinary annual displays of fanaticism than many serious ex hortations. And if the " Holy Fairs"" of the eighteenth century were unable to resist the attacks of ridicule on account of the licentiousness and Immorality they fostered among the male and female peasantry, it can scarcely be credited that their ancestors who resorted to field-preachings were raore virtuous. We are told that In 1674 the Duke of Lauderdale reconciled hiraself to Archbishop Sharp, and secured the favour of Archbishop Sancroft of Canterbury. The result of this probably was the re storation of Archbishop Burnet to his See of Glasgow, vacant by the retireraent of Bishop Leighton. The King's letter in favour of Archbishop Burnet is dated the 7th of Septeraber, and on the 29th of that raonth the Privy Council passed an act in obedience to the royal authority, restoring " the said Alexander Archbishop of Glasgow to the possession and enjoyraent of the Archbishopric." About this period his traducer, tbe future Bishop Burnet, resigned his Professorship of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, and reraoved to London. His subsequent career has no connection with the Episcopal Church of Scotland. During this year an agitation was excited by Bishops Ramsay of Dunblane and Lawrie of Brechin, and proraoted by some of the clergy In Edinburgh and Leith, to obtain a National Synod " for considering the disorders in the Church." In a letter from Lauderdale to Archbishop Sharp, dated Windsor, 13th June, his Lordship states that he had informed the King, soon after the last 1674.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 819 meeting of the Privy Council, of the exertions to persuade the Diocesan Synods to deraand a national one — " And now," says the Duke, " it is apparent the design was raore against Episcopacy than against conventicles ;" and — " I am sorry to see, by my last letters of the 4th instant, that the design is still carried on, and that some that I took to be raore orthodox have had too great a hand in carrying on that plot. I had a general account of the address of the Presbytery of Glasgow to that of Edinburgh for a raeeting, forsooth, which would have looked too like the late Commission of the Kirk, and of an address made by some of the ministers about Edinburgh to that effect. This looks too like the petition of ministers before the Rebellion in the years 1637 and 1638." His Grace requests the Archbishop to intimate to hira his " free advice" as to what he thinks the King should " command upon this occa sion," assuring the Primate that " the King will be very careful that the honour and authority of the Bishops may be preserved, and aU contrivances against them suppressed and punished." The Duke concludes — " Although I am no longer Coraralssloner, yet in aU stations I shall be found zealous and active for the governraent of the Church as it is now by law settled, and for its peace and happiness." Archbishop Sharp was opposed to the projected Na tional Synod, for which he saw no necessity, and he addressed a letter to Archbishop Sancroft to exert his influence against it with the King. He complains — " We are assaulted not only by foreigners [probably alluding to the intrigues with Holland], our our old enemies the fanatics, who never were of us ; but, alas ! my Lord, there is a fire in our own bed-straw, by sons of our own bowels, who viper-like seek to eat that which produced thera. They are all crying out for a national convocation of the clergy, upon no other account but to shake off our yoke and break our bands asunder. — Their great aim and design is against me, who, God knows, Uke Paul, have spent myself in the service of the Church, and am yet willing to spend what reraains. I believe no man can say I have run in vain. If I be not supported by his Majesty's special favour through your Grace's recoraraendation, I shaU inevitably suffer shipwreck, and that upon no evU, or upon mine own account, but I see that through my sides the Cburch wiU be wounded. The only remedy is to procure his Majesty to discharge the convocation, which wiU calra the storm, and quench 820 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1674. all those malicious designs which are now on foot to disturb the peace of the Church. They are ah-eady come to that height that one Mr Cant, a presbyter, has shaken off all fear of God, and re gard for his canonical oath, in calling me a great grievance to this Church." The Mr Cant here raentioned is generally supposed to have been the son of Mr Andrew Cant, the noted Covenanting rainister of Aberdeen, and was a presbyter of the Church which his father had violently opposed. This Mr Cant became one of the rainisters of Edinburgh, and after 1675 was Principal of the University. His son, or relative, who was ejected at the Revolution, was con secrated one of the Bishops of the disestablished Scottish Epis copal Church in 1722. On the 2d of June, Archbishop Sharp coraplained to the Privy Council of the conduct of Messrs Cant, Turner, Robertson, and HamUton. The Primate and some others were authorized to examine thera, and corarait thera if they saw cause. Their report was transraitted to the King, who on the 16th of July wrote to the Privy Council, declaring his pleasure that Bishop Rarasay of Dunblane should remove into the Diocese of The Isles within two weeks — that Bishop Lawrie of Brechin should confine his ministry to Trinity CoUege church in Edin burgh — and that Bishop Young should prohibit the refractory presbyters from officiating In any parish within that Diocese un less by his special license. Mr Turner was to remove to Glasgow, Mr Robertson to Auchterless in Aberdeenshire, Mr Cant to Lib berton, and Mr Hamilton to Cramond, until farther orders. The Presbyterians allege that this common kind of exile in those times was at the instigation of Archbishop Sharp, who domineered over those who gave him vexation. As this is a matter of opinio» it Is unworthy of farther notice ; but If It were the fact, the Primate cannot be rauch blaraed. Have Presbyterian General Assera blies and Synods never exercised tyrannical powers since the Revolution ? Bishop Hamilton of Galloway died in August this year. Wodrow has preserved a Presbyterian tradition as to the cause of his death. After stating a gross falsehood, that " few or none of the Bishops after the Restoration who had taken the Covenant died a natural death," he adds — " Mr James Hamilton, minister at Caranethan, and afterwards Bishop of GaUoway, when Mr Gilbert Hall was 1674.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 821 seized with a great palsy, the Bishop had that expression when he heard of it — ' Now God has stopped that man's mouth that we aU could not get stopped.' Within a very Uttle time, riding home from sorae place, by the road his tongue fell a sweUing, and before he got home it was sweUed to that degree that it hung out of his mouth, and he died in great anguish."* There Is not a word of truth in this contemptible story. We are told that Bishop Hamilton " was a man of a sprightly but ordinary stature, weU seen in divinity, especiaUy In polemics and the languages, with a good memory, accurate in the Fathers and Church history, as is yet to be seen by the remarks upon his books. He was very pious and charitable, strictly pure in his raorals, raost kind to his friends, and most affable and courteous to strangers. He was a Boanerges in the pulpit, and every way worthy of the sacred character which he bore. — The Bishop was very happy in a pious, fond, and virtuous viife. She knew his constitution, and did, under God, keep hira in a good state of health during her life ; but for the seven years he lived thereafter, his daughters being very young, and when come to any raaturity raarried frora hira, he took the liberty to manage his diet as he pleased, which generally was one roasted egg In the moming, a little broth, and perhaps nothing [else], about four ; at night a smaU glass of ale to his pipe in the winter, and for the raost part water in sumraer. This with his book was most of the good Bishop's food during the last seven years of his life."f The sarae writer, in reply to an assertion of Wodrow that Bishop HamUton, when consecrated with the other Bishops in Westminster Abbey In 1661, there learned the " Enghsh Service," states — " Yet, for aU that, he [Wodrow] hath neglected the Sy nodal books at Glasgow, else he had found Mr James Hamilton to his lasting honour severely handled by the then Synod for using so long that great treasure of rational devotion, I mean our Liturgy, in his church at Carabusnethan." Bishop Harailton was succeeded in the Diocese of Galloway by John Paterson, Dean of Edinburgh, and minister of the Tron church in that city. He was a son of Bishop Paterson of Ross, and it is previously stated that he was mimster of EUon in Aberdeenshire. Both father and son were contemporaries in the episcopal office. " Analecta, vol. 1, 4to, 1842, p. 64, 65. t Account ofthe FamUie of Hamilton of BroomhUI, p. 61, 62. S22 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1674. In the summer of this year the Magistrates of Aberdeen began another crusade against the Quakers. They were forcibly expeUed from their meeting-house, of which, however, they took possession when the civic authorities retired, and they appear to have dis played as much tenacity to their opinions in their own way as did their enemies the Covenanters. In terras of the proclama tion against house and field conventicles, two of them were im prisoned for nearly three months, and as all the Quakers refused to subscribe a bond obliging theraselves to abstain from such meetings, they were denounced by the Magistrates as rebels, and their personal property was declared to be forfeited to the King's use. They sent a meraorial to the Privy Council, complaining of these proceedings, and declaring their loyal attachment to the Government. The Aberdeen Quakers have a tradition that one David Rait, who, along with sundry of the students of Marischal CoUege, interrupted their meetings, was in consequence overtaken by severe afflictions, and died in a state of distraction. Towards the end of this year Archbishop Sharp went to London, where he appears to have remained tUl August 1675. Some letters connected with the internal affairs of the Church at this period which passed between the Primate, Bishop Paterson and Bishop Ram say, are preserved in the Episcopal chest at Aberdeen, and others by Wodrow, but they contain no historical facts of importance. Bishop Ramsay followed the Archbishop to London, disregarding the King's command to locate himself in the Diocese of The Isles ; and on the 7th of June 1675 he addressed a long letter to the Pri mate evidently written under excitement. The Bishop of Dunblane, though a man of undoubted integrity, was apparently of a restless disposition, and inclined to innovations. He complained that he had been misrepresented to the King, and that though he intended " to give exact obedience to his Majesty's pleasure," he had peti tioned the Privy CouncU in vain to " represent his case," and that he " might be put to the strictest trial anent those criraes in formed against him." He accused the Archbishop of being the sole opposer of his demands, and insisted that " as Primate you should have concerned yourself to help forward a favourable answer to the petition of a Bishop of your own Province so just in itself." — " But since I came here," says Bishop Ramsay, " I have been amazed to find a person of your character and parts could think it worthy of 1675.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 823 himself and his pains to make and spread such reports as I am told you have done. May I be so bold as to ask your Grace if indeed you believe me to be a fanatic, or upon what shadow of ground you either think or report it to others 2 Have you any letters un der my hand avouching that presbyterial government, even for its substantials, is jure divino, or that I was thinking de mutando solo, when the Parliament raade the first discoveries of their inclination to restore Episcopacy." The Bishop then refers to his sufferings before the Restoration, his early conviction of the divine authority of Episcopacy, his defences of It in the Synod of Lothian " under the greatest patrons of presbytery," and he asks — " Do you think that I am turned fanatic because a Bishop ? I beseech your Grace to consider how unjustifiable those slanders will be when put to the touch." He adds in a postscript — " If your Grace return no an swer this or the next day, I will conclude you resolve to give me none." The Archbishop replied on the following day in a long and temperate letter, denying the accusations against him, reminding him of the favours he conferred upon hira though never very inti mate with him, and while he had never said to any one that Bishop Eamsay had turned " fanatic," he nevertheless thought "there may be a schismatical and unpeaceable Bishop in the Church." The whole letter contains some severe refiections on Bishop Rarasay's former conduct and stateraents, and concludes by declaring that he [the Archbishop] will receive no raore of his letters ; but as the whole is a personal quarrel, it is unnecessary to Introduce the cor respondence at length in this narrative. While the Archbishop was in London, Bishop Wallace of The Isles died at Rothesay on the 16th of May, and was interred in the old parish church, in which a monument was erected to his meraory. He was succeeded by Andrew Wood, successively rainister of Spott, and of Dunbar, in Haddingtonshire, who, on account of the poverty of the See, was allowed to retain the parochial incumbency of Dunbar. During tbis year Bishop Scroggie of Argyll died at or near Dunbarton, and an elegant monument was erected to hira in that churchyard. He was succeeded in the See of Argyll by Arthur Ross, then one of the rainisters of Glasgow. Archbishop Sharp returned to Scotland in August, with a com mission from the King to suraraon a raeeting of all the Bishops to inquire Into the conduct of Bishop Rarasay. The two Archbishops 824 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1675. and the Bishops held their Episcopal Synod at St Andrews in September, and this appears to have been the meeting mentioned by Wodrow. Two questions were submitted to Bishop Rarasay, the one, whether he had obtained leave frora the King, or from his metropoUtan, to proceed to London on the previous April ; and the other, whether he abetted and assisted the " motion and peti tion for a National Synod without consent of his superior and the Bishops of this Church." Nothing is recorded of the discussion, but it appears that Bishop Ramsay conducted himself so offensively that the Archbishop ordered hira to withdraw. He retired, and addressed a long letter to the Priraate and the other Bishops, com plaining ofthe treatment he had experienced, and recoramending a convocation of the whole clergy. As no advantage could be derived from such a proposition it was strenuously resisted by Archbishop Sharp. On the 4th of September, Bishop Ramsay submitted his " Answers to the two Interrogatories given In writing to him by the Most Reverend and Right Reverend the Archbishops and Bishops who are upon the Comraission granted by his Majesty for trial of the said Bishop." Two other queries, one of them refer ring to Bishop Young, and the other to Archbishop Sharp, as op posed to the " motion" for a National Synod, were answered by Bishop Ramsay on the 6th of September.* The decision is not recorded, though It appears that he was suspended from his epis copal function, and ordered to repair to The Isles ; but as he de nied that he had any intention of disturbing the peace and unity of the Church, and soon afterwards submitted, he was restored to the exercise of his office and Diocese. Messrs Cant, Tur ner,-)- Robertson, and Hamilton, also expressed regret for their rash and imprudent conduct, and were reinstated in their parish churches early in 1676. As the Assertory Act had been partly the cause of those disputes, a satisfactory declaration was pub lished by the King, in which the royal supremacy of the Church " Wodrow inserts all the documents and correspondence, History, vol. i, folio, p. 401- 414. X " 13th March 1681. Died suddenly at Edinburgh, Dr Archibald Turner, one of the ministers there, a man of ready wit and good parts. He was buried at his own desire under the elders' desk in his own parish church called the Old Kirk, which some thought superstitious ; and his comerade, Mr John Eobertson, preached his funeral sermon." Historical Observes of Memorable Occurrents in Church and State from October 1680 to April 1686, by Sir John Lauder, Lord FountainhaU. Edinburgh, 4to. 1840, printed for the Bannatyne Club, p. 31. 1676.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 825 was renounced; and the ecclesiastical power, authority, and juris diction, as exercised in the three first centuries, was acknow ledged." Bishop Honyman of Orkney died at Kirkwall in February 1 676, having never recovered the severe wounds he had sustained from the field-preacher MitcheU. Wodrow records a Presbyterian tra dition regarding the death of this Prelate : — " Honyman's exit was dreadful. Being In his room alone, they heard a great noise beneath, and when they came up, they found his arm pulled from his body, and cast into the other corner of the room ; and when he was puUed out, he was speechless, only with a woeful look pointed to the end of the room, and within a very little died."* This vUe, heartless, and scandalous falsehood is intended to insinuate that the Bishop's arra was torn frora his body by supernatural agency. What Presbyterian in his sane senses would now believe such a story 2 Keith Inforras us that Bishop Honyman died " with great peace and composure, contrary to what has been asserted by some pamphlet writers, as can be attested by several gentlemen who were witnesses to his death. He was buried in the cathedral church at KirkwaU." Bishop Honyman was succeeded by Bishop Mackenzie, who was translated from the See of Moray, and as he was in the hundredth year of his age at his death in February 1688, he was at this period in his eighty-eighth year. Bishop Mackenzie was succeeded in the See of Moray by James Aitken, a native of KirkwaU, son of Henry Aitken, Sheriff and Commissary of Orkney. He was educated at Edinburgh and Oxford, was a chaplain to the Marquis of Hamilton at the Glasgow General Assembly of 1638, and afterwards incumbent of Birsay in Orkney. In 1650, when the Marquis of Montrose landed in Orkney, he and the other clergy drew up a declaration of loyalty, for which they were all deposed by the Covenanting General Asserably, and Bishop Aitken was ex communicated for raerely conversing witb Montrose, and ordered to be apprehended. By tiraely notice from Sir Archibald Prime- rose, Clerk-Register, whora Bishop Keith terras his " kinsman," he retired to HoUand, and returned to Scotland in 1653. He resided privately in Edinburgh tiU the Restoration, when he went to London with Bishop Sydserff to congratulate the King. He soon afterwards was appointed to the rectory of Winfrith In • Analecta, vol. i. 4to. 1842, p. 64. 826 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1676. Dorsetshire by Bishop Duppa of Winchester, or his successor Bishop Morley, which he held till he was elected to the See of Moray. Bishop Henry Guthrie of Dunkeld, also died in 1676 or 1677. His successor was William Lindsay, minister of Perth, son of James Lindsay of Dovehill, whose consecration Is dated by Keith on the 7th of May 1677. About the beginning of 1676 the Duke of Lauderdale returned to Scotland, bringing another Indulgence to the Presbyterian preachers. He again Intimated to Archbishop Sharp that the King would sign no presentation to any Diocese without consult ing him and Archbishop Burnet, and that those only would be promoted to Bishoprics who were recommended by them. This was probably Intended as a kind of soothing pledge to lessen their op position to the Indulgence. Nevertheless, that mischievous measure was strongly opposed by all the Bishops, especially the extension or enlargement of it, as pregnant with the most dangerous conse quences. A paper is still extant, entitled a " Representation of the evils of ane farther Indulgence," of date 10th February, which was written by Bishop Paterson of Galloway. He points out at great length that the Indulgence had hitherto proved a total failure — that the men who complied with it still held their old principles of the Covenant, and disaffection to the King and Governraent, which they evince by refusing to observe the 29th of May, or anniversary of the Restoration — that they continuaUy introduce " seditious expressions and insinuations in their sermons and prayers, by which not only tbe present but the following genera tion is in hazard to be debauched and corrupted." Bishop Pater son then proceeds to shew the imprudence of " enlarging " the Indulgence, and assigns various arguments to prove the danger to the " interest, peace, and security, of the nation" by " preserving, encouraging, and increasing, such troublesome seminaries and dan gerous nurseries." While the Episcopal Church of Scotland was thus continuaUy suffering from the political intrigues, the local infiuence, and the party quarrels and jealousies, of the principal nobility, the Govern ment failed not to enforce the laws raost rigidly against the refrac tory field-preachers and their followers. In iraitation of their su periors ofthe Privy CouncU, the Magistrates of Aberdeen again took cognizance of the Quakers, who seera to have been the principal 1676.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 827 separatists, few though they were in that part of the kingdom. In March 1676 twelve of them had been imprisoned, and in May the numbers of them in durance amounted to thirty-four. They were soon summoned before the Earls of Erroll and Marischal, and Sir John Keith, afterwards Earl of Kintore, three of the Privy Council appointed to act as Commissioners in the North of Scotland to enforce the Acts against conventicles. Numbers of them were fined, some the fourth part of their valued rents for keeping conventicles, and the eighth part for withdrawing frora pub lic worship, with an additional eighth part for their wives who had become Quakers; others were araerced in sums of from L.25 to L.30 and L.40 ; and a few in twenty merks each. Two of them, naraed John Skene and George Keith, who were convicted of having " preached and prayed at their unwarrantable meetings," were ordered to find security to the extent of 5000 merks " not to do the Uke hereafter," or to " enact themselves to remove out of the kingdom." A variety of proceedings ensued, in which the Quakers conducted themselves with a raoderation very different frora the field-preachers and their adherents, and adopted the constitutional mode of memorialiring the Privy Council. They were generally ordered back to prison till their fines were paid, with the exception of a few who were liberated ; but such was the zeal of those in carcerated, that they preached to the passengers on the streets from the jail windows. To stop this exhibition the Magistrates caused the windows of the jail to be closed up ; some were removed from the lower to the higher part of the prison ; and others of the more " gifted" of the fraternity were transferred to a building near the town called the Chapel. The preaching from the windows of the prison nevertheless continued, which so enraged the Magis trates that they covered the upper windows with boards ; and when the captives complained of the crowded state of the jail, al leging that they had scarcely room to move, they were told in par ticular by a zealous Bailie Burnet, that " he would pack them like salmon in a barrel ; that though they stood as close as the fingers on his hands yet they should have no more roora : and that if they had not roora in the charabers they raight lie on the stairs." This very unconsolatory assurance elicited a singular epistle to the Pro vost from an acquaintance of one of the prisoners in the town, who threatened that functionary with all the punishments of the world 828 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1676. to come for thus treating the " Lord's people." The Commis sioners of the Privy Council ordered nine of them to be reraoved to Banff; five to be liberated frora the jaU, and confined to their country doralciles and parishes ; and no raeetings were to be al lowed in houses, or frequenting them elsewhere. This rehef was granted to the sq called " Friends " on account of " the extra ordinary trouble sustained by the Magistrates and burgh of Aber deen through the many Quaker conventicles held in the Tolbooth, and that others have been urged to throw themselves into the snare of Imprisonraent for the purpose of molestation." It thus appears that the Quakers were prosecuted under the same statute as the Covenanters — " keeping conventicles and wlth- dravring from Divine worship." Any other sectaries who refused to conforra to the Estabhshed Church would have been simUarly treated ; but It ought to be recoUected that the numerous sects with which Scotland now abounds were not in existence tlU the succeeding century, and the Roman Catholics were either too in significant, or too inaccessible in the Highland districts under the protection of powerful Chiefs who adhered to that religion, to at tract notice. The Quakers, however, were too wise in their gene ration to resort to the mountains. Field-preaching forraed no part of their procedure, and was altogether inconsistent with their tenets and systera. If the asserablages of the Covenanters had been conducted on their principle, few sermons would have been preached, and the Old Testament would not have been so often distorted to encourage rebellion, murder, and revenge. All that the Quakers desired was protection when they convened in their own way in their meeting-houses, and In this respect the " Friend^" in the reign of Charles II. were conscientious sufferers. They cherished as many objections to Presbyterianism as to the Episco pal Church, and we know frora recorded statements that they would have suffered more severely if Covenanting Presbyterianism had been established. That this Is a proper view of the case is evident from two docu ments. The one was a petition to the Privy CouncU for release frora prison by the Quakers of Aberdeen, declaring — " The nature of our known principles, and our practice thereunto corresponding since we were a people In this nation, free us of all just ground of suspicion of being disturbers of the comraon peace, or prejudicial to 1677.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 829 the present Government ; and the Innocent and harmless exercise of our consciences in our peaceable and Christian assemblies doth not, as we conceive, come under the genuine purpose of those laws made against the seditious conventicles."" After this just distinction between themselves and the field-preachers, with whose " seditious conventicles" they disowned any connection, tbey proceeded to detaU their personal losses, imprlsonraents, and sufferings, in the jaU of Aberdeen. The other document Is an expostulatory letter to Archbishop Sharp, dated " from the Chapel Prison of Aber deen, the 26th of the 1st raonth, 1677," written by Robert Barclay before he and the others were ordered to be reraoved to Banff. That zealous and honest enthusiast in the cause of Quakerism had been informed that the Archbishop was a chief instigator of their sufferings, and although no direct evidence of this can be adduced, it is clear from the repeated notices of the Quakers In the Minutes of the Diocesan Synod of Fife that he was not particularly friendly to their opinions. The letter is expressed in the phraseology as sumed by the Quakers, and is directed to " Jaraes Sharp, Arch bishop of St Andrew, so called."" The expostulation is neverthe less respectful, but It raust be recollected that Robert Barclay, unlike the field-preachers, was a gentleman of ancient family, refined habits, and liberal education. He commences by stating that though he had often intended to address him, the circum stance of not being personally acquainted with the Archbishop had rendered him " loath" to trouble him ; but as a raemorial had been sent to the Privy Council on behalf of himself and his brethren in prison, he thought it right to intimate " what had been upon his mind." — " The address Itself," says Robert Barclay, " will inform thee how we have been upwards of a year prisoners, and the goods of many poor people miserably spoiled, of which thou art said to be the chief and principal author ; and that the atterapting to persecute us, as weU as the prosecution of it, doth proceed from thy influence, as being done either at thy express desire, or by some others in hopes thereby to gratify thee. How far thou art guilty thereof thine own conscience can best tell ; but surely such practices, if thou hast either directly or Indirectly had a hand in them, wiU neither commend thee to God nor good raen. I pre sume thou lookest upon it as thy chiefest honour to be reputed a Christian Bishop, deriving thy authority from Christ and His 830 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1677. Apostles ; yet they never gave warrant for any such doing, being preachers and practisers of patience and suffering, but never of persecuting, or causing rob any of their goods or liberties for their conscience sake ; and long after, even several centuries, the Primi tive Bishops abhorred and detested such proceedings. — I confess the bloody Bishops of Rome gave large precedents of such actings, but I suppose thou are not ambitious to be ranked among them, or to be accounted an imitator of thera in that respect." All this is temperate, just, and excellent, and exhibits the Scottish Apostle of the Quakers in a very amiable light. He then proceeds to point out to Archbishop Sharp the raarked dis tinction between the principles of the Quakers and the field- preachers, acknowledging that the latter were his bitter enemies and resolutely opposed to the Governraent ; whereas the former were the very reverse, and that their opinions inculcated peace and non-resistance. " How far thou art justifiable In thy concurring with or advis ing the persecution of the Presbyterian Dissenters is not my busi ness to determine. I am confident thou art wiUing it should be judged that thy so doing against thera is not merely for their consciences ; but because their principles do naturally or neces sarily imply an innovation in the State and thy personal ruin : — believing not only railitary resistance just to protect theraselves against authority, but also an offensive endeavour to turn out their superiors, and establish themselves in their overthrow, both lawful and laudable, as their practice hath sufficiently demonstrated. But should thou now be found a positive persecutor of such against whom nothing of that kind, neither from principle nor practice, can be alleged, but only the siraple exercise of their conscience, would not that give plentiful occasion for such as desire to represent thy other actions the worst aspect to show. In whatever thou pre- tendest of the State's security, that thou art a persecutor of pure conscience, since thou showest thyself such towards those against whora the former reason doth not hold? And surely It would seem that the more our peaceable principle takes place among other Dissenters thy interest wUl be the more secure, which is a consideration not unworthy of thy notice, as deserving thy favour able aspect towards us. Perhaps the violence as weU of the preachers, as of some Magistrates here, from whom our sufferings 1677.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 831 originally do flow, may at first view seem acceptable to thee, as faithful friends as well of the public as of thy interest, and no doubt they judge with themselves that they ingratiate themselves with thee in so doing ; yet, didst thou know them as well as some of us do, thou mightst think it no great absurdity to conclude, as well from their practices as principles, that they would be no less ready to give thee this same treatment had they but the like op portunity of doing it ; and rejoice more In it as a great service both to God and the ' Kirk of Scotland.' However, that now [being] out of their reach, they raake what use of the law they can both to execute their malice on us and flatter thee at this juncture. In short, we have more than reason to believe that if thou oppose thyself to this our address it will not be granted ; and if thou show thyself raoderate and flexible it will not be denied — as no mean persons have hinted to us. So, as the one will be an evidence of thy moderation, the other will be a testi mony of thy inclination to persecute. I wish then, for thy sake as well as ours, that this occurrence raay rather commend thee, than discommend thee." This letter gratified Archbishop Sharp, who exerted himself in favour of the writer. Barclay and his brethren, though ordered to be removed to the jail of Banff, were merely delivered into the custody of the sheriff of that count)', who set them at liberty on condition that they would appear when summoned. Others also were released, and those who still remained in prison, notwith standing the Inclination of the Magistrates to oppress them, were provided with better accommodation. Barclay proceeded to Edinburgh to intercede with the Privy Council in their behalf, and the success of his application was only prevented by what the Quaker historian admits to have been the " zeal " of those of his sect who were stiU in prison. It appears that the Dio cesan Synod of Aberdeen held a raeeting, and the clergy as usual dined together after their business was transacted. When passmg along the street to their several residences sorae of the Quakers aUeged that they were intoxicated, and denounced thera to the people from the jail windows. This calumny so enraged the clergy that several of them complained to the Privy Council, representing the imprisoned Quakers as so insolent and abusive that " a clergyman could not quietly pass the streets for them ;" 832 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1678. and their old enemies the Magistrates earnestly requested the as sistance of Archbishop Sharp in suppressing them. They were in consequence remitted to the cognizance of the Commissioners of the Privy Council for the North; and several of those at liberty were again apprehended, and sent to the jail of Banff, In which, however, they admit that they were kindly treated, and were even aUowed to resort to a hostelry In the town when they pleased. Sorae weeks afterwards the Provost of Aberdeen released the prisoners in that place, wisely declaring that " as the greater ones among the Quakers had escaped he would let go the smaller ones." During the succeeding two years and a half they occasion aUy offended the civic authorities, and some of thera were punished, after which they were no more raolested. About the commencement of 1678 it was rumoured that the Covenanters had confederated to murder Archbishops Sharp and Burnet, some of the Bishops, and other eminent persons. This is no matter of surprize when It is recoUected that the " principles of assassination," as Mr. C. K. Sharpe observes, " were strongly re commended in Napthali, Jus Populi Vindicatum, and afterwards in the Hind let Loose [by Shields], which books were in almost as much esteem with the Presbyterians as their Bibles." Sir George Mackenzie states — " These irreligious and heterodox books called NapthaU and Jus Populi had made the killing of all dissenters from Presbytery seem not only lawful, but a duty among many of that profession : and in a postscript to Jus Populi it was told that the sending of the Archbishop of St Andrews' head to the King would be the best present that could be made to Jesus Christ." It was in consequence resolved to bring the raiserable assassin MitcheU, then a prisoner on the Bass Rock, to trial for his crimes. He was re moved to Edinburgh to appear before the High Court of Justiciary. The trial coraraenced on the 7th of January 1678, and occupied four days, the Indictraent charging the prisoner with attempting to assassinate Archbishop Sharp. The whole was conducted with great deliberation. Sir George Mackenzie was then Lord Advo cate, and Sir George Lockhart, afterwards Lord President of the Court of Session, who was himself subsequently assassinated, was appointed one of the counsel to plead for Mitchell. " The debate in the Adjournal Books," says Lord FountainhaU, " weU deserves reading, for it was one of the most solemn trials [that] 1678.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 833 had been in Scotland for three hundred years.* He [IMitchell] owns the fact in the papers left behind him as an impulse of the Spirit of God, and justifies it from Phinehas killing Cosbi and Zimri, and from that law in Deuteronomy commanding to kUl false prophets that seduced the people from the true God. This is a dangerous principle, and asserted by no sober Presbyterian." It is unnecessary to refute the calumnies against Archbishop Sharp on this affair. Bishop Bumet represents him in the worst light, and gives a long account of the trial ; but he admits that he obtained his information from one who hated the Archbishop. IMItcheU was tried on the fourth Act of the Parlia ment of 1600, rendering It a capital crime to attempt the assas sination of a Privy Councillor ; but as to the " demembration" of the Bishop of Orkney, it was alleged that the 28th Act of James IV. in 1491 made it not capital, which Sir George Mackenzie admitted. Archbishop Sharp denied in his deposition that he ever held out to Mitchell any assurance that his life would be saved if he confessed, and it is evident that the Primate had no such power. This wretched man was executed at the Cross of Edinburgh on the 18th of January. After his condemnation he was visited by Mr Annand, Dean of Edinburgh, who failed to con vince him that his principles and actions were utterly at variance with the Gospel. He died exulting in his atterapt on the Arch bishop, against whom his associates still vowed the most deadly revenge. As a rescue was threatened by the women, the guards were doubled at the scaffold, and it was observed that the number of females was greater than on any similar occasion. His body was taken to the Magdalene Chapel and was thence carried by his friends for interment to the adjoining Greyfriars' church-yard. The state of the western counties rendered strong measures necessary to secure the public peace, and a large force of half- civiHzed Highlanders was brought to keep the inhabitants in sub jection. This, in Presbyterian phraseology, is called the invasion of the Highland host. The Presbyterian writers are indignant at the alleged oppressions inflicted by the Highlanders, yet it is re markable that not one life was lost during this singular occupa tion of the districts ; and though it may be admitted that the • This debate is now pubUshed- in the Appendix, No. III. to Lord FountainhaU's Histoncal Observes, printed for the Bannatyne Club, 4to, 1840, p. 221-302. 53 834 THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. [1678. quartering of so raany ferocious and untaraeable Celts was a severe punishment, the exasperation which the Government received must be taken into consideration. A Convention of the Estates was held at Edinburgh on the 24th of June, the Duke of Lauderdale acting as the Lord High Commissioner. It was attended by the two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Dunkeld, Moray, Brechin, Dun blane, Argyll, and The Isles. In the King's letter, which was read on the 4th of July, the defence of the kingdom is stated as abso lutely necessary, " especially at a tirae when these dangerous field conventicles, so justly termed in our laws the rendezvous of rebel lion, do still grow in numbers and insolences." The object of the Convention was to authorize a taxation, which was the only busi ness enjoined to be done, and the Convention was dissolved on the 11th of July. The Presbyterians were divided about the payment of this taxation, some opposing it, and others choosing to pay it rather than encounter the displeasure of the Government. It is observed that " though a vast multitude of the female sex In Scotland, headed by women of high rank, such as the Duchess of HamUton, Ladies Rothes, Wigton, Loudon, ColvUle, and others, privately encouraged or openly followed the field-preachers, whose strength of lungs and affecting conveyance, as they called It, drew floods of tears from their eyes, yet there were ladies of the oppo site persuasion whose enthusiasm almost equalled that of the Covenanting sisterhood."* This writer adduces as one instance Ann Keith, a sister of the Earl Marischal, and wife of Patrick Smyth of Methven near Perth, styled by the courtesy of the time Lady Methven. This courageous episcopal lady distinguished herself by the successful suppression of a conventicle attempted to be held on her husband's estate during his absence at London with the Marquis of Montrose. She sallied forth with a gun and sword at the head of her vassals ; and though the Covenanters greatly exceeded her attendants, she caused them after some parleying to disperse. In one of her letters to her husband, printed by Mr C. K. Sharpe, she gives an account of her exploit, and says — " The Pro vost [of Perth] told aU that spoke with hira In that affair, if every master kept as strict an eye over his ground as ye aUowed me to ¦ Note by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq. in his edition of Kirkton's Secret and True History, 4to. p. 355. 1679.] THE CHURCH AND ITS OPPONENTS. 835 do, there would be no conventicles in the land. They are an Ig norant pack. The Lord clear the nation of them !" In another letter Lady Methven tells her husband — " Comfort yourself in this; if the fanatics kill me it shall not be for nought : I was wounded for our gracious King, and now in the strength of the Lord God of Heaven I will hazard my person with the men I may comraand, before these rebels rest where ye have power. Sore 1 miss you, but now more [than] ever. Our honest Bishop Lindsay [of Dunkeld] is lying sick of the gout in his knees down to his feet ; he was heartily remembered to you. — Now I have engaged with the conventiclers, from whom I will not flee, I know ye will allow rae to do what I am able to suppress them. I wiU do [it with] good will ; God give the blessing is the prayer of your — Anne Keith." In a third letter Lady Methven tells her husband — " My love, if every parish were armed, and the stout and loyal joining, with orders to concur, and liberty to suppress them as enemies to our King and nation, these vaging gypsies would settle." Lady Methven was well known to Archbishop Sharp ; and in a letter dated St Andrews, 27th March 1679, in reply to an application frora her in favour of a certain minister for the vacant parish church of Methven, the Priraate compliments her " aversion to join In society with separatists, and partaking of that sin to which so many of the sex do tempt their husbands in this evil time, when schisra, sedition, and rebellion, are gloried in, though Christianity does condemn them as the greatest crimes." — " Your Ladyship," the Archbishop adds, " in continuing the course of your exemplary piety and zeal for the apostohc doctrine and government, shall have approbation from God and aU good men, which is of more value than a popular vogue from an humorous silly multitude, who know not what they do in following the way of seduction." In January 1679 Bishop Paterson of Galloway was permitted to reside in Edinburgh, because he had no proper manse in his Diocese. This was attended with little Inconvenience, as his father, Bishop Paterson of Ross, died about the time, and Bishop Young of Edinburgh was translated to that Diocese. Bishop Paterson of GaUoway was appointed to the See of Edinburgh, and he was succeeded by Bishop Ross of ArgyU. Colin Falconar, minister of Forres, was consecrated to the See of ArgyU, in which he continued till 1680, when he was translated to Moray. 836 [1679. CHAPTER X. THE MURDER OP ARCHBISHOP SHARP. The atrocities perpetrated by the Scottish Covenanters were to be aggravated by another victim of eminence added to their cruelty, in the person of Archbishop Sharp. They had long plotted against his hfe, and they never rested till they accoraphshed his destruction under circurastances as infaraous as any which mark the annals of religious and personal hatred ; for although only a smaU party of the Presbyterians perpetrated the deed, yet most of them identified themselves with it by vindicating and exulting in the murder of the Primate. On Friday, the 2d of May, Archbishop Sharp left Edinburgh for St Andrews accompanied by one of his daughters, intending to return to Edinburgh on Monday, preparatory to a journey to Lon don. He crossed the Frith of Forth by the usual passage between Leith and Kinghorn, and on the evening reached the parish village of Kennoway, nearly half way between Kinghorn and St Andrews, where he lodged during the night In the house of a gentleman who is designated Captain Seaton.* The Archbishop travelled leisurely In his own carriage, and, having no reason to dread any act of riolence, was attended by a very few domestics. On Saturday the Archbishop proceeded towards St Andrews in the forenoon. His maligner Kirkton here states : — " What he drove [from Kennoway] I shall not say, but all the country knew he drove most fiercely to bis death that day he was kUled, though he chose bye-paths, be cause of some warnings he had that morning at Kennoway."•^ * According to the author of the " True and Impartial Account'' of his Ufe, the Archbishop was remarkably abstemious that evening and on the following moming, and was observed to be particularly fervent and longer than usual at his devotions. t Kirkton's Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland, edited by Charles Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq. 4to. Edinburgh, 1817, p. 83. 1679.] THE MURDER OP ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 837 The falsehood of this is apparent frora the fact that St Andrews is only a common ride of two hours from Kennoway, and if the Pri mate had been really driving " most fiercely," he would have pro bably saved his Ufe. It is commonly said that the assassins were not on the outlook for the Archbishop, whose appearance was un expected, but that they intended to waylay and murder Carmichael, the sheriff-substitute of the county, who, they imagined, was in cited by the Primate to enforce the laws rigorously against the disaffected nonconformists. This, however, was a mere pretence, though they certainly would have murdered hira also If he had faUen into their hands. We have the authority of the Archbishop's only son, that when upwards of two railes frora Kennoway the assassins " had a fuU view of the coach, and not finding the opportunity, divided into three parties, who took up the three ways he could take homewards."* In the depositions of the raurder taken at Cupar-Fife, it is plainly stated that " the deed had been long pre meditated by the actors and many more ; that his Grace was waylaid by divers parties, as the witnesses depone ; so that whether he had gone straight to St Andrews, or to his house [seat] of Scotscraig [on the Fife side near Dundee] he could not escape them." It was also then proved, that three days previous some of the assassins held a meeting In the house of one MiUar in the parish of Ceres, and concerted the raurder. On the following night they slept in the barn of a farmer naraed Black, whose wife urged them to comrait the crime ; and at parting, when one of them kissed her, she prayed that God might bless and prosper them, adding — " If long Leslie be with hira, lay him on the green also." This was Mr Alexander Leslie, the incumbent of Ceres. The ruffian replied to this woman, holding up his arm—" There is the hand that shall do it." John Balfour told his associates that he had inquired the Lord's mind in the matter, and that he was impressed by the words — " Go and prosper." This blaspheraer again prayed, and said it was confirmed to him by the scriptural injunction—" Go, have I not sent you 2" The persons raore iraraediately concerned in the raurder were John Balfour of Kinloch above mentioned, better known by the ' Sir William Sharp to Sir James Baird at Banff, dated St Andrews, 10th May 1679, first printed in Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xx. p. 373, 374. 838 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. soubriquet of Burly ; his brother-in-law David Hackston or Halker- ston, proprietor of the estate of RathiUet In Kilmany parish; James RusseU, an inhabitant of the parish of Kettle, or King's- kettle, near Cupar- Fife ; and nine others, one of whom was a weaver naraed Andrew GuUan.* They were aU connected with that part of Fife, but raany more were expected who did not join them. Balfour was a most ferocious enthusiast " although," says the author of the Scots Worthies, " he was by some reckoned none of the most reUgious. He was a little man, squint-eyed, and of a very fierce aspect." He had been chamberlain to the Archbishop, to whom by negligence or knavery he owed a considerable sum. Hackston was also in debt to the Archbishop, and had been ar rested by the new chamberlain. He is described by his party as having led a dissolute life in his younger years, until, in their fanatical phraseology, " it pleased the Lord in his infinite good ness to incline him to go out and attend the gospel then preached in the fields, where he was caught in the gospel net." Those two persons had raost substantial reasons for their rancour and hatred towards the Archbishop, apart from their religious animosities. WhUe out on the 3d of May, ostensibly in search of Carmichael, who they were told had been seen hunting in the direction of an eminence south from Cupar-Fife known as Tarvet HiU, but who eluded the murderers altogether, a boy brought a message from the woman Black — " Gentleraen, there is the Bishop's coach; our goodwife [raistress] desired rae to tell you." This significant hint was not misunderstood. The Archbishop had by this time passed leisurely the old narrow bridge over the Ceres rivulet in the parish rillage of Ceres near the new bridge, having previously caUed at the house of the incumbent, with whom, if Wodrow is to be credited, he " smoked a pipe." The assassins perceived the Arch bishop's coach, when about five miles from St Andrews, approach ing the then waste tract stiU caUed Magask or Magus Muir. They immediately exclaimed — " Truly this is of God, and It seem eth that God hath deUvered hira Into our hands ; let us not draw back, but pursue." • This man, who resided in the parish vUlage of Balmerino, had been expeUed from Dundee for not resorting to the parish church.— Russell's Account of the Murder of Archbishop Sharp, printed in Mr C. K. Sharpe's edUion of Kirkton's Secret and True History ofthe Church of Scotland, p. 412. 1679.] THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 839 They now debated what they were to do to the Archbishop. One aUeged that he would not move a foot farther, for if, after attacking him, they spared his life, they might expect no raercy ; and others contended that they had " a clear caU to execute God's justice upon hira." Jaraes RusseU declared that it had been Im pressed on his mind several days In prayer, and he had mentioned it to a few of his acquaintances as confirmed by the Scriptures, that " the Lord would employ him in some piece of service ere it was long, and that there would be some great man who was an enemy to the Kirk of God cut off; and he could not be quit of the thoughts of Nero, and asked where he could find that Scripture, for lie could not get it /" This ignorant raan also raentioned another attempt against the Archbishop in addition to that by Mitchell in 1668. He said he had been at meetings with several " godly men!" in various parts, " who not only judged it their duty to take that wretch's life and some others, but had essayed it twice before, and came to the shire for that purpose ; and once wonderfully he escaped at the Queensferry, for he went down to Leith with the ChanceUor in a boat ;" but the said James Russell was now sure thathe had a " clear call" to go forward, and that " it seemed the Lord had delivered that wretch into their hands." In reply to a question, this man said that he would "let thera see what he should do with him;" and another of the party spoke to the sarae purpose. It was then unanimously resolved to place themselves under the command of Hackston of RathiUet, but he refused to act as their leader, declaring that though he was " willing to venture all he had for the interest of Christ," yet the " known prejudice," or quarrel, between him and the Archbishop " would mar the glory of the action, for it would be imputed to his particular revenge, which he called God to witness was not the fact ; but he would not dissuade them from their Intentions, and would not leave them." Balfour immediately exclaimed — " Gentlemen, foUow me." They aU rode at full speed towards Magus Muir. When the Priraate's servants saw their master followed by a band of men on horseback they drove rapidly, but they were overtaken on the muir about three miles west of St Andrews, the raurderers having previously satis fied themselves, by asking a female domestic of the neighbouring farmer, who refused to Inform them himself, that It was really the Archbishop's coach. 840 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. Russell first carae up and recognized the Primate sitting with his daughter. The Archbishop looked out ofthe coach, and Russell cast his cloak frora him, exclaiming — " Judas be taken." The Primate ordered the postilion to drive, at which Russell fired at the man and called to his associates to join him. With the exception of Hack ston, they threw off their cloaks, and continued firing at the coach for nearly half a mile. A domestic of the Archbishop presented a car bine, but he was seized by the neck, and it was pulled out of his hands. One of the assassins outran the coach, and struck one of the horses on the head with a sword. The postilion was ordered to stop, and for refusing he was cut on the face and ankle. They soon ren dered it Impossible to proceed farther with the coach. Disregarding the screams, entreaties, and tears of his daughter, a pistol was discharged at the Primate beneath his left arm, and the young lady was seen busily removing the smoking combustibles from her father's black gown. Another shot was fired, and James Russell seized a sword from one of his associates, dismounted, and at the coach door called to the Archbishop, whora he designated Judas, to corae forth. Sir William Sharp's account of what now occurred, which would be doubtless related to him by his sister, is as follows : — " They fired several shots at the coach, and commanded my dearest father to come out, which he said he would. When he had corae out, not being yet wounded, he said — ' Gentleraen, I beg my life.' ' No, bloody viUain ! betrayer of the cause of Christ, no mercy.' Then said he — ' I ask none for rayself, but have mercy on my poor child ;' and holding out his hand to one of them to get his that he would spare his child, he cut him on the wrist. Then falUng down upon his knees, and holding up his hands, he prayed that God would forgive them ; and begging mercy for his sins from his Saviour, they murdered hira by sixteen great wounds In his back, head, and one above his left eye, three in his left hand when he was holding it up, with a shot above his left breast, which was found to be powder. After this damnable deed they took the papers out of his pocket, robbed my sister and their servants of all their papers, gold, and raoney, and one of those hellish rascals cut my sister on the thumb, when she had him by the bridle beg ging her father's life."* * The following is the medical report, by order of the Privy Council, of the examina tion of Archbishop Sharp's body : — " We, under subscribers, being called to visit flie 1679.] THE MURDER OP ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 841 The narrative of the murder in Wodrow's handwriting in the MS. CoUections of his " History " varies considerably from the above, and appears to have been one of the popular accounts. He says that when the assassins were close to the coach they dismounted, poured in upon the Archbishop a shower of ball, again mounted their horses, and were riding off, when one of them heard his daughter observe to the coachraan — " There is life in my father yet." They returned, and Wodrow pretends that they found the Priraate unhurt. He farther alleges that they forced him out of the coach, upbraided hira as a " bloody persecutor," and ordered him to pray, which he refused to do, though often de sired. All this is stated on the authority of their associate GuUan. The Archbishop went towards Hackston, who took no more active part in the raurder than being one of the party and approving of the deed, saying — " Sir, you are a gentleraan ; you will protect me." Hackston replied — " Sir, I shall never lay a hand on you." The Primate entreated them to spare the life of an old man, pro mising to obtain a pardon for them all, as it was a capital crime to attack a Privy Councillor; but they again fired at hira, and he fell on his back as if dead, though when touched with a sword he raised himself. They saw that shooting would not do, for they were so superstitious as to believe that he was impervious to ball, and they completed the murder by sraashing the hapless Priraate with their swords. Wodrow alleges that they only took frora his person a Bible, sorae papers, and what he caUs a tobacco box, with which they adjourned to a neighbouring barn. He pretends that when they opened the box a humming bee flew out, which either corpse ofthe late Lord Archbishop of St Andrews, do find that he had received a mortal wound by a sword over the left eye, extending two inches above and one below, mak ing a great suffusion of blood upon the cheek and upper and lower eye lid. Next, we found many wounds upon the posterior part of his head, insomuch that the whole occi pital bone was shattered all in pieces, and a part of the brain lost thereby upon the place, which certainly being so great could not but occasion his present death. There were only two wounds to be seen upon the body ; the first, two or three inches below the right clavicle, betwixt the second and third rib which was given by a shot, not reaching the capacity of the breast. The next was a small wound upon the region of the kidneys given by a smaU sword. Likewise, we found three wounds upon his left hand, which might have proved fatal though he had escaped the former. Also Mother upon the right hand as dangerous as the former. As witness our hands at St Andrews, the Sth day of May 1679, (Signed) George Patullo, M.D. ; WUliam Borthwick, Chirurgeon; Henry Spence, Chirurgeon; James Pringle, Chirurgeon." 842 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. Hackston or Balfour designated his familiar, and which the others concluded to be the devil ! It also appears that they found in the Archbishop's pocket a ball of coloured silk, a paper containing sorae notes in Hebrew characters, and Wodrow adds — " a pair of pistol balls [and] parings of nails," which the murderers considered magical charms. The narrative, however, of the Primate's murder by RusseU Is at variance with the preceding, and with the brief details of Sir William Sharp. After upbraiding hira for betraying the Church as a Judas, and as one who " had wrung his hands these eighteen or nineteen years in the blood of the saints, but especially at Pent land," they told him " they were sent by God to execute his ven geance on him that day, and desired hira to repent and corae forth." Balfour irapiously took God to witness that it was not for any In jury the Archbishop had done to himself, or from dread of what he could do, but because he had been " a raurderer of many a poor soul in the Kirk of Scotland, a betrayer of the Church, and an open enemy and persecutor of Jesus Christ and his members, whose blood he had shed like water on the earth" — " and therefore," he added, " thou shalt die." When he had uttered these horrible and false stateraents he flred a pistol at the Primate. Russell desired hira to come forth for " death, judgment, and eternity." The Archbishop said — " Save ray life, and I will save all yours." The murderer answered that " he knew it was not in his power either to save or to kill them, for there was no saving of his life ; as the blood he had shed was crying to Heaven for vengeance on him ;" and thrust his shabel, or crooked sword, at him. Balfour ordered him to come forth, and the Archbishop replied — " I will come to you, for I know you are a gentleman, and will save my life ; but I am gone already, and what needs more ?" Another reminded him of concealing the pardon granted by the King to nine prisoners taken at the Pentland insurrection in 1666 — a calumny concern ing which the Covenanters were themselves divided; for Archbishop Burnet of Glasgow was also generally though falsely accused of that act. The Primate left the coach with his daughter, and both fell on their knees, the latter begging her father's life; but they told him he must die, and ordered hira instantly to repent. One of them said to the Archbishop — " Seeing lives have been taken for you already, if ours be taken it shall not be for nought." Balfour then 1679.] THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 843 struck the wounded Primate on the face, and rode him down with his horse ; one of them named Andrew Henderson cut him on the hand [wrist] ; and Russell, hearing his daughter say that her father was stiU in life, took off the Primate's hat, which they pretended would not cut at first, and hacked his head. His daughter went to the ruffian and called him a bloody murderer, to whom he re phed, that " they were not murderers, for they were sent to exe cute God's vengeance on him." They then plundered the coach of its contents, and disarmed the postilions and attendants. Russell caUed to his associates to " see if the Bishop be dead." One of them dismounted, plunged a sword into his belly, though this wound Is not mentioned in the medical report, and rifled his pockets, after which Russell desired the Archbishop's servants " to take up their priest now." Thus feU Archbishop Sharp after filling the high station of Pri mate of the Scottish Church nearly eighteen years ; and when we consider the state of the times, and the blood-thirsty principles of his enemies, the wonder is that he was allowed to occupy the metropohtan See so long. At the time of his murder he was in the 61st year of his age. The spot on which he met his death is still caUed the Bishop"s Wood, and is three miles west from St An drews. A rude stone is erected on it to the memory of Gulian, who was tried, found guilty, and executed at Edinburgh four years after the murder, his head fixed at Cupar-Fife, and his body hung in chains on Magus Muir, where it was buried after it was taken down by his friends. A short distance west of this memorial of Co venanting crime is pointed out In an open field the grave of five rebel fanatics taken at the battle of Bothwell Bridge In June, and executed and hung in chains on Magus Muir in Noveraber. A stone which is now destroyed was erected with an inscription by their admirers.* The only other individual directly implicated In the murder who fell into the hands of justice was Hackston of RathiUet, who was taken prisoner at the conflict of Airds Moss on the following year, and executed at Edinburgh. Another of the raurderers, naraed Daniels, was kiUed In the skirmish of Drumclog. After perpetrat ing the murder, the party retired to a neighbouring cottage to pray, first collectively, or in a body, and then in private, each impiously ' History of St Andrews, by the Eev. C. J. Lyon, M. A. Svo. Edinburgh, 1843, TO], ii. 93, 94. 844 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. blessing God for calling thera to, and carrying them courageously by his Spirit through, such a great work. One of thera, after praying alone, told his associates that God said to hira — " Well done, good and faithful servant." The raurderers then set out in different di rections to localities in the county of Perth, thence to Stirlingshire, and thence to Lanarkshire, where they for a few days mingled with the insurgents. The whole of thera, however, with the two exceptions previously stated, escaped out ,of the kingdom. Bal four subsequently joined the Prince of Orange in HoUand, and died on his passage to Scotland after the Revolution. The mangled body of the Primate was conveyed to his residence In St Andrews. On the 17th of May he was interred in the south aisle of the parish church, and the funeral was remarkably solemn and magniflcent. At the head ofthe procession were, to indicate the Primate's age, sixty-one old men in raouming hoods and cloaks, carrying on staves the arms of the See and those of the deceased. Those persons were followed by the Magistrates of St Andrews, of other royal burghs, and of Edinburgh, the Rector and Professors of the University of St Andrews, the clergy of the Diocese, gentlemen and knights, the Judges of the Supreme Court, numbers of the Nobility, the Lord Lyon King-at-Arms, the Lord Chancellor, preceded by the purse and raace, the household of the Archbishop, trumpeters, heralds and pursuivants. The chief mourners were Sir William Sharp of Scotscraig, the Archbishop's only son, and Sir William Sharp of Stoneyhill, near Musselburgh, his brother. A canopy surmounted by a mitre was borne over the coffin by six moderators of Presbyteries. The Archbishop of Glasgow and all the Bishops followed. The blood-stained gown In which the Priraate was murdered was carried by his doraestic chaplain, followed by the coach out of which he was taken, the coachraan, postilions, and the very horses, in raouming attire. A troop of the royal life-guards brought up the rear. The Interior of the church was arrayed in black, and the coffin was placed on a table covered with dark velvet before the pulpit. The funeral serraon was preached by Bishop Paterson of Edinburgh, after which the body was laid in the grave amid the sounding of trumpets. A marble monument is erected close to the inner wall of the church over the Archbishop's grave, the work of a Dutch artist — a beautiful structure, which has suffered greatly from neglect 1679.] THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 845 and sectarian violence. The Magistrates, ministers, and kirk- session, were bound by contract to preserve this monument in aU time coming, for which they received, at least up to 1725, a " considerable yearly mortification for the relief of poor in digent and distressed people." At the base of the monuraent is a representation of the murder In relief; in the foreground the Primate Is delineated on his knees dying from his wounds, whUe his daughter is at a little distance rudely prevented by two of the ruffians from assisting him ; and In the background are the murderers In fuU pursuit of the coach, which Is shewn as driven at fuU speed, and drawn by six horses. Above this is an urn, on which is a long Latin inscription written by Bishop Bruce, then of Dunkeld, afterwards of Orkney ; and on the top is the Archbishop sculptured at full length in his gown kneeling, with the crozier and mitre before hira, and a flying angel Is seen ex changing a raitre for a crown, with the words pro coronam mitra, which afterwards becarae the motto of the Archbishop's faraily. Above this are his arras and those of the See, supported by two angels, and the whole is surmounted by an outline of the parish church of St Andrews, the Archbishop standing near it with his crozier in his left hand. Archbishop Sharp four years before his death presented to the parish church of St Andrews a massive baptismal basin and com munion cup, which the Presbyterians seized after the Revolution, and continue to use at their sacramental " occasions." The two weigh 102 ounces, and on each are inscribed — " In usum ecclesice parochialis civitatis Scti. Andrece donavit Jacobus Archiepiscopus anno 1675." The Primate's seal exhibits St Andrew holding his cross with his left hand, and a crozier in his right. The family shield is below, and the surrounding words — " Sigillum R. D. Jacobi Sharpi Archiepiscopi St Andrew 1661." On each side of St Andrew is a seroU, on one of which is Inscribed — " Sacratum Ecclesice, Deo, Begi ,-" and on the other — " Auspicio Car. II. Ecclesia instaurata!"* The Priraate married, in 1657, Helen, daughter of WiUiam Moncrieff of Randerston, a gentleman of an ancient and respectable famUy in Fife. This lady did not escape the slanders of the Covenanters, who assaUed her in their usual style of vindictive falsehood. The offspring of this marriage were — Sir William Sharp, ' History of St Andrews, by the Kev. C. J. Lyon, M.A. vol. ii. p. 98, 99. 846 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. of Scotscraig and Strathtyrum near St "Andrews, who married Margaret, daughter of Sir Charles Erskine, Bart, of Carabo, near Crail, Lord Lyon King-at-Arras at that tirae ; — Isabella, who was with her father when he was raurdered, and who raarried John Cunnlnghara of Bam, near EUe, also in Fife — a gentleraan of an ancient faraily, by whora she had several children; — and Margaret, who raarried WiUiara eleventh Lord Salton, born in 1654, who succeeded his brother the tenth Lord in 1673, and died In 1715, In the 61st year of his age. Lady Salton survived till August 1734, when she died at Edinburgh. As an instance of the in faraous lies which the field-preachers and Covenanters circu lated against the Archbishop, one of thera, the noted William Veitch, asserts — " I leave it to history to tell how his posterity and relations were brought low and extinct ;"* yet Dr M'Crie, the editor of this Veitch's miserable autobiography, had the meanness, if he knew the facts, to aUow such a statement to pass uncontradicted, although he appended nuraerous notes on other matters. Now, without referring to the descendants of Archbishop Sharp by his only son and his elder daughter, the Noble Family of Fraser Lord Salton in the Peerage of Scot land will suffice. It is mentioned above that the Archbishop's younger daughter Margaret raarried the eleventh Lord. The issue of this marriage were Alexander the twelfth Lord, from whora Alexander George, the' sixteenth Lord, who was appointed to cora raand the British Forces in China in 1843, is lineally descended from father to son,-|- also the Honourable William Fraser, and four daughters, three of whom were married to gentlemen of rank and respectability, and left issue. The Honourable William Fraser, one of the Archbishop's grandsons, married in 1754 Lady Catherine Anne Erskine, eldest daughter of David fourth Earl of Buchan, by whom he had only a son, WilUara Fraser of Fraserfield, forraerly • Memoirs of Mr WilUam Veitch and George Brysson, written by themselves, edited by Thomas M'Crie, D.D. Edinburgh, Svo. 1825, p. 107. X Alexander George Fraser, sixteenth Lord Salton of Abernethy, a Baronet of Scot land and Nova Scotia, a Eepresentative Peer of Scotland in 1844 ; K. C. B. ; Knight of the Ancient Order of Maria Theresa, and of the Prussian Order of St George ; a Major-General in the Army ; born 1785, succeeded his father the fifteenth Baron in 1793. Married in 1815 the daughter of the first Lord Thurlow, who died in 1826 without issue. In 1844 had two sisters and one brother surviving, the latter, who was then the heir-presumptive, the Hon. WiUiam Fraser, bom 1791, married, and has issue. 1679.] THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 847 caUed Balgownie, in Aberdeenshire, born at Edinburgh in 1725, who married in 1752 Rachel, daughter of the Rev. Hugh Kennedy of Rotterdam, and by her, who died in 1800, seven sons and four daughters. One of those sons, the Rev. Hugh Eraser, was Rector of St Martin's Ludgate in London, and of Woolwich in Kent, in 1796. Instead of the Archbishop's " posterity and relations brought low and extinct," that very " history,"" to which the field-preacher Veitch appeals, proves that they are numerous and the very reverse. So much for the veracity of Veitch, and for the malignant meanness or ignorance of his editor M'Crie.* A Presbyterian writer says of the murder of Archbishop Sharp — " Viewing this transaction impartially, it is impossible to pro nounce it any thing else than a deliberate and dastardly raurder, disgraceful not only to them by whom it was committed, but in some measure to the whole body of the Covenanters, and refiecting odium on the age In which it was perpetrated. — The murder of Archbishop Sharp raay be viewed as the preraeditated and delibe rate design of the Covenanters at large. It was recoraraended by their preachers, long determined by many, repeatedly attempted, and at last accomplished with savage ferocity, and afterwards ap proved and the perpetrators countenanced by their brethren in other parts of Scotland. The deed was not more base and das tardly than the means used to excite to its perpetration were dangerous and diabohcal." To this it raay be added, that the most revolting language of exultation is recorded in the writings of the Presbyterians ; and their despicable poetasters set forth numerous miserable acrostics and rhymes justifying the deed, and revihng the Archbishop in the foulest manner. Nothing was too gross or absurd for the credulity of the Presbyterians connected with Archbishop Sharp. They actuaUy believed that his body was imperrious to lead, and that his life could only be taken by silver and steel. They religiously credited the ravings of the mad woman who on one occasion disturbed the congregation in the parish church of St Andrews during serraon by starting up, accusing the Arch bishop of criminal intercourse with her, and bestowing upon hira ' Sir WUliam Sharp of StoneyhUl near Musselburgh, the Archbishop's brother, was Keeper of the Signet in 1673. See a folio volume in the Advocates' Library at Edin- Wh, marked—" Papers for Kames' Dictionary, 1725 to 1727." The castle of Banff, in which the Primate was bom, was infefted to Kobert Sharp and his heirs in 1662, on the legal " resignation" of Lord Auchterhouse, afterwards Earl of Buchan. 848 THE MURDER OP ARCHBISHOP SHARP. [1679. raany scurrilous epithets. This woraan declared that she once saw the Archbishop, Dr Patullo, and Mr Robert Rait, rainister of Dundee, all dancing in the air ! Wodrow industriously collected all the Covenanting Presbyterian lies against the Archbishop, and the extent of his own credulity and of that of his friends is amazing. Nothing was too extravagant not to be credited. Two Instances may be cited from his "Analecta." On one occasion, when the Arch bishop was attending a meeting of the Privy Council in Edinburgh, and, as is alleged, was actively prosecuting some of the Insurgents connected with the rebellion at RuUion Green, he wanted a certain document which was of importance to prove the indictment. This happened to be in his cabinet at St Andrews, and he sent a foot man in haste thither with the key, and particular directions where it would be found. The man left Edinburgh about ten o'clock one summer morning, and, riding quickly through Fife, reached the Archbishop's house in St Andrews about four in the afternoon. When he opened the door of the apartment In which was the cabinet, he was astonished to see the Archbishop himself sitting at a table, as if he had been reading and writing, and dressed In the same attire as he was when the man left Edinburgh. Being of what Wodrow calls a " hardy frolick temper," the man ex claimed — " Ho ! my Lord ! well ridden indeed ! I am sure I left you at Edinburgh at ten o'clock, and yet you are here before rae, I wonder that I saw you not pass by rae !" Wodrow proceeds — " The Bishop looked over his shoulder to him with a sour and frowning countenance, but spoke not a word ; so the footman runs down stairs, and tells the secretary or chamberlain that the Bishop was come home. He would not believe him. He averred that he saw him in his closet, and that he was very angry, and desired the chamberlain to come up stairs and he would see him likewise. So they came both up stairs, but before they were fully up they both saw the Bishop standing on the stair-head, staring at thera with an angry look, which affrighted them in earnest. Within a little the footman came up to the closet, and nobody was there ; so he opens the cabinet, and takes out the paper, and comes away in all dispatch to Edinburgh, and was there the next morning, where he meets the Bishop, delivered to him the paper, and told him the former story, upon which the Bishop by threats and promises enjoins him secrecy." This is intended 1679.] THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP. 849 doubtless to IUustrate the old Scottish superstition of wraiths. On another occasion, the Archbishop was presiding in the Privy Council, and caused a woraan named Janet Douglas to be brought before that Board for witchcraft and sorcery. " The Arch bishop," says Wodrow, " insisted she might be sent away to the King's plantations in the West Indies. She only dropt one word to the Bishop. ' My Lord,' says she, ' who was with you in your closet on Saturday night last betwixt twelve and one o'clock.' Upon which the Bishop changed his countenance, and turned black and pale ; and then no more was said. When the CouncU rose up the Duke of Rothes called Janet Into a room, and inquired at her privately — ' Who that person was who was with the Bishop ? She refused at first ; but he proraising upon his word of honoui; to warrant her at all hands, and that she should not be sent to America, she says — ' My Lord, it was the meikle black devil.' "* Such are speciraens of the Presbyterian traditions re specting Archbishop Sharp. The unfortunate Priraate Is described as ofthe middle size, broad- shouldered, full chest, and muscular arms and limbs, but having no tendency to corpulence. His forehead was finely developed, his eyes a little sunken, though full of vivacity ; and he was of a grave aspect and dignified presence.-f- His great abilities and winning ad dress are admitted by his enemies. His temperance was remark able, and in deeds of charity and alms-giving his benevolence was as unbounded as it was unostentatious. His liberality was experienced by his Covenanting traducers, and a noted female leader of their fac tion, the very daughter of Johnston of Warriston, was entrusted by him with sums to dispense in secret to the raost needful of her party. " Bishop Burnet," says a writer of that tirae, " has taken a great deal of freedora to reflect upon the Archbishop, and to pronounce sentence against hira ; others are not deprived of an equal liberty to reflect upon hira for what he maliciously writes of the Arch bishop. Let us for once put Sharp and Burnet in the balance. For Sharp I can justly and upon good ground say that he was a most reverend and grave churchman, very strict and circumspect in the course of his life, a raan of great learning, great wit, and no * Wodrow's Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. ii. p. 104, 105. t A portrait of the Archbishop was engraved for Mr Kirkpatrick Sharpe's edition of Kirkton's " Secret and True History of the Church of Scotland." 54 850 THE MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP SHARP, [1679. less great and solid judgment — a man of great counsel, most faith ful in his episcopal office, raost vigilant over the eneraies of the Church, and most observant of perforraing the duties of Divine worship, both publicly in the house of God, and privately In his own family. In a word, none could deserve better the place and dignity of Primate of aU Scotland. I could say a great deal more in commendation of this most reverend and most worthy Primate."* It is pleasing to add at least one Presbyterian testimony to the raeraory of Archbishop Sharp — that of Mr Abercroraby Gordon, rainister of the town and parish of Banff in 1798 : — " Yet his in veterate eneraies are agreed in ascribing to hira the high praise of a beneficent and humane disposition. He bestowed a considerable part of his income in ministering to pressing indigence and re lieving the wants of private distress. In the exercise of his charity he had no contracted views. The widows and orphans of the Presbyterian brethren richly shared his bounty without knowing whence it came. He died with the intrepidity of a hero, and the piety of a Christian, praying for the assassins with his latest breath."-f- It is already mentioned that Bishop Burnet was the personal enemy of Archbishop Sharp, and his well known prejudices render him a very doubtful authority as to the private life and character of his contemporaries whom he disliked. In reference to the affair of the field-preacher Mitchell it is justly observed — " Let, therefore, the reader coolly judge for himself between the two extremes. Only we cannot but leave this observation with him [Burnet], that Archbishop Sharp is by Bishop Burnet painted in as black colours as Bishop Burnet himself has been by posterity, and that he ex presses throughout as bitter a prejudice against our Priraate as even Mitchell hiraself could do." — " Bishop Burnet is pleased to say that Sharp ' had a very small proportion of learning, and was but an indifferent preacher ;' but we must consider that this comes from an inveterate enemy ."J * A Specimen of the Bishop of Sarum's Posthumous History of the Affairs of the Church and State of Great Britain during his Life. By Eobert Elliot, M. A. London, Svo. 1715, p. 25. t Sir John Sinclaii^'s Statistical Account of Scotland, vol. xx. p. 375. X Biographia Britannica, note, vol. vi. p. 3646, 3647. 1679.] 851 CHAPTER XL THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. The atrocious murder of Archbishop Sharp astonished the Go vemment, and every measure was adopted to discover the perpe trators of the crirae. When the tidings reached Edinburgh, the Privy Council raet on the 4th of May, which was Sunday, and issued a proclaraation in narae of the King, denouncing the raur der In the strongest language. All sheriffs and raagistrates were ordered to apprehend suspected persons, and the proprietors in Fife and Kinross in particular were strictly enjoined to bring their tenants and servants to St Andrews, Cupar, Kirkcaldy, and Dun fermline, on the 13th, 16th, 20th, and 23d days of May respec tively, with Intimation that those of the peasantry who were absent were to be " reputed as accessory to the crime," and those proprietors who did not appear were to be held as " favourers of the assassination." This proclamation was enjoined to be published at the Cross of Edinburgh, in all the royal burghs of Fife, and in aU the parish churches in that county and Kinross-shire, on Sunday the 11th in the forenoon after Divine service. It appears, how ever, from a notice in the kirk-session records of Dunbog parish, that it was read in the churches on subsequent Sundays : — " May 18, 1679 — A proclamation was read frora the pulpit by the minister, ordaining the whole heritors within the parish to cause their tenants, cottars, servants, and all others on their grounds, to compear at Cupar on Friday the 23d of May instant, to clear and rindicate themselves from the late murder of my Lord Archbishop of St Andrews."* Proclamations were issued against field conventicles, and those • New Statistical Account of Scotland— i^j/es/iire, p. 212, 852 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1679. who resorted to them carrying arms, on the 8th and 13th of May ; and all such persons were ordered to be apprehended and corarait ted for trial. The sheriff-deputes of Fife received some stringent instructions which they were to observe in searching for the mur derers of the Archbishop. All males above sixteen years of age were to be examined, and those who refused to attend their parish churches on account of " fanatic or popish principles " were to be specially marked, and compelled to state where they were on Saturday the 3d of May between ten in the raorning and three In the afternoon, which they were to prove by creditable witnesses : and such as could give no account of theraselves were to be secured, and their goods seized. It is already mentioned that the murderers of the Archbishop , betook theraselves to the westem counties, and immediately formed a connection with a party who about the comraenceraent of 1679 had organized an insurrection, and had resolved to " defend thera selves and the gospel," in their language, " against all hazards." Those of thera who resided between the towns of Lanark and Ayr. had regularly carried arras for raonths to the field-preachings, and a series of skirraishings ensued between thera and the military, sraall parties ofthe latter being often wound and repulsed. A Co venanting writer most complacently states that " in doing so, and In their prayers and consultations, they were much countenanced by the Lord !" The more ferocious of the Western Covenanters were headed by the son of Sir Williain Hamilton of Preston. This gentleman, who was utterly ignorant of the military profession, and incapable of coramanding any body of men against disciplined troops, was associated with Hackston, Balfour, and others, and on the 26th of May they met the field-preacher Donald Cargill at Glasgow, where they arranged their proceedings. They resolved to publish a manifesto on the 29th of May, the anniversary of the King's birth and Restoration. The little old royal burgh of Rutherglen near Glasgow was selected for this ebullition of defiance to the Govern ment. Harailton and a preacher named Douglas, escorted by a party of about eighty armed men, entered that town an hour be fore sunset on the 29th, extinguished the bonfire which the bur gesses were blazing in honour of the day, and after singing psalms and praying they burnt several acts of Parliament, and published 1679.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 853 a " Declaration and Testiraony of some of the true Presbyterian party in Scotiand." They affixed a copy of it to the Cross, and though it was unsubscribed, its authors set forth in a note that they were ready to avow all which the document contained at the hazard of their lives. The nature of the " Rutherglen Declara tion,"" as it was subsequently designated, will be at once ascertained by an extract. After a preamble on the treatment of those who had " gone before them " by an " evil and perfidious adversary to the church and kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ in the land," the authors of the " Declaration " raaintain that they are " pur sued by the sarae adversary for their lives while owning the in terest of Christ, according to his Word and the National and So lemn League and Covenants." They testified against all that had been done " frora the year 1648 downward to the year 1 660, but more particularly those since, [such] as the Act Rescissory ; the Act estabUshing abjured Prelacy ; the Declaration renouncing the Cove nants; the Glasgow Act, whereby upwards of three hundred faithful ministers were ejected frora their churches because they would not comply with Prelacy ; the Act for Iraposing an holy anniversary day, to be kept yearly upon the 29th of May, as a day of rejoicing and thanksgiving for the setting up of an usurping power to the destroying the interest of Christ in the land ; the Act establishing the sacrilegious Supremacy ; and all the acts of Council, warrants, and instractions, for Indulgences, and all other sinful and unlaw ful acts." This rash designation of the Governraent as " an usurping power"" was certain to be fatal to the individuals concerned in the Rutherglen Declaration, and to expose thera to suraraary vengeance. Events of a serious nature soon ensued. On Sunday the 1st of June the moss of Druraclog, near Loudon HUl, on the borders of Ayrshire, witnessed the defeat of Colonel Graham of Claverhouse and a party of the royal troops in a skirmish with a congregation of Covenant ers who were assembled at a field-preaching. The cavalry, by plunging into the deep bog or raoss, which is about six miles from Strathaven, and a mile west of the road from that town to Kil marnock, were assailed by nearly three hundred of the Covenant ers, including some women, who had resolved to prevent Colonel Graham and his party from crossing the marsh to disperse them, when drawn up on a field gently declining frora the adjacent farm- 854 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1679. house of Stabbieslde. The Covenanters were armed vrith pikes and other weapons, and also mustered fifty well mounted horsemen. The military lost thirty-six of their comrades, while of the insurgents only six fell. Colonel Graham succeeded in drawing off his men towards Glasgow, and the Covenanters prudently abstained from offering him little molestation on the road. They buried their own dead in Strathaven churchyard, and they are accused of acting with singular ferocity towards their faUen opponents by cutting and slash ing their dead bodies. Some of the troopers offered to surrender, and asked for quarter, which several of the Covenanters were inclined to grant ; but when their leaders returned from a short pursuit of the military they ordered them all to be massacred, and their dead bodies were interred in a marsh between two farms, where their graves remained visible tiU 1750. Hamilton, who acted as commander of the Insurgents, is said to have killed a few of the soldiers who surrendered, and it is certain that one, if not two, fell by his hand. Russell, who was one of the murderers of Archbishop Sharp, admits that HaraUton slaughtered one in cold blood after the skirmish, and says that he " seems to have regretted all his life that five more did not share the sarae fate." Hamilton glories in this atrocity in his letter of self-vindication to the " Anti-Popish, Anti- Prelatic, Anti-Erastian, Anti- Sectarian, True Presbyterian Rem nant of the Church of Scotland" in 1684 ; declares that he Issued the order before the skirmish that no quarter should be given ; and thanks God that since he had set his face to the work he would neither give nor take favour frora his enemies. In 1839 a monu raent was erected by some admirers of the Covenanters on the scene of this paltry skirmish, which is magnified into a wonderful victory. It is described as an elegant piece of architecture, and was defrayed by private subscription. Emboldened by their victory at Druraclog, the Covenanters soon appeared in military array, and before the 7th of June they mustered by accessions frora various quarters upwards of 5000 men. They searched for arms in Glasgow and the vicinity, published a mani festo, declaring their adherence to what they termed the " True Re formed Religion" and the Covenants, and protested against "Popery, Prelacy, Erastianism, and the Indulgence." Violent discussions, however, distracted their counsels, and fierce debates ensued between the moderate and violent parties, not against the Episcopal Church, 1679.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 855 or in their language Prelacy, which they aU conderaned, but about owning the King's Supreraacy, Erastianisra, Indulgences, and other matters. Those two parties also disputed who should be allowed to preach, and for what they ought to testify or denounce. Their own writers admit that they prayed and preached directly against each other — that " they were in great confusion ; the Lord's day was grievously dishonoured ; and his people sadly discouraged." The moderate party prepared a document, afterwards known as the Hamilton Declaration, in which they stated that they had no in tention of overturning the civil or ecclesiastical govemment to which they were bound by the Solemn League and Covenant, and requested that aU controversial points should be referred to a free Parliament and lawful General Assembly. This met with the decid ed opposition of the riolent foUowers of Richard Cameron the field- preacher, because it acknowledged the " perjured tyrant" Charles IL, condemned preaching, praying, and witnessing against the In dulgence and Supremacy, and upheld the " bloody tyrant on the throne." On the 22d of June they were completely defeated at BothweU Bridge on the Clyde by the Duke of Monraouth ; frora 400 to 500 were kiUed in the pursuit ; 1200 of thera surrendered as prisoners, and were raarched to Edinburgh by Linlithgow and Cor storphine, where they were raet by crowds who reprobated their con duct in no gentle language. The Duke of Monraouth liberated such of them at Edinburgh as would subscribe a bond to live peaceably for the future ; but upwards of 300, who refused to acknowledge the bond, were kept as prisoners in the Greyfriars' inner cemetery five months, where they suffered great privations. About 250 of those persons were ordered to be transported to Barbadoes for this re beUion, but the vessel was wrecked near one of the Orkney Islands, and many of them perished. Two field-preachers named Kidd and King, taken prisoners at BothweU, were tried before the High Court of Justiciary, condemned, and executed at Edinburgh on the 18th of August. On the 27th of July the King offered an in demnity to aU who had been In arras at Pentland or BothweU, who had resorted to conventicles, uttered er published traitorous speeches, or who had coraraitted any illegal act, on the condition that on or before the 20th of Noveraber they bound themselves never to carry arms against the Government, attend conventicles, or offer violence to the Episcopal clergy. This inderanlty, however, was 856 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1680. accepted by a very few of those obstinate and mistaken Cove nanters, who in consequence were treated or prosecuted as rebels, and disturbers of the public peace. It Is unnecessary to allude farther to the alleged sufferings of the Covenanters, for which, in whatever light they may be viewed, either as deserved for their conduct or otherwise, the Government was solely responsible. Archbishop Burnet was translated to the Primacy of St Andrews, vacant by the murder of Archbishop Sharp, and he was succeeded in the See of Glasgow by Bishop Ross of Galloway. Archbishop Ross was succeeded In that See on the 8th of February 1680 by Bishop Aitken of Moray, " who," says Keith, " so carefully governed this Diocese, partly by his letters to the Synod, Presbyteries, and single ministers, partly by a journey he made hither, that had he resided on the place better order and discipline could scarce be expected." Bishop Falconer of Argyll was translated to Moray, and he was succeeded In the former See by Bishop Maclean, who Is said to have been succes sively minister of Morven, Dunoon, and Eastwood. Bishop Wood of The Isles was translated to Caithness, and was succeeded by Archibald Grahara, rainister of Rothesay. The above were the principal changes In the Scottish Episcopate in 1679 and 1680. In 1680 the field-preacher Richard Caraeron, whose first appear ance in life was in the capacity of schoolmaster and precentor under the episcopal incurabent of Ceres in Fife, returned frora HoUand to Scotland. He coramenced field-preaching in defiance of the Govemment, but appears to have had little connection with the other Presbyterians, many of whora were opposed to his violent principles and imprudent conduct. On the 20th of June he entered the little town of Sanquhar in Dumfriesshire accom panied by twenty persons well armed, and at the Cross with rauch cereraony in his own way proclairaed that he and his adherents renounced their aUegiance, declared war against the King, and avowed their determination to resist the succession of the Duke of York. The Presbyterians beheld this daring transaction with dismay, as they well knew that it was liable to be charged against the whole of their party. The Privy Council offered a reward of 5000 merks for Cameron's head, and 3000 raerks for each of his associates. Parties were sent out to apprehend thera, and after keeping together in arms for a raonth in the raountainous districts 1680.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 857 between Nithsdale and Ayrshire they were attacked by a party of horse and foot under Bruce of Earlshall on the 20th of July, on the extensive wUd tract in the parish of Auchinleck in Ayrshire known as Airds Moss. The Covenanters were headed by this Eichard Cameron, who was killed in the skirmish. Cameron, who was beheved by his foUowers to have had the gift of prophecy, is said to have washed his hands on the morning with peculiar care, in the expectation, as is alleged, that they would be made a public spectacle. This may be a raere tradition, reflecting on the bar barity of cutting off his head and hands, and sending them to Edinburgh with the prisoners, one of whom was Hackston of Eathillet. The head and hands were fixed on the Netherbow Port; but the body of the Covenanter was buried with the rest of the slain in Airds Moss. Wodrow has preserved " sorae of the last words of Mr Richard Cameron, which he spoke In a sermon deli vered by him near to the Water of Ker in GaUoway,"* but they are mere rhapsodies. Near the head of the moss is a monument erected by his foUowers to his memory, and also comraemorating eight others who fell with hira. In September this year a well known locality called the Tor- wood, in the united parishes of Larbert and Dunipace in Stirling shire, was the scene of a transaction similar to that of Richard Cameron, which greatly exasperated the Govemment, who had succeeded in driving all the frequenters of conventicles frora the fields except Donald Cargill. He became minister of the Barony parish of Glasgow in 1650, but refusing to accept coUation from Archbishop Fairfoull after the Restoration, and to celebrate the 29th of May, he was banished by the Privy Council beyond the Tay ; but he was not farther noticed till 1668, when he was per emptorily enjoined to observe the order for his exile, though he was permitted to resort to Edinburgh in 1669 on some legal busi ness, though he was not allowed to reside in tbe city or to ap proach Glasgow. For sorae years afterwards he wandered about as a field-preacher, and became conspicuous by denouncing all who accepted the Indulgence. He was among the insurgents at the battle of Bothwell Bridge, at which he was wounded, but he escaped to Holland. He soon, however, returned, and again hirked in Scotland in connection with some who wrote severe • Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. i, p. 133-134. 858 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1680, papers against the Government. Cargill and a zealous follower of his religious principles were known to be in hiding on the shores of the Frith of Forth above Queensferry, and the incumbent of Carriden, who naturally felt uneasy at the presence of two such persons in that parish, informed the governor of Blackness Castle, who set out in search of thera. They were traced to a public- house in Queensferry, and the governor, who had sent for a party of soldiers to take them, cajoled them by drinking wine until his raen arrived. As they had no suspicion of this officer's purpose they sat with him for some time, till impatient at the delay of his raen he attempted to take them prisoners. A struggle ensued, in which Cargill's associate was mortally wounded, but the field-preacher was concealed by a neighbouring farmer, and fied into Lanarkshire. In the pocket of his friend was found a very violent document, which was understood to have been written by Cargill, and is known by the soubriquet of the Queensferry Covenant from the place where It was found. He was concerned with Richard Cameron in the Sanquhar exploit, which he imitated three months afterwards. He collected a large assemblage at the Torwood, and after preach ing two sermons he " excommunicated and delivered to Satan," as he phrased it, Charles IL, the Dukes of York, Monmouth, Rothes, and Lauderdale, Sir George Mackenzie, and General Dalyell of Binns, renounced his allegiance, absolved all the King's subjects from the same, and declared that no human power could reverse this sentence unless those personages repented. This fulmination, sufficiently harmless and even ludicrous so far as Cargill's ecclesias tical authority was concerned, was a serious affair to himself and his followers. The Privy Council failed not to perceive that it was calculated not only to bring thera into conterapt, while it was a direct act of treason, but that it tended to mark them as proper objects for the vengeance of the ignorant and enthusiastic pea santry, who were taught that assassination was meritorious. Car gill was intercommuned, and a reward was offered for him of 5000 merks. Numerous stories and traditions are told of his narrow escapes from the soldiers and others in search of him, but he was at last seized at Covington in Lanarkshire, conveyed to Lanark on horseback with his feet tied under the animal's belly, and thence to Glasgow, from which he was reraoved to Edinburgh, where he was tried on the 26th of July 1681, conderaned for high treason. 1680.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 859 and executed on the foUowing day. The spot at the Torwood on which CargiU " excommunicated"" Charles II. and the others was long pointed out as a square field near Sir WUliam Wallace's oak which has now disappeared. The dangerous principles inculcated by such preachers as Came ron and Cargill are undeniable from the printed records of their harangues which still remain. Caraeron in one of his sermons told the peasantry — '" What better are these ministers who have ac cepted of the Indulgence than curates or even papists V" He de signated Charles II. — " that enemy of God w ho sits on the throne," and added — " I think there was never a generation of more worthy men about an evil deed than the bringing home that abominable person from Breda in Holland to be again set up in Scotland. They have set up Kings, but not for me. The Lord was not with them in an approving way when they did this. — I know not if this generation will be honoured to cast off these rulers, but those that the Lord makes instruments to bring back Christ, and to recover our liberties civil and ecclesiastic, shall be such as shall disown the King and these inferiors under him. — Are there none to execute justice and judgment upon these wicked men, who are both treach erous and tyrannical ? The Lord is caUing men of all stations to execute judgment on them, and if It Is done we cannot but justify the deed, and such are to be coraraended for it, as Jael was blessed above women. — The Lord laughs at the pretended wisdom of Courts. He laughs at yon wicked vn-etch that sits on the throne, and the General [DalyeU] in KUmarnock. — The devU rides and drives King Charles II. and his Council through moss and muir, and over crags and rocks. — That Charles Stuart and our noble men, councillors, and persecutors, shall be brought in like goats on the left hand, and Christ wUl say, Go away to everlasting burn ing. — The King hath lost his right to the Crown; when he caused the Covenants to be burnt he was no longer justly King, but a degenerated plant, and hath now becorae a tyrant. — Would you have the Lord to cut off the spirit of princes ? Cut off the base and abominable famUy that have been tyrannizing over these king doms. Would you have Hira terrible to King Charles, James Duke of York, and the Duke of Monmouth too ? Then vow, and bring yourselves under engagements to the Most High." The Co venanting prophet Alexander Peden, for so his foUowers considered 860 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1680. him, exclaimed — " 0 that he would help us frora the tyranny of that raan on the throne. Our Lord Is saying. If ye would have help from me, you must take rae to be your King, You must take me to be Head of the Church. — It were better for us. Sirs, to go to the fields in frost and snow to the knees, till we were wet to the skin, ere we bow to King, Council, or any of them."* Although at the present day these expressions may be con sidered the senseless ravings of enthusiasm, yet they were most dangerous and inflammatory at that time. The assassination of the King and others was openly coraraended and enjoined as a righteous and praiseworthy act, which was a direct incen tive to the peasantry to murder their rulers, and all whom the Covenanters designated their enemies. It is Impossible to tole rate such doctrines in any country, and hence we may ascer tain the real cause of the severity of the Government. Lord FountainhaU mentions several instances of the effects of this kind of preaching on the people. He states that one Skene, a young lawyer, whose brother was a landed proprietor, and three others, were apprehended on the 12th of November. Skene " was so ob stinately stout," says his Lordship, " that both in face of [the] Privy Council and of the criminal court he owned Cameron's de claration of war against Charles Stuart, as he called the King, at Sanquhar, approved their fighting at Bothwell Bridge, Muirkirk, or Airds Moss, their Covenant, their Excommunication, &c. though he was present at none of them ; and that he had freedom to kiU the King as an enemy to God, and had subscribed the same. It was a pity to see his forwardness, considering if he had refrained with his tongue no probation could have reached him. The other three, though tortured in the boots, would give no positive cate goric answer to that question — If they thought it lawful to kiU his Majesty 2 but would neither call it lawful nor unlawful ; so that they are singly guilty of a perverse obstinacy in opinion, which principle might be fatally dangerous if they should happen to put it in execution, as God forbid."-[- Lord FountainhaU truly remarks in another place, in connection with the executions of * Numerous other expressions and sentiments could be adduced from the sermons and writings of the Covenanters. See the Collection of their sermons edited by John Howie of Lochgoin, published in 1809 ; the " Cloud of Witnesses," Shields' " Hind let Loose," and others of their acknowledged productions. t Lord FountainhaU's Historical Observes, 4t.o. 1840, p. 7, 8. 1680.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 861 those obstinate persons — " The cause must be very commendable and just, and clearly founded on the Word of God, ere a man can be esteemed a martyr for suffering in it." The Duke of York arrived in Scotland in October as a kind of exile on account of his religion, landing in Fife on the 26th, and pro ceeding to Edinburgh on the 29th. His daughter, afterwards Queen Anne, joined him on the 17th of July 1681. As the Duke's Roman Cathohc principles were well known, his residence in Holyrood house caused an insidting riot on Christmas Day by burning the Pope in effigy, the ringleaders of which were students of the University. Numbers of them, accompanied by tradesmen and others, paraded the streets with blue ribbons in their hats, on which were Inscribed the words — " No Pope; no Priest; no Bishop; m Atheist!" Some of the cavalier party, to oppose and ridicule the rioters, appeared with red ribbons on which were the words — " / arn no fanatic."" The Privy Council ordered the College tobe closed by proclamation, and the students to be banished fifteen miles from the city, unless their friends found security for their good be hariour ; but the lectures in the University were soon afterwards resumed. Lord FountainhaU states that a person in military dress accosted Sir George Mura-o at mid-day on the street, and desired him to go down to the Palace, and tell the Duke of York that " if he did not counsel his brother the King to extirpate the Papists, both the King and he were dead men : and Sir George turning about to caU some vritnesses, the raan in a sudden retired he knew not whither." So completely had the Governraent suppressed the field-preachers in the beginning of 1681, that Lord FountainhaU, recording the death of John Welsh at London, states — " There is but a smaU remnant of these disorderly ministers now left, unless a new fleece arise to own the same principles." Yet fanaticism prevailed to a great extent. We are told by his Lordship that " a hypochondriac fellow was Imprisoned in the Canongate for teaching that the day of judgment was to be the next day, and offered himself willing to be hanged if what he averred should prove false." But the raost extra ordinary ebuUition was that ofa party of enthusiasts in Borrowston- uess on the Firth of Forth, led by a certain John Gibb a saUor, who assumed the title of King Solomon, and all his followers ted themselves by Scriptural names. They rejected the 862 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1681 metrical Psalms, the English version of the Old and New Testa ments, the naraes of the days of the week, and were known by th soubriquet ofthe Sweet Singers. They pretended to be the only tru saints, and framed a Covenant of their own, much more accordlnj to their notions than that of the Presbyterians ; yet they also de clared for CargiU's opinions and those of the more rigid of the Co venanters, disowned the royal authority and aU government ; an( their married female associates, whose husbands were not of thei opinions, were " so far from conversing with them," says Lor( FountainhaU, " that they will not suffer thera to touch them and If any do, they wash the place as having contracted impurltj like the Jewish cereraonlal of uncleanness, with a hundred sue! fopperies." They were brought to Edinburgh, and examined b the Privy Council, who dismissed them as insane, and this fanati cism soon exploded. It is curious that some of the wives of thos Covenanters who were executed for renouncing their aUegiance and maintaining that it was lawful to kiU the King, were mos arabitious that their husbands should attain this extraordinar; martyrdom. When Skene and two others were offered a pardo] on the scaffold In 1680 if they would only say — God save the King one of them evinced an inclination to comply, but his wife pre vented him, and almost pushed him off the ladder, exclaiming— " Go, die for the good old cause. See, Mr Skene will sup thi night with Jesus Christ." It Is repeatedly mentioned by Lon FountainhaU, and others who lived at the time, that almost ever one of the persons capitally punished for " disowning the King' authority, adhering to Cargill's Covenant, Declaration, and Excom munication, and thinking it lawful to kill the King and the Judges, would have been pardoned by merely acknowledging the roya authority. In the case of three persons, executed at Edinburg] on the 2d of March, the Earl of Roscommon was sent to them with i special warrant frora the Duke of York when they were upon th scaffold, and offered them their lives if they would only say — Goi save the King. This they refused, " though Daniel," says Lor( FountainhaU, " wishes Nebuchadnezzar and Darius, heathen kings to live for ever." WhUe the discussion about the Duke of York's succession t^ the English throne, and the infamous plot concocted by Titu Gates, were agitating In England, the King resolved to summoi 1681.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 863 the Scottish Parliament on the 28th of July. A fortnight before it met, Donald CargiU was apprehended near Lanark, and two days previous to it, on the 26th, the Duke of Rothes died in his resi dence as Lord Chancellor at Hol}Toodhouse. He was created Duke of Rothes in 1680, but dying without male issue the Earldora devolved to his elder daughter, who becarae Countess of Rothes in her own right. His funeral was celebrated with great magnificence in the High Church of Edinburgh and the Chapel-Royal of Holy- rood, from which he was taken to the family vault at Leslie House in Fife for interment. On the day after Rothes died, Cargill and four of his " disciples " were executed for high treason at the Cross of Edinburgh. Cargill conducted himself, according to Lord FountainhaU, with great timidity, and earnestly requested his sentence to be commuted into banishraent, or " begged for a longer time that he might be judged in Parliament ; but finding there was no remedy, he put on more staidness and resolution after his sentence." The third Parliament of Charles II. assembled at Edinburgh on the 28th of July 1681, the Duke of York appearing as Lord High Commissioner, and the Marquis of AthoU, who was Lord Privy Seal, acting as President. jArchbishops Burnet of St An drews and of Glasgow, and ten Bishops attended. Those of Aberdeen and Orkney were the only Prelates absent. The Ejng in his letter noticed those who, " corrupted with the rebeUious principles of the last age, or the bhnd zeal of this, have at first raised schisms and separations in the Church, and afterwards fre quent rebeUions against us," apparently unconscious that his own adrisers who promoted the Assertory Supremacy Act and the Indulgence had caused as many " schlsras and separations" as the Covenanters and other Presbyterians. The two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Dunkeld, Ross, Brechin, Dunblane, and Caithness, were chosen among the Lords of the Articles. In the answer to the King's letter, signed by the Marquis of AthoU in name ofthe ParUaraent, it Is stated — " Though some rebelUous and de luded people have disturbed your Majesty's Government here, yet their principles are so extravagant, and so few persons of any note or qnality are engaged with them, that we may justly hope their crimes cannot be Imputed to this kingdom, whose representatives in this your Majesty's Pariiament wIU, no less for their own vindication as 864 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1681. what is past, than for their own security for the tirae coming, to cheerfully provide suitable and sufficient remedies ; all of us being very sensible that those distractions and disorders would in the Issue tend to the dissolution not only of your Majesty's govern ment In Church and State, as the same is by law established, but even of human society. It is a great satisfaction to us to find your Majesty so concerned for the Protestant religion, not only in your gracious letter to us, but In the whole conduct of your government ;" and they declare that they wIU strenuously oppose all " usurpations and disorders of popery and fanaticism." All this evidently Indicates, apart from the fiattery too often administered to royalty, that the Scottish Privy Council were not now much annoyed by the tumults and rebellions ofthe Covenanters, and that the raass of the influential classes were satisfied with the Established Episcopal Church. On the 13th of August an Act was passed, ratifying " all former laws for the security of the Protestant Religion," and on the 29th an " Act for securing the peace of the country," was directed against those who were guilty of " resetting preachers who are or shall be intercommuned or declared fugitives;" doubling the former fines Imposed upon field-conventicles, depriv ing the resorters to them of political privileges, and ordering them to be " banished from the towns where they live." On the 31st was passed an " Act anent Religion and the Test," which denounced the Roman Catholics and " all fanatic separatists from this na tional Church," preachers in private houses, and field-conventicles, their " resetters and harbourers who are intercommuned," and " disorderly baptisms and marriages. Irregular ordinations, and all other schismatical disorders." All such were ordered to be reported annually in October by the parochial clergy to the Bishops, who were to transmit lists of them to the sheriffs and local magistrates, which they in turn were to lay before the Privy Council in December, " as they wiU be answerable at their highest peril." And " to cut off," it is declared in the Act, " aU hopes by Papists and fanatics of employment in offices and places of public trust," the Test, or oath, was enacted, to be taken by aU Judges, Privy CounciUors, Officers of State, Bishops, Professors in Univer sities, clergy, schoolmasters, magistrates, and others. They were solemnly to acknowledge the Confession of Faith ratified by the first Parliament of James VL, and renounce all " principles, doctrines, 1681.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTER.S. 865 or practices, whether popish or fanatical," contrary to that Con fession. Much of this must have been sufficiently grating to the Duke of York. It, however, shews that when such an Act and Test were deliberately ratified by the Parliament, tlio Episcopal Church was stronger than the representations of it by the Pres byterians would induce us to believe. On the 14th of September an Act was passed " restraining the exorbitant expence of mar riages, baptisms, and funerals," which explains some of the man ners and customs of the tirae, fining all those who transgressed according to their rank and circumstances. An Act was also passed against " assassinations," having a particular reference to the murder of Archbishop Sharp, declaring it treason not only to commit such crimes, but even to " maintain or assert that it is lawful to kill any man upon difference in opinion, or be cause he has been employed in the service of the King or of the Church as it is now established by law ;" and, " remembering with horror the execrable murder of that most reverend and worthy Prelate, James late Archbishop of St Andrews, Lord Pri mate of Scotland, who deserved so well of this Church and mon archy for his eminent services to both," the sheriff of Fife and all sheriffs were enjoined to search diUgently for the murderers, and bring them to justice. Yet the Test enacted by this Parliament was considered such a grievance by the Episcopal clergy, that raany of them in November deserted their parish churches because they could not conscien tiously take it ; but some of thera afterwards apologized and were restored. The Test is chiefly remarkable as the cause of the trial and sentence of the Earl of ArgyU for high treason. ArgyU had zealously concurred in tbe Act for conflrming the laws against the Roman Catholics, but he had so warmly sup ported another Act, making it high treason to propose any al teration in the succession to the Crown, that the Duke of York spoke of his conduct with gratitude and respect. It appeared to ArgyU, however, that the Test was a kind of encouragement to the royal faraily to renounce the communion of the Estab lished Church, and he maintained that if any exemption was re- cognized,-it ought to be explicitly conflned to the Duke of York. His words were observed to make a deep and indelible im pression on the Duke. The Test was approved by a majority 55 866 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1681. of only seven votes, and before ArgyU was required by the Duke to subscribe it he was privately exhorted by Bishop Pater son of Edinburgh not to ruin his ancient family, or increase the resentment which his opposition had excited. On the 1st of November he was deprived of his office as an Extraordinary Lord of Session, and he would have lost his other appointments, but on the 3d he accepted the Test as a Privy Councillor, on the express condition that he took It " as far as it is consistent with itself and the Protestant rehgion," and that It did not prevent him from consenting to any alteration which he thought advantageous to the Established Church and to the State. This explanation was re ceived, and Argyll was invited to resurae his seat, but having de clined to vote In the general explanation pronounced by the Privy Council on the Test, he was displaced, and he was soon afterwards ordered by the King to surrender hiraself prisoner in the Castle of Edinburgh. He coraplied, was tried before the High Court of Justiciary on the 12th of December, and after very questionable pro ceedings he was found guilty of the charges against him by the Jury — the Marquis of Montrose, their foreman, raost ungenerously dis gracing his grandfather's memory by returning the verdict. From the preparations for his reception In the Tolbooth it Is evident that his execution was intended, but he contrived to escape from the Castle on the evening of the 20th of December In the disguise of a page holding up the train of his step-daughter Lady Mary Lindsay. He was immediately sentenced to death in absence, his estates forfeited, his titles attainted, and declared a traitor. He was conducted out of Scotland by the field preacher Veitch, and reached London undiscovered, frora which he went to HoUand, where he reraained till the death of Charles II. The death of Bishop Scougall of Aberdeen occurred in February 1682. Lord FountainhaU describes hira as " a moderate raan, and but half Episcopal In his judgraent." He was succeeded by Bishop Hallyburton of Brechin, and Robert Douglas, of the ancient faraily of Douglas of Glenbervie, successively rainister of Laurence kirk, BothweU, Renfrew, and Harailton, and Dean of Glasgow, was proraoted to the See of Brechin. In March the Duke of York saUed from Leith to meet the King at Newmarket, landing at Yarmouth after a stormy passage of four days. We are told by Lord FountainhaU that "seven of the 1682.] THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. 867 Scottish Bishops wrote a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury at this nick of time, extoUing the Duke of York's care of them and our religion to the skies, which was printed to avoid false copies of it that were going abroad." On the 24th of jNIarcli the Duke of Lauderdale died at Tunbridge WeUs, but as he had been super seded in the administration of public affairs by the Duke of York in 1680, his decease caused no regret in Scotland. He left an only daughter, who married the second Marquis of Tweeddale in 1666, and he was succeeded in the Earldora of Lauderdale — the patent of the Dukedora being limited only to male descendants, by his brother Lord Hatton. Wodrow, on the authority of one Mr Andi-ew Tait, minister of Oarmunnock, mentions a horrid design ofthe " rigid and high-fly ing Cameronians to assassinate the Indulged ministers in the shire of Ayr at their houses in one night by different parties." It was revealed to the Earl of Loudon by a person naraed Nisbet, who " sent expresses to Mr Robert MiUar at OchUtree, Mr James Veitch at Mauchline, and others In the neighbourhood that were Indulged, and called them to his house that night, and several of them came." Wodrow says that his informant was then in the Earl of Loudon's family, and " had the account frora the above said Mr Nisbet."* He records two anecdotes iUustrative of the effects of field-preaching on Ignorant minds. A certain Mrs Dur ham — " when reading sorae sermons of the highflyers, and when hearing some of the more violent of the field-preachers, said that she observed just such a difference between the field-preachings and these she was used to, as she did between the Apocrypha and the Bible when she read them." The other anecdote is on the authority of Mr Patrick Sirason, a Presbyterian rainister, and the Melfort noticed was the Hon. James Drummond, second son of the Earl of Perth, created Viscount Melfort, on the accession of King James in 1685, and Eari of JNIelfort in 1686. " Mr Patrick Simson teUs me," says Wodrow, " that he happened to be at Glas gow, and was present at a court held by Melfort, where two young country ignorant men were condemned. They had the ordinary queries proposed, and they were very high in their answers. At length their life was offered upon some terms my author thought they might have accepted, yet they did not ; wherefore the sen- • Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. u. p. 357 ; vol. iv. p. 302. 868 THE CHURCH AND THE COVENANTERS. [1683. tence was pronounced, and Melfort, after it was done, said on the bench — -' The Lord forgive the men that preach and instil such principles as these Into the poor ignorant persons by their field- preachings. They are guilty of their blood, not we.' "* Towards the end of the year It is recorded by Lord FountainhaU, that the Bishops " obtained a warrant frora the Privy Council to depose and silence all the tolerated rainisters who, by connivance, had preached ever since the restitution of Bishops without acknowledg ing their authority." Bishop Paterson deposed five in the Diocese of Edinburgh, and " the rest of the Bishops took the same course with any such in their bounds." This was followed in the begin ning of 1683 by the civil authorities imprisoning a numberjof per sons in Edinburgh for " not frequenting the Church, and for bap tizing their children by nonconformist ministers, and for not pay ing their fines, some of which were 1000 merks." Bishop Young of Ross died in Septeraber 1683 at Paris, a few days after submitting to a painful surgical operation. Lord Foun tainhaU describes hira as a " raoderate and leamed raan, unjustly supplanted in the Bishopric of Edinburgh by his successor, and therefore atterapts were made for sending him back lege talionis to Ross." The authority for this attack on Bishop Paterson"'of Edinburgh is not stated. In 1684, Bishop Rarasay of Dunblane was translated to Ross, Bishop Douglas of Brechin 'to Dunblane, and Alexander Cairncross, rainister of Durafries, was promoted to the See of Brechin, by the influence of the Duke of Queensberry. Archbishop Bumet of St Andrews died about the end of that year, and was interred In St Salvador's church in that city near the tomb of Bishop Kennedy. He bequeathed a small property for the bene fit of the poor of the guUdry of St Andrews, which is stIU known as Bishop Burnefs Acre, and yields L.5, 10s. annually, now ap propriated for the purposes of the town, though a small portion of it is still given to the poor.-f- He was succeeded by Archbishop Ross of Glasgow, the last Primate of St Andrews. Bishop Calm- cross of Brechin was translated to Glasgow, and Mr James Drum mond, successively minister of Auchterarder and Muthil In Perth shire, was promoted to the See of Brechin. • Analecta, 4to. 1842, vol. i. p. 324. f History of St Andrews, by the Rev. C. J. Lyon, vol. ii. p. 104. 1684.] 869 CHAPTER XII. STATE OF THE CHURCH PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. During 1684 the Covenanting preachers and peasantry in tho counties of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Wigton, provoked the vengeance of the Government. They were then prosecuted, or persecuted, as their admirers pretend, not so much for their reli gious as for their political principles — as persons who were no torious rebels by renouncing their allegiance, disowning the King's authority, and justifying assassination by refusing to acknowledge that Archbishop Sharp was murdered. The Covenanters, as if resolved to accelerate their own speedy destruction, committed another suicidal act, by pubUshing a manifesto generally known as the Apologetical Declaration , wTitten by James Renwick, a wild and riolent field-preacher, hanged at Edinburgh in 1688, and popularly known as the " last "" of their alleged " martyrs!" In it they abjured the King, whora they always insultingly desig nated Charles Stuart, as a heartless tyrant, and announced their resolution to treat their opponents as enemies to God, or in other words that they would murder aU whom they considered their enemies. They affixed this Declaration during the night on the doors of the parish churches and at sorae of the market crosses of the towns, and the strongest sensation was excited by it among the peasantry. The murder of two soldiers of the Life-Guards by persons who were never discovered, and of a sentinel who was killed at the door of the jaU of Kirkcudbright, exasperated the Govern- ;ment, sufficiently arbitrary and prejudiced against the Covenanters without this rash and treasonable irritation caused by the Apolo getical Declaration ; and an order was Issued to the military to exter minate all who refused to renounce the principles of that unhappy document without the formality of legal proceedings. This order 870 STATE OF THE CHURCH [1684. stated that — " the Lords of his Majesty's Privy Council do hereby ordain any persons who own, or will not disown, the late treason able Declaration upon oath, whether they have arms or not, to be immediately put to death ; this being always done In presence of two witnesses, and of the person or persons having commission to that effect." The military had sufficient reasons to retaliate on those Cove nanters who fell in their way. Numbers of the soldiers were con stantly assassinated, and the whole were threatened with the sum raary vengeance peculiar to the madness of religious fanaticism. The military were plainly told in the Apologetical Declaration that their blood would be shed by their " own measure," and the Cove nanters asserted that " they could do it in a legal and judicial manner, as they had now disowned Charles Stuart to be their King." Lord FountainhaU states that in the end of November " a new search was made through Edinburgh for these fanatics and their resetters, and any they suspected they put to disown the Whig Declaration, and to declare they acknowledged the King's authority."* On the 2d of December the Indulged preachers were compelled to sign a bond, and those who refused were to be imprisoned. Numbers were apprehended and indicted for " owning," or rather " refusing to disown," the Apologetical Declor ration, and those obstinate and dangerous persons are duly enroUed as martyrs for their " adherence" to what is called " Scotland's Reformation, and Covenants National and Solemn League." On the 30th of December a proclamation was Issued against the above Declaration, comraanding all persons to express their abhorrence of It in a forra known as the Abjuration Oath, the taking of which procured a certificate of loyalty, and protection from molestation throughout the kingdom. Many of those who refused, whether men or women, were capitaUy punished, and yet every one of them would have been spared by merely saying — " God save the King!'' " Lord FountainhaU records some of the superstitions of the time, which were de voutly beUeved by the Covenanters. " In December 1684 we were troubled with the rnmours of visions and apparitions, viz. a shower of blue bonnets seen in the air at Glas gow, and evanished when they came near the ground. Item, a shower of blood at Moffat ; and a little ghost or spectre appears at Roseneath, one of my Lord Argyll's houses, where AthoU has got his locaUty, and placed a garrison of fifty men. It beats the soldiers sometimes, and bids them make good use of their time, for it shall not be long. But many of these things are forged." Historical Observes, 4to, 1840, p. 142. 1684.] PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. 871 It is painful to peruse the details of the sufferings to which the Covenanters wilfully subjected themselves from the mUitary at that period, but it must be also recollected that they threatened the indiscriminate slaughter of those who differed from them, and belligerent parties so situated were not likely to be swayed by the principles of forbearance. The most prominent raurder after that of Archbishop Sharp occurred about this time. Mr Pierson, incumbent of Carsphairn in the Diocese of GaUoway, or as he is insolently designated by the Presbyterian writers, curate oi that parish, was the victim. A band of the " Suffering Remnant," as the Covenanters affected to designate themselves, beset his house during the night, and de manded admittance. He rose from his bed, and on going out to inquire the cause of this disturbance he was imraediately shot dead by one if not two of the ruffians. Who can be surprized if an act of atrocity such as this was risited with severity on raany who were not present at its perpetration, but who belonged to the party 2 The truth is, that the bloody principles set forth In the Apologetical Declaration, which the Covenanters plainly avowed they would en force, struck vrith terror all loyal persons in the western counties, and many of the Episcopal clergy sought safety in retirement. The Presbyterians endeavour to paUiate the murder of the incum bent of Carsphairn, by representing him as " having given great offence to the surrounding country by his overbearing conduct." They aUegethat he was " universally detested" — "had been a noto rious informer, and promoter of persecution, as well as a bold, surly, and iU-natured man ;" nay, that the very murder was " done in self-defence." The latter statement Is altogether false, and the former aUegations are too suspicious to be entitled to any credit. On the contrary, it can be proved that a corabination had been formed to assassinate this clergyman. On the 16th of January the Privy Council ordered the parishioners of Carsphairn to be pro secuted for the murder of their minister, and on the same day those of the parish of Anworth in that district were to be simUarly pursued for indignities offered to the incumbent. The Presbyterians, or rather the Covenanting writers, are very unsafe authorities as to the severities Inflicted on their predeces sors at that period. One example may be here adduced. They allege that on the 23d of January six raen, while engaged in prayer 872 STATE OF THE CHURCH [1685. at a locality in the parish of Minnigaff, were surprized by a party of the military under Colonel Douglas and shot. But Lord Foun tainhaU, himself a Presbyterian, tells a different story. He says that " the few liandfuU of fanatic rebels left In the West turning very insolent," the Privy Council, at the Instance of the Duke of Queensberry, Lord High Treasurer, to annoy Grahara of Claver house, who had been In those districts in December and had failed to suppress thera, sent his brother Colonel Douglas and 200 men " against these rogues, that the glory of defeating them might fall to his share. — And accordingly Douglas being one day in the fields In Galloway, with a small party of eight or ten, meets with as many of the rebels at a house, who kill two of his men and Captain Urquhart, and had very rwarly shot Douglas himself dead, had not the Whig's carbine misgiven, whereon Douglas pis toled hira presently. Urquhart is the only staff-officer this despe rate crew have yet had the honour to kill. He was brought to Edinburgh, and buried with much respect." Lord FountainhaU adds — " They came a company of them to Kirkcudbright and killed two men ; and caused a minister called Mr Shaw to swear he would never preach again in Scotland ; and the Bishops offer ing to loose him from this oath as unlawful, he refused their ab solution, alleging it would have been unlawful to have sworn never to preach again, but he had only bound up hiraself frora preaching in Scotland, and though extorted by fear of life, yet it was safest to keep it."* But notwithstanding the violence which characterised both the Governraent and the wild Covenanters in an arbitrary age noted for Its stubborn Intolerance, when the latter adopted murderous principles which in too raany Instances they practised, the Es tablished Episcopal Church was yearly bringing the people within its pale, and in many of the counties, especiaUy north of the Tay, there were few or no Dissenters. Charles II. died on the Oth of February 1685, and was, after all the opposition of political enemies, succeeded by his brother the Duke of York as James II. of England and Ireland, and the Seventh of that name as King of Scotland, who was so proclairaed at Edinburgh on the 10th of February by the Earl of Perth, Lord Chancellor, the Arch bishops, Bishops, Nobility, and Magistrates of the city.. We • Historical Observes, 4to. 1840, printed for the Bannatyne Club, p. 140. 1685.] PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. 87.") have the authority of Bishop Sage, a man of unquestionable leai-ning and veracity — who was one of the ministers of Glasgow at the time, that at the death of Charles II. the Established Episcopal Church was In a more prosperous and peaceable stato than It had been since the Restoration. Bishop Sage declai-es that all the people were generally of the same communion — that the Roman Catholics were only as one to five hundred — and that the Presbyterians were divided into two sects who utterly hated each other. Thesc were tbe Indulged and the Cameronian or Covenanting factions. The former, according to Bishop Sage, had for the most part conformed to the Church and attended its ministrations, and the Covenanting Cameronians alone tenaciously kept up the separation. The prudent and well informed Presby terians acknowledged that they could conscientiously live in com munion with the Episcopal Church, to which many of them were willingly reconciled. These facts are corroborated by an investi gation of the history of that period, and shew that the Covenant ing disaffection and rebeUion originated not from any real griev ances, but from the old leaven of former years. " We possessed," says Bishop Sage, " the true Christian faith — the same faith which the Cathohc Church possessed in the days of the first four General Councils. We have neither subtracted one article from it nor added one article to it. — We owned only two Christian Sacra ments, and these two we had administered in as great puritv. and as exactly according to om- Lord's institution, as you [the Presby terians] or any party on earth can pretend to. ^Ve were secure that we had governors who had our Lord's commission to rule us, to dispense the Word to us, and to admit us to duly consecrated Sacraments. In a word, we had Bishops canonically and validly ordained by those who had power to ordain them, and commu nicate true episcopal power. — Our worship could not be charged with any thing idolatrous or superstitious, immoral or unchristian, in it. — Set forms we had but few, and these few [are] used in all other Churches. No Church on earth has, no Church ever had, less of pomp and gaudiness, or more of plainness and simplicity. Our excess, if we had any, lay not that way."* * The Reasonableness of a Toleration to those of the Episcopal Persuasion inquired into purely on Church Principles, in Four Letters to Mr George Meldrum, Professor of Theology in the College of Edinburgh. 4to. 1704, p. 71, 72, 73. 874 STATE OF THE CHURCH [1685. The first Parliament of James II. , or Jaraes VII. as he was called in Scotland, raet at Edinburgh on the 23d of April 1685, the Duke of Queensberry appearing as Lord High Commissioner. The two Archbishops, and all the Bishops, with the exception of the Bishop of Orkney, were present. After the oath of allegiance had been taken, and the Test subscribed by all the members, the King's letter was read, which declared his determination to sup port the " religion established by law, and their rights and pro perties against fanatical contrivances, murderers, and assassins." The disaffected Covenanters are farther denounced as " wild and Inhuman traitors." The two Archbishops, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, GaUoway, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Brechin, and Caith ness, were elected among the Lords of- the Articles. In the an swer to the King's letter it is stated by the Parliament—" Nor shall we leave anything undone for extirpating all fanaticism, but especially those fanatical murderers and assassins, and for detect ing and punishing the late conspirators," referring to the Earl of Argyll's insurrection in concert with the Duke of Monmouth. An Act was passed ratifying aU former statutes for the security of the " liberty and freedom of the true Church of God, and the Pro testant religion presently professed within this kingdom, in their whole strength and vigour." Bishop Maclean of Argyll took the oath of aUegiance, and subscribed the Test on the 1st of May, and on the 8th the punishraent of death on all field-preachers and re sorters to house or field conventicles was confirmed. The Act for " taking tbe Test" was also renewed. On the 22d the vacant sti pends In the Dioceses were ordered to be paid to the Universities, and partly expended in repairing bridges. This Act was to continue in force five years, excepting specially those parishes of which the King and the Bishops were patrons. On the 13th of June an Act was passed " for the Clergy" declaring the " assaulting the lives of the Bishops or other ministers, or invading or robbing their houses, or actually attempting the sarae," to be punishable by death and confiscation of goods. The inhabitants of every parish in which such violence was perpetrated were to be assessed in a sum for the behalf of the faraily and relatives of the parties murdered at the discretion of the Privy Council. In the suramer of this year the Earl of Argyll made his fatal invasion of Scotland, in concert with the Duke of Monmouth's 1685.] PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. 875 attempt in England. He first appeared off the Orkneys, and sent Spence his secretary, and Blackadder, an " outed" preacher's son, to ascertain the sentiments of tho islanders. The venerable Bishop Mackenzie of Orkney caused them both to be apprehended, and the design was thus discovered. After various adventures and in effectual demonstrations, Argyll was at last taken prisoner near Inchinnan in the vicinity of Renfrew, brought to Edinburgh, and executed on his former sentence on the 30th of June. He was attended on the scaffold by Mr Annand, Dean of Edinburgh, and by the Rev. Laurence Charteris, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, the latter at his particular request in pre ference to any of the Indulged Presbyterian preachers. His head was struck off by the Maiden, and his body was interred in the G-reyfriars' church-yard. " Argyll's first crirae," says Lord Foun tainhaU, who was then his counsel, " was looked on by all as a very slender ground of forfeiture, but his conspiracy and rebeUion since have expounded what he raeant by his explanation of the Test too well." — " Whatever was in Argyll's first transgression in glossing the Test, which appeared slender, yet God's wonderful judgments are visible, pleading a controversy against him and his family for the cruel oppression he used not only to his father's but even to his own creditors."* The Earl's standard, which was taken and sent to the King, contained the motto — " For God and Eeligion, against Popery, Tyranny, Arbitrary Government, and Erastianism." On the 4th of December died Mr Andrew Cant, Principal of the University of Edinburgh, who is described as " a stout eneray of the Papists and Arrainians, whora he confuted with rauch learn ing and acuteness, and was therefore Uttle or nothing regretted at his death." Bishop Paterson of Edinburgh endeavoured to se cure the office for his brother, but It was objected to hira that he was a layman, and the Town-Council bestowed it on Dr Alexander Monro, Professor of Divinity at St Andrews, who at the Revolu tion was the Bishop-elect of ArgyU, vacant by the death of Bishop Maclean. In Febraary 1686 Archbishop Ross of St Andrews and Bishop Paterson of Edinburgh went to London to consult the King on the affairs of the Church. It was about this time rumoured that * Historical Observes, 4to, 1840, p. 184. 876 STATE OF THE CHURCH [1686. the King had resolved to call a meeting of the Parliament to re peal the penal enactraents against the Roraan Catholics. This design was soon apparent. The second session of the only Scottish Pariiaraent of King James commenced at Edinburgh on the 29th of April 1686, the Earl of Moray appearing as Lord High Com missioner. The Archbishops of St Andrews and Glasgow, and the Bishops of Edinburgh, Galloway, Dunkeld, Aberdeen, Moray, Ross, Brechin, Dunblane, and The Isles, were present. The loyal con duct of the Parliament in the former session, especially in reference to the Earl of Argyll's insurrection, is assigned in the King's letter as the cause of assembling the Estates on that occasion. Among other matters recommended for their consideration was one con nected with the Roman Catholics : — " We cannot be unmindful of others our innocent subjects of the Roman Catholic Religion, who have with the hazard of their lives and fortunes been always assist ant to the Crown in the worst of rebellions and usurpations, though they lay under discouragements hardly to be named. Them we do heartily recomraend to your care, to the end that, as they have given good experience of their true loyalty and peaceable behaviour, so by your assistance they may have the protection of our laws, and that security under our government which others of our subjects have ; not suffering them to lie under obligations which their religion cannot admit of." This in itself is fair and reasonable, and is acknowledged at the present day ; but it was a serious affair to King James, as he found to his cost within two years afterwards. The reply of the Scottish Parliament was dignified and significant. " As to that part of your Majesty's letter relating to your subjects of the Roman Catholic religion, we shall, in obedience to your Majesty's coraraands, and with tenderness to their persons, take the same into our serious and dutiful consideration ; and go as great lengths therein as our conscience will allow, not doubting that your Majesty will be careful to secure theProtestant religion established by law!" No Act, however, in favour of the Roman Catholics occurs in the records of this session, and the Minutes of the pro ceedings are not preserved. A debate originated on the proper terms to be applied to those who professed the Roman Catholic religion. Lord FountainhaU, who was a member of the Parliament, and determinedly opposed to the repeal of the penal laws, says that he proposed the designation — " those commonly called Roman 1686.] PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. 877 Catholics!" The ChanceUor Perth objected that this was " nick naming" the King, and suggested the more polite and general language — •" those subjects your Majesty has recommended to us;"'' but the motion of Archbishop Cairncross of Glasgow, that they should be simply termed Roman Catholics, which was a repetition of the King's own words, was finally carried. In compliance with the wishes of the King, the draft of an Act to repeal the penal laws of the Roman Catholics was prepared and submitted to the Parliament. Archbishop Cairncross opposed it, and Bishops Aitken of Galloway and Bruce of Dunkeld denounced it in the strongest language. The other Bishops were either passive, or were friendly to It on the principle of toleration. The charge against them that they were wavering towards the Church of Eome is now abandoned by the Presbyterians, and is too absurd to be refuted. What had the Scottish Bishops to fear from the smaU number of Roman Catholics then in Scotland, without Bishops, depressed, proscribed, and under heavy disabilities ? The fact that the King was of that religion was of comparatively little consequence. He might have influenced some of the Nobility to adopt it, and a few of the most powerful of them had always avowedly adhered to the Roman Catholic Church, but the events of the Eevolution in 1688 sufficiently prove that the nation generaUy considered this of no importance. Though the measure for the repeal of the penal laws against the Eoman CathoUcs was abandoned, and the Parliament prorogued. Archbishop Cairncross and the two Bishops incurred the serious displeasure of the Lord Chancellor Perth by their opposition ; but Bishop Keith states in reference to Dr Cairncross, that It was " de servedly too, if all be true which Dr Jaraes Canaries, rainister at Selkirk, relates." The King, on the 13th of January 1687, most injudiciously and imprudently ordered the Privy Council to deprive him of the See of Glasgow — " a very irregular step surely." Bishop Keith adraits ; " the King should have taken a more ca nonical course." He was succeeded in the Archbishopric by Bishop Paterson of Edinburgh ; and Bishop Rose of Moray, in which See he had been little more than six months, was translated to Edin- •burgh. WUliara Hay, successively rainister of Kilconquhar in Fife, and of Perth, was consecrated to the See of Moray in 1688. Archbishop Cairncross resided privately until after the Revolution, 878 STATE OF THE CHURCH [1687. when by conforming to King William's government he was nomi nated to the Irish See of Raphoe on the 16th of May 1693, then vacant by the translation of Bishop Smith to Kilmore, The deprived Archbishop of Glasgow continued in the See of Raphoe tiU his death in 1701. Bishop Bruce of Dunkeld, the successor of Bishop Lindsay at his death in 1679, was also deprived of that See by the King in 1686, and was succeeded by John Hamilton, son of John Hamil ton of Blair. The royal displeasure toward Bishop Bruce, how ever, was of no long continuance. On the 15th of August 1687 he received a dispensation from the King to " exercise his ministry," and on the 4th of May 1688 it is stated that " Andrew, late Bishop Dunkeld," was nominated to the See of Orkney, vacant by the death of Bishop Mackenzie in February, at the patriarchal age of nearly one hundred years. Bishop Aitken of GaUoway was also ordered to be deprived of his See for opposing the repeal ofthe penal laws against the Roman Catholics : but his death at Edin burgh on the 28th of October 1687, prevented this display of the King's caprice. He was interred in the Greyfriars' church-yard, and was succeeded In the See of GaUoway by John Gordon, who had acted as a royal chaplain at New York. Though the King was defeated In Parliament, he resolved to achieve his favourite project by an exereise of his prerogative. He remodelled the Privy Council, by excluding those who were opposed to his designs respecting the Roman Catholics, and sup planting them by the Duke of Gordon, the Earls of Seaforth, Traquair, and others of the Roman Catholic religion, and by his own authority issued a dispensation relieving them from subscribing the Test. The King ordered the ritual of the Church of Rome to be celebrated within the Palace of Holyroodhouse, and appointed a number of " chaplains," whom the Privy Council were enjoined to take under their " special care and protection." In February 1687 the King wrote to the Privy Council, denouncing in the strongest language the " field-conventlclers," as " enemies of Chris tianity as well as of government and human society," and ordered them to be rooted out with all the severity of the laws. James at the sarae time issued a proclamation by his own " sovereign autho rity, prerogative royal and absolute power," granting a toleration to all the then Dissenters in the kingdom, known as 1687.] PREVIOUS TO THE REVOLUTION. 879 Presbyterians, Quakers, and Roman Catholics, on the condition that they acknowledged him as their lawful sovereign, declaring that he would never suffer violence to be offered to any man's con science, nor use force or invincible necessity against any man on account of his religious principles. This was designated the First Indulgence, which was not passed in the Privy Council without some opposition. On the Sth of July the Second Indulgence, which was much more extensive, as It allowed complete liberty of conscience, was published. All persons were to be aUowed to assemble for Dirine service in their own way either in private houses, meeting-houses, and buildings erected for that purpose ; but the field-preachings were strictly prohibited, " for which," said the King, " after this our royal grace and favour, which surpasses the hopes and equals the very wishes of the most zealously concerned, there is not the least shadow of excuse left." The Bishops generously sent no remonstrance against those In dulgences, the principles of which are now universally recognized ; and this fact proves thera to have been men of enlightened and liberal minds, convinced that the Church of which they were the governors could not be endangered by such ameliorations of the laws. On the 20th of July a convention of Presbyterian preachers was held at Edinburgh, and after some discussion they agreed to accept the new Toleration, and voted a grateful and loyal address to the King, profuse in their expressions of attachment to his per son, crown, and authority. The sincerity of their professions was soon tested by the Revolution, when they chose to forget these solemn declarations. Early in February 1688, Sir George Mac kenzie was restored to his office of Lord Advocate, but no criminal informations were lodged, and the kingdom was in repose till the Revolution broke out in England, followed by the arrival of the Prince of Orange, the abdication and exile of the King, and the events in Scotland detailed in the author's " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Revolution to the Present Time," to which the reader is referred as a continuation of this narrative, and as delineating the fall and subsequent fate of the Church, which was ejected at that memorable era by no act of violence on the part of the Presbyterians and Covenanters, who were utterly powerless, however willingly inclined, to inflict upon it any Injury in a legal or constitutional raanner, but because 880 THE church previous to the revolution. [1688. the Bishops and clergy would not transfer their allegiance to the new Government, otherwise it is not too rash to affirm that the Episcopal Church of Scotland would have continued the national ecclesiastical establishraent. The hardships and sufferings endured by the deprived Episcopal incurabents are also detailed in the before-mentioned work. But the Presbyterianism then adopted was not the systera of the National Covenant and Solemn League, for maintaining which the obstinate and unhappy Covenanters had incurred the vengeance of the Government. Their prin ciples were scouted as utterly incompatible with the constitution of the kingdom, and all the blood which the Covenanters sacrificed was literally shed in vain. The " Covenanted work of Reforma tion" was even denounced in the Presbyterian General Assemblies, and the" Suffering Remnant," of whora James Renwick was the last field-preacher capitally punished, saw to their inexpressible mortification that all their doctrines and pretensions were treated as the chimeras of enthusiasts. THE end. Recently Published, in One Volume Svo, cloth boards. Price Fifteen Shillings (Intended as a Continuation of the present JVork) HISTOEY OF THE SCOTTISH EPISCOPAL CHURCH FROM THE REVOLUTION TO THE PRESENT TIME. JOHN PARKER LAWSON, M.A. AUTHOR OF " THE UFE AND TIMES OF ARCHBISHOP LACD," ETC. ETC. In the year 1830 the Author began to forra a collection of Docu ments iUustrative of the History and Condition of Scottish Episcopacy, particularly since the repeal of the Penal Laws in 1792, the progress of the Church, and Its prospects, from statisti cal and other details ; and he continued from time to time this coUection of materials. He also wrote a series of articles entitled the " Present State of the Scottish Episcopal Church," which ap peared in the British Magazine for 1832 and 1833, when con ducted by the late Rev. Hugh James Rose, B.D., latterly Prin- •cipal of King's College, London, which attracted some attention at the time; and in several conversations which the Author had with that lamented and distinguished scholar and divine In London in 1835, he was strongly urged to undertake a regular History of the Church, particularly since Its disestablishment at the Revolution. Various events have repeatedly occurred to show that such a work was really wanted, to make the condition and prin- riples of the Church, as it now exists, fully known, not only in England, but to its own members and others in Scotland. This desideratum, it is hoped, is now supplied. The above Volume is derived from the most authentic sources and materials, and raany curious facts connected with Sqottlsh Ecclesiastical History at and after the Revolution of 1688 are Introduced, which are, to say the least, very imperfectly known. The two Volumes just published forra a raost coraplete and authentic History of the Episcopal Church of Scotland from the Reformation, including the exciting reigns of James I., Charles I., Charles IL, and James II. , the whole derived frora valuable MSS., Records, Rare Works, and other Authentic Sources. Many cu rious and interesting details are given of the true ecclesiastical state of Scotland in the Seventeenth Century not hitherto pub lished. " We hasten to recommend this Work to all who are desirous of becoming acquainted with that portion of history which it embraces. Indefatigable research and interesting detail form a part of its contents, which are greatly enhanced by the ingenious though correct manner in which Mr Lawson constantly contrives to convict his adversaries out of their own mouths. The volume is as amusing as it is instructive, and the copious extracts frora contemporary writers and orij;inal documents give an authenticity to the narrative which counterbalance its defects of style and arrangement." — Biitish Church man, Jan. 1844. " Mr Lawson's "Work has made its appearance at the right time, and will be read with great interest. The narrative of the disestablishment of the Scottish Episcopal Church at the Eevolution, is a tale of suffering that has been seldom exceeded in these latter days of the Church." — Oxford Herald. " From the cursory perusal we have given it, we are inclined to think it is a careful and temperate historical narrative of the persecutions, depressions, vicissitudes, and present state ofthe Scottish Episcopal Church." — Cambridge Chronicle. " It narrates the persecutions, depressions, vicissitudes, and present state of the Episcopal Church in North Britain ; and the narrative is one in which members ofthe Church of England ought to feel the deepest interest. Our readers will see, even from this imperfect glance, how interesting is Mr Lawson's Work to all who enjoy the privi lege of belonging to the sister Church of England." — HuU Packet. " The appearance of Mr Law.son's very able Work prompts us to make a leap over the greatest part of a century, and to undertake, under his guidance, a sketch of the Church in Scotland from the Revolution in 1688. — We close with a general reference to our Author's full and very elaborate History — a History bringing the time down to the last Consecration." — London Cliristian Remembrancer, April 1843. " The History of the Episcopal Church of Scotland, in its close connection with the annals of Scottish Presbyterianism, is one of the most edifying episodes that ecclesiasti cal records present to our notice, and this chiefly because we find therein displayed the horrors and wickedness of schism. — Mr Lawson has shown much ability, industry, and impartiality in his labours, for which we trust that he and his publishers may meet the return they most naturally desire. That this book, however, will not give satisfaction to the Presbyterians, is as indisputable as that no defendant ever heard an enlightened judge sum up a case, with a tendency to make the verdict go against him." — Church and State Gazette, May 19, 1843. 8263 ..Ik W' ¦Mi Ri-fri •"¦' Vi.- I ' '.'•m. •.¦ji"fti; SC'-ir*..!.?! tfejfkA §',