transgressed the bounds prescribed to them, and to have both
solemnized marriage, and administered the sacraments. Different acts
of Assembly were made to restrain these excesses. The General Assembly,
in October 1576, prohibited all readers from ministering “the holie
sacrament of the Lord, except such as hes the word of exhortation.”
The Assembly which met in July 1579 inhibited them from celebrating
marriage, unless they were found meet by “the commission, or synodal
assembly.” At length, in April 1581, the order was suppressed. “Anent
readers: Forsamekle as in assemblies preceding, the office thereof
was concludit to be no ordinar office in the kirk of God, and the
admission of them suspendit to the present assemblie, the kirk in
ane voyce hes votit and concludit farder, that in na tymes coming any
reider be admitted to the office of reider, be any having power within
the kirk.” Buik of the Universall Kirk, in loc.
{283} _Of Superintendents.――The church of Scotland did not consider
superintendents as ordinary or permanent office‑bearers in the church.
They are not mentioned in the Book of Common Order. The first Book of
Discipline explicitly declares, that their appointment was a matter
of temporary expedience, for the plantation of the church, and on
account of the paucity of ministers. Its words are, “Because we have
appointed a larger stipend to them that shall be superintendents than
to the rest of the ministers, we have thought good to signifie to your
honours such reasons as moved us to make difference betwixt teachers
at this time.” And again: “We consider that if the ministers whom God
hath endowed with his singular graces amongst us should be appointed
to several places, there to make their continual residence, that then
the greatest part of the realme should be destitute of all doctrine;
which should not onely be the occasion of great murmur, but also be
dangerous to the salvation of many. And therefore we have thought it
a thing most expedient at this time, that from the whole number of
godly and learned men, now presently in this realm, be selected ten or
twelve, (for in so many provinces we have divided the whole,) to whom
charge and commandment should be given, to plant and erect kirkes,
to set, order, and appoint ministers, as the former order prescribes,
to the countries that shall be appointed to their care where none are
now.” First and second Books of Discipline, p. 35, printed anno 1621.
Dunlop’s Confessions, ii. 538, 539. Archbishop Spotswood has not acted
faithfully, if his History has been printed, in this place, exactly
according to his manuscript. He has omitted the passages above quoted,
and has comprehended the whole of the two paragraphs from which they
are extracted in a short sentence of his own, which is far from being
a full expression of the meaning of the compilers. History, p. 158.
Lond. 1677. This is the more inexcusable as he says, that for “the
clearing of many questions which were afterwards agitated in the
church,” he “thought meet word by word to insert the same [the First
Book of Discipline] that the reader may see what were the grounds
laid down at first for the government of the church.” Ibid. p. 152.
He could not be ignorant that the grounds of the appointment of
superintendents formed one of the principal questions agitated between
{284} him and his anti‑episcopal opponents. I have examined the
copy of the First Book of Discipline, inserted in an old MS. copy of
Knox’s Historie, and find that it exactly agrees with the quotations
which I have made from the editions published in 1621, and by
Dunlop. Dr Robertson has been misled by the archbishop. “On the first
introduction of his system,” says he, “Knox did not deem it expedient
to depart altogether from the ancient form. Instead of bishops, he
proposed to establish ten or twelve superintendents in different parts
of the kingdom.” As his authority for this statement, he refers solely
to the mutilated account in Spotswood. Hist. of Scotland, ii. 42, 43.
Lond. 1809. Mr Laing, from an examination of the original documents,
has given a more accurate account, and pronounced the appointment
of superintendents to have been a “temporary expedient.” History of
Scotland, vol. iii. p. 17, 18. Lond. 1804.
The superintendents were elected and admitted in the same manner
as other pastors. Knox, 263. They were equally subject to rebuke,
suspension, and deposition, as the rest of the ministers of the church.
In the examination of those whom they admitted to the ministry, they
were bound to associate with them the ministers of the neighbouring
parishes. They could not exercise any spiritual jurisdiction without
the consent of the provincial synods, over which they had no negative
voice. They were accountable to the General Assembly for the whole
of their conduct. The laborious task imposed upon them is what few
bishops have ever submitted to. “They must be preachers themselves;”
they are charged to “remain in no place above twenty daies in their
visitation, till they are passed through their whole bounds.” They
“must thrice everie week preach at the least.” When they return to
their principal town of residence, “they must likewise be exercised
in preaching;” and having remained in it “three or foure monthes at
most, they shall be compelled (unless by sicknesse they be retained)
to re‑enter in visitation.” Dunlop, ii. 542. De Regimine Eccles.
Scotican. Brevis Relatio, p. 5, 6. Epistolæ Philadelphi Vindiciæ
contra calumnias Spotswodi: Altare Damascenum, p. 724‒727. Lugd. Batav.
1708. In the last mentioned tract (of which Calderwood was the author)
the difference between {285} the Scottish superintendents and Anglican
bishops is drawn out under thirteen heads. Spotswood’s treatise is
entitled, Refutatio Libelli de Regimine Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ. Lond. 1620.
The _visitors_ or _commissioners_ of provinces exercised the same
power as the superintendents; the only difference between them was,
that the former received their commission from one assembly to another.
Altare Damascenum, p. 727. But these commissions appear sometimes to
have been granted for a longer period; for one of Robert Pont’s titles
was Commissioner of Murray. Perhaps, in this case, a commissioner
differed from a superintendent, merely in not being obliged to have
his stated residence within the bounds of the province committed to
his inspection.
_Of the weekly Exercise or Prophesying._――This was an exercise on the
scriptures, intended for the improvement of ministers, the trial of
the gifts of those who might afterwards be employed in the service of
the church, and the general instruction of the people. It was to be
held in every town “where schools and repaire of learned men are.” For
conducting the exercise, there was an association of the ministers,
and other learned men, in the town and vicinity, called “the company
of interpreters.” They alternately expounded a passage of scripture;
and others who were present were encouraged to deliver their
sentiments. After the exercise was finished, the constituent
members of the association retired, and delivered their judgment
on the discourses which had been delivered. Books of Discipline, ut
supra, p. 60‒62. Dunlop, ii. 587‒591. After the erection of regular
presbyteries, this exercise formed an important part of their
employment; and at every meeting, two of the members by turns were
accustomed to expound the scriptures. De Regimine Eccl. Scot. Brevis
Relatio, p. 3. Until lately traces of this ancient practice remained,
and there is reason to regret that it has generally gone into
desuetude among presbyterian bodies. Associations of the same kind
were formed in England. From 1571 to 1576, they spread through
that kingdom, and were patronized by the bishops of London, Winton,
Bath and Wells, Litchfield, Gloucester, Lincoln, Chichester, Exon,
St David’s, by Sandys, archbishop of York, and by Grindal, archbishop
of Canterbury. Several of the courtiers, as Sir Walter Mildmay, Sir
Francis Knollys, {286} and Sir Thomas Smith, greatly approved of them;
and, at a future period, they were recommended to king James by lord
Bacon. But they were suppressed by an imperious mandate from Elizabeth.
Some interesting particulars respecting their number, regulations,
and suppression, may be seen in Strype’s Annals, ii. 90‒95, 219,
220, 318‒324, 486. Life of Grindal, p. 219‒227, 230, 299, 300. Life
of Parker, 460‒462. They were formed on the model of the Scottish
Exercises, and in their regulations, the very words of the First
Book of Discipline are sometimes used. A species of ecclesiastical
discipline was joined with them in some dioceses. I also observe a
striking resemblance between the directions given by bishop Scambler
for the celebration of the Lord’s supper, and the mode which was
then used in Scotland, particularly as to the circumstances of two
communions or ministrations on the same day, and the early hour of the
service. Strype’s Annals, ii. 91, compared with Scott’s History of the
Scottish Reformers, p. 192.
Keith has given a quotation from the MS. copy of Spotswood’s
History, in which the archbishop signifies, that at the time of the
compilation of the First Book of Discipline, several of the reformed
ministers wished to retain the ancient polity, after removing the
grosser corruptions and abuses, but that Knox overruled this motion.
Keith, 492. But there is no trace, in the authentic documents of that
period, of any diversity of opinion among the Scottish reformers on
this head. The supposition is contradicted by Row, (see above, p. 4,
5,) and by their own language. Dunlop, iii. 518. Knox’s Historie, 282.
It is probable that the archbishop’s story had its original at a later
period, when the design of conforming the church of Scotland to the
English model began to be entertained. I am not inclined to give
much more credit to another tale of Spotswood, respecting a message
which archbishop Hamilton is said to have sent to Knox by John Brand.
History, 174. Keith, 495.
Note B, Footnote 20.
_Sentiments of the Reformed Ministers respecting Tithes, and the
Property of the Church._――These are laid down in the First Book of
{287} Discipline, chap. v. and viii. Dunlop, ii. 533‒538, 562‒568.
Considerable light is also thrown upon them by the private writings of
that period. The reformed ministers did not regard tithes as of divine
right, nor think that it was sacrilegious in every case to apply to
secular purposes those funds which had been originally set apart to
a religious use. But they held that, by the Christian as well as the
Jewish law, a competent subsistence was appointed to be made for the
ministers of religion; that it is incumbent on a nation which has
received the true religion to make public provision for the outward
maintenance of its ordinances; that the appropriation of the tenth
part of property for this purpose is at least recommended by primeval
usage, by the sanction of divine wisdom in the Jewish constitution,
and by the laws and practice of Christian empires and kingdoms; that
property which had been set apart and given for religious ends could
not justly, or without sacrilege, be alienated, as long as it was
needed for these purposes; and that though many of the donors might
have had the support of superstitious observances immediately in their
eye, still it was with a view to religion that they made such gifts.
In as far as it should appear that the ecclesiastical revenues were
superabundant and unnecessary, they were willing that the surplus
should be applied to the common service of the state. To illustrate
their sentiments on this subject, and the manner in which they
complained of the alienation of church‑property, I shall add a few
extracts from some of their writings which are not commonly consulted.
My first extracts shall be from Ferguson’s sermon, to which our
Reformer set his hand a little before his death. Having given an
account of the law of Moses, the ordinance of the New Testament, and
the practice of the primitive church, he adds, “Ye se, then, that
the ministers of the primitive kirk (that levit befoir princes wer
Christianes and nurishers of the kirk, as it was propheseit) wer na
beggaris, suppois they wer no lordis that aboundit in superfluous
welth, as the papis bischoppis did; bot had sufficient asweill for
the necessitie of thair owin families, as for the help of uther
Christianes that now and then, as occasiounes servit, repairit to
thair housis.――Quhen the tyme come foirspokin bi David (Psal. lxviii.
and cii.) that kingis and empereouris, and thair kingdomes, {288}
suld serve the Lord, and bring giftes unto him,” they, “following
his example that only is wyse, ordainit be thair authoritie, that the
tiendis sulde serve to the same use in the tyme of the gospell.”――“Our
youth aucht also to be nurischit and maintenit at the schuillis,
and thairoutof efterward micht spring preicheris, counsellouris,
physiciounis, and all other kinds of learnit men that we have neid
of. For the scheulis are the seid of the kirk and common welth, and
our childrene are the hope of the posteritie, quhilk being neglectit,
thair can nathing be luikit for bot that barbarous ignorance sall
overflow all. For suppois God has wonderfullie, at this time, steirit
up priecheris amang us, even quhen darkness and ignorance had the
upperhand, he will not do sa heirefter, seeing we have the ordinarie
meane to provide them, quhilk gif we contempne, in vane sall we loke
for extraordinary proviscioun. Israel was miraculusslie fed in the
wildernes with manna, bot how soon thay did eit of the corne of the
land of Canaan, the manna ceissit, nouther had they it ony moir, bot
levit efterward on the frute of the ground, ordinarilie labourit with
thair handis. I speik to prudent men that may understand and judge
quhat I say.” After deploring the decayed state of the churches and
schools, and the poverty of the ministers, he adds, “I am compellit
to speik this, thocht I be als plane as pleasant, and appear to
yow as the greatest fule of the rest to stand up heir to utter
that quhilk other men thinkis. Weill; let me be countit a fule for
speiking the treuth. I regard not; nouther may I spair to speik it,
thocht I suld be judgeit in our awin cause to be carryit away with
a particular affectioun; following heirin the exampil of our prophet
Malachie.”――“Ye marvel, I doubt not, quhy ye have not prevailit aganis
yone throtcutteris and unnaturall murtherers within the towne and
castell of Edinburgh, specially ye heving a maist just actioun, being
ma in number, and mair vailyeant men, and nathing inferiour to thame
in wisdome, circumspectioun, or ony gud qualiteis, outher of body or
mynd. Bot ceis to marvel; for the caus quhy that ye have not prevailit
aganis thame long or now, amang mony uther your sinnis quhairwith ye
are defylt, is this, that the spuilyie of the pure is in your housis;
ye invaid that quhilk our forbearis gave of gude zeill to Goddis
honour, and the commoun welth of the kirk; ye spuilye to your awn
private usis, {289} without outher ryme or resoun, nouther will ye
be controllit. This, this, I say, is the chief caus that nathing
prosperis in your handis. I grant that our fatheris, of immoderate
zeill, (besyde the teindis and necessarie rentis of the kirk,) gave
thairunto superfluously, and mair nor aneuch. Quhat then is to be
done? but that the preicheris of God’s word be reasonablie sustenit,
seing thair is eneuch and over mekel to do it, the schullis and the
pure be weill provydit, as thay aucht, and the tempellis honestly
and reverently repairit, that the pepill, without injurie of wynd
or wedder, may sit and heir Goddis word, and participat of his haly
sacramentis. And gif thair restis ony thing unspendit quhen this is
done (as na dout thair wil), in the name of God, let it be bestowit
on the nixt necessarie affairis of the commoun welth, and not to any
mannis private commoditie.” Ane Sermon preachit befoir the regent and
nobilitie――be David Fergussone. B iv. v. C. Lepreuik, 1572.
The following extracts are taken from Sermons against Sacrilege by
Robert Pont. “From the yeare of our Lorde 1560, unto this present time,
the greatest study of all men of power of this land, hes bene, by all
kinde of inventions, to spoyle the kirk of Christ of her patrimonie,
by chopping and changing, diminishing of rentals, converting of
victual in small sumes of money: setting of fewes within the availe,
long tackes uppon tackes, with two or three liferentes, with many
twentie yeares in an tack, annexationes, erectiones of kirk‑rents
in temporall livings and heritage, pensiones, simple donationes,
erecting of new patronages, union of teindes, making of new abattes,
commendataries, priors, with other papistical titles, which ought to
have no place in a reformed kirk and countrie; with an infinite of
other corrupt and fraudfull waies, to the detriment and hurte of the
kirke, the schooles, and the poore, without any stay or gaine‑calling.
“Treuth it is, parliaments have been conveened, and acts have bene
made, for providing ministers of competent livinges; for reparaling of
parish kirkes, for trayning up the youth in schooles of theologie. It
hath bene also promised, and subscribed in writte, by a great parte
of the nobilitie, that the poore labourers of the grounde, should have
an ease and reliefe of the rigorous exacting of their teindes: and
many other good thinges have been devised, tending to the advancement
of the glorie of God, and establishing {290} of Christ his kingdome.
Amongst us, namely, in time of the governemente of that good regente
(whome for honoures cause I name) who, although he could not doe all
that hee would have done, (having so manie hinderances and enemies,)
yet his dooings might have been a perfite patterne of godlinesse
to the reste of the nobilitie, to make thame bene content to live
uppon their owne rentes, and to cease from robbing and spoyling
the patrimonie of the kirke.” Having proposed the objection, that
the Levitical law of Moses is abrogated, and that therefore his
authorities from the Old Testament had no force under the gospel,
he adds: “I aunswere concerning these lands or annual rentes, out of
landes delated and given to the kirke, that although the Leviticall
lawe, with the ceremonies thereof, concerning the outwarde observation,
hath taken an ende, and is fulfilled in Christ; yet the substance
of the policie, concerning interteinment of the service of God, and
uphold of religion, still remaines. And it is no lesse necessarie,
that the ministerie of God amongst us be mainteined; and that
sufficient provision be made to serve other godlie uses, whereunto
the kirke‑rentes ought to be applyed, nor it was that the priestes
and levites shoulde bene upholden in the time of the olde law. And as
to the holinesse or unholines of these landes and revenues: albeit in
their owne nature (as I said in the former sermon) they be like other
earthly possessiones; yet, in so far as they were applyed to an holy
use, they may wel be called holy possessions and rents, as the kirk
is holy, to whose use they are appointed.――I will not deny but the
teindes might be possibly changed, in other meanes of sufficient
provision for the kirke, if such godly zeale were now amongst men, as
was of olde time. But in so farre as we see the plane contrarie, that
men are now readier to take away, than ever our predecessors were to
give; it were a foolish thing to loose the certaine for the uncertaine,
and that which is never likely to come to passe.” Pont’s Sermons
against Sacrilege. B, 8. C, 2. C, 8. E, 6. Waldegrave, 1599.
It appears from the following extract, that Pont undertook this work
at the desire of the General Assembly.――“July 3, 1591. Mr Robert Pont
is ordained to writ against sacrilege, and show his travells to the
next assembly.” Matthew Crawfurd’s MS. History of the Church of
Scotland, vol. i. p. 161.
{291}
Note C, Footnote 22.
_Of John Row, and the introduction of Hebrew Literature into Scotland.
_――The following notices of Row’s employment at Rome are furnished
by a very curious and valuable manuscript in the possession of Thomas
Thomson, Esquire. Besides papal bulls relating to bishoprics and
benefices in Scotland about the middle of the sixteenth century, it
contains a number of important documents as to the correspondence
between the Scottish primate and the Roman court, together with
accounts of receipts and disbursements by the agent at Rome for the
earl of Arran, governor of Scotland, John Hamilton, archbishop of
St Andrews, and Gavin and Claud Hamilton. John Row was employed as
their procurator. In “Ane Recollectioun of my lord of Sanct Andros
missives to my lord of Kilwinning,” (MS. p. 324,) is the following
article:――
“And is content M. Johne Row was put in charge of his l[ordship’s]
affairs in Rome, xi Martii, 1554.”
In “Ane memoir of all things left w{t} M. Johne Row be Gavin,
commendator of Kilwinning, at his departing of Rome, 20 mēssis
Martii, 1555,” (MS. p. 240,) is the following:――
“Item, apointed w{t} M. Johne Row for the provestrie of Kirkfield, and
caus M. Alex{r} Forres send his mandat to ratify the xx{li} pension
reservit to the said M. Jhone.”
In a variety of letters to the pope, “concerning my lord duckis
bairnis, my lord archbishope of Sanctandros, bischope Argile,
my lord Kilwinning self, and uttheris thair frends,” to cardinal
Sermonet, “regni Scotiæ promotori,” and to other members of the sacred
college, from John, archbishop of St Andrews, Gavin, coadjutor to the
archbishop, James earl of Arran, and Mary dowager queen and regent
of the kingdom; written during the years 1555 and 1556, and inserted
in the same manuscript, John Row is recognised and recommended as
“procurator for the see of St Andrews.” At the close of the book is a
table of ciphers, with an explanation, to which this title is prefixed,
“Ciphre send be my l. of Sanct andros of Ed{r} xiij May, 1555, to
M. Johne Row in Rome.”
One great object of the negotiation with Rome, in which Row was
employed, was the obtaining of a confirmation and extension of
{292} the powers formerly granted to the archbishop of St Andrews as
primate and _legatus natus_ of Scotland, from which Gavin Dunbar, late
archbishop of Glasgow, had procured an exemption. In support of his
claim, the primate urges, that “there had always been a great number
of heretics in the diocese of Glasgow;” that its proximity to England
“gave easy ingress and egress to persons of bad manners and opinions;”
that various scandals and enormities, such as “the burning of the
images of God and the saints, the contempt of prelates, the beating of
priests and monks, and the eating of forbidden meats,” were committed
within its bounds, and that the archbishop could not suppress these
evils in his diocese, and at the same time hindered the primate from
exerting his power for this purpose. The following passage, in one of
the informations presented to the court of Rome, throws light on the
fate of two individuals whom we have already (vol. i. p. 162, 373)
had occasion to mention. “Insuper cum magna pars dioc̄ Glasguen̄ nuper
fuerat heresibus infecta, et tam durante vita dicti quondam Gavini
vltimi archiepiscopi Glasguen̄ quam sede vacante, maxima scandala
contra Catholicam fidem perpetrabantur. nec in potestate sedis
Glasguen̄ et suorum suffraganeorum erat eorum potentie resistere.
Sed D. Archiepiscopus Sancti andree modernus metropolitano ac jure
prouinciali eandem diocesin visitavit, et repurgavit malis hominibus
heresiarchis. In cuius testimonium ipse sua propria persona expugnavit
locum de Ochiltre, et inde inuito domino ejusdem detrusit ad carceres
et vincula _quendam apostatam nomine Macbraire_ heresiarcham, et
eiusdem fautores gravibus penis mulctauit. Et similiter alterum
_Vallasium_ nuncupatum in sua heresi perseuerantem in eadem diocesi
Glasguen̄ natum hereticas opiniones profitentem publica omnium regni
ordinum prelatorum conuentione _de heresi conuictum et condemnatum_
curie traditit seculari ad _comburendum_. Et ita curavit heresis
pestem puniri quod sedes Glasguen̄ minime potuit facere. que res cum
sic notissima probationi vlteriori non multum indigens que si esset
necessaria omnibus Scotis Rome satis innotescit.” [MS. fol. 179, comp.
fo. 185‒187.]