_Literature of the Nation in the Seventeenth Century._
THROUGHOUT the seventeenth century the ablest minds in Scotland were
mainly absorbed in religious and political struggles, or devoted to
theology and practical religious duties; yet law, science, and cognate
subjects began to attract more attention, especially towards the end
of the century. The theological and religious literature diverged but
little from the leading doctrines of the Reformation, for though in
some writings there might be greater elaboration of doctrinal points,
there was no radical change in the method of investigation or of
interpretation of the fundamental doctrines. The Westminster Confession,
like the Reformation one of the Scotch Reformers, is essentially
Calvinistic; and the chief doctrines in both are viewed from the same
standpoint. After the lengthy account of the social condition of the
nation, and of the tendency of the stream of history given in the
preceding chapters, it would be superfluous to enter into a minute
detail of the religious literature of the century. Both the contending
parties were represented by writers of reputation and authority in
their day; but comparatively few persons now read their productions.
The religious difficulties which demand discussion in the present day
have assumed different forms, for in the interval of two centuries,
the ideas and convictions of the people have gradually undergone a
great modification and change. It will be the aim of the remaining part
of the work to explain the causes of this change in the opinions and
habits of the people.
David Calderwood, a Presbyterian minister, is the author of numerous
works, mostly of a polemical character.¹ He was a man of unbending
integrity, bold and fearless in maintaining his opinions, and
thoroughly consistent in his profession. He was acute and learned, and
familiar with the writings of the Fathers, and theological literature
generally. The greater part of his writings and pamphlets related to
ecclesiastical disputes in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I.;
such as the polity of the Church, the five articles of Perth, and
cognate matters. But the most important and valuable of his writings
is “The History of the Church of Scotland, from the beginning of the
Reformation to the end of the reign of James VI.”; although, strictly
speaking, it is not a history, but rather a collection of the materials
for history, than a digested and critical narrative of events. It
contains a great number of historical papers, Acts of Parliament,
Acts of the Privy Council, Acts and proceedings of the General
Assembly, royal proclamations, and other documents of a public
character. Calderwood was extremely greedy of information, and notices
incidentally many curious facts and notions which prevailed amongst
the people. Hence his History of the Church is very valuable to the
historical student.
¹ Born 1572, died 1650.
John Spottiswood,¹ Archbishop of St. Andrews, is the author of a
“History of the Church and State of Scotland.” Though he leans to
the side of his own party in the Church, his statement of facts is
generally fair and moderate. In extent and variety of material his
history falls much below Calderwood’s, but in arrangement and in style,
it is superior to any contemporary history composed in the vernacular
language.
¹ Born 1565, died 1639.
Robert Baillie was one of the most eminent and learned of the
Presbyterian clergyman of the Covenanting period.¹ He was actively
engaged in the struggle of the Civil War, but he was more reasonable
and moderate in his views than the majority of his brethren. His
writings are numerous, and were chiefly devoted to Church polity
and religion. He wrote both in English and in Latin, but the greater
part of his works were published in the former language. He devoted
much attention to the Oriental languages, and was conversant with the
Hebrew and cognate tongues. He was one of the Scotch ministers who
sat in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and subsequently he was
appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. After the
Restoration, he was admitted Principal of the University of Glasgow,
an office which he held until his death. His principal works are “An
Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland,”
a work of considerable ability, and his “Chronology,” written in Latin.
One of Baillie’s first productions was levelled against Laud, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, and published in 1640, under the title,
“The Canterburians Self-convicted, or an evident demonstration of
the avowed Arminianism, popery, and tyranny of that faction, by their
own confession.” A third and enlarged edition of this pamphlet was
published in 1641, and a fourth in 1643. Several of Baillie’s pamphlets
directly attacked the Liturgy, as his “Comparison of the Liturgy with
the Mass-book, Breviary, the Ceremonial, and other Romish Rituals,”
published in 1641; “Inquiries anent the Service-book, an antidote
against Arminianism.” He was earnest in addressing the people on
the reforming work of the time, especially in his sermons preached
before Parliament in 1643 and 1645, the former entitled “Satan the
Leader-in-chief to all who Resist the Reformation of Zion,” and
the latter, “Errors and Induration are the great Sins and the great
Judgments of the Times.” A list of Baillie’s publications was given
in Dr. Irving’s _Lives of Scottish Writers_. But his Letters and
Journals relating to the wars and the affairs of the period from 1637
to 1662, are now the most interesting and the most valuable of his
compositions.²
¹ Born 1599, died 1662.
² An imperfect edition of his _Letters and Journals_ was
published in 1775, but a more complete one in three volumes,
edited by the late Dr. Laing, appeared in 1841‒42.
Zachary Boyd, minister of the Barony Parish, in the suburbs of Glasgow,
was a writer of note in the first half of the century.¹ At first he
seemed inclined to side with the Loyalist party, but at last he signed
the Covenant, and continued a firm adherent of the popular cause,
although he did not take so active a part in the field as some of his
brethren. But when Cromwell, with his army, arrived at Glasgow, “he
rallied on them all to their face in the High Church.” Having chosen
for his text the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel, he expounded the
vision of the ram with two horns, which was overcome and trampled down
by a he-goat, and exerted all his ingenuity to extend the parable to
existing circumstances, and demonstrating that Cromwell was the he-goat.
In another sermon, on some verses of the thirty-eighth Psalm, he made
many pointed and bitter references to the sectarian General; and it was
reported that one of the officers whispered into Cromwell’s ear, and
asked permission to “shoot the scoundrel at once,” but he replied that
“we will manage him in another way.” Cromwell invited Boyd to dine with
him, and completely gained the preacher’s respect by the fervour of
the devotions in which he spent the evening, and it was said that their
mutual exercise was continued till three in the morning.²
¹ Born 1590, died 1653.
² _Life of Boyd_, prefixed to his _Last Battle of the Soul_.
Boyd was the author of various works, chiefly of a religious character.
In 1629, he published a work entitled “The Last Battle of the Soul
in Death,” which is written in a kind of dramatic form, and sustained
with spirit and interest, and differs from most of the religious works
of the period in not being controversial. He had an imaginative and
vigorous mind, and his thought is often strikingly original; and, with
an exceedingly copious command of words and imagery, he combined a
style which was remarkably good for the period. His highest flights
are embodied in a work of two volumes, entitled “Zion’s Flowers,” which
have received the name of “Boyd’s Bible.” They consist of a collection
of poems on subjects of Scripture history, such as David, Jonah, and
others, presented in a dramatic form, in the execution of which he
sometimes produced extremely ludicrous and grotesque passages.
James Durham, minister of the Blackfriars Church in Glasgow, from
1647 to 1658,¹ was one of the most popular preachers of his day. His
writings consist of commentaries on Scripture, and a large number
of sermons on a variety of subjects. “He was a burning and shining
light, a star of the first magnitude, and of whom it may be said,
without derogation from the merit of any, that he had a name among the
mighty.”²
¹ Born 1622, died 1658.
² _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 220.
David Dickson¹ was minister of Irvine for upwards of twenty years,
and subsequently a professor in the University of Glasgow, and also in
that of Edinburgh. He was a successful teacher and a popular preacher,
and, as we have seen, he was a man of standing and influence among the
Covenanting party. He is the author of commentaries on the Psalms, and
on various parts of the New Testament, of a series of lectures, and
other pieces, and his writings were for long popular.
¹ Born 1583, died 1663.
But none of the presbyterian ministers were more popular and famous
than Samuel Rutherford.¹ He was actively engaged in the Covenanting
struggle; and for the last ten years of his life, he maintained the
battle on the side of the protestors. A talented, a consistent, and a
learned man, he wrote on various topics of absorbing interest in his
time, including his “Peaceable Plea for Presbytery,” a well-digested
book, which he published in 1642. In 1649, he published, at London,
“A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience,”
especially directed against the Independents, who were then rapidly
rising to the height of power in England. Besides these he wrote
several other treatises, some of them composed in Latin; but the most
famous of his productions was “Lex Rex,” The Law and the King.²
¹ Born 1600, died 1661.
² His _Letters_ were published after his death, and reprinted
in 1824, and again quite recently.
This work on government is elaborate, and a good example of deductive
exposition. After a very long preface, in which he says:――“That which
moved the author was not, as my excommunicated adversary says, the
escape of some fears, which necessitated him to write, for many before
me have learnedly trodden in the path, but that I might add a new
testimony to the times.” He gives a full and formal table of contents,
and then proceeds to the discussion of his subject. He divided it into
forty-four questions or leading topics, under each of which a great
mass of matter comes in for discussion. He appeals to the authority
of Scripture throughout, and refers to the examples in the Bible. But
the general strain of the book leads to the utter overthrow of the
idea that kings have prerogatives and absolute powers above the laws
and acts of parliament; and this branch of the subject is well and
conclusively reasoned. In the course of the long discussion, many other
important political points are handled with ability and judgment. But
it is a tedious book to read, though a valuable contribution to the
principles of constitutional government.
Rutherford began his work by stating that, “I reduce all that I am to
speak of the power of kings: (1) To the author or efficient, (2) the
matter or subject, (3) the form or power, (4) the end and fruit of
their government, and (5) to some cases of resistance.”¹ From these
simple terms he proceeded deductively to expound his views and opinions
on the origin of government, the power and rights of the king and of
the people.
¹ Page 1. “It is reported that when Charles saw _Lex Rex_, he
said it could scarcely ever get an answer, nor did it ever
get any, except what the parliament in 1661 gave it, when
they caused it to be burned at the Cross of Edinburgh by
the hands of the common hangman. This was a summary way of
answering a book, but it was somewhat more innocent than the
practice of burning the authors of books. Charles’ parliament,
by the hangman’s hands, burned the body of the book, but they
could not consume its immortal spirit, with which the minds
of the patriots of that age were deeply imbued, which they
communicated to their children, and which ultimately produced
the Revolution.” Claud’s _Defence of the Reformation_ was
condemned to be burned, on which the editor of an old edition
very properly observes that “books have souls as well as
men, which survive their martyrdom, and are not burned, but
crowned by the flames that encircle them.”――_Scots Worthies_,
Volume I., page 223.
In discussing the powers of the king, he stated that, “The royal
power rests in three ways in the people: 1. Radically and virtually,
as in the first subject. 2. Collectively, by way of free donation,
they giving it to this man, not to this man that he may rule over
them. 3. Under limitation, they giving it so as that these three acts
remain with the people: 1. That they may measure out, by ounce weights,
so much royal power, and no more, and no less. 2. So as they limit,
moderate, and set bounds to the exercise of it. 3. That they give it
out, conditionally, upon that and this condition, that they take again
to themselves what they gave out, if the conditions be violated. The
first, I conceive, is clear: 1. Because if every living creature have
radically in them a power of self-preservation to defend themselves
from violence, as we see lions with paws, some beasts have horns, some
claws, men being reasonable creatures united in society, must have
power in a more reasonable and honourable way to put this power of
warding off violence in the hands of one or more rulers, to defend
themselves by magistrates. 2. If all men be born as concerning civil
power alike, for no man comes out of the womb with a diadem on his
head or a sceptre in his hand, and yet men united in society may give
crown and sceptre to this man, and not to that man, then this power was
in the united society, but it was not in them formally, ... therefore
this power must have been virtually in them, because neither man, nor
community of men, can give that which they neither have formally, nor
virtually, in themselves. 3. Royalists cannot deny that cities have
power to choose inferior magistrates: therefore, many cities united
have power to create a higher ruler, for royal is but the united and
superlative power of inferior judges, in one great judge, whom they
call king.”
Thus it is concluded that the people make the king. “The power of
creating a man a king is from the people, because those who may create
this man a king, rather than another man, have power to appoint a king.
For a comparative action does positively infer an action; if a man have
a power to marry this woman, not that woman, we may strongly conclude,
therefore, that he has power to marry.”¹
¹ Page 10, edition 1644.
Rutherford had the reputation of being an effective preacher and an
able and successful professor of divinity in the New College of St.
Andrews, where he occupied a chair for about twelve years. But he was
under the influence of the intolerant spirit of the age, and wrote
earnestly against toleration of religious opinions. Yet, at that period
few had risen to the idea of toleration, though the Independents had
approached nearer it than the other religious bodies in the Island.
In the estimation of his own party he held a high place, one of them
summing up his character in these words: “He seems to have been one of
the most resplendent lights that ever arose on our horizon.”¹
¹ Wodrow; _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 229.
George Gillespie¹ was one of the prominent ministers of the Covenanting
period. He was the author of a work which was long popular, entitled
“Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government
Vindicated,” published at London in 1646; he also wrote several
controversial papers and tracts.
¹ Born 1613, died 1648.
There were a number of other presbyterian ministers celebrated in their
day as preachers, of whom may be mentioned James Guthrie, Hugh Binning,
Robert Blair, Andrew Gray, John Livingston, and James Wood; while
there were others, like Henderson, who were too ardently engaged in
the struggles of the times to produce works for publication.
Dr. John Forbes was the second son of the estimable Bishop Forbes, of
Aberdeen.¹ He was appointed professor of divinity in King’s College,
Aberdeen, in 1619, and was the author of several learned works. In
discharging the duties of his chair, he delivered lectures on the
history and progress of Christian doctrine. He was disposed to peaceful
measures, and to promote this he published a pamphlet in 1638, under
the title of “A Peaceful Warning to the Subjects of Scotland.” This
was quickly answered by a tract attributed to Calderwood, the warm
defender of the presbyterian polity. The professors and the ministers
of Aberdeen offered a determined opposition to the Covenant, argued
against it and disputed its lawfulness, and at last issued a printed
paper containing, “General Demands concerning the Covenant.” This was
answered by Henderson, Dickson, and Andrew Cant, whereupon the Aberdeen
Doctors emitted replies, which called forth further answers from the
Covenanters’ side; to these the Doctors published a rejoinder, and thus
they had the satisfaction of the last word. Their learning, however,
could not protect them, for they were all deprived of their offices
in the Church and in the University, because they refused to sign the
Covenant.²
¹ Bishop Forbes himself is the author of several works, some
of which were published in a volume, entitled “A Learned
Commentary upon the Revelation of St. John, newly corrected
and revised, Middleburgh, 1614.” The volume also contained
a treatise in defence of the lawful calling of the ministers
of the Reformed churches. He is the author of “A Dialogue,
wherein a rugged Romish Rhyme (Inscribed questions to the
Protestant) is confuted, and the questions thereof answered,”
Aberdeen, 1627.
Soon after his death, a volume, with a portrait, was
published, under the title, “Funerals of a Right Reverend
Father in God, Patrick Forbes of Corse, Bishop of Aberdeen,
1635.” It contains five funeral sermons in English by
different professors and doctors, a Latin oration and a
dissertation, and also a large collection of verses in
the form of laudatory epitaphs on the deceased prelate,
contributed by many of the learned men of the day; and at the
end, “Edward Raban, master printer, the first in Aberdeen,”
contributed the last epitaph himself, which concludes with
these lines:
“Good Sir, I am behind the rest,
I do confess, for want of skill:
But not a whit behind the best
To show the affection of good will.”
² The general demands of the Aberdeen Doctors, and the answers
and replies, were published at Aberdeen by order of the
Scotch parliament. A collected edition of Dr. Forbes’ Latin
works was published in 1703.
Robert Leighton, Archbishop of Glasgow, in the reign of Charles II.,
was perhaps the most cultured and learned, as well as the most humane
of the prelates of the period. He was educated in the University of
Edinburgh, and graduated in the year 1631. Afterwards having lived
for several years in France, he learned to speak French like a native.
Having returned to Scotland, he became a minister of the Presbyterian
Church, and was appointed pastor of the parish of Newbattle in 1641,
in which he laboured quietly till 1652, when he resigned his charge.
In 1653, he was installed principal of the University of Edinburgh, to
which office the chair of divinity was joined. After the Restoration,
he accepted the bishopric of Dunblane, in which he officiated for
about eight years, and was exceedingly attentive to his duties. He
endeavoured to promote measures of moderation and conciliation, and
disapproved of the severe modes of forcing a formal compliance with the
established worship, and accordingly granted the nonconformists of his
own diocese that liberty of conscience, which the laws of the times had
ignored. In 1670, when he became Archbishop of Glasgow, he redoubled
his efforts to persuade the ejected ministers to listen to terms of
accommodation, but failed. At last, disheartened and tired of his
position, he resolved to retire from all public employment, tendered
his resignation, finally relinquishing the See of Glasgow in 1674.
Afterwards, this truly religious and humane man retired to England,
where he died in 1684.
Leighton’s writings consist of his “Commentaries on St. Peter,”
sermons preached at Newbattle, lectures delivered in Latin before
the University of Edinburgh, spiritual exercises, letters and other
papers. None of his works were published in his lifetime, but collected
editions of them have been issued in England and America, the most
complete one having appeared in 1869‒70. His writings have been
long and widely known, and it is unnecessary to enter into a lengthy
criticism of them. His style is simple and easy, and glowing with
genuine piety, the expression of a warm and generous heart.
Bishop Burnet was the greatest name in literature which Scotland
produced in the seventeenth century. He was born in Edinburgh in
1643, but belonged to an Aberdeenshire family, and was educated at
the University of Aberdeen. He was licensed to preach at the age of
eighteen, visited England, Holland, and France, and having returned
home, was appointed minister of the parish of Saltoun in 1665.
Subsequently he became professor of divinity in the University of
Glasgow. After the Revolution he was appointed a bishop in the Church
of England. He was an exceedingly voluminous writer, and tried his hand
on many subjects. He is the author of a large number of sermons, many
of which were delivered on public occasions, of numerous discourses
and tracts on divinity, and of tracts and pamphlets of a polemical
description on popery, politics, and miscellaneous subjects. A
considerable number of historical works emanated from his fertile
mind, of which the most important are his “Memoirs of James and
William, Dukes of Hamilton,” “History of the Reformation of the Church
of England,” and his great work entitled, “History of His Own Time.”
Burnet was a man of varied accomplishments and vast information, and
was himself engaged in many of the events and transactions which he
recorded in the above named work.
He had a wide and ready command of language, and his historical method
and style are equal, if not superior, to the best English writers of
his day. His narrative is always methodical, and runs on naturally with
much simplicity and ease. His chief historical works are still valuable
as sources of information, and they are also more interesting reading
than almost any writings on the same subjects of that generation or
the succeeding one. As a single specimen of his style, I may quote
the passages of his history on the character of Archbishop Tillotson.
“Tillotson was a man of a clear head and a sweet temper. He had the
brightest thoughts and the most correct style of all our divines, and
was esteemed the best preacher of the age. He was a very prudent man,
and had such a management with it, that I never knew any clergyman so
universally esteemed and beloved, as he was for above twenty years.
He was eminent for his opposition to popery. He was no friend to
persecution, and stood up much against atheism. Nor did many men do
more to bring the city to love our worship than he did. But there was
so little superstition, and so much reason and gentleness in his way
of explaining things, that malice was long levelled at him, and in
conclusion broke out fiercely on him.
“I preached his funeral sermon, in which I gave a character of him
which was so severely true, that I perhaps kept too much within bounds,
and said less than he deserved. But we had lived in such friendship
together, that I thought it was more decent, as it always is more safe,
to err on that hand. He was the man of the truest judgment and best
temper I had ever known; he had a clear head, with a most tender and
compassionate heart; he was a faithful and jealous friend, but a gentle
and soon-conquered enemy; he was truly and seriously religious, but
without affectation, bigotry, or superstition; his notions of morality
were fine and sublime; his thread of reasoning was easy, clear, and
solid; he was not only the best preacher of the age, but seemed to have
brought preaching to perfection; his sermons were so well liked and
heard, and so much read, that all the nation proposed him as a pattern,
and studied to copy after him; his parts remained with him clear and
unclouded, but the perpetual slanders and other ill-usage he had been
followed with for many years, more particularly since his advancement
to that great post, gave him too much trouble and too deep a concern;
it could neither provoke him, nor fright him from his duty, but it
affected his mind so much that this was thought to have shortened his
days.”¹
¹ _History of His Own Time_, Volume I., pages 324‒325, 1823.
In the department of poetry, Scotland in the seventeenth century,
unlike the two preceding ones, was rather barren. Sir William Alexander,
subsequently better known as the Earl of Stirling, was a writer of
rhymed compositions in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I. He broke
away from his native dialect, and essayed to write in the literary
English of the period; but his style is not pure or correct. He had
a good command of language, but he lacked the poetic glow, though
he tried his hand at various themes; his poetry is commonplace and
monotonous, and often pervaded with a moralising strain.¹
¹ Alexander’s so-called “Monarchic Tragedy” was published at
Edinburgh in 1603. “Thus known to James in Scotland as one
of the most accomplished of his subjects there, Alexander
continued after the union of the Crowns to put forth volume
after volume, professedly as a British poet using the common
literary tongue, vying with his English contemporaries.... At
length, in 1614, appeared the huge poem, in twelve cantos of
heavy eight-line stanzas, entitled ‘Doom’s Day, or the Great
Day of the Lord’s Judgment.’” About this time he entered the
King’s service, and was promoted step by step till he became
Earl of Stirling in 1633.――Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_,
Volume I., page 421.
William Drummond, of Hawthornden, attained to some distinction as a
poet in the first half of the century. He was a notable man in his own
lifetime, having travelled abroad, residing for some time in Paris and
in Rome, and visited the most celebrated universities of the Continent.
He corresponded with Ben Jonson and other English poets, and they
recognised him as a member of their fraternity. He wrote a number of
poems and sonnets, also a history of the first five Jameses; but his
history is not of much historic value, as his special information on
the subject was limited and incomplete. He left behind him various
political papers relating to affairs between the years of 1632 and 1646,
mainly written in support of the cause of Charles I. He died in 1649.
Drummond holds a place among the minor English poets, but represented
nothing distinctively Scottish, as he wrote in the literary English of
the period. His taste and culture were formed under the influences of
Italian and English literature, and he seems to have shut himself out
from the association and the inspiration of the vernacular. His poetry
lacks fire and force, and emotional power; but on the other hand, he
had a cultured taste, fancy, and a command of descriptive imagery.
Some of his sacred poems exhibit poetical imagery and an easy flow
of versification. In one of them, called “The Shadow of Death,” the
following lines occur:――
“So seeing earth, of angels once the inn,
Mansion of saints, deflowered all by sin,
And quite confus’d by wretches here beneath,
The world’s great sovereign moved was to wrath.
Thrice did he rouse himself, thrice from his face,
Flames sparkle did throughout the heavenly place,
The stars, though fixed, in their rounds did quake,
The earth, and earth-embracing sea did quake.”
His piece composed on the King’s visit to his native land in 1617, is
one of his best; and in it he pays a warm tribute to the King’s love
of peace.
But “his sonnets in particular have been praised in modern times, as
among the second best in the language. In his narrative and descriptive
poems he is decidedly one of the English Arcadians, with something of
Browne’s sweet sensuousness, and using very musically the same metrical
couplet.... If, as a poet of sensuous circumstance, Drummond has any
one particular excellence, entitling him to a kind of pre-eminence,
so far as that excellence could bestow it, among the minor poets, it
is the description of the clear nocturnal sky and the effects of quiet
moonlight on streams and fields”; as in these lines:――
“To western worlds when wearied day goes down,
And from Heaven’s windows each star shows her head,
Earth’s silent daughter Night is fair though brown,
Fair is the moon though in love’s livery clad.”¹
¹ Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_, Volume I., pages 424‒425. An
edition of Drummond’s Poems was published in 1656; a fuller
one in 1711; but the most complete edition of his poems was
printed for the Maitland Club in 1832.
With the progress of social organisation and civilisation, laws and
legal writings accumulate; hence more legal literature was produced in
Scotland in the seventeenth century than in the sixteenth. Sir Thomas
Hope, the eminent advocate, and warm Covenanter, was the author of
several well-known legal treatises, which were long esteemed among the
faculty.
But the most famous writer of Scottish Jurisprudence was James
Dalrymple, Viscount Stair, and president of the Court of Session.¹
His chief work, “The Institution of the Law of Scotland,” was long the
standard authority on legal matters.² He is also the author of a digest
of “The Decisions of the Court of Session, in the important cases
debated before the judges, with the Acts of Sederunt,” published at
Edinburgh in 1683‒87. It contained a report of cases from 1660 to
the month of August, 1681, and thus it has an interesting and special
historic value.
¹ Born 1619, died 1696.
² The first edition of Stair’s _Institutions_ appeared in 1681;
a second edition greatly enlarged, was published at Edinburgh
in 1693; a third, corrected and enlarged, with notes, in
1759; a fourth, with commentaries and supplement by George
Brodie, in 1829‒31; and another with notes and illustrations
by John S. More, 1832, in two volumes.
But Lord Stair was the author of several other works of a different
character. In 1686, he published in Latin a treatise entitled
“Physiologia nova Experimentalis,” which was favourably noticed by
Boyle. His last publication was “A Vindication of Divine Perfections,
illustrating the Glory of God, by Reason and Revelation, methodically
digested into several Meditations,” which appeared in 1695. In 1690,
he published a defence of himself in a tract of four leaves.
Sir George Mackenzie, the notorious lord-advocate of the reign of
Charles II., was a writer of reputation in his time, and a clear and
vigorous thinker. He tried his hand on various subjects. His legal
writings consist of “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” “Laws and
Customs in matters Criminal,” “Observations on the Laws and Customs of
Nations as to precedency, with the Science of Heraldry as part of the
Law of Nations.” Of these, the first is a well-arranged and digested
treatise, but it is short and summary, and falls much behind Stair’s
work on the same subject. The other two contain useful information
forcibly expressed.
Concerning both the knowledge and the art of medicine the civilised
world was still in a backward condition. The practice of surgery
especially was very rude, even in its most elementary principles. In
the treatment of simple wounds, “instead of bringing the edges of the
wound together, and endeavouring to unite them by the first intention,
as is practised in the present day, the wound was filled with dressing
and acid balsams, or distended with tents and leaden tubes.... In those
days every lap of skin, instead of being reunited was cut away, and
every open wound was dressed as a sore, and every deep one was filled
with a tent lest it should heal.”¹ Although in this branch of science
there was no great advance in Scotland, yet more interest began to be
manifested in the subject, and some progress was made.
¹ _Physic and Physicians_, Volume I., pages 42‒43.
It was stated that Sir Andrew Balfour¹ first introduced the dissection
of the human body into Scotland. He projected a sick hospital for the
relief of pain and poverty at the public expense. He also drew up a
scheme for the Royal College of Physicians at Edinburgh, and formed
the botanic garden there. To the public he bequeathed a museum which at
that time would have been considered a great acquisition to any city.
Further, he introduced into Scotland many foreign plants; and as in his
youth he had travelled in foreign countries, he greatly extended his
information, his culture, and experience.²
¹ Born 1630, died 1694.
² Though the Royal College of Physicians was not incorporated
till 1681, it is recorded that “the doctors of physic”
petitioned parliament in 1693, craving that a college of
physicians should be established in Edinburgh.――_Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 283.
James Sutherland was appointed keeper of the new botanic garden in
1683. He published “A Catalogue of the Plants in the Physic Gardens at
Edinburgh, containing their most proper names in Latin and in English.”
In the dedication of it to the Provost of Edinburgh he says, “It has
been my business for seven years past, wherein I have had the honour
to serve the city as ♦intendant over the garden, to use all care and
industry, by foreign correspondence, to acquire both seeds and plants
from the Levant, Italy, Spain, Holland, England, and the East and West
Indies, and by many painful journeys, in all seasons of the year, to
recover whatever this kingdom possesses of variety, and to cultivate
and to preserve them, with all possible care.”
♦ “intendent” replaced with “intendant”
After Dr. Balfour’s death, his library, consisting of about three
thousand volumes, besides manuscripts, was dispersed; but his museum
was placed in the hall which, till 1829, was used as the University.
“There it remained many years useless and neglected, some parts of it
falling into inevitable decay, and other parts being abstracted. Yet
even after 1750, it still contained a considerable collection, which I
have good reason to remember, as it was the sight of it about that time
that inspired me with an attachment to natural history. Soon after that
it was dislodged from the hall where it had been long kept, was thrown
aside and exposed as lumber; was further and further dilapidated, and
at length almost completely demolished. In the year 1782, out of its
ruins and rubbish I extracted many pieces still valuable and useful,
and placed them here in the best order I could. These, I hope, may long
remain, and be considered as so many precious relics of one of the best
and greatest men this country has produced.”¹
¹ Walker’s _Essay on Natural History_.
Sir Robert Sibbald attained a reputation as a physician and a
naturalist. When the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh was
incorporated in 1681, he became a member of that institution. In
1684, he published his valuable work entitled, “Scotia Illustrata sive
Prodromus Historiæ Naturalis Scotiæ,” and a second edition appeared in
1696. He devoted much attention to the indigenous plants of Scotland,
and discovered some rare species. In 1694, he published an interesting
treatise containing “Observations on some Animals of the Whale Genus,
lately thrown on the shores of Scotland.” He was also the author of
a number of essays and papers, chiefly on topics connected with the
antiquities of Scotland, which were written for the Royal Society,
and published after his death in 1739. He wrote a description of Fife,
published in 1710, which is full of interesting and curious information.
Dr. Robert Morison¹ was an industrious and persevering student of
botany, and for ten years he held the position of intendant of the
gardens of the Duke of Orleans. After the Restoration, the King invited
him to England, and on his arrival, he was appointed royal physician,
and professor of botany. In 1669, having been elected professor of
botany in the University of Oxford, “he made his first entrance on
the botanic lecture in the medicine school, on the 2nd of September,
1670, ♦and on the 5th of the same month, he translated himself to the
physic garden, where he read in the middle of it, with a table before
him, on herbs and plants thrice a week for five weeks, not without a
considerable auditory. In the month of May, 1673, he read again, and
so likewise in the autumn following; which course, spring and fall,
he proposed always to follow, but was diverted for several years, by
prosecuting his large design of publishing the universal knowledge of
simples.”²
¹ Born 1620, died 1683.
♦ “aud” replaced with “and”
² Wood’s _Fasti Oxonienses_
He produced a work on botany which claimed to make some improvement on
the system of classification, the first part of which appeared in 1672,
and the second in 1680, but he did not live to finish it, having only
completed nine of the fifteen classes of his own system.
Dr. Archibald Pitcairn was one of the original members of the Royal
College of Physicians, and one of the most eminent of the profession
in Scotland at that period.¹ He was a keen supporter and promulgator
of Harvey’s doctrine of the circulation of the blood, and in 1688 he
published a treatise touching that subject. He composed a number of
dissertations on medical matters, which were published in a collected
form in 1701; and in 1713, shortly before his death, he issued a new
and enlarged edition. He belonged historically to what was sometimes
called the mathematical school of physicians, that is, those who then
insisted on the application of mathematical reasoning and demonstration
to subjects of anatomy and physiology. Be that as it may, Pitcairn
contributed to the improvement of the theory and practice of medicine,
having assisted to complete Harvey’s theory of the blood, and made some
advance in explaining the process of secretion. He exerted himself to
explode some of the errors of preceding writers, and adopted a clear
and concise mode of reasoning, and his dissertations are admirable
specimens of exposition.²
¹ Born 1652, died 1713.
² An English translation of Dr. Pitcairn’s works was published
in 1727, and there have been several editions of his writings
issued.
Notwithstanding the unsettled state of Scotland in the seventeenth
century, some of her sons contributed to the progress of science,
although no genius of the highest rank arose to illuminate the pages
of our annals; still several steps in science were taken which tended
to extend the bounds of knowledge. Dr. James Gregory,¹ the inventor
of the reflecting telescope, had directed his attention to the study
of mathematical science from his boyhood, and in 1663, when only
twenty-five, he published his treatise on optics. In this work he
gave the first description of the reflecting telescope. The year after
the publication of his work, he went to London, with the intention of
having his telescope constructed, and was introduced to Mr. Reves, an
optical instrument maker, but he could not finish the mirrors on the
tool so as to preserve the figure. Indeed so unsuccessful was the trial
of the telescope, that the inventor was discouraged from making more
attempts to improve it. Thus the want of mere mechanical manipulation
for a time delayed the completion of the instrument, and the inventor
never had the satisfaction of seeing it completed.
¹ Born 1638, died 1675.
Sir Isaac Newton objected to this telescope on the ground that ♦the
hole in the large speculum would cause the loss of so much light,
and six years later invented his own one, in which this defect was
obviated. Both forms, however, were long used, the Gregorian when the
instrument was of moderate size, and the Newtonian one generally when
the instrument was required to be large.¹
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
¹ Hutton’s _Philosophical and Mathematical Dictionary_; _Life
of Dr. Reid_, prefixed to Hamilton’s edition of Reid’s works.
Dr. Gregory was the author of several other geometrical treatises,
which were important contributions to the science of the time. Having
been elected a member of the Royal Society, he read various papers
before it. He was also appointed professor of mathematics in the
University of St. Andrews; but was subsequently transferred to the
mathematical chair in the University of Edinburgh, which he held till
his death in 1675, at the early age of thirty-seven.
David Gregory, a nephew of the preceding professor, attained
distinction as a professor of mathematics, a scientific writer, and
a commentator.¹ He was educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and
Edinburgh, and when only twenty-three years of age, he was appointed
professor of mathematics in the latter. The following year he published
a small treatise in Latin concerning the dimensions of figures, in
which he made various references to the speculations of his uncle, from
whom he received some of his materials.
¹ Born 1661, died 1708.
He has the distinction of being the first public teacher who taught
the Newtonian system in the schools, which his brother James likewise
introduced into the University of St. Andrews. David Gregory remained
in the University of Edinburgh for seven years, expounding “The
Principia” of Newton, and lecturing on optics. In 1691, the Savilian
professorship of Astronomy in the University of Oxford became vacant,
and Gregory proceeded to London with the view of offering himself
as a candidate for the post. There he was introduced to Newton, who
gave him a testimonial, which stated: “Being desired by David Gregory,
mathematical professor of the College in Edinburgh, to testify my
knowledge of him, and having known him by his printed mathematical
performances, and by discoursing with travellers from Scotland, and
of late by conversation with him, I do account him one of the most
able and judicious mathematicians of his age now living. He is very
well skilled in analysis and geometry, both old and new. He has been
conversant with the best writers about astronomy, and understands
that science very well. He is not only acquainted with books, but
his invention in mathematical things is also good. He has performed
his duties in Edinburgh with credit, as I hear, and advanced the
mathematics. He is reputed the greatest mathematician in Scotland,
and that deservedly so far as my knowledge reaches, for I esteem him
an ornament to his country, and upon these accounts do recommend him
to the electors of the astronomy professor for the place in Oxford now
vacant.” Newton also gave him a letter of introduction to Mr. Flamsteed,
the astronomer-royal. Gregory was elected professor of astronomy at
Oxford in 1692; and about the same time he was admitted a member of the
Royal Society, and he contributed to their transactions various papers.
He occupied the chair of astronomy till his death.¹
¹ _Letters Written by Eminent Persons_, Volume I., page 177,
1813; Whiston’s _Memoirs_.
Gregory’s writings were mainly on mathematical subjects and the
principles of the Newtonian system. In 1702 he published his greatest
work, “Astronomiæ Physicæ et Geometricæ Elementa,” the aim of which was
to present a connected view of Newton’s system, and thus it contained
a digest of the “Principia.” Gregory manifested a great faculty of
arrangement and exposition, and it was admitted by Newton himself that
the work gave an excellent exposition and defence of his system. Much
ability was shown in the illustrations. It appears that Newton had
communicated to the author his theory of the moon, and given him some
other curious information touching the notions of the ancients on the
subject of gravitation. This work was reprinted at Geneva in 1713, and
two editions of an English translation of it appeared, the last in 1726,
in two volumes. Dr. Gregory edited an edition of the works of Euclid,
which was published in 1703. He also left unpublished works, some of
which were printed after his death.
John Keill was the author of several treatises on the new physics. He
was a warm adherent of the Newtonian system, and it was reported that
he was amongst the first who explained and illustrated the new system
by experiments at Oxford about the end of the seventeenth century. His
first work was an examination of Dr. Burnet’s “Theory of the Earth,”
with some remarks on Whiston’s “Theory of the Earth,” published in 1698.
It involved him in a controversy with the authors whose works he had
attacked. In 1700 he published “An Introduction to Natural Philosophy,”
being lectures read in the University of Oxford in Latin, but an
English translation soon after appeared. This work was considered an
able and useful introduction to the Newtonian system, and it has often
been reprinted in England, and was translated into French.
Keill entered the arena as a warm supporter and defender of Newton in
the famous dispute between Leibnitz and Newton about the priority of
their claims to the invention of fluxions and the calculus. Into the
evidence or the merits of this question I cannot enter here, but it
may be said that Keill and some others who took part in the discussion
introduced into it rather too much vehemence and passion. In 1712
Keill was appointed Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford,
and in 1718 he published “An Introduction to the True Astronomy: or
Astronomical Lectures read in the Astronomical School of the University
of Oxford,” of which an English translation was published in 1721,
which was long regarded as a standard work.