All this was done in seven weeks from the breaking out of the first riot.

Both parties were now willing to negotiate, with the view of gaining

time; the queen-regent expecting aid from France, the Lords expecting it

from England.[186] But the proceedings of Elizabeth being tardy, the

Protestants, after waiting for some months, determined to strike a

decisive blow before the reinforcements arrived. In October, the

principal peers, headed by the Duke of Chastelherault, the Earl of Arran,

the Earl of Argyle, and the Earl of Glencairn, assembled at Edinburgh. A

great meeting was held, of which Lord Ruthven was appointed president,

and in which the queen-regent was solemnly suspended from the government,

on the ground that she was opposed to 'the glory of God, to the liberty

of the realm, and to the welfare of the nobles.'[187]

[186] It is stated of the queen-regent, that, in July 1559, 'shee had

sent alreadie to France for more men of warr.' See the curious

pamphlet entitled 'A Historie of the Estate of Scotland, from July

1558 to April 1560,' in _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 63,

Edinburgh, 1844. All sorts of rumours were circulated; and a

letter, dated 12th October 1559, says, 'Summe thinke the regent

will departe secretlie. Summe that she will to Ynchkeith, for that

three shippes are a preparing. Summe saye that she is verie sicke.

Summe saye the devill cannot kill her.' _Sadler's State Papers_,

vol. i. p. 499.

[187] _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 104. This was on the

22nd of October 1559. Compare _Sadler's State Papers_, vol. i. p.

512. 'This Mondaye, the 22 of October, was the douagier deprived

from her authoritie by commen consent of all lords and barons here

present.' On this occasion, 'Johne Willocke,' the preacher,

delivered himself of a discourse in favour of her deposition.

Among other arguments, he said, 'that in deposing of princes, and

these that have beene in authoritie, God did not alwayes use his

immediat power, but sometimes he used other meanes, which his

wisdome thought good, and justice approved. As by Asa, He removed

Maacha, his owne mother, from honour and authoritie, which before

she had used; by Jehu He destroyed Joram, and the whole posteritie

of Achab.' _Therefore_ 'he (the orator) could see no reasoun why

they, the borne counsellers, the nobilitie and barons of the

realme, might not justlie deprive her from all regiment.'

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. i. pp. 540, 541; and

_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. i. pp. 442, 443.

In the winter, an English fleet sailed into the Frith, and anchored near

Edinburgh.[188] In January 1560, the Duke of Norfolk arrived at Berwick,

and concluded, on the part of Elizabeth, a treaty with the Lords of the

Congregation, by virtue of which the English army entered Scotland on the

2nd of April.[189] Against this combination, the government could effect

nothing, and in July, was glad to sign a peace, by which the French

troops were to evacuate Scotland, and the whole power of administration

was virtually consigned to the Protestant Lords.[190]

[188] The _Diurnal of Occurrents_, pp. 55, 272, says, that the fleet

arrived on 24th of January, 1559-60; 'aucht greit schippis of

Ingland in the raid of Leith.' And a letter (in _Sadler's State

Papers_, vol. i. p. 697) dated the 23rd of January, says, 'the

shippes arrived yesterdaye in the Frythe to the nomber of ix. or

x., as yet, and the remanent followith.' The date, therefore, of

the 10th of January, given in a note to _Keith's Church and State

in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 255, is evidently erroneous. Important as

the event was, its exact date is not mentioned either by Tytler

(_History of Scotland_, vol. v. pp. 114, 115), or by Chalmers

(_Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 631).

[189] _Chalmers' Caledonia_, vol. ii. p. 632. _Knox's History of the

Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 57. The Berwick treaty, in February, is

printed in _Keith's Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. pp.

258-262. So great was the influence of the nobles, that the

English troops were well received by the people, in spite of the

old and bitter animosity between the two nations. 'Especially in

Fyfe they were thankfully receaved, and well entreated, with such

quietnes and gentle entertainement betwixt our nation and them, as

no man would have thought that ever there had beine any variance.'

_A Historie of the Estate of Scotland_, from 1558 to 1560, in

_Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 78.

[190] 'Vpoun the vi. day of Julij, it wes concludit and finallie endit

betuix the saids ambassatouris, tuitching all debaittis,

contraversies and materis concernyng the asseiging of Leith,

depairting of the Frenchemen thairfra, and randering of the same;

and the said peax daitit this said day.' _A Diurnal of

Occurrents_, pp. 277, 278. See also p. 60; and _Keith's Affairs of

Church and State in Scotland_, vol. i. p. 295.

The complete success of this great revolution, and the speed with which

it was effected, are of themselves a decisive proof of the energy of

those general causes by which the whole movement was controlled. For more

than a hundred and fifty years, there had been a deadly struggle between

the nobles and the Church: and the issue of that struggle, was the

establishment of the Reformation, and the triumph of the aristocracy.

They had, at last, carried their point. The hierarchy was overthrown, and

replaced by new and untried men. All the old notions of apostolic

succession, of the imposition of hands, and of the divine right of

ordination, were suddenly discarded. The offices of the Church were

performed by heretics, the majority of whom had not even been

ordained.[191] Finally, and to crown the whole, in the summer of the same

year, 1560, the Scotch parliament passed two laws, which utterly

subverted the ancient scheme. By one of these laws, every statute which

had ever been enacted in favour of the Church, was at once repealed.[192]

By the other law, it was declared that whoever either said mass, or was

present while it was said, should, for the first offence, lose his goods;

for the second offence be exiled; and, for the third offence, be put to

death.[193]

[191] 'That Knox himself was in priest's orders, is a fact which his

biographer, the late Dr. M'Crie, has placed beyond dispute; and

some of the other leaders were also priests; but the greater

number of the preachers, and all those who subsequently became

ministers, were totally without any orders whatever, not even such

as the superintendents could have given them; for their own

supposed call, the election of the people, and the _civil_

ceremony of induction to the living, was all that was then "judged

necessary."' _Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, 1848,

vol. i. pp. 145, 146. 'A new-fashioned sort of ministry, unknown

in the Christian Church for all preceding generations.' _Keith's

Church and State in Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 204. Compare _Argyll's

Presbytery Examined_, pp. 34-36.

[192] 'The thre estaitis of parliament hes [=a]nullit and declarit all

sik actes maid in tymes bipast not aggreing w^t goddis word and

now contrair to the confessiouñ of oure fay^t according to the

said word publist in this parliament. Tobe of nane avale force nor

effect. And decornis the said actis and every ane of thame tu haue

na effect nor strenth in tyme to cum.' _Acts of the Parliament of

Scotland_, 1814, folio, vol. ii. p. 535. This was on 24th August

1560.

[193] 'That na maner of person nor personis say mess nor zit heir mess

nor be pñt thairat vnder the pane of confiscatiouñ of all

thair gud movable and vnmovable and pvneissing of thair bodeis at

the discretiouñ of the magistrat within quhais jurisdictiouñ

sik personis happ[=y]nis to be apprehendit ffor the first falt:

Banissing of the Realme for the secund falt, and justifying to the

deid for the thrid falt.' _Ibid._, 24th August 1560, vol. ii. p.

525.

Thus it was, that an institution, which had borne the brunt of more than

a thousand years, was shivered, and fell to pieces. And, from its fall,

great things were augured. It was believed, that the people would be

enlightened, that their eyes were opening to their former follies, and

that the reign of superstition was about to end. But what was forgotten

then, and what is too often forgotten now, is, that in these affairs

there is an order and a natural sequence, which can never be reversed.

This is, that every institution, as it actually exists, no matter what

its name or pretences may be, is the effect of public opinion far more

than the cause; and that it will avail nothing to attack the institution,

unless you can first change the opinion. In Scotland, the Church was

grossly superstitious; but it did not, therefore, follow, that to

overthrow the establishment, would lessen the evil. They who think that

superstition can be weakened in this way, do not know the vitality of

that dark and ill-omened principle. Against it, there is only one weapon,

and that weapon is knowledge. When men are ignorant, they must be

superstitious; and wherever superstition exists, it is sure to organize

itself into some kind of system, which it makes its home. If you drive it

from that home, it will find another. The spirit transmigrates; it

assumes a new form; but still it lives. How idle, then, is that warfare

which reformers are too apt to wage, in which they slay the carcass, and

spare the life! The husk, forsooth, they seek out and destroy; but within

that husk is a seed of deadly poison, whose vitality they are unable to

impair, and which, shifted from its place, bears fruit in another

direction, and shoots up with a fresh, and often a more fatal,

exuberance.

The truth is, that every institution, whether political or religious,

represents, in its actual working, the form and pressure of the age. It

may be very old; it may bear a venerated name; it may aim at the highest

objects: but whoever carefully studies its history, will find that, in

practice, it is successively modified by successive generations, and

that, instead of controlling society, it is controlled by it. When the

Protestant Reformation was effected, the Scotch were excessively

ignorant, and, therefore, in spite of the Reformation, they remained

excessively superstitious. How long that ignorance continued, and what

its results were, we shall presently see; but before entering into that

inquiry, it will be advisable to trace the immediate consequences of the

Reformation itself, in connexion with the powerful class by whose

authority it was established.

The nobles, having overthrown the Church, and stripped it of a large part

of its wealth, thought that they were to reap the benefit of their own

labour. They had slain the enemy, and they wished to divide the

spoil.[194] But this did not suit the views of the Protestant preachers.

In their opinion, it was impious to secularize ecclesiastical property,

and turn it aside to profane purposes. They held, that it was right,

indeed, for the lords to plunder the Church; but they took for granted

that the proceeds of the robbery were to enrich themselves. They were the

godly men; and it was the business of the ruling classes to endow them

with benefices, from which the old and idolatrous clergy were to be

expelled.[195]

[194] As Robertson says, in his measured, and somewhat feeble, style,

'Among the Scottish nobility, some hated the persons, and others

coveted the wealth, of the dignified clergy; and by abolishing

that order of men, the former indulged their resentment, and the

latter hoped to gratify their avarice.' _History of Scotland_,

book iii. p. 116, in _Robertson's Works_, edit. 1831. The

contemporary narrative, in _A Diurnal of Occurrents_, p. 269,

sounds much more vigorous to my ear. 'In all this tyme' (1559),

'all kirkmennis goodis and geir wer spoulzeit and reft fra thame,

in euerie place quhair the samyne culd be apprehendit; for euerie

man for the maist pairt that culd get any thing pertenyng to any

kirkmen, thocht the same as wele won geir.'

[195] 'Knox never dreamed that the revenues of the Church were to be

secularized; but that he and his colleagues were simply to remove

the old incumbents, and then take possession of their benefices.'

_Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 106.

'The ecclesiastical revenues, which they never contemplated for a

moment were to be seized by the Protestant nobility.' _Lawson's

Roman Catholic Church in Scotland_, p. 233.

In accordance with these opinions, Knox and his colleagues, in August

1560, presented a petition to Parliament, calling on the nobles to

restore the Church property which they had seized, and to have it

properly applied to the support of the new ministers.[196] To this

request, those powerful chiefs did not even vouchsafe a reply.[197] They

were content with matters as they actually stood, and were, therefore,

unwilling to disturb the existing arrangement. They had fought the fight;

they had gained the victory, and shared the spoil. It was not to be

supposed that they would peaceably relinquish what they had won with

infinite difficulty. Nor was it likely that, after being engaged in an

arduous struggle with the Church for a hundred and fifty years, and

having at length conquered their inveterate enemy, they should forego the

fruits of their triumph for the sake of a few preachers, whom they had

but recently called to their aid; low-born and obscure men, who should

rather deem it an honour that they were permitted to associate with their

superiors in a common enterprise, but were not to presume on that

circumstance, nor to suppose that they, who only entered the field at the

eleventh hour, were to share the booty on anything approaching to terms

of equality.[198]

[196] Compare _Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. ii. pp. 89-92,

with _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 179. Of this document, M'Crie

says, 'There can be no doubt that it received the sanction, if it

was not the composition, of the Reformer.' ... 'It called upon

them' (the nobles) 'to restore the patrimony of the Church, of

which they had unjustly possessed themselves.'

[197] 'Making no answer to the last point.' _Spottiswoode's History of

the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 327. 'Without taking any

notice.' _Keith's Affairs of Church and State_, vol. i. p. 321.

[198] 'They viewed the Protestant preachers as low-born individuals, not

far raised above the condition of mechanics or tradesmen, without

influence, authority, or importance.' _Lawson's Roman Catholic

Church in Scotland_, p. 251. 'None were more unmercifull to the

poore ministers than they that had the greatest share of the kirk

rents.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. ii.

p. 42.

But the aristocracy of Scotland little knew the men with whom they had to

deal. Still less, did they understand the character of their own age.

They did not see that, in the state of society in which they lived,

superstition was inevitable, and that, therefore, the spiritual classes,

though depressed for a moment, were sure speedily to rise again. The

nobles had overturned the Church; but the principles on which Church

authority is based, remained intact. All that was done, was to change the

name and the form. A new hierarchy was quickly organized, which succeeded

the old one in the affections of the people. Indeed, it did more. For,

the Protestant clergy, neglected by the nobles, and unendowed by the

state, had only a miserable pittance whereupon to live, and they

necessarily threw themselves into the arms of the people, where alone

they could find support and sympathy.[199] Hence, a closer and more

intimate union than would otherwise have been possible. Hence, too, as we

shall presently see, the Presbyterian clergy, smarting under the

injustice with which they were treated, displayed that hatred of the

upper classes, and that peculiar detestation of monarchical government,

which they showed whenever they dared. In their pulpits, in their

presbyteries, and in their General Assemblies, they encouraged a

democratic and insubordinate tone, which eventually produced the happiest

results, by keeping alive, at a critical moment, the spirit of liberty;

but which, for that very reason, made the higher ranks rue the day, when,

by their ill-timed and selfish parsimony, they roused the wrath of so

powerful and implacable a class.

[199] In 1561, 'Notwithstanding the full establishment of the

Reformation, the Protestant ministers were in a state of extreme

poverty, and dependent upon the precarious assistance of their

flocks.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. v. p. 207. Compare a

letter, written by Knox, in 1566, 'on the extreame povertie

wherein our ministers are brought.' _Knox's History of the

Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 542.

The withdrawal of the French troops, in 1560, had left the nobles in

possession of the government;[200] and it was for them to decide to what

extent the Reformed clergy should be endowed. The first petition,

presented by Knox and his brethren, was passed over in contemptuous

silence. But the ministers were not so easily put aside. Their next step

was, to present to the Privy Council what is known as the First Book of

Discipline, in which they again urged their request.[201] To the tenets

contained in this book, the council had no objection; but they refused to

ratify it, because, by doing so, they would have sanctioned the principle

that the new church had a right to the revenues of the old one.[202] A

certain share, indeed, they were willing to concede. What the share

should be, was a matter of serious dispute, and caused the greatest

ill-will between the two parties. At length, the nobles broke silence,

and, in December 1561, they declared that the Reformed clergy should only

receive one-sixth of the property of the Church; the remaining

five-sixths being divided between the government and the Catholic

priesthood.[203] The meaning of this was easily understood, since the

Catholics were now entirely dependent on the government, and the

government was, in fact, the nobles themselves, who were, at that period,

the monopolizers of political power.

[200] 'The limited authority which the Crown had hitherto possessed, was

almost entirely annihilated, and the aristocratical power, which

always predominated in the Scottish Government (?), became supreme

and incontrollable.' _Russell's History of the Church in

Scotland_, 1834, vol. i. p. 223.

[201] See the _First Book of Discipline_, reprinted in _A Compendium of

the Laws of the Church of Scotland_, part i., second edition,

Edinburgh, 1837. They summed up their requests in one

comprehensive passage (p. 119), that 'the haill rentis of the Kirk

abusit in Papistrie sal be referrit againe to the Kirk.' In

another part (p. 106), they frankly admit that, 'we doubt not but

some of our petitions shall appeare strange unto you at the first

sight.'

[202] 'The form of polity recommended in the First Book of Discipline

never obtained the proper sanction of the State, chiefly in

consequence of the avarice of the nobility and gentry, who were

desirous of securing to themselves the revenues of the Church.'

_Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, p. 324. See also _Argyll's

Presbytery Examined_, p. 26. Many of the nobles, however, did sign

it (_Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 129); but,

says Spottiswoode (_History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p.

373), 'Most of those that subscribed, getting into their hands the

possessions of the Church, could never be induced to part

therewith, and turned greater enemies in that point of church

patrimony than were the papists, or any other whatsoever.'

[203] _M'Crie's Life of Knox_, p. 204. _Knox's History of the

Reformation_, vol. ii. pp. 298-301, 307-309. _Buchanan's Rerum

Scoticarum Historia_, lib. xvii. p. 500. The nominal arrangement,

which was contrived with considerable art, was, that one-third of

the church revenues should be divided into two parts; one part for

the government, and another part for the preachers. The remaining

two-thirds were gravely assigned to the Catholic priesthood, who,

at that very moment, were liable, by Act of Parliament, to the

penalty of death, if they performed the rites of their religion.

Men, whose lives were in the hands of the government, were not

likely to quarrel with the government about money matters; and the

result was, that nearly every thing fell into the possession of

the nobles.

Such being the case, it naturally happened, that, when the arrangement

was made known, the preachers were greatly moved. They saw how

unfavourable it was to their own interests, and, therefore, they held

that it was unfavourable to the interests of religion. Hence, in their

opinion, it was contrived by the devil, whose purposes it was calculated

to serve.[204] For, now, they who travailed in the vineyard of the Lord,

were to be discouraged, and were to suffer, in order that what rightly

belonged to them might be devoured by idle bellies.[205] The nobles might

benefit for a time, but the vengeance of God was swift, and would most

assuredly overtake them.[206] From the beginning to the end, it was

nothing but spoliation. In a really Christian land, the patrimony of the

Church would be left untouched.[207] But, in Scotland, alas! Satan had

prevailed,[208] and Christian charity had waxen cold.[209] In Scotland,

property, which should be regarded as sacred, had been broken up and

divided; and the division was of the worst kind, since, by it, said Knox,

two-thirds are given to the devil, and the other third is shared between

God and the devil. It was as if Joseph, when governor of Egypt, had

refused food to his brethren, and sent them back to their families with

empty sacks.[210] Or, as another preacher suggested, the Church was now,

like the Maccabees of old, being oppressed, sometimes by the Assyrians,

and sometimes by the Egyptians.[211]

[204] 'The Ministeris, evin in the begynnyng, in publict Sermonis

opponed thame selves to suche corruptioun, for thei foir saw the

purpose of the Devill.' _Knox's History of the Reformation_,

vol. ii. p. 310.

[205] 'For it seemeth altogether unreasonable that idle belleis sail

devoure and consume the patrimonie of the Kirk, whill the

faithfull travellers in the Lord's vineyarde suffer extreme

povertie, and the needie members of Christ's bodie are altogether

neglected.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. ii. pp. 484,

485. This was in 1569; and, in 1571, the celebrated Ferguson, in

one of his sermons, declared that the holders of church property,

most of whom were the nobility, were 'ruffians.' See an extract

from his sermon, in _Chalmers' History of Dunfermline_, p. 309,

Edinburgh, 1844. 'For this day Christ is spuilzeit amang us, quhil

y^t quhilk aucht to mantene the Ministerie of the Kirk and the

pure, is geuin to prophane men, flattereris in court, ruffianes,

and hyrelingis.'

[206] In September 1571, John Row 'preiched, wha in plane pulpet

pronounced to the lordis, for thair covetusnes, and becaus they

wold not grant the just petitiones of the Kirk, Godis heastie

vengeance to fall upon them; and said, moreover, "I cair not, my

lordis, your displeasour; for I speik my conscience befoir God,

wha will not suffer sic wickitnes and contempt vnpunished."'

_Bannatyne's Journal_, edit. Edinburgh, 1806, p. 257.

[207] In 1576, the General Assembly declared, that their right to 'the

patrimonie of the Kirk' was 'ex jure divino.' _Acts of the General

Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 360, Edinburgh,

1839, 4to. More than a hundred years later, a Scotch divine

evinces how deeply the members of his profession felt this

spoliation of the Church, by going out of his way to mention it.

See _Jacob's Vow, by Dr. John Cockburn_, Edinburgh, 1696, pp. 422,

423, 425. But this is nothing in comparison to a recent writer,

the Reverend Mr. Lyon, who deliberately asserts that, because

these and similar acts occurred in the reign of Mary, therefore

the queen came to a violent end; such being the just punishment of

sacrilege. 'The practice' (of saying masses for the dead) 'ceased,

of course, at the Reformation; and the money was transferred by

Queen Mary to the civil authorities of the town. This was,

undoubtedly, an act of sacrilege; for, though sacrificial masses

for the dead was an error, yet the guardians of the money so

bequeathed, were under an obligation to apply it to a sacred

purpose. This, and other sacrilegious acts on the part of Mary, of

a still more decided and extensive character, have been justly

considered as the cause of all the calamities which subsequently

befell her.' _History of St. Andrews, by the Rev. C. J. Lyon,

M.A., Presbyter of the Episcopal Church, St. Andrews_, Edinburgh,

1843, vol. i. p. 54. Elsewhere (vol. ii. p. 400) the same divine

mentions, that the usual punishment for sacrilege is a failure of

male issue. 'The following examples, selected from the diocese of

St. Andrews, according to its boundaries before the Reformation,

will corroborate the general doctrine contended for throughout

this work, that sacrilege has ever been punished in the present

life, and _chiefly_ by the failure of male issue.' The italics are

in the text. See also vol. i. p. 118. For the sake of the future

historian of public opinion, it may be well to observe, that the

work containing these sentiments is not a reprint of an older

book, but was published for the first time in 1843, having

apparently been just written.

[208] 'The General Assemblie of the Kirk of Scotland, convenit at

Edinburgh the 25 of December 1566, to the Nobilitie of this Realme

that professes the Lord Jesus with them, and hes renouncit that

Roman Antichryst, desyre constancie in faith, and the spirit of

righteous judgement. Seeing that Sathan, be all our negligence,

Right Honourable, hes so farre prevailit within this Realme within

these late dayes, that we doe stand in extream danger, not only

_to lose our temporall possessions_, but also to be depryvit of

the glorious Evangell,' &c. _Keith's Church and State_, vol. iii.

pp. 154, 155.

[209] In 1566, in their piteous communication to the English bishops and

clergy, they said 'The days are ill; iniquitie abounds; Christian

charity, alas, is waxen cold.' _Acts and Proceedings of the

General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 87,

Edinburgh, 1839, 4to.

[210] 'I see twa partis freely gevin to the Devill, and the thrid maun be

devided betwix God and the Devill: Weill, bear witnes to me, that

this day I say it, or it be long the Devill shall have three

partis of the thrid; and judge you then what Goddis portioun

shallbe.' ... 'Who wold have thought, that when Joseph reulled

Egypt, that his brethren should have travailled for vittallis, and

have returned with empty seckis unto thair families? Men wold

rather have thought that Pharao's pose, treasure, and garnallis

should have bene diminished, or that the houshold of Jacob should

stand in danger to sterve for hungar.' _Knox's History of the

Reformation_, vol. ii. pp. 310, 311.

[211] In May 1571, 'This Sonday, Mr. Craig teiched the 130 Psalme; and,

in his sermond, he compared the steat of the Kirk of God in this

tovne vnto the steat of the Maccabeis; wha were oppressed sumtymes

by the Assyrianis and sumtymes by the Egiptianis.' _Bannatyne's

Journal_, p. 150.

But neither persuasions nor threats[212] produced any effect on the

obdurate minds of the Scotch nobles. Indeed, their hearts, instead of

being softened, became harder. Even the small stipends, which were

allotted to the Protestant clergy, were not regularly paid, but were

mostly employed for other purposes.[213] When the ministers complained,

they were laughed at, and insulted, by the nobles, who, having gained

their own ends, thought that they could dispense with their former

allies.[214] The Earl of Morton, whose ability, as well as connexions,

made him the most powerful man in Scotland, was especially virulent

against them; and two of the preachers, who offended him, he put to

death, under circumstances of great cruelty.[215] The nobles, regarding

him as their chief, elected him Regent in 1572;[216] and, being now

possessed of supreme power, he employed it against the Church. He seized

upon all the benefices which became vacant, and retained their profits in

his own hands.[217] His hatred of the preachers passed all bounds. He

publicly declared, that there would be neither peace nor order in the

country, until some of them were hung.[218] He refused to sanction the

General Assemblies by his presence; he wished to do away with their

privileges, and even with their name; and with such determination did he

pursue his measures, that, in the opinion of the historian of the Scotch

Kirk, nothing but the special interference of the Deity could have

maintained its existing polity.[219]

[212] The first instance I have observed of any thing like menace, is in

1567, when 'the Assembly of the Church being convened at

Edinburgh,' admonished all persons 'as well noblemen as barons,

and those of the other Estates, to meet and give their personal

appearance at Edinburgh on the 20th of July, for giving their

advice, counsel, and concurrence in matters then to be proponed;

especially for purging the realm of popery, the establishing of

the policy of the Church, and _restoring the patrimony thereof to

the just possessors_. Assuring those that should happen to absent

themselves at the time, due and lawful advertisement being made,

that they should be reputed hinderers of the good work intended,

and as _dissimulate professors be esteemed unworthy of the

fellowship of Christ's flock.' Spottiswoode's History of the

Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 64. This evidently alludes to the

possibility of excommunicating those who would not surrender to

the Protestant preachers, the property stolen from the Catholic

Church; and, in 1570, we find another step taken in the same

direction. Under that year, the following passage occurs in _Acts

and Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of

Scotland_, vol. i. p. 181. 'Q. If those that withold the duty of

the Kirk, _wherethrough Ministers want their stipends_, may be

excommunicate? A. All things beand done that the civill ordour

requyres of them that withhaldis the duetie of the Kirk, quherby

Ministers wants their stipends; _the Kirk may proceed to

excommunication, for their contempt_.'

[213] In 1526, 'the poore ministers, exhorters, and readers, compleaned

at church assembleis, that neither were they able to live upon the

stipends allowed, nor gett payment of that small portioun which

was allowed.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. ii. p. 172.

Compare _Acts of the General Assemblies_, 1839, 4to, vol. i. p.

53; 'To requyre payment to ministers of there stipends for the

tyme by past, according to the promise made.' This was in December

1564. In December 1565, the General Assembly said (p. 71), 'that

wher oft and divers tymes promise hes bein made to us, that our

saids brethren, travelers and preachers in the Kirk of God, sould

not be defraudit of their appointit stipends, neither zet in any

wayes sould be molestit in their functioun; zet nottheless

universallie they want ther stipends appointit for diverse tymes

by past.' On the state of things in 1566, see 'The Supplication of

the Ministers to the Queen,' in _Knox's History of the

Reformation_, vol. ii. p. 529. See also, in the _Miscellany of the

Spalding Club_, vol. iv. pp. 92-101, Aberdeen, 1849, 4to, a letter

written by John Erskine in December 1571, especially p. 97; 'the

gretest of the nobilitie haifing gretest rentis in possessione,

and plaicet of God in maist hie honouris, ceasis nocht, maist

wiolentlie blindit with awarice, to spoilye and draw to thame

selfis the possessiones of the Kirk.'

[214] 'The ministers were called proud knaves, and receaved manie

injurious words from the lords, speciallie from Morton, who ruled

all. He said, he sould lay their pride, and putt order to them.'

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. iii. pp. 137, 138. This

was in 1571.

[215] _Chambers' Annals of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 79, 80.

[216] 'The nobilitie wnderwrittin convenit in Edinburgh, and chesit and

electit James erle of Mortoun regent.' _A Diurnal of Occurrents_,

p. 320.

[217] In 1573, 'when any benefeces of Kirk vaikit, he keapit the proffet

of thair rents sa lang in his awin hand, till he was urgit be the

Kirk to mak donatioun tharof, and that was not gevin but proffeit

for all that.' _The Historie and Life of King James the Sext_,

edit. Edinburgh, 1825, 4to, p. 147. Even in 1570, when Lennox was

regent, 'the Earle of Mortoun was the chiefe manager of every

thing under him;' and was 'master of the church rents,' and made

'gifts of them to the nobility.' _Wodrow's Collections upon the

Lives of the Reformers of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. part i.

pp. 27, 126, Glasgow, 1834, 4to.

[218] 'During all these Assembleis and earnest endeavoures of the

brethrein, the regent was often required to give his presence to

the Assemblie, and further the caus of God. He not onlie refused,

but threatned some of the most zealous with hanging, alledging,

that otherwise there could be no peace nor order in the countrie.'

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. iii. pp. 393, 394. 'Uses

grait thretning against the maist zelus breithring, schoring to

hang of thame, utherwayes ther could be na peace nor ordour in the

countrey.' _The Autobiography and Diary of James Melvill_, edited

by R. Pitcairn, Edinburgh, 1842, pp. 59, 60.

[219] 'He mislyked the Generall Assembleis, and would have had the name

changed, that he might take away the force and priviledge thereof;

and no questioun he had stayed the work of policie that was

presentlie in hands, if God had not stirred up a factioun against

him.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk of Scotland_, vol. iii. p.

396. See also _The Autobiography of James Melvill_, p. 61.

The rupture between Church and State was now complete. It remained to be

seen, which was the stronger side. Every year, the clergy became more

democratic; and, after the death of Knox, in 1572, they ventured upon a

course which even he would hardly have recommended, and which, during the

earlier period of the Reformation, would have been impracticable.[220]

But, by this time, they had secured the support of the people; and the

treatment they were receiving from the government, and from the nobles,

embittered their minds, and drove them into desperate counsels. While

their plans were yet immature, and while the future was looming darkly

before them, a new man arose, who was well qualified to be their chief,

and who at once stepped into the place which the death of Knox left

vacant. This was Andrew Melville, who, by his great ability, his boldness

of character, and his fertility of resource, was admirably suited to be

the leader of the Scottish Church in that arduous struggle in which it

was about to embark.[221]

[220] 'During the two years following the death of Knox, each day was

ripening the more determined opposition of the Church. The breach

between the clergy with the great body of the people, and the

government or higher nobility, was widening rapidly.' _Argyll's

Presbytery Examined_, p. 70.

[221] 'Next to her Reformer, who, under God, emancipated her from the

degrading shackles of papal superstition and tyranny, I know no

individual from whom Scotland has received such important

services, or to whom she continues to owe so deep a debt of

national respect and gratitude, as Andrew Melville.' _M'Crie's

Life of Andrew Melville_, vol. ii. p. 473, Edinburgh, 1819. His

nephew, himself a considerable person, says, 'Scotland receavit

never a graitter benefit at the hands of God nor this man.' _The

Autobiography of James Melvill_, p. 38.

In 1574, Melville, having completed his education abroad, arrived in

Scotland.[222] He quickly rallied round him the choicest spirits in the

Church; and, under his auspices, a struggle began with the civil power,

which continued, with many fluctuations, until it culminated, sixty years

later, in open rebellion against Charles I. To narrate all the details of

the contest, would be inconsistent with the plan of this Introduction;

and, notwithstanding the extreme interest of the events which now ensued,

the greater part of them must be omitted; but I will endeavour to

indicate the general march, and to put the reader in possession of such

facts as are most characteristic of the age in which they occurred.

[222] He left Scotland in 1564, at the age of nineteen, and returned 'in

the beginning of July 1574, after an absence of ten years from his

native country.' _M'Crie's Life of Andrew Melville_, vol. i. pp.

17, 57. See also _Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of

the Kirk of Scotland_, edit. Wodrow Society, p. 34; and _Howie's

Biographia Scoticana_, p. 111, Glasgow, 1781.

Melville had not been in Scotland many months, before he began his

opposition, at first by secret intrigues, afterwards with open and avowed

hostility.[223] In the time of Knox, episcopacy had been recognized as

part of the Protestant Church, and had received the sanction of the

leading Reformers.[224] But that institution did not harmonize with the

democratic spirit which was now growing up. The difference of ranks

between the bishops and the inferior clergy was unpleasant, and the

ministers determined to put an end to it.[225] In 1575, one of them,

named John Dury, was instigated, by Melville, to bring the subject before

the General Assembly at Edinburgh.[226] After he had spoken, Melville

also expressed himself against episcopacy; but, not being yet sure of the

temper of the audience, his first proceedings were somewhat cautious.

Such hesitation was, however, hardly necessary; for, owing to the schism

between the Church and the upper classes, the ministers were becoming the

eager enemies of those maxims of obedience, and of subordination, which

they would have upheld, had the higher ranks been on their side. As it

was, the clergy were only favoured by the people; they, therefore, sought

to organize a system of equality, and were ripe for the bold measures

proposed by Melville and his followers. This was clearly shown, by the

rapidity of the subsequent movement. In 1575, the first attack was made

in the General Assembly at Edinburgh. In April 1578, another General

Assembly resolved, that, for the future, bishops should be called by

their own names, and not by their titles.[227] The same body also

declared, that no see should be filled up, until the next Assembly.[228]

Two months afterwards, it was announced that this arrangement was to be

perpetual, and that no new bishop should ever be made.[229] And, in 1580,

the Assembly of the Church at Dundee, pulling the whole fabric to the

ground, unanimously resolved that the office of bishop was a mere human

invention; that it was unlawful; that it must be immediately done away

with; and that every bishop should at once resign his office, or be

excommunicated if he refuse to do so.[230]

[223] He appears to have first set to work in November 1574. See

_Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. p. 261,

London, 1848.

[224] 'The compilers of the Book of Discipline' (_i.e._ the First Book,

in 1560) 'were distinguished by prelatical principles to the end

of their days.' ... 'That Knox himself was no enemy to prelacy,

considered as an ancient and apostolical institution, is rendered

clear by his "Exhortation to England for the speedy embracing of

Christ's Gospel."' _Russell's History of the Church in Scotland_,

1834, vol. i. p. 240. 'The associates of Knox, it is obvious, were

not Presbyterians, and had no intention of setting up a system of

parity among the ministers of their new establishment.' p. 243.

See also p. 332. Even in 1572, the year of Knox's death, I find it

stated that 'the whole Diocie of Sanct Andrews is decerned be the

Assembly to pertain to the Bishop of the same.' _Acts and

Proceedings of the General Assemblies of the Kirk of Scotland_,

vol. i. p. 264, 4to. 1839. The Scotch Presbyterians have dealt

very unfairly with this part of the history of their Church.

[225] Some little time after this, David Fergusson, who died in 1598,

and was minister at Dunfermline, said very frankly to James VI.,

'Yes, Sir, ye may have Bishops here, but _ye must remember to make

us all equall_; make us all Bishops, els will ye never content

us.' _Row's History of the Kirk of Scotland from 1558 to 1637_,

edit. Wodrow Society, p. 418. Compare _Calderwood's History of the

Kirk_, vol. iv. p. 214: in 1584 'these monstruous titles of

superioritie.' In 1586, 'that tyrannicall supremacie of bishops

and archbishops over ministers.' p. 604.

[226] 'He stirred up John Dury, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, in an

Assembly which was then convened, to propound a question touching

the lawfulness of the episcopal function, and the authority of

chapters in their election. He himself, as though he had not been

acquainted with the motion, after he had commended the speaker's

zeal, and seconded the purpose with a long discourse of the

flourishing estate of the church of Geneva, and the opinions of

Calvin and Theodore Beza concerning church government, came to

affirm, "That none ought to be esteemed office-bearers in the

Church whose titles were not found in the book of God. And, for

the title of bishops, albeit the same was found in Scripture, yet

was it not to be taken in the sense that the common sort did

conceive, there being no superiority allowed by Christ amongst

ministers,"' &c. _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of

Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 200. See also _Acts of the General

Assemblies_, vol. i. p. 331, where it appears that six bishops

were present on this memorable occasion. The question raised was,

'Whither if the Bischops, as they are now in the Kirk of Scotland,

hes thair function of the word of God or not, or if the Chapiter

appointit for creating of them aucht to be tollerated in this

reformed Kirk.' p. 340.

[227] 'It was ordained, That Bischops and all vthers bearand

Ecclesiasticall functioun, be callit bethair awin names, or

Brethren, in tyme comeing.' _Acts of the General Assemblies of the

Kirk of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 404.

[228] 'Therfor the Kirk hes concludit, That no Bischops salbe electit or

made heirafter, befor the nixt Generall Assemblie.' _Ibid._

vol. ii. p. 408.

[229] 'Anent the Act made in the last Assemblie, the 28 of Aprile 1578,

concerning the electioun of Bischops, suspendit quhill this

present Assemblie, and the farther ordour reservit thereto: The

General Assemblie, all in ane voyce, hes concludit, That the said

act salbe extendit for all tymes to come, ay and quhill the

corruptioun of the Estate of Bischops be alluterlie tane away.'

_Ibid._ vol. ii. p. 413.

[230] 'Forsameikle as the office of a Bischop, as it is now vsit, and

commounly takin within this realme, hes no sure warrand,

auctoritie, nor good ground out of the (Book and) Scriptures of

God; but is brocht in by the folie and corruptions of (men's)

invention, to the great overthrow of the Kirk of God: The haill

Assemblie of the Kirk, in ane voyce, after libertie givin to all

men to reason in the matter, _none opponing themselves in

defending the said pretendit office_, Finds and declares the

samein pretendit office, vseit and termeit, as is above said,

vnlaufull in the selfe, as haveand neither fundament, ground nor

warrant within the word of God: and ordaines, that all sick

persons as bruiks, or sall bruik heirafter the said office, salbe

chargeit simpliciter to demitt, quyt and leave of the samein, as

ane office quhervnto they are not callit be God; and siclyke to

desist and cease from all preaching, ministration of the

sacraments, or vsing any way the office of pastors, quhill they

receive _de novo_ admission from the Generall Assemblie, vnder the

paine of excommunicatioun to be denuncit agains them; quherin if

they be found dissobedient, or contraveine this act in any point,

the sentence of excommunicatioun, after dew admonitions, to be

execute agains them.' _Acts of the General Assemblies_, vol. ii.

p. 453.

The minister and the people had now done their work, and, so far as they

were concerned, had done it well.[231] But the same circumstances which

made them desire equality, made the upper classes desire inequality.[232]

A collision, therefore, was inevitable, and was hastened by this bold

proceeding of the Church. Indeed, the preachers, supported by the people,

rather courted a contest, than avoided it. They used the most

inflammatory language against episcopacy; and, shortly before abolishing

it, they completed, and presented to Parliament, the Second Book of

Discipline, in which they flatly contradicted what they had asserted in

their First Book of Discipline.[233] For this, they are often taunted

with inconsistency.[234] But the charge is unjust. They were perfectly

consistent; and they merely changed their maxims, that they might

preserve their principles. Like every corporation, which has ever

existed, whether spiritual or temporal, their supreme and paramount

principle was to maintain their own power. Whether or not this is a good

principle, is another matter; but all history proves that it is an

universal one. And when the leaders of the Scotch Church found that it

was at stake, and that the question at issue was, who should possess

authority, they, with perfect consistency, abandoned opinions that they

had formerly held, because they now perceived that those opinions were

unfavourable to their existence as an independent body.

[231] As Calderwood triumphantly says, 'the office of bishops was

damned.' _History of the Kirk_, vol. iii. p. 469. 'Their whole

estat, both the spirituall and civill part, was damned.' p. 526.

James Melville (_Autobiography_, p. 52) says that, in consequence

of this achievement, his uncle Andrew 'gatt the nam of [Greek:

episkopomastix], _Episcoporum exactor_, the flinger out of

Bischopes.'

[232] Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. vi. p. 302) observes that,

while 'the great body of the burghers, and middle and lower

classes of the people,' were Presbyterians, 'a large proportion of

the nobility supported episcopacy.' Instead of 'a large

proportion,' he would not have been far wrong, if he had said

'all.' Indeed, 'Melville himself says the whole peerage was

against him.' _Stephen's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol.

i. p. 269. Forbes ascribes the aristocratic movement against

presbytery to 'godles atheists,' who insisted 'that there could be

nothing so contrair to the nature of a monarchie,' &c., 'than that

paritie of authoritie in pastours.' _Forbes_, _Certaine Records

touching the Estate of the Kirk_, p. 349, edit. Wodrow Society.

See also p. 355. 'That Democratie (as they called it) whilk

allwayes behoved to be full of sedition and troubble to ane

Aristocratie, and so in end to a Monarchie.' The reader will

observe this important change in the attitude of classes in

Scotland. Formerly, the clergy had been the allies of the crown

against the nobles. Now, the nobles allied themselves with the

crown against the clergy. The clergy, in self-defence, had to ally

themselves with the people.

[233] On the difference between the two productions, there are some

remarks worth looking at, in _Argyll's Presbytery Examined_, 1848,

pp. 38-43. But this writer, though much freer from prejudice than

most Presbyterian authors, is unwilling to admit how completely

the Second Book of Discipline contradicts the First.

[234] By the Scotch episcopalians.

When the First Book of Discipline appeared, in 1560, the government was

in the hands of the nobles, who had just fought on the side of the

Protestant preachers, and were ready to fight again on their side. When

the Second Book of Discipline appeared, in 1578, the government was still

held by the nobles; but those ambitious men had now thrown off the mask,

and, having effected their purpose in destroying the old hierarchy, had

actually turned round, and attacked the new one. The circumstances having

changed, the Church changed with them; but in the change there was

nothing inconsistent. On the contrary, it would have been the height of

inconsistency for the ministers to have retained their former notions of

obedience and of subordination; and it was perfectly natural that, at

this crisis, they should advocate the democratic idea of equality, just

as before they had advanced the aristocratic idea of inequality.

Hence it was, that, in their First Book of Discipline, they established a

regularly ascending hierarchy, according to which the general clergy owed

obedience to their ecclesiastical superiors, to whom the name of

superintendents was given.[235] But, in the Second Book of Discipline,

every vestige of this was swept away; and it was laid down in the

broadest terms, that all the preachers being fellow-labourers, all were

equal in power; that none had authority over others; and that, to claim

such authority, or to assert preëminence, was a contrivance of man, not

to be permitted in a divinely constituted Church.[236]

[235] See the _First Book of Discipline_, reprinted in the first volume

of _A Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland_, 2d edit.,

Edinburgh, 1837. The superintendents were 'to set, order, and

appoint ministers,' p. 61; and it would seem (p. 88) that no

minister could be deposed without the consent of his

superintendent; but this could hardly be intended to interfere

with the supreme authority of the General Assembly. See also the

summary, p. 114, where it is said of the superintendents, that 'in

thair visitatioun thei sal not onlie preiche, but als examine the

doctrine, life, diligence, and behavior of the ministeris,

reideris, elderis, and deaconis.' According to Spottiswoode

(_History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 167), 'the

superintendents held their office during life, and their power was

episcopal; for they did elect and ordain ministers, they presided

in synods, and directed all church censures, neither was any

excommunication pronounced without their warrant.' See further, on

their authority, _Knox's History of the Reformation_, vol. ii. p.

161. 'That punyschment suld be appointed for suche as dissobeyid

or contemned the superintendentes in thair functioun.' This was in

1561; and, in 1562, 'It was ordained, that if ministers be

disobedient to superintendents in anything belonging to

edification, they must be subject to correction.' _Acts of the

General Assemblies of the Kirk_, vol. i. p. 14. Compare p. 131:

'sick things as superintendents may and aught decyde in their

synodall conventiouns.'

[236] 'For albeit the Kirk of God be rewlit and governit be Jesus Christ,

who is the onlie King, hie Priest, and Heid thereof, yit he useis

the ministry of men, as the most necessar middis for this

purpose.' ... 'And to take away all occasion of tyrannie, he

willis that they sould rewl with mutuall consent of brether and

_equality of power_, every one according to thair functiones.'

_Second Book of Discipline_, in _A Compendium of the Laws of the

Church of Scotland_, vol. i. pp. 126, 127. 'As to Bischops, if the

name [Greek: episkopos] be properly taken, _they ar all ane with

the ministers_, as befoir was declairit. For it is _not a name of

superioritie and lordschip_, bot of office and watching.' p. 142.

To understand the full meaning of this, it should be mentioned,

that the superintendents, established by the Kirk in 1560, not

unfrequently assumed the title of 'Lordship,' as an ornament to

the extensive powers conferred upon them. See, for instance, the

notes to _Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers of

the Church of Scotland_, vol. i. part ii. p. 461. But, in the

Second Book of Discipline, in 1578, the superintendents are, if I

rightly remember, not even once named.

The government, as may be supposed, took a very different view. Such

doctrines were deemed, by the upper classes, to be anti-social, and to be

subversive of all order.[237] So far from sanctioning them, they

resolved, if possible, to overthrow them; and, the year after the General

Assembly had abolished episcopacy, it was determined that, upon that very

point, a trial of strength should be made between the two parties.

[237] Just as in England, we find that the upper classes are mostly

Episcopalians; their minds being influenced, often unconsciously,

by the, to them, pleasing spectacle of an inequality of rank,

which is conventional, and does not depend upon ability. On the

other hand, the strength of the Dissenters lies among the middle

and lower classes, where energy and intellect are held in higher

respect, and where a contempt naturally arises for a system,

which, at the mere will of the sovereign or minister of the day,

concedes titles and wealth to persons whom nature did not intend

for greatness, but who, to the surprise of their contemporaries,

have greatness thrust upon them. On this difference of opinion in

Scotland, corresponding to the difference of social position, see

the remarks on the seventeenth century, in _Hume's Commentaries on

the Law of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 544, Edinburgh, 1797, 4to.

In 1581, Robert Montgomery was appointed archbishop of Glasgow. The

ministers who composed the chapter of Glasgow refused to elect him;

whereupon the Privy Council declared that the King, by virtue of his

prerogative, had the right of nomination.[238] All was now confusion and

uproar. The General Assembly forbad the archbishop to enter

Glasgow.[239] He refused to obey their order, and threw himself upon the

support of the Duke of Lennox, who had obtained the appointment for him,

and to whom he, in return, had surrendered nearly all the revenues of the

see, reserving for himself only a small stipend.[240] This was a custom

which had grown up within the last few years, and was one of many

contrivances by which the nobles plundered the Church of her

property.[241]

[238] Record of Privy Council, in _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. i.

p. 267. 'The brethrein of Glasgow were charged, under paine of

horning, to admitt Mr. Robert Montgomrie.' _Calderwood's History

of the Kirk_, vol. iii. p. 596.

[239] 'Charges the said Mr. Robert to continue in the ministrie of the

Kirk of Striveling,' &c. _Acts of the General Assemblies_, vol.

ii. p. 547. This was in October 1581; the Record of the Privy

Council was in April 1582. Moysie, who was a contemporary, says

that, in March 1581, 2, not only the dean and chapter, but all the

clergy (the 'haill ministrie') declared from the pulpit that

Montgomery's appointment 'had the warrand of the deuill and not of

the word of God, bot wes damnit thairby.' _Moysie's Memoirs_,

Edinburgh, 1830, 4to, p. 36.

[240] 'The title whereof the said duke had procured to him, that he,

having the name of bishop, and eight hundred merks money for his

living and sustentatioun, the whole rents, and other duteis of the

said benefice, might come to the duke's utilitie and behove.'

_Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. iv. p. 111. See also p.

401.

[241] _Scot's Apologetical Narration of the State of the Kirk_, pp. 24,

25. _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. iii. p. 302.

_Wodrow's Collections upon the Lives of the Reformers_, vol. i.

part i. p. 206. _Lyon's History of St. Andrews_, vol. i. p. 379.

_Gibson's History of Glasgow_, p. 59. _Hume's History of the House

of Douglas_, vol. ii. pp. 216, 217. _Chalmers' Caledonia_,

vol. iii. p. 624.

This, however, was not the question now at issue.[242] The point to be

decided was one, not of revenue, but of power. For the clergy knew full

well, that if they established their power, the revenue would quickly

follow. They, therefore, adopted the most energetic proceedings. In April

1582, the General Assembly met at St. Andrews, and appointed Melville as

Moderator.[243] The government, fearing the worst, ordered the members,

on pain of rebellion, to take no steps respecting the archbishopric.[244]

But the representatives of the Church were undaunted. They summoned

Montgomery before them; they ratified the sentence by which he had been

suspended from the ministry; and they declared that he had incurred the

penalties of despotism and of excommunication.[245]

[242] 'But the Church passing this point' (_i.e._ the simony) 'made

quarrel to him for accepting the bishopric.' _Spottiswoode's

History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 282.

[243] _Acts of the General Assemblies of the Kirk_, vol. ii. p. 548.

[244] 'A messenger-at-arms entered the house, and charged the moderator

and members of the assembly, on the pain of rebellion, to desist

from the process.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. i. p. 268.

[245] 'The Assemblie and brether present, after voteing in the said

matter, depryvit the said Mr. Robert from all functioun of the

Ministrie in the Kirk of God, dureing the will of the Kirk of God;

and farther, descernit the fearefull sentence of excommunicatioun

to be pronuncit against him in the face of the haill Assemblie, be

the voyce and mouth of the Moderatour present; to the effect,

that, _his proud flesh being cast into the hands of Satan_, he may

be win againe, if it be possible, to God; and the said sentence

(to) be intimat be every particular minister, at his awin

particular kirk, solemnelie in the first sermoun to be made be

them, after thair returning.' _Acts of the General Assemblies of

the Kirk_, vol. ii. p. 562.

A sentence of excommunication was, in those days, so ruinous, that

Montgomery was struck with terror at the prospect before him. To avoid

the consequences, he appeared before the Assembly, and solemnly promised

that he would make no further attempt to possess himself of the

archbishopric.[246] By doing this, he probably saved his life; for the

people, siding with their clergy, were ripe for mischief, and were

determined, at all hazards, to maintain what they considered to be the

rights of the Church, in opposition to the encroachments of the State.

[246] _Ibid._, vol. ii. p. 565. Calderwood (_History of the Kirk_,

vol. iii. p. 604) says, 'After long reluctatioun, at lenth he

condescended.'

The government, on the other hand, was equally resolute.[247] The Privy

Council called several of the ministers before them; and Dury, one of the

most active, they banished from Edinburgh.[248] Measures still more

violent were about to be taken, when they were interrupted by one of

those singular events which not unfrequently occurred in Scotland, and

which strikingly evince the inherent weakness of the Crown,

notwithstanding the inordinate pretensions it commonly assumed.

[247] M'Crie (_Life of Melville_, vol. i. p. 274) says, 'In all these

contendings, the ministers had no countenance or support from any

of the nobility.' It would have been strange if they had, seeing

that the whole movement was essentially democratic.

[248] Melville's _Autobiography_, p. 129. _Calderwood's History of the

Kirk_, vol. iii. p. 620. _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. i.

p. 270.

This was the Raid of Ruthven, which happened in 1582, and in consequence

of which the person of James VI. was held in durance for ten months.[249]

The clergy, true to the policy which now governed them, loudly approved

of the captivity of the king, and pronounced it to be a godly act.[250]

Dury, who had been driven from his pulpit, was brought back to the

capital in triumph;[251] and the General Assembly, meeting at Edinburgh,

ordered that the imprisonment of James should be justified by every

minister to his own congregation.[252]

[249] He was seized in August 1582, and was let loose again in June 1583.

_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vi. pp. 321, 360. It is a

pity that this valuable, and really able, work should be so

superficial in regard to the ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland.

Mr. Tytler appears not to have studied at all the proceedings of

the presbyteries, or even of the General Assemblies; neither does

he display any acquaintance with the theological literature of his

country. And yet, from the year 1560 to about 1700, these sources

disclose more of the genuine history of the Scotch people than all

other sources put together.

[250] 'The pulpit resounded with applauses of the godly deed.' _Arnot's

History of Edinburgh_, p. 37.

[251] 'As he is comming from Leith to Edinburgh, upon Tuisday the 4th of

September, there mett him at the Gallow Greene two hundreth men of

the inhabitants of Edinburgh. Their number still increased, till

he came within the Neather Bow. There they beganne to sing the 124

Psalme, "Now may Israel say," &c, and sang in foure parts, knowne

to the most part of the people. They came up the street till they

came to the Great Kirk, singing thus all the way, to the number of

two thowsand. They were muche moved themselves, and so were all

the beholders. The duke was astonished, and more affrayed at that

sight than at anie thing that ever he had seene before in

Scotland, and rave his beard for anger.' _Calderwood's History of

the Kirk_, vol. iii. pp. 646, 647.

[252] _Acts of the General Assemblies_, vol. ii. pp. 595, 596. This was

ordered by the General Assembly which met at Edinburgh on the 9th

of October 1582, p. 585. See also _Watson's Historicall

Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland_, p. 192,

'requiring the ministers in all their churches to commend it unto

the people.'

In 1583, the king recovered his liberty, and the struggle became more

deadly than ever; the passions of both parties being exasperated by the

injuries each had inflicted on the other. The Ruthven conspiracy, having

been declared treason, as it undoubtedly was, Dury preached in its

favour, and openly defended it; and although, under the influence of

momentary fear, he afterwards withdrew what he had said,[253] it was

evident, from other circumstances, that his feelings were shared by his

brethren.[254] A number of them being summoned before the king for their

seditious language, bad him take heed what he was about, and reminded him

that no occupant of the throne had ever prospered after the ministers had

begun to threaten him.[255] Melville, who exercised immense influence

over both clergy and people, bearded the king to his face, refused to

account for what he had delivered in the pulpit, and told James that he

perverted the laws both of God and of man.[256] Simpson likened him to

Cain, and warned him to beware of the wrath of God.[257] Indeed, the

spirit now displayed by the Church was so implacable, that it seemed to

delight in venting itself in the most repulsive manner. In 1585, a

clergyman, named Gibson, in a sermon which he preached in Edinburgh,

denounced against the king the curse of Jeroboam, that he should die

childless, and that his race should end with him.[258] The year after

this happened, James, finding that Elizabeth was evidently determined to

take his mother's life, bethought him of what was valued in that age as

an unfailing resource, and desired the clergy to offer up prayers on

behalf of Mary. This, they almost unanimously refused.[259] And not only

did they abstain from supplication themselves, but they resolved that no

one else should do what they had declined. The archbishop of Saint

Andrews being about to officiate before the king, they induced a certain

John Cowper to station himself in the pulpit beforehand, so as to exclude

the prelate. Nor was it until the captain of the guard threatened to pull

Cowper from the place he had usurped, that the service could go on, and

the king be allowed to hear his own mother prayed for, in this sad crisis

of her fate, when it was still uncertain whether she would be publicly

executed, or whether, as was more generally believed, she would be

secretly poisoned.[260]

[253] _Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii.

p. 308.

[254] James, after his escape, 'convocat all his peaceabill Prelatis and

Nobles, and thair he notefeit unto thayme the greif that he

consavit of his unlaughfull detentioun the yeir bygayne, and

tharefore desyrit thame to acknawlege the same; and thay be thair

generall voittis decernit the rayd of Ruthven to be manifest

treasoun. The Ministers on the uther part, perswadit the people

that it was a godly fact, and that whasoever wald not allow

thareof in his hart, was not worthie to be estemit a Christien.'

_The Historie of King James the Sext_, p. 202, published by the

Bannatyne Club, Edinburgh, 1825, 4to.

[255] 'Disregard not our threatening; for there was never one yet in this

realm, in the place where your grace is, who prospered after the

ministers began to threaten him.' _Tytler's History of Scotland_,

vol. vi. p. 364. See also, in _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_,

vol. v. pp. 540, 541, a letter from one of the clergy in Fife,

addressed to the king, in 1597. 'And now, Sir, lett me be free

with you in writting other men's reports, and that of the wisest

politicians. They say, our bygane historeis report, and experience

teacheth, that _raro et fere nunquam_ has a king and a prince

continued long together in this realme; for _Filius ante diem

patrios inquirit in annos_. And they say, Sir, farther, that

whatsoever they were of your Majestie's predecessors in

governement that oppouned themselves directlie or indirectlie to

God's ordinance in his Kirk, it has beene their wracke and

subversioun in the end. I might herein be more particular; but I

leave it to your Majestie's owne grave and modest consideratioun,

for it concerneth you most neere.'

[256] 'Saying, "He perverted the laws both of God and man."'

_Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii.

p. 309. Also _Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vi. p. 371.

[257] 'Mr. Patrick Simson, preaching before the king upon Gen. iv. 9,

"The Lord said to Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother?" said to the

king, before the congregation, "Sir, I assure you, in God's name,

the Lord will ask at you where is the Earl of Moray, your

brother?" The king replyed, before all the congregation, "Mr.

Patrik, my chalmer doore wes never steeked upon you: ye might have

told me anything ye thought in secret." He replyed, "Sir, the

scandall is publict."' _Row's History of the Kirk_, p. 144.

'Having occasion, _anno_ 1593, to preach before the king, he

publicly exhorted him to beware that he drew not the wrath of God

upon himself in patronizing a manifest breach of divine laws.'

_Howie's Biographia Scoticana_, p. 120.

[258] 'Saying, "That Captain James, with his lady Jesabel, and William

Stewart (meaning the colonel), were taken to be the persecutors of

the Church; but that now it was seen to be the king himself,

against whom he denounced the curse that fell on Jeroboam--that he

would die childless, and be the last of his race."'

_Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii.

p. 335.

[259] 'The king, perceiving by all these letters, that the death of his

mother was determined, called back his ambassadors, and at home

gave order to the ministers to remember her in their public

prayers, which they denied to do.' ... 'Upon their denial, charges

were directed to command all bishops, ministers, and other

office-bearers in the Church to make mention of her distress in

their public prayers, and commend her to God in the form

appointed. But of all the number only Mr. David Lindsay at Leith

and the king's own ministers gave obedience.' _Spottiswoode's

History of the Church_, vol. ii. pp. 355, 356. 'They, with only

one exception, refused to comply.' _Russell's History of the

Church in Scotland_, vol. ii. p. 23. Compare _Watson's Historicall

Collections of Ecclesiastick Affairs in Scotland_, p. 208; and

_Historie of James the Sext_, p. 225.

[260] 'They stirred up Mr. John Cowper, a young man not entered as yet in

the function, to take the pulpit before the time, and exclude the

bishop. The king coming at the hour appointed, and seeing him in

the place, called to him from his seat, and said, "Mr. John, that

place is destined for another; yet since you are there, if you

will obey the charge that is given, and remember my mother in your

prayers, you shall go on." He replying, "that he would do as the

Spirit of God should direct him," was commanded to leave the

place: and making as though he would stay, the captain of the

guard went to pull him out; whereupon he burst forth in these

speeches: "This day shall be a witness against the king in the

great day of the Lord:" and then denouncing a wo to the

inhabitants of Edinburgh, he went down, and the bishop of St.

Andrews entering the pulpit did perform the duty required.'

_Spottiswoode's History of the Church of Scotland_, vol. ii. p.

356. 'The Kingis Majestie, to testifie his earnest and naturall

affection to his mother, causit pray for hir oppinly efter him

selff; quhairvpone arrose a great dissensioun betuix sum of the

ministrie and his Majestie, namely the ministrie of Edinburgh.

Quhairvpone the king appoynted Patrik, archbischop of St. Androis

to teache, bot he wes preuented be Mr. John Covpar minister, quho

come befoir and filled the pulpit. And as the said Mr. John wes

beginnand the prayer, the Kingis Majestie commandit him to stay:

so as Mr. John raschit michtely vpone the pulpit, saying, "This

day sail bear witnes aganis yow in the day of the lord: woe be to

ye Edinburgh, for the last of xi plaiges salbe the worst."'

_Moysie's Memoirs_, p. 59.

In 1594, John Ross stated in the pulpit, that the advisers of the king

were all traitors, and that the king himself was likewise a traitor. He

was also a rebel and a reprobate. That such should be the case, was not

surprising, considering the parentage of James. For, his mother was a

Guise, and a persecutor of the saints. He avoided open persecution, and

spoke them fair; but his deeds did not correspond to his words; and, so

great was his dissimulation, that he was the most arrant hypocrite then

living in Scotland.[261]

[261] See _The Historie of King James the Sext_, pp. 316-318, from 'a

just copie of his sermon' supplied by Ross himself. 'His text was

upon the 6 chapter of the Prophet Jeremias, verse 28. "Brethren,

we have manie, and almaist innumerable enormiteis in this cuntrie

to be lamentit, as the misgovernement of our king be sinistrous

counsall of sum particular men. They ar all rebellious traitors,

evin the king the maist singular person, and particularlie everie

estait of the land." ... "Our king in sindrie poyntis hes bene

rebellious aganis the Majestie of God." ... "To this howre, we gat

never gude of the Guysien blude, for Queyne Marie his mother was

an oppin persecutor of the sanctis of God, and althoght the king

be not an oppin persecutor, we have had many of his fayre wordis,

wharein he is myghtie aneugh, bot for his gude deiddis, I commend

me to thayme." ... "Admit, that our king be a Christien king, yit

but amen dement, he is a reprobat king. Of all the men in this

nation, the king himself is the maist fynest, and maist

dissembling hypocreit."' A very short notice of this sermon is

given by Calderwood (_History of the Kirk_, vol. v. p. 299), who

probably had not seen the original notes.

In 1596, David Black, one of the most influential of the Protestant

ministers, delivered a sermon, which made much noise. He said, in his

discourse, that all kings were children of the devil; but that in

Scotland the head of the court was Satan himself. The members of the

council, he added, were cormorants, and the lords of the session

miscreants. The nobility had degenerated: they were godless; they were

dissemblers; they were the enemies of the Church. As to the queen of

England, she was nothing but an atheist. And as to the queen of Scotland,

all he would say was, that they might pray for her if they list, and

because it was the fashion to do so; but that there was no reason for

it, inasmuch as no good would ever come from her to them.[262]

[262] The accusation, which was fully proved, was, that 'he had

publictlie sayd in pulpit, that the papist erles wes come home be

the kingis knavledge and consent, quhairin his Hienes treacherie

wes detectit; that all kingis war deuilis and come of deuilis;

that the deuill wes the head of the court and in the court; that

he pray it for the Queine of Scotland for the faschione, because

he saw na appearance of guid in hir tyme,' _Moysie's Memoirs_, p.

128. 'Having been heard to affirm, that the popish lords had

returned into the country by the king's permission, and that

thereby the king had discovered the "treacherous hypocrisy of his

heart" that "all kings were the devil's bairns, and that the devil

was in the court, and the guiders of it." He was proved to have

used in his prayer these indecent words, when speaking of the

queen, "We must pray for her for fashion's sake; but we might as

well not, for she will never do us any good," He called the queen

of England an atheist, and the Lords of Session _bribers_; and

said that the nobility at large "were degenerate, godless,

dissemblers, and enemies to the church."' _Grierson's History of

Saint Andrews_, p. 30, Cupar, 1838. Among the charges against him

were, 'Fourthly, that he had called the queen of England an

atheist. Fifthly, that he had discussed a suspension granted by

the lords of session in pulpit, and called them miscreants and

bribers. Sixthly, that, speaking of the nobility, he said they

were "degenerated, godless, dissemblers, and enemies to the

church." Likewise, speaking of the council, that he had called

them "holiglasses, cormorants, and men of no religion."'

_Spottiswoode's History of the Church_, vol. iii. p. 21.

For preaching this sermon, Black was summoned by the privy-council. He

refused to attend, because it was for a spiritual tribunal, and not for a

temporal one, to take notice of what was uttered in the pulpit. The

Church, to be sure, he would obey; but, having received his message from

God, he was bound to deliver it, and it would be a dereliction of duty,

if he were to allow the civil power to judge such matters.[263] The

king, greatly enraged, ordered Black to be cast into prison; and it is

difficult to see what other course was open to him; though it was certain

that neither this, nor any measure he could adopt, would tame the

indomitable spirit of the Scotch Church.[264]

[263] See the original papers on 'The Declinatour of the King and

Counsel's Judicatour in Maters Spirituall, namelie in Preaching of

the Word,' in _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v. pp.

457-459, 475-480. Tytler (_History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp.

326-332) has given extracts from them, and made some remarks on

their obvious tendency. See also on the Declinature of

Jurisdiction claimed by the Scotch Church, _Hallam's

Constitutional History_, 4th edit. 1842, vol. ii. p. 461; and

_Mackenzie's Laws and Customs of Scotland in Matters Criminal_,

Edinburgh, 1699, folio, pp. 181, 182.

[264] M'Crie, in his _Life of Melville_, vol. ii. pp. 70 seq., has given

an account of the punishment of Black, but, as usual, conceals the

provocation; or, at least, softens it down until it hardly becomes

a provocation. According to him, 'David Black had been served with

a summons to answer before the privy council for certain

expressions used by him in his sermons.' Certain expressions,

indeed! But why name the penalty, and suppress the offence? This

learned writer knew perfectly well what Black had done, and yet

all the information bestowed on the reader is a note at p. 72,

containing a mutilated extract from Spottiswoode.

In December the same year, the Church proclaimed a fast; and Welsh

preached in Edinburgh a sermon, with the view of rousing the people

against their rulers. The king, he told his audience, had formerly been

possessed by a devil, and that devil being put out, seven worse ones had

come in its place. It was, therefore, evident that James was demented,

and it became lawful to take the sword of justice from his hands; just as

it would be lawful for servants or children to seize the head of their

family, if it had pleased heaven to afflict him with madness. In such

case, the preacher observed, it would be right to lay hold of the madman,

and to tie him hand and foot, that he might do no further harm.[265]

[265] 'Saying, "He was possessed with a devil; that one devil being put

out, seven worse were entered in place; and that the subjects

might lawfully rise, and take the sword out of his hand:" which he

confirmed by the example of a father that falling into a frenzy,

might be taken by the children and servants of the family, and

tied hand and foot from doing violence.' _Spottiswoode's History

of the Church of Scotland_, vol. iii. p. 34. See also _Arnot's

History of Edinburgh_, pp. 46, 47.

The hatred felt by the clergy was at this period so bitter, and the

democratic spirit in them so strong,[266] that they seemed unable to

restrain themselves; and Andrew Melville, in an audience with the king,

in 1596, proceeded to personal insults, and, seizing him by the sleeve,

called him God's silly vassal.[267] The large amount of truth contained

in this bitter taunt, increased its pungency. But the ministers did not

always confine themselves to words.[268] Their participation in the

Ruthven conspiracy is unquestionable; and it is probable that they were

privy to the last great peril to which James was exposed, before he

escaped from that turbulent land, which he was believed to govern.

Certain it is, that the Earl of Gowrie, who, in 1600, entrapped the king

into his castle in order to murder him, was the hope and the mainstay of

the Presbyterian clergy, and was intimately associated with their

ambitious schemes.[269] Such, indeed, was their infatuation on behalf of

the assassin, that, when his conspiracy was defeated, and he himself

slain, several of the ministers propagated a report that Gowrie had

fallen a victim to the royal perfidy, and that, in point of fact, the

only plot which ever existed was one concocted by the king, with fatal

art, against his mild and innocent host.[270]

[266] This did not escape the attention of the English government; and

Elizabeth, who was remarkably well informed respecting Scotch

affairs, wrote to James, in 1590, a warning, which was hardly

necessary, but which must have added to his fears. 'And lest fayre

semblance, that easely may begile, do not brede your ignorance of

suche persons as ether pretend religion or dissemble deuotion, let

me warne you that ther is risen, bothe in your realme and myne, a

secte of perilous consequence, suche as wold have no kings but a

presbitrye, and take our place while the inioy our privilege, with

a shade of Godes word, wiche none is juged to folow right without

by ther censure the be so demed. Yea, looke we wel unto them.'

_Letters of Elizabeth and James VI._, edited by John Bruce, Camden

Society, 1849, 4to, p. 63.

[267] The Reverend James Melville, who was present at the scene,

describes it with exuberant delight. 'To the quhilk, I beginning

to reply, in my maner, Mr. Andro doucht nocht abyd it, bot brak af

upon the king in sa zealus, powerfull, and unresistable a maner,

that whowbeit the king used his authoritie in maist crabbit and

colerik maner, yit Mr. Andro bure him down, and outtered the

Commission as from the mightie God, calling the king bot "God's

sillie vassall:" and taking him be the sleive,' &c. _Autobiography

and Diary of James Melvill_, p. 370. See also _Shields' Hind let

loose_, 1687, p. 52; and _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. ii.

p. 66.

[268] In 1593, 4, some of them formed a plot to seize him. See the

evidence from the State-paper Office, in _Tytler's History of

Scotland_, vol. vii. p. 249, edit. Edinburgh, 1845.

[269] 'He was the darling hope of the Presbyterian party.' _Ibid._,

vol. vii. p. 410.

[270] 'Gowry's conspiracy was by them charged on the king, as a

contrivance of his to get rid of that earl.' _Burnet's History of

his own Time_, edit. Oxford, 1823, vol. i. p. 31. See also

_Tytler's History of Scotland_, vol. vii. pp. 439, 440; and on the

diffusion of 'this absurd hallucination,' see The _Spottiswoode

Miscellany_, vol. ii. p. 320, Edinburgh, 1845.

An absurdity of this sort[271] was easily believed in an ignorant, and,

therefore, a credulous, age. That the clergy should have propagated it,

and that in this, as in many other cases, they should have laboured with

malignant industry to defame the character of their prince,[272] will

astonish no one who knows how quickly the wrath of the Church can be

roused, and how ready the spiritual classes always are to cover, even

with the foulest calumny, those who stand in their way. The evidence

which has been collected, proves that the Presbyterian ministers carried

their violence against the constituted authorities of the state, to an

indecent, if not to a criminal, length; and we cannot absolve them from

the charge of being a restless and unscrupulous body, greedy after power,

and grossly intolerant of whatever opposed their own views. Still, the

real cause of their conduct was, the spirit of their age, and the

peculiarities of their position. None of us can be sure that, if we were

placed exactly as they were placed, we should have acted differently.

Now, indeed, we cannot read of their proceedings, as they are recorded in

their own Assemblies, and by the historians of their own Church, without

an uneasy feeling of dislike, I had almost said of disgust, at finding

ourselves in presence of so much of superstition, of chicanery, of low,

sordid arts, and yet, withal, of arrogant and unbridled insolence. The

truth, however, is, that in Scotland, the age was evil, and the evil

rose to the surface. The times were out of joint, and it was hard to set

them right. The long prevalence of anarchy, of ignorance, of poverty, of

force, of fraud, of domestic tumult, and of foreign invasion, had reduced

Scotland to a state which is scarcely possible for us to realize.

Hereafter, I shall give some evidence of the effect which this produced

on the national character, and of the serious mischief which it wrought.

In the mean time, we should, in fairness to the Scotch clergy, admit that

the condition of their country affords the best explanation of their

conduct. Everything around them was low and coarse; the habits of men, in

their daily life, were violent, brutal, and utterly regardless of common

decency; and, as a natural consequence, the standard of human actions was

so depressed, that upright and well-meaning persons did not shrink from

doing what to us, in our advanced state of society, seems incredible. Let

us, then, not be too rash in this matter. Let us not be too forward in

censuring the leading actors in that great crisis through which Scotland

passed, during the latter half of the sixteenth century. Much they did,

which excites our strongest aversion. But one thing they achieved, which

should make us honour their memory, and repute them benefactors of their

species. At a most hazardous moment, they kept alive the spirit of

national liberty.[273] What the nobles and the crown had put in peril,

that did the clergy save. By their care, the dying spark was kindled into

a blaze. When the light grew dim, and flickered on the altar, their hands

trimmed the lamp, and fed the sacred flame. This is their real glory, and

on this they may well repose. They were the guardians of Scotch freedom,

and they stood to their post. Where danger was, they were foremost. By

their sermons, by their conduct, both public and private, by the

proceedings of their Assemblies, by their bold and frequent attacks upon

persons, without regard to their rank, nay, even by the very insolence

with which they treated their superiors, they stirred up the minds of

men, woke them from their lethargy, formed them to habits of discussion,

and excited that inquisitive and democratic spirit, which is the only

effectual guarantee the people can ever possess against the tyranny of

those who are set over them. This was the work of the Scotch clergy; and

all hail to them who did it. It was they who taught their countrymen to

scrutinize, with a fearless eye, the policy of their rulers. It was they

who pointed the finger of scorn at kings and nobles, and laid bare the

hollowness of their pretensions. They ridiculed their claims, and jeered

at their mysteries. They tore the veil, and exposed the tricks of the

scene which lay behind. The great ones of the earth, they covered with

contempt; and those who were above them, they cast down. Herein, they did

a deed which should compensate for all their offences, even were their

offences ten times as great. By discountenancing that pernicious and

degrading respect which men are too apt to pay to those whom accident,

and not merit, has raised above them, they facilitated the growth of a

proud and sturdy independence, which was sure to do good service at a

time of need. And that time came quicker than any one had expected.

Within a very few years, James became master of the resources of England,

and attempted, by their aid, to subvert the liberties of Scotland. The

shameful enterprise, which he began, was continued by his cruel and

superstitious son. How their attempts failed; how Charles I., in the

effort, shipwrecked his fortune, and provoked a rebellion, which brought

to the scaffold that great criminal, who dared to conspire against the

people, and who, as the common enemy and oppressor of all, was at length

visited with the just punishment of his sins, is known to every reader of

our history. It is also well known, that, in conducting the struggle, the

English were greatly indebted to the Scotch, who had, moreover, the merit

of being the first to lift their hand against the tyrant. What, however,

is less known, but is undoubtedly true, is, that both nations owe a debt

they can never repay to those bold men who, during the latter part of the

sixteenth century, disseminated, from their pulpits and Assemblies,

sentiments which the people cherished in their hearts, and which, at a

fitting moment, they reproduced, to the dismay, and eventually to the

destruction, of those who threatened their liberties.

[271] See a good note in _Pitcairn's Criminal Trials in Scotland_,

vol. ii. p. 179, Edinburgh, 1833, 4to. Compare _Lawson's Book of

Perth_, Edinburgh, 1847, p. xxxix.

[272] Their language, and their general bearing, so enraged James, as to

extort from him a passionate declaration, in 1592, that 'it would

not be weill till noblemen and gentlemen gott licence to breake

ministers' heads.' _Calderwood's History of the Kirk_, vol. v.

p. 148.

[273] 'At the period of which we speak' (about the year 1584) 'the

pulpit was, in fact, the only organ by which public opinion was,

or could be, expressed; and the ecclesiastical courts were the

only assemblies in the nation which possessed anything that was

entitled to the name of liberty or independence. Parliament had

its business prepared to its hand, and laid before it in the shape

of acts which required only its assent. Discussion and freedom of

speech were unknown in its meetings. The courts of justice were

dependent on the will of the sovereign, and frequently had their

proceedings regulated, and their decisions dictated, by letters or

messages from the throne. It was the preachers who first taught

the people to express an opinion on the conduct of their rulers;

and the assemblies of the Church set the earliest example of a

regular and firm opposition to the arbitrary and unconstitutional

measures of the court.' _M'Crie's Life of Melville_, vol. i.

p. 302.