ii F£B2 2]y7] BX 9070 .B76 1891 Brown, Thomas, 1811-1893. Church and state in Scotlanq r FEB 2 2 1971 4. :hurch and state in Scotland A NARRATIVE OF THE STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE FROM 1560 TO 1843 XTbe Ubirt) Scries of Cbalmers Xectures BY The Rev. THOMAS BROWN, D.D., F.R.S.E. EDINBURGH (fbinburgk MACNIVEN & WALLACE IConbon: HODDER & STOUGHTON 1891 PRINTED AT THK EDINBlRciH I'KKSS, 9 AND II YOtJNCi STREET. EXTRACT FROM THE DEED INSTITUTINCx THE CHALMERS LECTURESHIP. (The Deed being dated 26tli May 1880.) "I, Robert Macfie, E.sq. of Airdsaud Oban, considering that I feel deeply interested in the maintenance of the principles of the Free Church of Scotland, have transferred . . . the sum of ^5000 sterling for the purpose of founding a Lectureship in memory of the late Thomas Chalmers, D.D., LL.D., under the following conditions : namely — 1. The Lectureship .shall ... be called The Chalmers Lectureship; 2. The Lecturer shall hold the appointment for four years, and shall be entitled ... to one- half of the income. ... 3. The subject shall be 'Headship of Christ over His Church, and its independent Spiritual Juris- diction ; ' 4. The Lecturer shall be bound to deliver publicly a Course of not fewer than si.\ Lectures ... in Edinburgh, in Glasgow, and in Aberdeen ; 5. The Lecturer shall be bound, within a year to print and publish at his own risk not fewer than 1500 copies . . . and deposit three copies in the libraries of the Free Church Colleges ; 6. One-half of the balance of the income . . . shall be laid out in furnishing with a coj^y all the Ministers and Missionaries of the Free Church " PREFACE. In the following Lectures two objects have been kept in view, namely : — First, to show that the conflict which ended in the Disruption had really been going on more or less prominently since the time of the Refor- mation. Secondly, to indicate (Lecture VL) the import- ance of the Voluntary Controversy in preparing for the events of 1843. This part of the subject has hitherto received less attention than it deserves. All through the History it will be seen how closely the principle of Spiritual Independence is connected with the cause of Civil Liberty, and still more with the interests of vital religion in the Church and in the country, Edinburgh, December 1891. CONTENTS LECTURE I. 1560-1567. PAGE Spiritual Independence defined ... 2 Confession of Faith in 1560 .... 5 First Book of Discipline .... 7 Christ the only Head of the Church . . .10 Power of Magistrates in regard to Religion . . 11 Royal Assent refused to the Reformation Acts . 13 Queen Mary returns to Scotland . . .16 The Queen and Knox . . . .21 The General Assembly challenged : Knox defends . 22 Civil Liberty ..... 25 Events of 1563: Mary's skill . . .29 Royal Assent evaded : Reformation Acts in Suspense . 30 The Church Independent . . .31 Freedom of the Pulpit . , . .35 Protestantism in danger . . . .36 Murder of Rizzio . . . . .37 Regency of Murray . . . . .38 Church Established . . .39 X CONTENTS. LECTURE 11. 1567-1592. PAGE Death of Regent Murray 48 Tulchan Bishops 49 Leith Convention .... 53 Andrew Melville and Regent iNIorton . 57 Second Book of Discipline 59 Case of Montgomery . 63 Melville saying " We Dare " . 67 Tiie Black Acts of 1584 71 Civil War ...... 73 Co-ordinate Jurisdiction 75 The King's Speech .... 77 The Great Act of 1592 81 LECTURE III. 1592-1649. Tlie Defects of the Act of 1592 The Two Kings and Two Kingdoms . Black of St. Andrews put on Trial Kingcraft of James Aberdeen Assembly . Welsh and his Friends tried for Treason The Five Articles of Perth Charles I., the Book of Canons The Liturgy — Alexander Henderson 85 87 89 92 94 96 99 103 105 CONTENTS. XI Signing the Covenant — Greyfriars Churchyard Glasgow Assembly, 1638 . . . . AVestminster Confession . . . . The Revival of Religion — Kirkton's Account Cor- roborated . . . . . PAGE 107 110 114 119 LECTURE IV. 1660-1690. Tlie Restoration — Charles II. Episcopacy Established Nearly 400 Ministers Expelled Persecution of 1666: Rullion Green . First Indulgence — its Failure Conventicles .... Second Indulgence — Blair of Galston's Refusal Highland Host iJrumclog Both well Bridge Eanark Declaration Apologetical Declaration Dunottar— The Whig's Vault Prince of Orange lands Why was the long Persecution endured 1 Civil Liberty — Loyalty to Christ Dying Testimonies The Revolution — Outed Ministers Restored 127 129 130 133 135 137 137 139 141 143 146 147 149 151 151 153 156 158 XU CONTENTS. LECTURE V. 1690-1800. PAGE Eevolution Settlement . . . .163 Its Defects 165 King William and the Church 167 A Collision avoided 169 Principal Carstares 171 Union with England . 173 Minor Collisions 175 Patronage Act 179 Moderatism — the Secession . 181 Riding Committees 183 Gillespie Deposed — Relief Secession 184 Call of the People made of no effect 186 Cases at Duns and Lanark 187 Violent Settlements . 189 Decay of Religion 192 Missions to the Heathen condemned 201 LECTURE VI. 1800-1843. Evangelical Party in the Majority, 1834 Rise of the Voluntary Controversy Church Extension Charge of Erastianism — Dr Marshall . 208 209 211 213 CONTENTS. Xlll Dr Inglis defends Establishments Dr Chalmers' London Lectures Eeply by Dr. Wardlaw Spiritual Independence essential Auchterarder Case Marnoch Chapel Act — Adverse Decisions Efforts to avert the Crisis The Disruption Our present Position . Union of Presbyterian Churches Spiritual Independence I'AGE 215 217 219 221 225 227 230 235 237 239 241 243 LECTURE I. 1560-1567. LECTURE I. 1560-1567. When I was asked to deliver this course of Lectures, I presume it was expected that the subject would be treated somewhat in the same way as in the Annals of the Disruption. I cer- tainly have no intention of again going over the ground so ably occupied by Sir Henry Moncrieff and Dr Wilson, In their hands the leg-al and Scriptural arguments for Spiritual Independence have been so fully stated as really not to admit of further discussion. But on the historical side it seems to me something remains to be said. Already during the Ten Years' Conflict the fact was amply proved that our Church had not only claimed all along to be spiritu- ally independent, but from time to time had made good her claim. The question, however, remained. What had been the practical value of this independence ? What power had it for 2 1560-1567. good ? We know how tenaciously our fathers held it and fought for it, and what a noble history in that respect it has. But our aim in these Lectures will be to show that all along spiritual independence has proved itself a power in the land, influencing and moulding the course of events. Only a rapid summary can here be attempted, but it may be enough to prove that this is no mere abstract theory. It is a living force, which has done much important work in the past, and which may yet have serious work to do in the future. It may be well at the outset to define what is meant by spiritual independence, a term which will often meet us in the course of these Lectures. When we speak, then, of the Church as spiritually independent, we mean that Christ as her Divine Head has given her authority to regulate her own spiritual affairs in obedience to His revealed will. In doing this, she must be free from State — or any other — control ; Christ is her only King and Head ; His will she must obey, and His crown rights she is bound to maintain. Now, in our Scottish Church History there are six well-marked periods, in each of which PERIODS OF THE HISTORY. 3 there is for this principle a time of struggle, followed by a time of success. 1. The earliest of these is the period of seven years under Queen Mary from 1560 to 1567, ending under the regency of the Earl of Murray. 2. There is the conflict with Regent Morton and Kino^ James, endins; in the great Act of 1592, the charter of the Church. 3. There are the forty-six years of worse con- flict, from 1592 to 1638, ending in the second Reformation. 4. There are the twenty-eight years of perse- cution, from 1660 to 1688, ending in the Revolution settlement. 5. There is the long reign of Moderatism, ending in 1834, when the Evangelical party in the Church rose into the ascen- dant. 6. There is the Ten Years' Conflict, ending in 1843. In each of these the principle of the Free Church may be studied, first in conflict, and then in victory. Even the Ten Years ' Conflict had 4 1560-1567. in one sense its success, destined in its ultimate results, I believe, to be the greatest of all. { We begin with the Eeformation period in the days of Queen Mar}^ and John Knox. The romantic and tragic events of that time I in Scotland have an undying interest for the whole civilised world. With the lapse of years, indeed, the story of Queen Mary's life seems more than ever to fascinate the minds of men. The exciting incidents of her history, however, we must leave almost wholly out of view, our object being simply to show the relation in which the Church and the civil powers then stood to each other. I There are two important documents which meet us at the outset — the first Confession of Faith, and the first Book of Disci^^line ; but before looking at these, w^e may note how they came to be prepared and adopted. In 1560, when the Lords of the Congregation had succeeded, and the way was cleared by the withdrawal of the French troops, the Scottish Parliament met at Edinburgh (1st August), and almost by instinct the statesmen and the church- men at once fell into the right position towards each other. A petition signed by all ranks of CONFESSION OF FAITH. 5 the Scottish people had been presented, asking the abolition of Popery, but Parliament wanted to know what they were to put in the place of Romish error. It was not their part to formu- late a Confession of Faith. Knox and four of his friends were called on. " The work was gladly undertaken," Calderwood says,^ and cer- tainly they did not keep Parliament waiting. In four days the Confession was ready, a strong, straightforward statement of Bible truth, in har- mony with the Standards of the other Reformed Churches, and much less complex than the West- minster Confession of later date.^ But thouo;h Parliament would not undertake to draw up the Confession, they felt that in this matter they too had a responsibility of their own. They must consider it, and make up their minds as to whether it was to be recognised as the national Confession of Scotland. The scene in which this was done is described by Knox. " Our Confession," he says, " was publicly read, first in the audience of the Lords of the Articles, and afterwards in the audience of the 1 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 15. - Knox's Hist. ii. 95-120. 6 1560-1567. haill Parliament, where were present not only such as professed Christ Jesus, but also a great number of adversaries of our religion, such as the before-named bishops . . . who were commanded in God's name to object if they could. Some of our ministers were present, standing on their feet ready to have answered." A day was appointed, 17th July 1560, for voting ; " our Confession was read every article by itself over again . . . and the votes of every man were required. The only adverse votes came from three of the noblemen ;^ and yet," Knox goes on, " for their dis-assenting they produced no better reason but, ' We will believe as our fathers believed.' The bishops (Papistical we mean) spak nothing." These bishops, we should remember, had before their eyes the spectacle of Knox standing on his feet with his friends behind him ready to answer. The sight may have been enough. They thought it their wisest course to keep quiet, and they •'' spak nothing." " The rest of the haill three 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 121, 122. Randolph the English ambassador mentions two dissentients in addition to those given by Knox (Cunningham's Hist. i. .348). BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 7 estates by their j)ublic votes affirmed the doctrine." Thus the Church produces her Confession, Parliament carefully considers it, and gives it such sanction as seems competent for them. On the very threshold of our Reformation history the Church on the one hand, and the State on the other, each take their own part in helping on the cause of true religion in the land. There was, however, another thing to be done. The Popish Jurisdiction which had weighed so heavil}^ on Scotland was abolished, but the Privy Council wanted to know what form of Church Government must be put in its ]Dlace. Parlia- ment had been dissolved.^ Knox and five of his friends had " receaved a charge" "requiring and commanding " them to prepare a plan showing 1 There is some difficulty as to the dates. The Book of Discip- line itself intimates that the Privy Council called for its prepara- tion on 29th April 1560, and that it was given in on the 20th of May. Principal J. Cunningham seems to be doubtful as to this statement. " The early date of April 1560 is surprising" (Church Hist, of Scotland, i. 356). Dr M'Crie had already declined to accept it (Life of Knox, ii. 5). At these dates, April and May 1560, Scotland was still in the turmoil of civil war, the Lords of the Congregation with English help fighting the Queen Regent and her French troops. Knox himstlf (Hist. ii. 128) and Calder- 8 1560-1567. " how the Kirk mycht be establissed in a good and godlie policy." Meantime the first meet- ing of the General Assembly was held at Edinburgh in the Magdalen Chapel — the old grey tower of which may still be seen where it stands at the head of the Cowgate, and marks the locality of that great historical event when in December 1560 the brave band of six ministers and thirty-four elders came together and con- stituted themselves the Supreme Court of the Reformed Church of Scotland. It was the first meeting of that Assembly which has done so much to make Scotland what it is. Knox and his friends prepared the Book of Discipline, setting forth the Presbyterian form of Church Government in its leading features. It was derived, as they are careful to state, not from Geneva or France, but directly from the New Testament. In January 1561 it was laid before a meeting which Spottiswood and Knox call a ' " Convention," but which may be held as being wood (Hist. ii. 41) are more to be relied on as to the course of events. They both state that the preparation of the Book of Discipline was not entered on till after the Confession of Faith had been adopted and Parliament dissolved in the end of the following month of August. BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 9 what Row calls it, a meeting of the Assembly. There he states the Book received " the allowance and ajD^^robation of the whole General Assemljly after that some articles which were thought too long were abridged."^ In the mean- time it had been submitted to the Privy Council. A meeting was held, it was carefully read over, and a majority, including the most influential members, approved of it and signed it.^ A minority, however, raised opposition, and so far prevailed that it never received the formal sanction either of the Privy Council or of Parlia- ment.^ All the same, the Church upheld it in her ecclesiastical procedure. She claimed the right to settle her own constitution in her own way, and went on to act under it whether it had or had not the sanction of the State. ^ ^ 1 Row's Hist, of the Kirk, etc., p. 16. The first Assembly- had adjourned, to meet at that date (Book of Univ. Kirk, p. 5). '^ Knox's Hist. ii. 257,258. ■■' Calderwood's Hist. ii. 42, 160. ^ Thus she enforced the subscription of it on the Superinten- dent of Galloway in 1562 (Calderwood's Hist. ii. 185). She also ordained according to the fourth head of the Booke that " all persons serving in the ministry who had not entered into their charges according to the order appointed in the said Booke be inhibited '' {Ibid. p. 206). 10 1560-1567. Here, then, we stand at the opening of the Church's history, and in these two documents — the first Confession of Faith and the first Book of Discipline — we have the earliest authorities in regard to her constitution. Looking into the Confession, there are three statements to be noted. The first in section 16 simply afl&rms that Christ is " the only Head" of the Church — the only Head — expressly excluding all others.^ This applies to the Church invisible — Christ's spiritual body. But section 1 8 speaks of the visible Church and gives three marks by which it is distinguished — the faithful preaching of the Word, the faithful administration of the sacraments, and godly discipline. In section 1 1 , which treats of Christ's Ascension, He is said to be the "only Head of His Kirk, our just Lawgiver, and our only High Priest," "in which honours, or oftices, if man or angel presume to intrude themselves, we utterly detest and abhor them as blasphemous to our Sovereign and supreme Governor, Christ Jesus. "^ England, we , must remember, had set up the King as Head of 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 108. 2 Ibid. ii. 103. HEADSHIP OF CHRIST. 11 the Church, hut here the Protestant Church of Scotland in the very act of struggling into exis- tence proclaims to all the world that Christ is her only Head. She will have no Pope, no King with his royal supremacy — her only King is Christ. It is her first bold word fearlessly spoken in the hearing of Christendom — We know no Head but Christ. The Confession, indeed, does by no means exclude kings and magistrates from the sphere of religion. The 24tli section goes so far as to say that to them " maist principally" belongs "the reformation and purgation of religion." It was a sacred principle with our Reformers that kings and magistrates were appointed not only for civil policy, but for the maintenance and advance- ment of religion ; and if in this respect they seemed to ascribe too much to the civil power, the reasons are not difficult to find. It never occurred to them that Church and State would be at variance. They knew that the secular arm was needed to disentangle Scottish society from Popery and its canon law, which controlled all things civil and sacred, coiling itself round the life of the nation. It was the civil power which must rid the country of this incubus. At 12 1560-15G7. the same time, it must be confessed there was an error into which our forefathers fell in holding the Old Testament rules and examples as binding to a deg-ree not warranted. It was this made them hold idolatry to be punishable by death, and hence the observance of the mass was in certain extreme cases made a capital crime. There is, however, no instance of this punish- ment ever having been inflicted in the days of Knox.^ After all, however, there were limits within which the civil power must confine itself. The moment we turn to the first Book of Discipline we find the Church claiming exclusively the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, which they say " stands in reforming and correcting the evils which the civil sword doth either neglect or may not punish."^ There is even an attempt made to mark off the limits of the two jurisdictions. It is not 1 Indeed, it seems as if the intention of the law had been to prevent the necessity of ever having to inflict the death penalty. For the first offence there was to be confiscation of goods, etc. ; for the second, banishment ; only in the case of a return from banish- ment and defiance of the law was there to be " justifieing to the dead" (Knox's Hist. ii. 124). 2 Knox's Hist. ii. 227. M'Crie, Knox, ii. 129, note. FRANCIS AND MARY REFUSE. 13 very successful, however, as first attempts sel- dom are,^ Ijut this much at least is made plain — according to the Book of Disciijline there is not only the civil power in the country regulat- ing the temporal interests of the nation, but there is the Church holding her own authority and doing her work in the exercise of eccles- iastical discipline. ^ These principles, then, having been thus em- bodied in our Church's Constitution, it was desir- able to obtain for them the sanction of the Crown. When Parliament (l7th July 1560) adopted the Confession of Faith, and abol- ished the Papal Jurisdiction (24th August 1560), Sir James Sandilands was sent to France to lay the Acts before Francis and Mary and obtain j the royal assent needful to give them the force of statute law, "This was done," Knox/ says, "rather to show our dutiful obedience 1 than to beg of them any strength to our religion which from God hath full power and needeth not the suffrage of men." 1 Tlie sill of adultery, for example, is to be dealt with by the civil magistrate and not by the Cliurch ; the "oppression of the poor by deceiving of them " in buying or selling by "wrang mete or measure'' is to be dealt with, not by the civil magistrate, but by the Church (Knox's Hist. ii. 227). 14 1560-1567. ' Mary was Queen of France, reigning, as her portraits still show her, in all the splendour of youth and beauty in that brilliant Court. The request of the Scottish Parliament was met with a curt refusal, and Sir James Sandilands came back to tell of the coldness with which he had been received. But the statesmen and Reformers of Scotland did not greatly care. The royal assent would have been a good thing, but they can do without it. Never for a moment do they admit a doubt that the Acts which overthrew Popery and ratified the Confession were valid. Let King or Queen say or refuse to say what they please, the Protestant Church with her Confession of Faith is the Church of Scot- land.^ The same thing took place when the Privy Council refused to sanction the first Book of 1 " How tlie said Lord of Sanct Johne [Sir J. Sandilands] was entreated we list not rehearse, but always no ratification brought he to us. But that we little regarded or yet do regard " (Knox's Hist. ii. 126). "The Guisians rebuked him sharply" (Calder- wood's Hist. ii. 40). In the end it was thought best to dismiss him courteously, and try to gain his personal influence in favour of the Court. He brought a letter from Francis and Mary to the Scottish Estates (Tytler, vi. 229 note), the contents of which Knox must have known. QUEEN MARY A WIDOW. 15 Discipline. Some of the nobles felt its rules would ill agree with the kind of life they were leading. A still more fatal objection was the demand for funds which it made on behalf of the poor, of national education and the support of the ministry.^ Accordingly, it was never formally ratified ; but all the same, it was by these rules in their leadino; features that the Church carried on her government. Parliament knows this, the Privy Council know it, they never interfere, and the important thing is that the nation supported the Church in what she was doing.^ She asked no man's leave. She acted on the spiritual authority which she held from Christ. _ Thus far all was clear, but dangerous times were close at hand. That same month of December 1560 in which the first General Assembly met saw the death of the French King. Mary the young Queen was a widow, and a new scene was opening for her and for Scotland. Her half-brother Lord James Stewart was sent by the Scottish Estates to invite her over. It 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 128, 129, 222. See also p. 297. 2 M'Crie, Life of Knox, ii. 5. 16 1560-1567. was Knox's wish to make it a condition tliat she should conform to the religion of her subjects. He took the ground which the British Constitu- o tion does to-day, that the sovereign of a Protestant nation should be a Protestant. Her brother Lord James and the other statesmen, however, felt that she must be allowed to have mass cele- brated for herself and her attendants, provided it _was done in private.^ All the world knows the parting scene when Mary bade farewell to France. Escaping the English cruisers who were lying on the watch, ^ she landed at Leith in August 1561, just a year after the Reformation had been established. There was extraordinary joy all over the land at her coming. Scotland was once more a nation, not a mere appanage of France,^ a risk wdiich had been narrowly escaped. Mary was the representative of the long line of their ancient Scottish kings, and the enthusiastic ^ Caklenvood's Hist. ii. 48. ■ Tytler, vi. 269. 3 There is little doubt that before her marriage to the King of France Mary signed papers '• the object and intent of which was to convey her kingdom as if it were her private property to the house of Valois" (Hill Burton, iv. 7, 9). QUEEN MARY WELCOMED. 17 loycalty inherent in the Scottish character rose to welcome her. Her youth, her beauty, the charm of her fascinating manners, made her almost irresistible. But under that soft exterior there lay great strength of purpose and what Knox calls " a crafty wit," a keen intellect of no common power. ^ Reared as a zealous Roman Catholic, in the bad atmosphere of the French Court, she had been trained in all the arts and stratagems of State policy by her uncles the Guises, the craftiest politicians among the states- men of France;^ and she came to Scotland with certain fixed ideas, one of which was that it would be the glory of her reign if she could restore the country to the Roman See. After entering on her kingdom, her first step showed the effect of her training;. The counsellors whom she called to her side were the leadina Protestants, notably Maitland of Lethington and her half-brother Lord James Stewart, the one the ablest, and the other the best of Scottish states- 1 " Great genius and sagacity " (Hill Burton, iv. 296). 2 She had learned also " the profound dissimulation of that political school of which Catherine of Medici was the chief instructor and her daughter-in-law [Mary] an apt scholar" (Ibid. iv. 205, 206). B 18 1560-1567. men.^ The Eoman Catholics were markedly ignored^ — it was skilfully done. Another step was at least a bold one. She had mass at once celebrated in the Chapel at Holy- rood. It was a defiance both of the law and of the public opinion of Scotland, and caused some disturbance. But the people were in a tumult of loyalty. She was floating on the crest of the wave. If she was ever to win Scotland to Popery, a beginning must be made, and now was the time. She took the step, and again it seemed skilfully done. The rej^ly, however, was not long in com- ing. Next Sabbath Knox was in his place in St Giles', and the trumpet gave no uncertain sound. Denouncing what had been done as idolatrous, he uttered the well-known words, " One mass was more fearful to him than gif ten thousand armed enemies were landed in any part of the realm. ^ If it be asked, Why was the mass so terrible and these denunciations so extreme ? it is enough to say that the mass was the symbol of Popery, and Popery at that time was bloodthirsty. Knox ^ This policy had been arranged before she left France (Sir .T. Melville's Memoirs, p. 61). 2 Tytler, vi. 287. 3 Knox's Hist. ii. 276. KNOX DENOUNCES THE MASS. 19 had private intelligence both with the Church and with some at the Court of France. He knew how the flames of persecution were blazing in Spain and Italy, and what barbarities had been inflicted by Alva in the Netherlands (M'Crie, Knox, ii. 27). He knew indeed that the Continent was already fermenting with that fierce hatred which culminated in the Massacre of Saint Bartholomew^ and that Mary's uncles the Guises were at the head of the movement. In Scotland Popery had many adherents ; the fires were hardly cold in which Wishart and Milne and other martyrs had perished. It was no w^onder that Knox felt keenly, and expressed himself strongly. After this sermon he had his first memor- able interview with the Queen, in which were f^iven the earliest indications of the cominof conflict. In that conference the claims of Po]3ery, of royal supremacy, and arbitrary power were all dwelt on. It is one of the most picturesque scenes in Scottish history.-^ Mary was there in all her attractiveness, Knox in his fearless honesty. They stand face to face, and from that moment the Queen on the one hand, and the 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 277. 20 15G0-1567. I Reformer on the other, both knew well who was the adversary whom each had most to dread. ' Among the topics which they discussed, Mary seems to approach the subject of these Lectures, and makes very short work indeed of the principle of spiritual independence, " Ye have taught the people," she says, " to receive another religion than their princes can allow, and how can that doctrine be of God, seeing that God commands the people to obey their princes." Here is royal supremacy going so far as to claim control not only over the Church, but over the religious I beliefs of her subjects. Knox's reply is plain [and direct. " Eeligion," he says, " comes not I from j^rinces, but from the Eternal God alone ; " jand then he adds a remark which none of her 1 courtiers would have made, " It has often happened, madam, that princes are the most ignorant of all others in God's true religion." After debating the question of the arbitrary power of the Sovereign and the right of the people to resist, they pass on to speak of Popery, and especially of the mass, on which Knox states and supports his views wdth characteristic and somewhat rugged energy, till the poor Queen cries out, " Ye are ower sair for me," but she thp: queen and knox. 21 knows some who could answer him. "Madam," he said, " would to God the learnedest Papist in Europe were here." " Weel," she replied, "ye may perhaps get that sooner than ye believe." " Assuredly," he answered, " if ever I get that in m}'' life, I get it sooner than I believe." And so the meeting ended, for the Queen was called away to dinner. As she left him, however, Knox added some parting words in which the true nature of the man comes out, " I pray God, madam, that you may be as blessed within the commonwealth of Scotland as ever Deborah was in Israel."^ But if Knox was not to be shaken, there were others among the statesmen whose Protestant zeal gave way under the spell of Mary's influence. It stirred the spirit of Campbell of Kinzean- cleuch when he saw what was going on. Meeting Lord Ochiltree on his way to Holyrood, he said, " I perceive that the fire-edge is not off ye yet, but I fear ye shall become as calm as the rest when the holy w^ater of the Court is sprinkled on ye. I think there is some enchantment in the Court whereby men are bewitched." Mary's fascination was no doubt great, but what prevailed with 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 286. 22 1560-1567. many was the trust which she seemed to repose in the Protestant statesmen,-^ and the craft with which from time to time she hckl out hopes of being won over to attend the preaching of the Protestant ministers. There is something pathetic in the way in which they cling to the hope of her becoming a Protestant.^ They little knew her secret feelings as we know them now.^ We come now to the time when the first direct assault was made on the Church's spiritual independence. Four months after Mary landed the General Assembly again met in December 1561, and already it was found that a Court party had been formed among the laymen,^ and they stood aloof, declining to take their seats as members of Assembly. Knox and his friends sent to demand their attendance, and when the two parties met the reason came out. Maitland ^ Who guides the Queen and Court, who but the Protestants {Knox's Hist. ii. 363). 2 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 147. At a later period she dangled before their view a similar prospect (M'Crie's Knox, ii. 133). 3 All the time Mary's secret correspondence shows how deter- mined she was to restore Popery, mourning over " the damnable errors" of her Protestant subjects (Hill Burton, iv. 218). She did not deceive Knox. *Tytler, Hist. vi. 291. THE ASSEMBLY CHALLENGED. 23 of Lethington took a formal objection tliat the ' Assembly could not be lield, as the Queen had not given her consent to its meeting. Maitland was a statesman of great ability, but of little religion. The previous year when Knox preached at the opening of Parliament and appealed for aid in behalf of the Church, Maitland mock- ingly remarked, " So, then, we must all now forget ourselves and bear the barrow for building the Kirk."^ Since then he had been promoted to be Secretary of State, and had fallen, one of the first, under Mary's influence. When he protested, therefore, that the General Assembly could not meet without the Queen's express permission, he, as Secretary of State, spoke with the highest authority in the kingdom. Knox saw that they had come to a crisis. At once and in the most decisive terms he protested that if the liberty of the Kirk depended on the Queen's allowance, we should lack not only Assemblies, but the public preaching of the Gospel. This Maitland objected to. Knox rejoined with increasing vehemence, " Take from ' Knox in his History adds, "God be merciful to the Speaker, for we fear that . . . the buiUling of his awin house . . . sail not be so prosperous as we desire it were" (Hist. ii. 89). 24 1560-1567. us the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the evangel, for without Assemblies how shall good order and unity in doctrine be kept." ^ It is obvious that the question here was vital. The very life of the Presbyterian Church, especially at that time, had its centre in the Assembly. If the Queen by simply refusing her sanction could suppress the Assembly, she could lay an arrest on the whole work of the Church. The two principles of Erastianism and Spiritual Independence are face to face on a most vital point, and it is important to note how the matter settles itself. Haitian d has spoken out boldly for the Queen and her Erastian ascendency, Knox has replied as boldly for the Church. But, after all, who cares for what Maitland says, or what the Queen was driving at ? The Assembly acts. They decide the question by simply going on with their business. Solvitur amhulando. It was a way the Church had under Knox's guidance. They let the whole world see whether they were independent or not — they acted. ^ 1 Knox's Hist. ii. 296. 2 At the same time, there was not the slightest desire to conceal from the Queen and her Court what was done in the Assembly. Maitland and his friends were expressly urged " to counsel her CIVIL LIBERTY. 25 We can well understand why Mary wished to have the power of suppressing the Assembly.^ Her two objects were to establish the arbitrary authority of the Crown and to restore Popery. Against both these designs the Assembly was the great obstacle. It stood up for the civil liberties of the country. Far more than Parliament the Assembly represented the mind of the nation. The Scottish Parliaments had become utterly subservient ;^ and the General Assembty with its lay re- presentatives from among the eldership had become the great organ through which public opinion was beginning to express itself. No other body in the country could so effectually rally to its side the support of the people. It would have suited Mary's purpose well if she could have got into her hands the power of Grace if slie were jealous of anything to be treated of, to send such as she would appoint to hear." It would seem that the first hint as to the sending of a Royal Commissioner came from the side of the Church (Calderwood's Hist. ii. 160 ; Petrie's Hist, part iii. p. 231). 1 " Gladly would the Queen and her secret Council have had all the Assemblies of th« godly discharged" (Knox's Hist, ii. 296). 2 Skelton, Maitland of Lethington, etc., i. 153. 26 1560-1567. shutting up the Assembly as often and as long as she pleased.^ We can understand also why the party of rapacious nobles who were grasping at the patri- mony of the Church would support the Queen in getting the Assembly silenced. That Court was for ever asking unpleasant questions and making troublesome appeals. They wanted part of the Church's money for the support of the poor for the education of the country, and a decent maintenance for the ministers whose incomes were scandalously low. The nobles thouo-ht it intolera1)le to ha^^e them thus talking o o of the public good and raising obstacles between them and the plunder on which they wished to lay their hands. It would have pleased them well if Maitland and the Queen could have got a stop put to all this by closing the Assembly. Thus it appears that there were great national and political interests to be served by insisting 1 There was need to stand up for the liberties of the country. The Provost and Bailies of Edinburgh had displeased the Queen by a proclamation which they issued. " Without cognition of the cause the Queen caused the Provost and Bailies tc:) be charged to waird in the Castle," and ordered the town to make a new election (Calderwood'a Hist. ii. 155). " TAKE FROM US THE EVANGEL." 27 Oil the rig;ht of meetino;. But there was one object which in Knox's view overshadowed all the rest — the preaching of the Gospel to his countrymen. When the passionate words broke from his lips, " Take from us the freedom of Assemblies, and take from us the evangel," it was this roused him to contend for the inherent rigrht of the Assembly as for a matter of life or death. Never was there a country more in need of the Gospel than Scotland at that time. Over wide districts the nobles had been ruling like little kings, often in defiance of all the laws, and the people were sunk in rudeness and ignorance. Popery had left a sad legacy of gross immorality and superstition, into the unsavoury details of which we need not enter. It was Knox's passionate desire to pervade the whole land with the light of Gospel truth. But the work was difficult, and the means were small. There were twelve Protestant ministers, all told, in 1560, and the question was where to find readers, exhorters, and preachers in anything like adequate numbers. In these circumstances, and beset with such difficulties, Knox was appalled at the prospect of the Church having her hands tied by the meet- 28 1560-1567. ings of the Assembly being suppressed. That Assembly wielded the whole energies of those who were engaged in evangelising the country. It was at the Assembly, as the centre of relio;ious influence, that the different agencies met. Assur- edly the question of the Church's independ- ence in that crisis was no mere speculative theory ; it lay at the very heart of her work. No alien influence must have a right to hamper her. If the land is to be evangelised, the readers, the preachers, the pastors, and the superinten- dents too must be kept up to their work. All the impulse which the Assembly could give was needed, no royal hand must interpose. Hence the determined stand with which Knox con- fronted Maitland ; the whole of his life work was at stake. It involved not only the spiritual independence of the Church and the freedom of the Assembly, but the very cause of Christ itself in Scotland. And so the Assembly is not to be held back. Maitland and his protest are brushed aside, and the Church goes on with her work. In 1563, however, events occurred which made Knox feel what a formidable opponent Mary was. Ever since 1560 the Acts of Parliament establishino; the Reformed reli2;ion had been MARY S POWER AND SKILL. 29 hanging in suspense. We saw how Francis and Mary liad refused the royal assent necessary to give them legal force. When Mary came to Scotland the Reformers hoped to get her to agree, but she skilfully evaded their request ; and the result was that at any moment, if she saw a fitting opportunity, she could overturn Protestantism and restore Popery. So far as the law was concerned, the whole question of Reformation or no Reformation was hano;ing in suspense ; Mary held it in her hand.^ At last, after two years. Parliament had to meet in 1563, and now the time had come when the Acts in favour of the Reformation oue^ht to have been ratified. Besides, there was a good deal of irritation getting up in the country owing to the open celebration of the mass during Easter. The Gentlemen of the West w^ere 1 Since 1560 the Protestant Church was upheld "not so much by the legitimate position of an established national institution as by the strength of its supporters. Care was taken to leave it so unprotected by the head of the State that any day . . . the Reformation mi<,'ht have been abjured. ... It scarcely needed an Act of the Estates to accomplish this. If the Romish party had been powerful enough, they and the Queen would probably not liave paid so much respect to these Acts which had never obtained the royal assent as to repeal them by a counter Act of the Estates " (Hill Burton, v. 49, 50). 30 1560-1567. "^ threatening to rise and take the law into their own hands. Mary sent for Knox, and had a long interview with him, spoke confidentially, and used all her arts to win him over. For once she so far succeeded. She got • him to interfere and kee-p the Western Gentlemen quiet. She promised to have some priests punished for celebrating the mass, and just before Parliament met she threw them into prison. The effect of all this was seen. The statesmen, when Parlia- ment met, refused to insist on Mary's signature to the Reformation Acts.^ In vain Knox warned them that they were losing their only chance. Members of Parliament had their private ends to serve. The meeting was allowed to pass. Mary had gained her object. After a sham imprison- ment the Popish ecclesiastics were set free. It mortified Knox to the uttermost to find not only that he had been outwitted, but that his most reliable supporters had failed him ; and most of all, that Lord James Stewart, now Earl of Murray, had yielded to his sister's influence. It led to a personal disagreement. For nearly \ two years these friends were estranged. Knox, 1 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 216, 217. THE CHURCH INDEPENDENT. 31 the champion of the Reformation, and Murray, the true-hearted statesman, were not on speaking terms. ^ The Queen had not only divided them, but had kept the Reformation Acts still in suspense, so that any day if she saw the way open she could restore Poj)cry. It was skil- fully done, and Knox felt how difficult it was to deal with such an adversary.^ In the meantime, the Church had been con- ducting her affairs in complete independence of the State. The Assembly met in June 1562, neither asking nor caring whether they had the Queen's sanction. They did their work, arrang- ino;, among; other thino;s, for the trial of the superintendents, who were to be called regularly to account by an Assembly consisting to a large extent of laymen. The following December they went on with their ecclesiastical arrangements, among other things setting up synods. Next June they passed an important Act, giving power of appeal from the Kirk-Session to the Synod, ^ "The Earl of Murray was so frem to Mr Knox that nather by word nor by writt was there any coinniunicatiou betwixt them" (Caklerwood's Hist. ii. 280;. 2 "All this was done of a most deape craft'' (Knox's Hist, ii. 380). 32 1560-1567. and. again from the Synod to the General Assembly, from which the Act says, "It shall not be free to the party to appeal." ^ Thus the Church passes enactments regulating her ecclesi- astical affairs, and she does this in the exercise of her own inherent jurisdiction, which she holds from Christ. So it goes on from Assembly to Assembly. In 1564 one of the ministers is deposed, one is restored, one ordered not to leave his congregation. There is no State recognition, but the want of it is of no consequence. Thanks to the opposition of the Privy Council and the refusal of Mary to recognise the Keformation laws, the Church learned thus early what it was to be a Free Church spiritually independent. The lesson has never since been forgotten. She was compelled to take her own way in the exercise of her spiritual jurisdiction derived from Christ alone. But while compelled thus to be independent, our fathers were as far as possible from being antagonistic. Church and State, they held, should be fellow-workers acting harmoniously for the good of the country. All along, the 1 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 225. CHURCH AND STATPl 33 Assembly wauted to liavc the boundaries of tlie two jurisdictions defined. In 1562, and again in 1564, conferences with this view were appointed to be held with the Privy Council in order that there might be no encroachment on either side. The Church was in earnest, but the Council of State were not, and the plan came to nothing. The idea seems to have been to have had an enumeration of particulars to be assigned separately to each of the jurisdictions. This w^ould have failed. The only solution possible is to leave each a free hand, and make the decision of the civil authorities valid only to civil effects, and the decision of the Church valid only to spiri- tual effects. Indeed, as early as 1565 there are indications that the Church was finding her way to this conclusion. The question came before the Assembly [is to certain offenders who had been cruel to children. Their punishment, the Assemblv decides, must lie with the civil maofis- trate ; but the scandal, the moral offence, must be dealt with by the Church, and they are to be excluded from religious privileges till they have satisfied the Kirk.^ Here is the true 1 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 303. C 34 1560-1567. solution. The Law Courts are to handle the matter and decide it under its civil or criminal aspect, and the Church is equally free to handle it and decide it under its spiritual aspect and to spiritual effects. One question now arose which touched the Church's Spiritual Independence, namely, the freedom of the pulpit. In 1563 Knox had given great offence by publicly urging the nobles to prevent Mary from marrying a Roman Catholic. She was courted by several conti- nental princes, notably by the Prince Royal of Spain, a proposal which at one time seemed likely to be successful. Mary, after having worn the crown of France, was dazzled with the prospect of wearing the crown of Spain, in addition to that of Scotland, which she then wore, and of England, which she claimed and hoped yet to wear. It roused her anger when the voice of Knox broke in on those day dreams. At a passionate interview to which he was after- wards summoned, she exclaimed, " What have you to do with my marriage, and what are you in this Commonwealth?" "A subject born within the same, madam," he replied, "and God hath made me, however abject I seem in FREEDOM OF THE PULPIT. 35 your eyes, a protitable member within the same. Nay, madam, it pertaineth to me to forewarn such things as may harm it."^ She applied to the Lords of the Articles to have Knox prose- cuted, but they thought it was better not to make the attempt. Next year the subject was taken up in another way. A memorable conference was held between the leading men in Church and State, really between Knox and Maitland of Lethinfrton.^ Among other things, the freedom of the pulpit was discussed in connection with prayer for the Queen. The debate has been admired as a specimen of intellectual gladiatorship. Maitland, however, admitted, or rather held along with Knox, that Old Testament precedents are binding, and modern preachers are to do as the old Jewish prophets did. On that ground he had no case. Knox had the whole of the Old Testament at command. Maitland showed no small dialectic power and skill of fence ; but from point to point Knox forces him to give ground till he suddenly ^ In the pulpit he added, " I am not master of myself. I must obey Him who commandeth me to speak plainly " (Calder- wood's Hist. ii. 220). - Knox's Hist. 425-460. 36 1560-1567. changes from one topic to another, and in the end they leave the subject very much where they found it. The pulpit, it should be remembered, was at that time the chief, almost the only, organ of public opinion. As yet the j)ress was not. The ministers and elders were of the people and among the people. They knew what men were thinking and saying, and often it was only through the pulpit that the national sentiment could find expression. The marriage of Mary with Darnley took place in the summer of 1565, and led to a whole course of events full of tragic interest. Her brother the Earl of Murray had acted a brother's part in doing what he could to prevent the fatal step.^ In revenge she sought his ruin, drove him to rise in self-defence,^ and compelled him and his friends to take refuge as exiles in England. Her hands were now free, and she threw off the mask. It was no longer the liberty of Assemblies that was in question ; it was the overthrow of the Keformation and the reinstatement of Popery. 1 Tytler, vi. 390. 2 The rising was justified by Murray and liis friends on con- stitutional f];rounds (Hill Burton, iv. 279, 280). PROTESTANTISM IN DANGER. 37 With singular ability and address she carried out her plans, and in the early months of 1566 she seemed on the very eve of success.^ The Pro- testant leaders were in banishment, Darnley had openly gone over to Popery, and the nobles were following. The whole Court influence was in that direction. The Popish Archbishop of St Andrews had his jurisdiction restored. Parlia- ment was summoned for the 6th of March ; pre- parations were made for restoring the Popish prelates to their place in the Legislature ; and so confident was Mary of carrying all before her, that it is said Popish altars were being prepared to be set up in St Giles for celebrating mass at the approaching Easter. Never did things look more ominous for the Protestantism of Scotland. But just at that moment the murder of Rizzio took place ; the event fell like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, and all Mary's schemes were shattered. From that day she came under the * It was generally believed at the time that she had put her hand to "the infamous Treaty of Bayonne" for tlie extirpation of Protestants. There seems no doubt that, whether she signed it or not, she sent an envoy from Scotland to Bayonne, who placed himself in alliance with Ph'.lip and "his destroying General Alva" during the conference (Hill Burton, iv. 291, 295). I 38 1560-1567. fatal influence of the Earl of Bothwell/ and her subsequent course was one long sorrowful career, in which her sad life was shipwrecked. On this we need not dwell. It only concerns us to note that on the 24th day of July 1567 Mary abdi- cated in favour of her infant son. A Regency was required, and the eyes of the nation with one consent turned to the Earl of Murray, whom Mary named as Regent at her abdication. He was absent on the Continent ; the nobles sent a deputation urging him to accept the office, but instead of grasping at it he delayed till he should have seen his sister. They met at Lochleven ;^ different accounts are given of what passed. The result, however, was that he saw it his duty to take the reins of government into his hands. ^ Immediately the whole kingdom felt the change. A time of peace and prosperity began such as Scotland for many a day had not seen. First of all the Church felt the benefit. When Parliament met Knox preached the opening ser- ^ It had begun before (Hill Burton, iv. 2S6 ; see also p. 324). 2 Ibid. V. 10-12. ^ " The Lords were glad they had gotten him, a man so well beloved of the people" (Calderwood's Hist. ii. 385\ REGENT MURRAY. 39 mon, and at once the Acts of 1560 were ratified establishing the Reformation and abolishing the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome " called the Paip, which has been very hurtful and ^prejudicial to our Sovereign's authority and the common weal of this realm." The Parliament ratified anew the Confession of Faith. They settled the terms of the cor- onation oath, binding the sovereign to the Protestant religion. They ordered some adequate provision to be made for the support of the ministry, giving them the first claim on the thirds of the benefices.^ But what most concerns us at present is that they enacted that " no other jurisdiction ecclesiastical within this realm be acknowledged than that which is, and shall be within the same Kirk established ' There was threat need fur this being done. lu the Register of the Privy Council it is stated (vol. i. p. 574) that the preaching of the Word of God was decayed in default of the needful sustentation of the appointed ministrie. Their incomes were of the narrowest, and were often unpaid. " The greatest number of us have lived in great penury without any stipend some twelve months, some eight, some half a year, having nothing in the meantime to sustain ourselves and families but that which friends have given us" (David Ferguson of Dumfermline, quoted by Hill Burton, Hist. v. 406). In 1566 it is said (Petrie's Hist. 363), " All the ministers that year were frustrat of their livings." In such 40 1560-1567. presently, or which floweth therefrom concerning preaching the Word, correction of manners, and administration of the sacraments."^ A commis- sion was further appointed to consider more fully what other points or causes should pertain to the jurisdiction of the said Kirk. All these acts at once received the royal assent through the Regent, and became part of the statute law of Scotland. Now in the settlement of 1567 there are certain points to be noted in connection with the question of the Church's Spiritual Independ- ence. 1. Parliament did not claim to confer juris- diction on the Church. They merely acknow- ledged in legal form the jurisdiction already belonging to her. For seven years the Church circumstances the General Assembly "in consideration of the Law of God, ordaines the persons who heares the doctrine of salvation at the mouthes of His ministers, and thereby receives special food to the nourishment of their souls, to communicate temporal sustentation on their preachers . . . but to take from others contrare to their will whom they serve not, they judge it not their duty, nor yet reasonable" (Book of Univ. Kirk, pp. 46, 47). In 1578 the parishioners of Bolton state that "thir diverse yeiris bigane they had sustenit their awin minister for the maist part thaimselffis'' (Reg. Priv. Council, iii. 95). 1 Calderwood'3 Hist. ii. 390. SETTLEMENT OF 1567. 41 in her inherent right has exercised her jurisdic- tion in her own affairs. Parliament comes forward, and declares that there shall be no other than this, which it finds already in force. 2. When the Assembly met after Parliament rose, the Act which had been passed in their favour does not make the least difference in their proceedings. No doubt, they felt that the law was now on their side, but they are quite unaffected by the change. The Church is the same, the jurisdiction is the same, and they go on doing just as they had done for seven years, neither less nor more. All along, she had gone forward under the frown of the sovereign and the Court, in the fearless consciousness that she had a Divine rig'ht to do what she was doinor. Now that Parliament is on her side, and the law has been ratified, there is not on her part the shadow of any claim to greater authority. 3. On the other hand, she had parted with none of her inherent Spiritual Jurisdiction, just as she had received no increase of that jurisdiction. Those who hold that there can be no establish- ment of the Church without her having to make a sacrifice of her jurisdiction, will not find any- thing to support their views in what was then 42 1560-1567. done. Patronage indeed was retained, but even in that the State recognised very remarkably the Church's Spiritual Independence. The examination and admission of ministers is to " be only in the power of the kirk," and if any dispute shall arise, the cause *'' shall tak end as they" [the General Assembly] "shall decern and declare." Nothing could be more decisive. 4. Let us look, however, at the seven years' work of this spiritually independent Church. Reverting to the time when Knox said, "Take from us the freedom of Assembly, and take from us the Evangel," we saw how, for the Gospel's sake, he succeeded in retaining the freedom of the Church and the freedom of Assemblies. And now, we may ask what he has made of it ? What has this freedom done for the Church and for Scotland ? The progress had been nothing less than marvellous. In 1560 there were only six ministers at the Assembly, and only twelve in all Scotland. Seven years afterwards, in 1567, there were, it is authoritatively stated, 252 ministers, and they were assisted by 154 exhor- ters and 467 readers ; in all, 873 men engaged in the religious instruction of the people. It spoke WONDERFUL PROGRESS. 43 volumes for the energy with which Knox and his friends had thrown themselves into the work,i but it showed no less the vital impor- tance of that Spiritual Independence of the Church for which Knox had contended. The Assembly was free, the Church was free ; her whole influence was brought to bear, and, most important of all, men were filled with the con- sciousness that the authority which the Church wielded was held direct from Heaven. Not as if she claimed to be infallible, but she felt she was acting as under the eye of her Divine Head and with His support. In God's name they set up their banners, as members of a Church resolved to act under His guidance, and by His authority. ^ There must at the same time have been great practical wisdom in the methods used. The first Book of Discipline indicates one of Knox's arrangements. Every congregation was to meet once a week for the reading and exposition of the Bible, " at the which time it is lawful for every man to speak or enquire as God sail move his heart." Difficulties are to be referred to ministers and elders (Calderwood's Hist. ii. 56). As the Laity were thus encouraged to take part in these meetings, men who had naturally the power of speaking with effect would come to be known, and would be selected and prepared for the work of the Church. See an interesting pamphlet by the Rev. James Gall, on " Jolin Knox's Open Bible Readings." Edinburgh 1882. 44 1560-1567. This conviction gave her strength of purpose, and she rose up girt with an energy which was felt all over the land. One cannot look on this without recognising the vital importance of the Church's Spiritual Independence under Christ her only Head. Knox knew what he was doing when he contended for it as matter of life or death. A Church unhampered by Erastian con- trol — looking up to Christ, and conscious that in all she was doing it was ou Christ's authority she depended — that was the Church which Knox was determined to have ; and that was what gave such marvellous energy to her operations, and enabled her to do for Scotland what she did. Let us add that faithfulness and loyalty to her Divine Head brought the blessing from on high, and crowned her efforts with such signal success. The promise was fulfilled, " Them that honour Me I will honour." LECTURE 11. 1567-1592. LECTURE II. 1567-1592. During the twenty-five years which we are now to consider tliere was a continual struggle be- tween the State and the Church, victory inclining now to the one side and now to the other. There were the black Acts of 1584, when in resfard to the Church's Spiritual Independence all seemed to be lost ; and in the end there was the orreat Act of 1592, the Charter of the Church, when her cause seemed to be gained. Between these two extremes the course of the history moves. The short Regency of the Earl of Murray at the outset did much for Scotland, promising a bright future of national prosperity and peace. For the Church he did what he could. There were diffi- culties in dealing with his own supporters ; but if he had lived, an adequate income would no doubt have been provided for the ministers.^ 1 M'Crie, Knox, ii. IGO. 47 r 48 1567-1592. The three years of his government, however, all too soon came to an end. When he fell on the streets of Linlithgow (23rd January 1570) by the hand of an assassin (a man whose life he had spared),^ all Scotland mourned his death as a national calamity. To Knox the blow was specially severe ; it broke his health, and hastened his end. The young king was a child in his fourth year, ' and the Regency had to be continued, first under the Earl of Lennox, then under Mar, and lastly .under the Earl of Morton ; but Morton all along [was the ruling spirit, and the Church had a hard I time of it in defence of her Spiritual Lidepend- ence. What brought them into collision was Morton's favourite plan for making Tulchan Bishops, in order that through them the nobles — by no means forgetting himself — might seize on the patrimony of the Church. At the Reformation the Popish Church was enormously rich, holding, there is reason to be- lieve, fully one-half of the whole property in the kingdom. After the Popish jurisdiction was abolished the Romish dignitaries were allowed to ' Calderwood's Hist. ii. 510; M'Crie, Knox, ii. 165. J TULCHAN BISHOPS. 49 retain two- thirds of their benefices for life. As years went on these fat livings began to fall vacant, and the hungry courtiers were on the watch to struggle for them. The plan was to get from the crown a grant of the living, then to get some needy minister to act as titular Bishop, on an agreement that he should draw the revenues and hand over the greater part of the money to the real holder, some greedy nobleman.^ But here the question of the Church's juris- diction came in. It was bad enough to see the Church's money sacrificed, instead of being given, as Knox proposed, for the education of the country, for the poor, and for the support of the ministry. The loss was mortifying, but it was worse when the whole spiritual jurisdiction of the Church came to be at stake. For example, the Archbishopric of St Andrews fell vacant — the King's party had just taken the Archbishop and hanged him in his robes. It was the richest see in the kingdom ; Morton got a grant of it, and found a Mr Douglas, one of the ministers of 1 " Every Lord f^ot a Bishopric, and sought and presented to the Kirk sic a man as wald be content with least and set them maist of tacks, feus, and pensions" (James Melville's Diary, p. 31). D 50 1567-1592. St Andrews, to act as Archbishop, handing over the greater part of the money. In this proceed- ing he found large support among the nobles and members of Parliament, for they were themselves waiting to scramble on the same terms for the next livings which should fall vacant. But the fatal obstacle was that the Church was Presbyterian. Her constitution as laid down in the Book of Discipline had no place for Bishops, titular or otherwise.^ She had deliber- ately resolved on this. Had the State then the right to alter her constitution, and compel her to receive an Archbishop against her will ? Here she took her stand, and she was firm. First protesting to Parliament ^ against the whole transaction, the Church forbade Douglas to accept the office, or to take his seat, on ^ Some Episcopalian writers would fain have it believed that the Superintendents were really Bishops. It is a vain idea. The form of ordination in their case was the same with that of other Presbyterian Ministers. They were subject to the General Assembly, many of whose members were laymen, and they were often called to account sharply enough. ^ On that occasion " the ministers were called proud knaves, and received many injurious words from the Lords, specially from Morton, who ruled all. He said he sould lay their pride, and put order to them" (Calderwood's Hist. iii. 137, 138). CONFLICTING JURISDICTIONS. 51 pain of excommunication. Parliament, on the other hand, led by Morton, ordered him to take his seat as Archbishop, and vote, on pain of treason.^ Douglas stood between two fires. If he acted as Archbisho]), he would be excommuni- cated by the Church, and become an outlaw. If he refrained, he would be found guilty of treason. The two jurisdictions, civil and ecclesiastical, had him between them, and he might take his choice to be either excommuni- cated and an outlaw, or to be condemned as a traitor. Morton, however, found he had gone too far in driving matters to this point. He yielded for the moment.'-^ The Church had stood firm, and was successful in her first encounter. She had saved her independence. 1 Principal Lee's Lectures, ii. 2. - This was due — in part at least — to the interposition of Erskine of Dun, whose views were not extreme, but who was one of the most influential of the early Reformers. On this occasion he wrote to the Regent, and his interference must have been all the more effectual, because Regent Mar was the head of the family^the Erskines — to which he belonged. His letter deserves to be carefully considered ; it is one of the clearest utterances in all Scottish history on the two jurisdictions, the civil and the ecclesiastical : — "There is a Spiritual jurisdiction and power which God has given unto His Kirk and to these who beare office therein, and there is a temporal power given of God to civil magistrats Both the powers are of God, and most agreeing to the fortifieing 52 1567-1592. / But Morton was a formidable opponent. He will overthrow the power of the Assembly, and the very constitution of the Church, rather than miss the revenues of the Archbishopric ; and he will do this by gaining over the Church herself, and making her a consenting party to her own defeat. In this very change of front, indeed, he did homage to her spiritual independence. So long as she said No, he was powerless, and Parliament was powerless. His only way was to get her to say Yes. And unfortnunately he knew how to do it. Knox was near his end, and unable to act. Melville had not yet come back from Geneva. The good men who guided the Councils of the Church wanted nerve, and Morton was too much one of another, if they be right used. But when corruijtion of man entereth in, confounding the offices, usurping to himself what he pleaseth, nothing regarding the good order aj^pointed of God, then confusion followeth in all estates. . . . For the better understanding of this matter Cbrist hath given forth a rule which ought to be weighed of magistrates and of all people, saying, 'Give to Caesar that perteanetli to Caesar, and in God that perteaneth to God.' The Kirk of God sould fortitie all lawful power and authority that pertaineth to the Civill Magistral,, because it is the ordinance of God. But if he pass the bounds of his office . . . then the servants of God sould withstand his. unjust enterprise" (Calderwood's Hist. iii. 156-158). THE LEITH CONVENTIOX. 53 for them. He represented that things were coming to a deadlock. He expressed a strong desire to have these ecclesiastical affairs fully considered, and some of the ministers and Privy Councillors — pliable men — were invited to meet at Leith in 1 572. He first got this Leitli Conven- tion, as it was called, to vote itself a General Assembly, a step utterly incompetent. Then assuming that they had full authority, they delegated their power to a small Committee. On that Committee the whole influence of the Court was brought to bear, and the result was the passing of certain resolutions to the effect that till the King came of age the titles of Bishops and Archbishops might be allowed to remain, giving them however no real Episcopal standing in the Church, and placing them under the control of the General Assembly, of which laymen constituted a great part. It was a mongrel system, to which Morton got them to submit as a temporary expedient. -"^ On all sides the arrangement was disliked. No minister who had any self-respect would accept the office of Bishop on these terms. It 1 "An Interiin until further and more perfect order be obtained'' (Hill Burton, v. 31()). 54 1567-1592. was a mean thing for a PreslDyterian minister to wear a kind of sham episcopal dignity in order that some rapacious nobleman might get the living. Public opinion expressed itself in various ways. One sharp saying l)y Adamson/ minister of St Andrew's, made a deep impression. There were three sorts of Bishops, he said, " My Lord Bishop, My Lord's Bishop, and the Lord's Bishop. My Lord Bishop that was in the Papistry ; My Lord's Bishop, that is, now when My Lord gets the benefice and the Bishop only serves to make his title sure ; and the Lord's Bishop is the true minister of the GospeL" There was another well-known title still more expressive of contempt ; they were Tulchan Bishops, the people said. In Scotland at that time it appears that the stuffed skin of a calf — a Tulchan — was set beside a cow at milking-time, to induce her more freely to give her milk. So with this kind of Bishop. He was employed like the stuffed calf-skin, and the object was to enable some noble Lord to milk the cow — the Church. The grim humour of the comparison 1 James Melville's Diary, p. 32. KNOX A(;AINST BISHOl'S. 55 made the name stick, tiiid marked the contempt with which the transaction was regrarded. For all this, however, Morton cared little. It was no matter to him what kind of Bishop Douglas might be. He was good enough to serve his purpose. But there were things that even Morton must have felt when the Church's Independence began to assert itself. Douglas was to be installed Archbishop of St Andre w^s, and Morton had actually the assurance to ask Knox to officiate on the occasion. This was too much. Old and frail as the Eeformer was, he not only refused, but from the pulpit he thundered forth once more both against Morton and Douglas.^ Within a month afterwards, when the Assembly met at St Andrews, we find that Knox " opponed him- self to the making of Bishops." We find also that the Church was aw^aking to the evils of the Leith Convention, and was taking steps to pre- pare the Second Book of Discipline, thus to brincf order out of confusion.'-^ In 1574 an important event took place 1 M'Crie's Life of Knox, ii. 204, 205. 2 March 1574. Tliis was before the arrival of Melville on the scene (Caldervvood, iii. .307, 328). 56 1567-1592. Andrew Melville arrived from the Continent in the beginning of July. Already the Church was decided enough in her views, but Knox was in his grave, and some man was needed with force of character to meet the difficulties of the posi- tion. Melville came with a great Continental reputation, as standing in tlie first rank of Euro- pean scholarship. But Scotland soon found he was far more than this. He was a man of action, prepared to bear himself with a fearless intrep- idity hardly inferior to that of Knox himself. Immediately after Melville's arrival Douglas, in going to the pulpit, dropped down dead, and the Archbishopric was again vacant. Adamson, the zealous Presbyterian, who had satirised the three different kinds of bishops, consented to accept the appointment, and himself became " My Lord's Archbishop," the nominee of Morton. It had been ao-reed between them that Adamson should refuse to be subject to the Assembty, and should set them at defiance. The Earl was in haste to get his hands on the money. But the Church was firm. Adamson was summoned before a commission to answer for usurping the title and deserting his Church. His case must go up to next Assembly, and MORTON AND MELVILLE. 57 meantime lie is forbid to call himself Arch- bishop. Obviously the Church and State were engaged in a determined struggle. Morton, now Regent, was at the height of his power, with all the force of the kingdom at his back, but so domineering that men were already asking how long it would be possible to endure him. It was about that time he held a memorable interview with Melville. In all these contendings, when the Church began to resist him, he knew well whose hand was at work threatening to stop the money. Melville, therefore, was sent for, and Morton did his best to overbear him. The debate was carried on somewhat to the following effect :^ — First, Morton began by denouncing the men who broke the peace of the Church and the country, by introducing foreign ideas on points of Church Government. Melville answered that this was not so — not foreign ideas. We go by the Word of God alone. But the Assembly is a convocation of the King's lieges, and it is treason for them to meet without his permission. ' Mt'lvilK-^s Diury, p. G8. 58 1567-1592. This was not so, Melville again replied. Were' Christ and his apostles guilty of trea- son when they brought together hundreds and thousands with no permission of the Magistrate, as may be seen in the Acts of the Apostles ? Then Morton, losing patience, broke out " tauntinglie," " Read ye ever such an act as we did at St Johnston's" [Perth] — referring to the resistance of the Lords of the Congregation. " My Lord," said Melville, " if ye be ashamed of that act, Christ will be ashamed of you." Morton was roused, and growled out, exclaim- ing in a tone of angry menace which, as Dr M'Crie says, few in Scotland could have heard without alarm, "There will never be quietness in this country till half-a-dozen of you are hung or banished." ^ " Tush, sir," replied Melville, " threaten your courtiers in that manner, purpuratis tuis ista minitare. I have been ready to give my life ^ M'Crie, Life of Melville, 194-196. Two poets had lampooned Morton, and in reply lie had them both hanged. A minister at Leith who censured him was silenced in the same way. There were other cases, in which he applied the same remedy to those who offended him (Cuningham's Hist, of Church, i. 449. Chambers' Domestic Annals, pp. 61, 79, 126). SECOND BOOK OF DISCIPLINE. 59 where it would not have been half so ' weill wared.' Let God be glorified, it will not be in your power to hang or exile His truth."- And so the conference ended, leaving Morton, we may believe, in no very enviable frame of mind. We must now refer to the '"' Second Book of Discipline," one of the most important docu- ments in the history of those times. The Church had been driven to it by the Leith Convention ; her government must be put on a clear footing. The proposal hung fire, however, till Melville took it in hand. In 1576 the committee appointed to carry out this business was enlarged. Four sub-committees were formed. There were numerous confer- ences, the whole was matured and approved by the General Assembly, April 1578,^ and it only remained to get the assent of Parliament. At first there were good hopes. The book, indeed, was all but approved by the Privy Council,^ but a change came. The rival politicians, who had 1 Book of Univ. Kirk, i-p. \~r,, 17(3. M'Crie, Life of Melville, i. 163-165. 2 Spottswood's Hi.«t. p]>. 289, 302. 60 1567-1592. been courting the fa.vour of the Church, had agreed, and both turned against her. ^ The Church, however, still continued to press the matter, till at last she got impatient, and re- solved to act on her own authority. The General Assembly solemnly enacted tlie "Book of Discip- line " as one of the Standards of the Church, directed it to be registered among the Acts, ordered the Presbyteries which had just been erected each to provide themselves with a copy,^ and all ministers to sign it on pain of excommunication. This was done in right of her own spiritual authority. No matter whether Parliament ratified it or refused it. It was solemnly enacted as the standard by which thenceforward the Church is to regulate her own , procedure according to the mind of Christ. As to the book itself, it cut up Episcopacy root and branch, and established the Presbyterian system in its complete form. But what concerns us is the care with which it defines the civil and spiritual jurisdictions, their agreement and their differences. There are four short sections of 1 M'Crie's Melville, i. 19S. Register of Privy Council, iii. 431-433. "Book of the Universal Kirk, p. 218. THE BISHOPS RESIGN. 01 Chapter I., which indicate the view taken of these subjects. In terms so phiin that he who runs may read, the two provinces are marked out — the civil and the ecclesiastical — the wdiole being made to rest on the authority of the Bible and the rules of administration which Scripture seems to warrant.^ The system of Church Government was now settled. Not only was the office of Bishop abolished (1580) by a unanimous vote, but all persons holding "the said pretended office" were ordered at once to resign,^ which the whole of the Bishops did in the course of that j^ear, with the exception of five.^ In 1581 the Assembly^ on the invitation of the King,^ set up thirteen Presbyteries. Thus the Church had put her 1 Dr Hill Burton gives it as his opinion that in preparing this book Melville showed " a finer sense of decorum " than Knox, and more "logical aptness." "To those who have a partiality for the triumphs of logical definition and arrangement, the Second Book might be an acceptable study" (Hill Burton's Hist, v. 169). 2 Calderwood'.s Hist. iii. 4()'J. ^ Tlie minutes recording their submission were torn out of the Record by tlie Archbishop of St Andrews (Principal Lee's Lectures, ii. 19). ■• There were previous indications that the Church was going to do it on her own authority (Book of Univ. Kirk., p. 192. Register of Privy Council, vol. iii., x.\iv.-v.). \l 62 1567-1592. house in order, and it was full time, for days of trial were at hand. "^ When the young King mounted the throne, he unfortunately put himself into the hands of two favourites, who soon taught him to forget the lessons of George Buchanan. The least objec- tionable of the two was a relative of his own, Esme Stewart, whom the Guises had sent over from Paris to restore, if possible, French in- Hueuce in Scotland. He was first made Earl and then Duke of Lennox. A worse adviser was Captain James Stewart, created Earl of Arran, a dangerous man,^ who set himself to corrupt the young King — a boy of twelve — and lead him into all evil. Having James completely under their influence, these two, for their own ends, resolved to make him absolute ruler both in Church and State. The Church was the only power in the country able to resist them, and it was on the General Assembly that the brunt of the battle fell. Still it was the old question of Tulchan Epis- copacy that first came into view. In June 1581 Archbishop Boyd of Glasgow died. Lennox got 1 " An audacious profligate " (Principal Lee, ii. 77). CASE OF MONTGOMERY. 63 a grant of the living, and appointed as his nominee Montgomery, a weak man, who was minister of Stirling. The Assembly called him to the bar, put him on his trial, prohibited him meantime from accepting the office, and remitted the case to the Synod. And now at this point there arose a determined trial of strength between the Church and State — Royal Supremacy against Spiritual Independence. The members of the Synod were summoned before the King in Council, to answer for having interfered with Montgomery. They simply declined the Council's jurisdiction in things spiritual. The scene must have been a strange one at Stirling, when the young King was much moved, "and not far from tears," as Durie,^ one of the Edinburgh ministers, addressed him, warn- ing him against the course he was pursuing under the advice of evil counsellors, and remind- ing him that "the welfare of the Kirk" was his " welfare." A still more striking scene was witnessed next year at St Andrews when the Assembly met, and the King sent a letter charging them to let ' Calderwooil's Hit-t. iii. 597. / 64 1567-1592. Montgomery alone. They agreed that none of his civil rights should be interfered with, but in things ecclesiastical they would do their duty. Then a messenger-at-arms appeared, and in the King's name charged them to stop on pain of re- bellion. With all due respect, they sent a second reply in similar terms, and quietly went on to try the case. Various articles of charge were found proved, but before pronouncing sentence they sent a deputation to deal with Montgomery. At a private interview they conferred and prayed with him, and after prayer, as they reported, "he sat still a pretty space on his knees, ^ then he riseth and saitli, ' Get me ray cloak, I will go with you to the Assembly.' But when he came to the College Close ' loth was he to go in.' " They left him accordingly to take his own course, but the end was, as they express it, that " after long i^ reluctation " he came and confessed his faults, and promised l)efore God and the Assembly that he would " meddle no further concerning the Archbishopric of Glasgow^" The Assembly, however, were doubtful of him. They directed the Presbytery of Glasgow to 1 Calderwood's Hist. iii. 599-605. A SCENE AT GLASGOW. 05 watch his movements, and if he showed signs of retracting they must report him to the Pres- bytery of Edinburgh, wlio were authorised to excommunicate him. So it fell out. He was found soon afterwards trying to get the Arch- bishopric,^ and the Presbytery of Glasgow took up the case. Strange scenes followed. The Provost of Glasgow, with his Bailies and some others, interrupted the Presbytery, dragged the Moderator out of the chair, " smote him on the face, pulled him," we read, " by the beard, beated out one of his teeth, and put him in the Tol- booth."^ The Presbytery calmly went on with the business. They reported Montgomery to the Presbytery of Edinburgh, by whom he was excommunicated, and the sentence publicly in- timated in the churches.^ 1 He changed his mind "how soon he returned to the Court and perceived the King's countenance cast down upon him for that he had done " (Spottswood Hist. p. 319). '^ Caklerwood's Hist. iii. 621. ^ Public feeling seems to have been very adverse to him. After his excommunication, his appearance on the streets of Edinburgh caused great commotion. He was "onbeset" and "hued out by- flinging of stones at him out at the Kirk of Field port." Even the King had no real respect for him. When James heard what had taken place " he lay down on the Inch at Perth not able to conteane himself for laughter, and said he was a seditious loun" (Calder- wood's Hist. iii. (534 ; Chambers' Domestic Annals, i. 149). E 66 1567-1592. The Provost of Glapo-ow had next to be dealt with. The Assembly summoned him, he failed to appear, but the Church was in earnest. Full enquiry was made, his offence was proved, and alono^ with others he was found liable to ex- communication, which was equivalent to out- lawry. The Provost began to feel it was a serious thing to use violence against a Court of the Church. It would never do for the Provost of Glasgow to be an outlaw ; he came forward and made his submission, in such terms that the end was served, the authority of the Church had been vindicated.^ In the meantime Montgomery's case was becoming formidable. The King and Council proclaimed the Church's sentence of excommuni- cation nulP and void, and ordered all men under a severe penalty to j)ay him his dues as their Pishop. A meeting of Assembly was at once summoned jwo re nata, and Melville from the chair denounced this new Popedom, the King claiming supremacy both in Church and State. A paper of grievances was drawn up demanding redress, and Melville, at the head of a deputation, 1 Calderwood's Hist. iii. 688. ^Ibid.in.6S\. MELVILLK "we DARE." 67 was sent to present it to the King at Perth. He was warned it would be at the risk of his life, but he simply replied that he was not afraid. Ac- cordingly, at the head of a deputation, he entered the royal presence, and brought the protest be- fore the Kino; and his Council.^ The courtiers, were enraged, and Arran, the favourite, looking fiercely round, demanded, " Who dare sign these treasonable articles ? " " We dare," said Melville,, and ste]3ping forward he took the pen and affixed his signature, all the Commissioners following ' his example.- For the moment the Council was reduced to silence. The whole liberties of Scotland, civil as well as •> ecclesiastical, were at that time in danger, and if '^ the danger passed, it was due in no small degree to the Church, and her determined adherence to her own Spiritual Independence. The two Court favourites were bent on establishino; absolute 1 M'Crie's Life of Melville, i. 272, 273. - The scene is best described in the words of James Melville : " When they cam before the Council, Arran begins to threaten with thrawn brow and boasting language. What ! says he, wha daur subscryve thir treasonable articles. Mr Andrew answers We daur, and withal starts to, and taks the pen fra the clerk, subscryves and calls to his brethren, who all cam and subscry vft " (Melville's Diary, p. 133). 08 1567-1592. government,^ and were carrying all before tliem. As for Parliament and the Privy Council, they were tools in the hands of Lennox and Arran, but /the Church stood in the breach, and she did so ^ because her Spiritual Independence was at stake. In worldly politics men may give and take. Even in regard to national liberty, the liberty of the subject, there may be a question of com- promise ; but when the secular arm would put down the sacred authority which the Church holds from Christ, she has no choice. Loyalty to Christ her Head is an absolute necessity. Hence that scene at Perth. In defence of the Headship of Christ Melville could look in the face all the powers of earth and say, " We dare." When nobles and statesmen were truckling to the in- fluence which threatened to enslave the country, the Church, in the consciousness of her Heaven- given responsibility, was fearless, and her example roused the nation to a sense of what was going on. The liberties of the people were saved, but it was the (Church which led the way, and the . ^ Esme Stewart, Duke of Lennox, could tell James how the French King was supreme and absolute, and instil into his mind the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience (Hill Burton, V. 427). MELVILLE GOES TO ENGLAND. 69 Church was firm because her Spiritual Indepen- dence and her fidelity to Christ were at stake. Our Scottish forefathers, it must be admitted, were rouo-h in their methods. The Raid of Ruthven took place. The nobles seized the King, held possession of him in the Castle of Ruthven, drove Lennox, one of the favourites, away to France, where he died, and shut up Arran, the other favourite, for a time in confine- ment. After ten months, however, James regained his liberty, Arran was reinstated, the nobles concerned in seizino- the Kincr were declared traitors, and had to flee the kingdom. The weight of his displeasure fell on the Church, and especially on Melville, who was put on his trial for a sermon he had preached. He declined the civil jurisdiction of the Privy Council, claiming to be tried first by the Courts of the Church, to whom he was primarily responsible for anything he said in the pulpit.^ After the decision of the Church was given, the civil court 1 " The whilk [ilecliniiture] when the Kinj:; and Captain James [Arran] . . . with roarings of lions and messages of death had taken so hot that all the Council and Court of the palace were filled with fear. . . . Mr Andro never jarging [flinching] nor dashed a whit . . . plainly told the King and Council that 70 1567-1592. might try him for any supposed offence, political or civil. ^ The result was that this declinature was itself made a crime. He was condemned and ordered to prison at Blackness. As that prison, however, was in the charge of an agent of Arran, his great enemy, the world knew well what that meant. Melville was in Edinburgh. His friends warned him — some of them using the expressive proverb, " Loose and living." Melville, in company witJi his brother Roger, quietly " slipped out at the Port," and went off, but not to Blackness. He turned his course towards Berwick, where he j)ut himself under the protec- tion of Elizabeth.^ James and Arran now had their hands free, Melville and the leading nobles being in banish- they presumed overboldly ... to tak on tliem to judge doctrine." And that ye may see your Aveakness and rashness in taking upon you what ye neither can nor ought to do, lowsing a little Hebrew Byble from his belt and clanking it down on the burd, these, he said, are my instructions, see if any of you can judge of them" (Melville's Diary, 142). ^ This should be carefully noted. The Church never claimed that her decision should bar the civil authorities from trying the case before their own tribunals, as affecting civil or political interests. Her only contention was that a minister was re- sponsible in the first instance to the courts of the Church for what he said during divine service in the pulpit. 2 Ibid. 144. THE BLACK ACTS. 71 ment. Parliament was called in jMay 1584, and the whole of the previous legislation in favour of the Church was overthrown. It was made treason henceforth to decline the King's juris- diction in any question, however spiritual. No Church Court was to meet without his express permission. It was treason to speak against the Bishops as one of the Estates in Parliament. Presbyteries were abolished, and the Bishops were to have full authority in their dioceses. These were known as the Black Acts of 1584, which subverted the Presbyterian Church, and placed the liberties of the nation under the feet of the King. No wonder that Parliament, in passing them, met with closed doors. But though the ministers found themselves locked out, some hint had got abroad of what was intended, and three of their leading men, Pont, Balcanqual, and Lawson, went to the cross when the Acts were being proclaimed, and having taken a formal public protest, so as to suspend their legal force, they instantly disappeared, going off to England.^ Arran was enraged, publicly stormed against the three protestors, and especially against La\yson, 1 Pont thus lost his office as Lord of Session, which he had hehl. 72 1567-1592. Knox's successor at Edinburgh, declaring that he would yet " make his head leap from his halse." It was going to be a life or death struggle, in which the courtiers were resolved to crush the Church and her spiritual independence. But here James' statecraft also came into action. All ministers must within forty days sign a bond engaging to carry out the Black Acts, on pain of losing their stipends. At first men generally refused. On the suggestion of Adamson, however, the King introduced a clause stating that they were only to agree to the Bond in so far as it was agreeable to the Word of God,^ and in this form not a few even of the most faithful signed it. The Church found it was a difficult time. It was ill contending for her spiritual independence against the hostility of James, the overbearing fierceness of Arran, and the un- scrupulous craft of Adamson. But better times were at hand. Arran had overshot the mark. The country was weary of him.^ The English Queen saw that the time ^ "The clause addet 1)y force of law to make a Presbyterian and spiritually independent Church Episcopalian and Erastian, led to that long, fierce struggle \Yliich has made the next twenty-six years one of the darkest and yet one of the most heroic periods of Scottish history. The Church's true position was not to be surren- dered at the Ijidding; of King; or Parliament. Bishops were set up, however, and then the difficulty came that the Presbyterian ministers would not acknowledge their authority or have anything to do with them. The Privy Council sought to correct this, and passed an Act order- ino; all ministers ordained since 1649 to oive in their submission to the Bishops before the 1st of November,^ on jDain of losing their stipends, and if they continued preaching, the soldiers were to 23ull them out of the pulpit. Bishop Burnet tells, on good authority, tliat when that Act was passed the members of Council were all so drunk as hardly to know what tliey were doing. Government had been assured that not ten min- isters in the Diocese of Glasgow, and few in all 1 As in the case of St Bartholomew's Day in Enghmd, the date was chosen so as to make them lose the stipends of the whole year (Lee's Lectures ii. 321-2, 225 : Burnet's Own Time, i. 317). THE CURATES. 131 Scotland, would refuse ; ^ l)ut the result was that, on tlie last Sabbatli of October, from two to three hundred ministers preached their farewell ser- mons, the number being afterwards increased to nearly four hundred. It was a fatal step for the Government ; the outgoing ministers were so much respected,^ and the incoming men, the curates, so much the reverse. Of these curates. Bishop Burnet, "who lived among them and knew them well," says they were the " worst preachers I ever heard; ignorant to a reproach, many of them openly vicious — a disgrace to their orders." '^ In the meantime these four hundred outgoing ministers, though a minority, were the true Presbyterian Church of Scotland. They upheld her principles before the country, and at great cost maintained her Spiritual Independence. Charles might speak of his royal supremacy in things spiritual, he might put it in an Act of Parliament, but the Scottish people and that faithful band of four hundred would have none •of it. They stood out for their Presbyterian principles and Sj)iritual Independence. ^ Wodrow, i. 282. 2 " Many of them wore related to the first families in the country . . . and their piety and kindness to the people secured tliem universal esteem " (Lee's Lectures, ii. 322). ^ Burnet's Own Time, i. 269. 132 1660-1690. The next point on which the struggle turned was the refusal of the people to attend the parish churches and hear the curates. On this all the power of Government was brought to bear. The King in his royal supremacy must have power to rule the Church, and compel people to worship where he ordered them. This was the point on which that long struggle rose, that lasted all Charles's time and on into the next reign, marked by many a dark scene of cruelty and blood. At the outset the parish churches were deserted, the people going off en masse to hear those mini- sters who had stood faithful. Then came an Act imposing a heavy fine, but it had little effect, and was followed in 1664 by a second Act, em- powering the soldiers to plunder the people who attended the conventicles. Strange scenes are described when they waylaid congregations at the hour of dismissal, stripping them and going off laden with booty. But soon a more formid- able step was taken. The Court of High Com- mission was set up.^ It was a mere instrument of tyranny, bound by no rules of evidence, em- powered to imprison at pleasure and impose ruinous fines — a court from whose bar, it was 1 " That institution abhorred and dreaded both in EngUind and Scotland " (Hill Burton, vii. 436). SIR JAMES TURNER. 133 said, no innocent person was ever known to retire uncondemned — a fitting instrument to enforce Charles's royal supremacy, and crush all human rights, ecclesiastical or civil. ^ For some years this went on, but when it was found that on no terms would the people go back to the curates, the Government resolved to try the effect of downright persecution. In 166G Sir James Turner was let loose wdth his drasroons to lay waste the south and west of Scotland. For seven months the cruelties were so severe that it seemed as if on set purpose they were meant to drive men into rebellion. At last it came ; the people rose in a wholly unexpected way. Some soldiers in the parish of Dairy had seized a defenceless old man ; the report got abroad that they had stripped off his clothes and were proceeding to apply red-hot iron, when his ^ Instances are given by Principal Lee (Lectures ii. 330-31), as, for example, the following : — " Some parishioners of Ancrum . . . remonstrated against the admission of a curate of infamous character who at the same time enjoyed two other livings. They were brought before the High Commission, and confessed their dissatisfaction. . . . The Commission immediately sentenced them ... to be scourged through the town, stigmatiscil [l)randed with a red-hot iron], and thereafter imi)risoned, and with the first ship conveyed to the Barbadoes. For the same opposition to the entry of the curate two brothers were soon aftei-wards transported to the Barbadoes, and their sister barbarously scourged through the town of .Jedbur'd)." 134 1660-1690. neighbours, unable to stand the sight of such cruelty, rose and rescued him,^ one of the soldiers being wounded and another afterwards killed in the struggle. Knowing well the vengeance that would follow, the people kept together — a rising took place, but the country was wholly unpre- pared, and it led to the disastrous defeat of KuUion Green in the end of November. Of the severities that followed we need not speak. The Government and, above all others. Archbishop Sharp seem to have taken advan- tage of the event as warranting the most cruel measures. There were fines, often ruinous, for those who had taken any part in the rising — fines even for giving food and shelter to the fugitives — and there were tortures^ and executions, till at last the Government felt that things were going too far. Sharp was ordered to go home to mind his own diocese, leaving public affairs alone. It was in these circumstances that the first Indulgence was offered in 1669, bringing on again the question of the Church's Spiritual In- 1 Wodrow, ii. 17, 18. " These trials " were the first to become infamous by the free use of the torture " (Hill Burton, vii. 454). It was observed that from that date the influence of Prelacy declined and the interests of Presbyterianism gained ground in Scotland (Wodrow, Hist. ii. 120). FIKST TNDULIJENCK. 135 dependence. It arose in this way. Certain ministers were selected^ as being the most peace- able and pliable, and an offer was made that they might return to their parishes on certain condi- tions, one of whicli was submission to the Bishops, and another tliat they should never, in preaching, say a word against tlie ecclesiastical arrangements recently introduced. - On tliis undei'standing they would get Inick to church and manse; and if in addition the}- applied and got collation from the Bishop, they would also get the stipend. Some accepted so far as to get church and manse. ^ Hardly any went so far as to get the stipend, but the great majoi'it}' utterly refused the offer. The grounds of that refusal must be specially noticed. The real point at issue was once more the question of Spiritual Independence. The terms of the Indulgence itself are explicit. The minis- ters are directed by the King to exercise their ecclesiastical functions " in our name and by our * Besides those selected men wlio "had lived peaceably," the offer of an income was made to all who would ;^'ive assurance that they would live peaceably in the future {Ibid. ii. 130-31). - This was called utlcriiif,' "any seditious discourses or expres- sions in the pulpit or elsewhere" (/W(Z. ii. 130). The meaning was well understood — they must not preach against the King's supremacy in the f'hurch. 3 About forty-two in all Scotland (Wodrow, Hist. 134). They h)st caste among the pecple. 136 1660-1690. authority."- Still more was this seen when Parliament was asked to ratify the Indulgence. His Majesty, the Act says, " has authority and supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical in this realm." It is an inherent right of the crown "to settle, enact, and emit constitutions, Acts, and orders . . . concerning all ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein."'^ This was what Charles had set his heart on — the complete control of the Church in all her doing-g. o On the other hand, the ministers were no less resolute. The temptation to accept the offer was great, to escape from finings and barbarities such as followed the defeat of EuUion Green — still more to get back to church and manse — and above all to the work and to the people whom they loved. But not even for these things could they own Charles as head of the Church. Let us understand their position. Here was the King bent on being absolute and arbitrary ruler in Church and State. In civil affairs he has practicall}^ succeeded. Parliament and the Council of State do his bidding — to hear is to obey — the spirit of constitutional liberty is 1 AV(j(lrow, Hist. p. 130. - Buruet'.s Own Time, i. 493. THE CHURCH IS FIRM. 137 crushed out of them. The Church is the only power that can resist, and what impelled her was the sacredness of these interests wdiich were at stake. When Charles wanted to make himself head of the Church, and, as they believed, to takfe the place due only to Christ, they could not yield. For the fear of God they dared not. When asked to accept the Indulgence under an xVct which put all the sacred authority of the Church under the feet of Charles, the great majority felt that they really had no choice. The Government might do its worst. All except a small minority refused. Failing in this, the Government for tlie next three years set themselves to put down by force the Conventicles, or field meetings, those great gatherings in which the people assembled to worship God in the open air. Severe laws were enacted, heavy fines w^ere imposed — the Bass Rock was purchased as a prison, and every effort was made to suppress the meetings. But the more they were assailed the more tlie}^ grew.\ Men came in greater numbers, and they began to come armed. The fines were getting heavier, ^ Tlie discourse up and down Scotland [in 1674] was the quality and success of last Sabbath's Conventicle (Chambers' Dom. Ann. ii. 368). 138 1660-1690. for La.iKlerdale, now a Duke, was the real head of the Government. He had married ; his Duchess was "a woman of most unscrupulous rapacity," and more money was required to support his dignity. At this point there appeared the Second Indulgence of 1672, wider in its scope and more favourable, as some thought, in its conditions. One of its stipulations, however, was strange enough. The ministers were to be coupled together, two and two keeping within the bounds of one parish, in this way confining their influ- ence within narrower bounds. This, like the former Indulgence, met with small • success, Blair, minister of Galston, expressing bluntly what many of his brethren felt. When the paper was put into his hands, ^ in the presence of tlie Privy Council, " My Lord Chancellor," he said, "I cannot be so uncivil as to refuse a paper offered by your Lordship, Init I can receive no instruc- tions from you for regulating the exercise of my ministry, for if I should receive instructions from 5^ou I should be your ambassador " [not Christ's].^ This was his testimony of allegiance to the Church's only Head. It was boldly spoken, but 1 8th July l(i73 (Wolrow's Hist. ii. 21(i). 2 Among the moi'u strict (Covenanters the ministers who accepted went l)y the name of tlie " Kini^'s curates." JiLAIIl OF GALSTON. 139 it cost liiin his life. The Chancelloi* " took it heinously ill ; " Blair was east into prison, and amid the sufterings of his eonfinement he soon died. The Indulgence professed to be an Act of clemency, ])ut after all there were cases in which the refusal or acceptance was practically a matter of life or death. The next point where this question of Spiritual Independence meets us is on the eve of the battle of Bothwell Bridge. But before speaking of that, it may be well briefly to recall the movements which led up to the crisis. The Government were more determined than ever to suppress field meetings. One way of it was that Lauder dale let loose on the countr}" the Highland Host. Seven or eight thousand men came forth from the Popish Highlands with orders to pillage the western counties. For three months they had a rare time, knowing well that the more completely they laid wast*^ the district,^ the better pleased the Government would be." At last even ^ Lauderdale declared "it were better that the West should bear nothing but wiudlestraws and sandy laverocks than rebels to the King," as he called the Covenanters (Sir W. Scott's Tales of a Grand fiitlier, ii. 30). - They were instructed to spare the friends of tlie (loveninu'nt. " It is said, however, lli'it this was a distimtion too nice for their 140 1660-1690. Lauderdale got ashamed. Tliey were ordered home, and Kirkton the historian tells how sorely they were encumbered on their march by the household furniture, the pots and pans, the beds and bedding, and other booty which they carried off to the Hig;hlands. A force of militia was next raised, and a tax imposed to support them. Garrisons were planted and soldiers quartered on suspected districts. Fines got heavier ; a sum of thirty thousand pounds sterling for example (£368,000 Scots), was exacted from eleven men in the county of Renfrew, an enor- mous amount, considering the value of money. ^ A sum of four hundred pounds was set on the heads of Welsh and Semple, two of the outed ministers and leading field preachers. Every- thing, in short, was done to put down these field meeting's. Still the meetino-s went on, the hearers came armed and in lai'ger numbers, and the meeting places among the wild hills began to be chosen, not merely for the purposes of divine worship, but with an eye also to their fitness as a field of battle. It looked as if comprehension." They were "impartial in their marauding," dealing equally with friend and foe wliertn or plunder was to be had (Hill Burton, vii. 472), ^ See details in Wodrow, ii, 22(J. SEVERE FINES. 141 another outbreak could not be far oft', but what decided the matter was that Claverhouse came on the scene. When Archbishop Sharp was put to deatli on Magus Moor in 1679, the act was felt by very many of the Covenanters to be both a crime and a Ijlunder. Hie Government naturally were roused, and tlieir proceedings became so cruel that a part}^ of extreme men banded themselves together, and issued udiat was called the Ruther- glen Declaration. On tlie anniversary of Charles's restoration, eighty of them fully armed rode into Ruthergien, with Robert Hamilton of Preston at their head, cast into the bonfires the persecutino- Acts of Parliament, and affixed a proclamation to the market-cross, declarino- that tliev would no longer submit to this tyranny, denouncing at the same time the ministers who had taken the Indulgence. This was open rebellion, the Government held, and the signal was given for Claverhouse to do his worst. A great field meeting; was beino; held at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire, when the dragoons appeared. The people stood their ground at Drumclog, a position close at hand. Claverhouse gave the order to fire, the Covenanters charged ; the royal troops were broken, and fied, leaving 142 1G60-1690. about forty of their number killed or wounded. Clave rliouse himself made a narrow escape. Once more this temporary success led to a rising, for which the country was not prepared. The defeated royal forces retired to Stirling, while the Covenanters, to the number of about 4000, gathered at Hamilton Muir, with Eobert Hamilton as their leader. Several weeks elapsed, but instead of drilling and getting ready for self-defence, they fell into disputes as to the allegiance due to the King, and as to Spiritual Independence, and what should be done about the Indulgence. These ill-timed debates were brought on by the proposal to issue a manifesto, and they fell out as to the terms of it. Never was anything more piteous. The great majority were loyal to the King, but Hamilton and some extreme men stood out. Keen debates arose, the whole army was disorganised, olticer against officer, soldier against soldier, denouncing each other, while the King's army was on the march. It was all very deplorable. The result, when the battle came, was wdiat might have been expected. A small body of Covenanters made a gallant stand till overpowered by numbers, but the army as a whole w^as helpless, and yielded without striking a blow. BOTHWELL BRIDGE. 143 Tlieu it was that the veal hori'or.s of the perseeii- tion began. Our business, however, is not with these cruel details further than to illustrate the great principle which carried our fathers through the ordeal, and to show how deep their convictions were. Of the army which surrendered at Hamilton Muir, some twelve hundred were driven on foot to Edinburgh, marched through the streets, and penned in the Greyfriars (-hurchyard. For five months they were exposed to the weather night and day, wdtli hardly any shelter. Many perished from exjjosure. Some were executed — five of them on Magus Moor. Two hundred were sent off" to be sold as slaves, most of whom perished by shipwreck ; but worse than all, Claverhouse was let loose, and went through the western counties, earning for himself a name of infamy as the cruellest persecutor of that cruel time. The Covenanters, however, were fearless. A band of their extreme men rode into Sanquhar, 22nd June 1680,^ and affixed a proclamation on the cross denouncing Charles, and casting oj6f allegiance to him. It only added fuel to the 1 W(j(lr<)\\"s Hist. iii. 212. 144 1660-1690. flame. The country was overrun, and scenes of cruelty followed in quick succession. At Airs- moss, for example, Cameron fell after that memorable prayer, " Lord, spare the green, and take the ripe." His head and hands were cut off; they carried them to his father in prison, and asked if he knew them. The old man took them up and kissed them, while the tears fell fast. " I know them, I know them," he said ; " my son's, my dear son's. It is the Lord. Good is the will of the Lord. He cannot wronof me or mine."^ The head and hands were afterw\ards fixed up over one of the city gates of Edinburgh, where for many a day they were seen w^asting in sun and shower, keeping alive the memory of the fearless martyr. It is difficult to conceive of the fierce rage of the Government at the time. Hackston of Rathillet had been arrested wdien Cameron fell, and was publicly executed, but the atrocious barbarities of the execution are too terrible for description. It seemed as if the Government w^ere thirsting for vengeance in its most outraojeous form. If it was expected that this would strike terror into the Covenanters, there never was a greater 1 Scots Worthies, 429. AIRSMOSS. 145 mistake. A celebrated meeting was held soon after at Torwood, near Stirling. Cargill, the beloved friend of Cameron, preached and solemnly pronounced sentence of excommunication against the Kino; and six members of his Government mentioned by name. It was a strange, irregular proceeding, not to be defended ; but the ominous thing was, that the country generally responded to it. Even the excommunicated men them- selves seem to have felt it ; one of them — the Duke of Rothes — not long afterwards owning on liis deathbed that he felt the sentence binding. Stronger steps followed, and were fearlessly replied to by the Covenanters. Cargill was arrested ; the price of five thousand merks had been set on his head. He was executed at Edin- burgh, and his head and hands fixed like Cameron's over one of the city gates. In 1G81 the infamous Test Act^ was passed, one of its noblest victims beingthe Earl of Argyle.^ • It was Erastian in principle, and taken alon<; witli the Act of Succession passed at the same time, it made the next king, a Papist, snpreme over "all persons and in all causes, as ■well ecclesiastical as civil" (Hill Burton, vii. 534). ■^ He made his escape from prison for the time through the address of his step-daughter. Lady So])hia Lindsay, di.<:j,iiised as her paL;e. He was afterwards executed on this charLje in 1085. K 146 1660-1690. The reply to these proceedings was another of those blows which the Government felt so keenly. In the early clays of January 1682, forty of the Covenanters, armed for self-defence, rode openly into Lanark, and, having publicly burned the Test Act, they read aloud a solemn declaration, affixed it on the cross, and left it there. It reiterated the proclamation of Eutherglen and Sanquhar, and asserted the right of the people to throw off the yoke of a Government so tyran- nical. The Government were exasperated, but what they felt still more was the arrival of Renwick from Holland. The field meetinors at once revived. Cameron and Cargill were gone ; their bones were bleaching over the gates of Edinburgh ; the Government seemed to have triumphed, when, all at once, Renwick appeared ready to take their place. The battle had to be fought over again, and now it was in dead earnest. It was the killing time, as men called it, which began in 1684, when the Government were deter- mined to " cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Commissions were given to the military to try any whom they suspected, and j)ut them to death, with or without the aid of a magistrate. There was no court in the land to which men could THE LANARK DECLARATION. 147 appeal. The soldiers were judges and execu- tioners all in one. The Covenanters were hunted from place to place, blood-hounds being employed, it is said, to track them, till the wildest retreats amid mosses and caves, were unsafe. In these circumstances, the Covenanters stood at bay. Kenwick and his friends issued the Apologetical Declaration,^ announcing that per- secution had got beyond what men could bear. Self-defence had become a duty — and, in order to protect themselves, they must retaliate. Especi- ally must the Intelligencers, as they were called, be dealt with — the spies who made it their business to earn blood-money by deceiving and betraying the people. If after this warning they went on with their work, it was at their peril. It must be confessed that retaliation by private parties, taking the law into their own hands, is a step which in all ordinary circumstances it is impossible to justify. The only defence is, that the fountains of justice were polluted, and the sufferers were subject to cruel oppression enough to drive wise men mad. The threat, however, was enough. It was w^ell known that the 1 Wodrow, iv. 148. 148 1660-1690. Covenanters were men who would keep their word. Not a single instance of retaliation was ever needed. The informers and spies from that day let them alone. But the Government were worse than ever. What were known as the Bloody Acts were passed. A whole series of ensnaring questions were prepared, to be put by soldiers who scoured the country, at their own good-will to inflict torture and death. The " machinery of exter- mination," as it has been called, was complete, and with relentless rigour they were applying it, when suddenly word came that Charles had died, and James VIL mounted the throne, taking his brother's ]3lace of supremacy in Church and State. At first the whole aspect of aff"airs grew darker. Claverhouse was promoted to be member of Privy Council, and aided by Grier- son of Lagg, went to work in the country districts. For the mere act of having heard sermons at a field meeting, the penalty was death. The cruelties that followed we need not describe. Who does not know the scene when Brown of Priesthill was shot down at his own door, in presence of his wife and cliildren ? DEATH OF CHARLES. 149 or that time when Andrew Ilislop knelt with his Bible in his hand, and refused to draw down his blue bonnet to cover his face, o-azinij fearlessly at his murderers as he received the fatal volley ? Who can forget Margaret JMaclachlan and Margaret Wilson, fixed to stakes below the tide-mark, and slowly drowned by the risino- waters on the Wiotown shore ? It was o o cruel work, as case followed case, far more numerous than we can tell. There was one band of 160 j^ersons, who must not be forgotten. Marched with their hands tied behind their backs from Edinburgh, they passed through Fife, Forfar, and the Mearns, on to the gloomy Whig's vault in the Castle of Dunottar. After leaving Brechin they were halted, during a " cold and stormy " night guarded by soldiers, on the bridge that crosses the North Esk, and an unrecorded tradition tells how, in the dark hours, they were heard by the country people singing the well-known Psalm, " By BaheFs streams ive scit and ivejyt." Under the privations and tortures which awaited them in the vaults of Dunottar, their numbers diminished. At last the sur- vivors were sent to America as slaves, the 150 1660-1690. men with their ears cut off, the women branded in the face, but the American authorities at once set them free, and all that care and kind- ness could do was done to give them relief. During these years we have given no details of the tortures that were inflicted — of the boot, for example, with wedges slowly hammered, stroke after stroke, till flesh and bones were crushed — of the matches kept burning between the fino;ers, inflicting; excruciatinof torture— of the thumbikins,^ where the screw was slowly turned till strong men fainted under the agony. It is a record from the details of which the mind gladly turns away. At last, in the second year of James's reign, the fires of persecution began to burn low. The country seemed as if worn out, though there was a gallant band who kept the banner flying. The King was a bigoted Papist, and now, he thought, the time had come to introduce Popery. By royal edict liberty was given to the Roman Catholics, and he soon saw that liberty must also be given to his Presbyterian subjects. Conces- * The thumbikins were introduced " on the recommendation of Dalzell, who had seen them in Russia" (Chatuhnrs' Dom. Ann. ii. 484). HOUR OF DKLIVERANCE. 151 sion after concession was made, till in June 1G87 there came an Indulgence of which most of the Presbyterian ministers availed themselves, and some who had fled to Holland returned. The Cameronians stood out, and Ren wick, the last of the martyrs, died on the scaff'old in February 1688, when Sheils at once stepped into his place, and kept the field. But the hour of deliverance had struck ; the Prince of Orange landed, James fled, and the Great Revolution had come. Here let us pause, and ask what was the meaning of all this. Why did our fathers face such an ordeal, and what was the motive that carried them through ? In one respect it was a ])attle fought by them, as Presbyterians and Scotchmen, against Episcopacy in the Church and Despotism in the State. But in another and higher aspect it was a struggle for Christ as the Church's only Head, and for the Church as holding her spiritual freedom and authority direct from Him. Tliu Presbyterians of that day were naturally the defenders of civil liberty. The Episcopalians, on the other hand, were the defenders of the arbitrary power of the Crown. Indeed, they could hardly help it ; they were dependent on the 152 1660-1690. King, leaning upon him as against the nation, and therefore subservient to his will, while the Covenanters in opposing prelacy stood out for political and civil liberty. It is well known that the divine right of kings to absolute authority, and the duty of submissive obedience and non-resist- ance on the part of the subject, were favourite themes among the Divines of the Episcopal Church both in Eno-land and Scotland. On the other hand, Knox and the Presbyterian leaders had imbued the Scottish people with the great principles of civil and religious liberty. The Covenanters in all their contendings were invari- ably found on the side of the rights and liberties of the subject. Even the extreme adherents of Cameron and Cargill were resolute in their attachment to the cause of law and order as against royal tyranny. They held it, indeed, as a sacred principle that the King must be obeyed in the exercise of all lawful authority, but if he set himself tyrannically above the law the nation was entitled to resist. Civil liberty then was one of the great objects for which our fathers embarked in that struggle, and if Scotland be this day a land of liberty and independence, let us never forget how much we owe to those who in CIVIL LIBERTY. 153 the days of the Kings usurped authority, suffered and bled for the rights and liberties of the people. But great as this principle of civil liberty was, it may be questioned what would have become of it if it had stood alone. Parliament and the Council of State, who ought to have protected the rights of the nation against the tyranny of the Crown, showed nothing but obsequiousness. So far as they were concerned the country might liave been enslaved. Charles had them under his feet.^ It was the Church which resisted him, and she did so because of still more sacred interests which were involved. The great principle of Spiritual Independence came into action — the sacred truth that the Church has Christ for her only Head, and holds spiritual jurisdiction direct from Him. It was their love and loyalty to Christ therefore which compelled them. Alonsj with this there was the feeling; of loyalty to the Covenants which they had sworn, and loyalty to the principles of the First and Second Reformation, but at the root of it all 1 The Kiuii was "tlie absolute master of Parliaiiient " (Lauder- dale Papers (juott-d by Hill Burton, vii. -IOC)). 154 1660-1690. there was the love and loyalty which they bore to Christ Himself. Zeal for His honour was the great motive which carried them throuo-h the stru2:2fle, and made them faithful unto death. OCT ' We find this not only among the ministers, but among the people of all ranks — nothing can be clearer than the testimonies which the sufferers o-ave. o In regard to the ministers, we have seen how far they carried this principle, when so many of them refused the various Indulgences with which they were tempted. It would have been a great thing to get back to their parishes, but those royal Indulgences were all fatally vitiated. They were to be received on the authority of the King, and at his will and pleasure. On this footing the offer could not be listened to. Even though he had made the conditions far wider than they were, yet if men must submit to hold the position as from the King, and at his goodwill — on such a footing they will have none of it. The Spiritual Independence and jurisdiction of the Church was a thing which the King had no right to give as from himself, and they had no right to receive thus at his hands. Already they had it from Heaven as given them by Christ. In LOYALTY TO CHRIST. 155 this lay the crucial point on which the whole conflict turned. To submit to Charles's claim of royal supremacy would be to deny Christ. They held that the King bringing his authority into things spiritual was thrusting himself into the place which belonged to none but Christ. He was a usurper. To yield to his claim would be to prove themselves unfaithful to their Saviour. The moment that this became plain, the Church had no choice. Men could suffer and die, but they could not surrender. They saw the powers of earth, and, as they believed, all the powers of hell, banded together against them. No matter, Loyalty to Christ was involved in the cause of Spiritual Independence. The question of civil liberty also came in. In that crisis of our history the great Free Church principle proved its vital importance, and ultimately under God it had a decisive influence in securing the freedom both of the Scottish Church and of the Scottisli nation. Thus it stood with the ministers, but the people of all ranks were not less resolute and clear in the testimonies which they gave. Where- ever you open the " Scots Worthies," or any other of their publications, evidence of this meets you on 156 1660-1690. every page. As the old preface-^ to the " Cloud of Witnesses" expresses it : " This is the most radiant pearl in the Church of Scotland's garland, that she hath been honoured valiantly to stand up for the headship and royal prerogative of her King and Husband Jesus Christ." But it will be best to let the sufferers speak for themselves, and to learn from their own lips what was the cause for which they died. Listen, for example, to James Skene, an Aber- deenshire gentleman of good family : "I lay down my life for owning Jesus Christ's despised interest, and for asserting that He is King and Head of His own Church, and has not deputed any other. Pope, King, or Council, to be His vicegerent on the earth." ^ Hear, again, Captain Paton, who had served with distinction under Gustavus Adolphus, and under General Leslie at Marston Moor, and had done all that man could do for the Covenanters at Eullion Green. Standing on the scaffold down in the Grassmarket, he sjoeaks in strong, direct, soldier-like terms, " I leave my testimony as a ^ Cloud ot Witnesses, p. xix. 2 Ibid. p. 92. DYING TESTIMONIES. 157 dying man against the horrid usurpation of our Lord's prerogative and Crown right, I mean the Supremacy established by hxw in this hind, which is a manifest usurpation of His crown." ^ Take alono; with this the statement of a servant girl, Isabel Alison. They brought her in before the Privy Council, " a poor lass," as she calls herself, to be questioned and cross-questioned by lawyers and judges and Lords. She managed to let them know her mind, however. They sent her to the Grassmarket to die, and standing on the scaffold, she said, " I told them that they had declared war against Christ, and had usurped and taken His prerogative, and so carried the sword ai^ainst Him and not for Him. So I think none can own them unless they disown Christ Jesus. Therefore, let the enemies and pretended friends say what they please, I could have my life on no easier terms than the denying of Christ's kingly office. So I lay down my life for owning and adhering to Jesus Christ, He being a free King in His own house, for which I bless the Lord that ever He called me to that."^ 1 Scots Worthies, p. 492. - Cloud of Witnesses, ]>. )2(j 158 1660-1690. It is needless to multiply such quotations and instances — these are the sentiments which are found to pervade statements and dying testi- monies innumerable. It is the same with all ranks of the people — the man of culture — the landed proprietor — the gallant soldier — the poor servant girl, they know and can tell what it is they die for — Christ and His royal prerogatives, as Kino; and Head of His Church. For that cause they mounted the ladder or laid down their necks under the axe. It was done in loyalty to Christ, the Church's only King and Head. The Revolution Settlement we shall afterwards consider, but there is one thing which should be noticed here before we close. The ministers who were expelled in 1662 were recognised in 1690 as forming the National Church. These were the men who had stood faithful to her constitution and prin- ciples, and they had carried these principles with them outside the Establishment. All along, while scattered and persecuted, they had been the real Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and when the storm had passed away it was round them that the nation rallied as the Church of their country. The entire ecclesiastical authority was left in their hands. It lay with them to say who should be OUTED MINISTERS RESTORED. ] 59 admitted and who were to be excluded. Aloiio- with the huty who adhered to them, these were the men whom the Government and the people recognised as forming the Church of Scotland. They were sadly reduced in number ; a broken band of sixty survivors were all who remained of the original four hundred. Before the fierceness of persecution they had been driven to the dens and caves of the earth, but now the storm had spent itself, and they came forth few in number and worn with hardship, to re-unite their scattered forces. The Lord had turned their captivity, and when they met and looked each other in the face they were as men who dreamed. On the 16tli of October 1690, a meeting of the General Assembly was held — the first after an interval of thirty-seven years. A day was spent in humili- ation and prayer, and we can conceive the feelings with which they constituted that assembly in name and by authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church's only King and Head, for whose sake they had borne the burden and heat of those terrible days. A great work was yet before them, the restoration of the Church and the re-buildino; of her broken walls, but the faith which had 160 1660-1690. carried tliem through the days of persecution was with them still. In the name of God they set np their banners, and strength was given to them in the time of need. LECTURE V. 1690-1800. LECTURE V. 1690-1800. Wk are now to speak of the Revolution Settle- ment and the difficulties which the Church had to encounter during the events that followed. In March 1689 the Convention of Estates had declared the throne of Scotland vacant, but it was not till a year and seven months afterwards — 16th October 1690 — that the General Assembly met. During that interval William and Mary had mounted the throne, and Parlia- ment had been busy. They had annulled all Acts in favour of Prelacy ; they had reinstated in their parishes the " outed " ministers of 1662 who still survived ; they had ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith, had restored the Act of 1592, and finally they had abolished patronage and the oath of supremacy. After all this, however, there was a large section of the Covenanters who refused to accc'pt the 163 164 1690-1800. Settlement mainly because the Solemn League and Covenant and other Acts connected with the Second Reformation were not restored ; for such a step, however, the nation was not prepared. In modern times Dean Stanley and others have sought to fasten on the Revolution Settlement the charge of Erastianism. The question has been much debated. During the Ten Years' Conflict Mr Andrew Gray of Perth, one of the ablest of our writers on the side of the Free Church, discussed this point in full detail, and showed, I think successfully, ^ that the charge of Erastian- ism is founded on a mistake. In regard to our present subject, the Spiritual Independence of the Church, it is enough to say that the West- minster Confession of Faith was adopted and sanctioned ; and whatever view may be taken of that Confession in other respects, of this there can be no doubt, that in it the Church's Spiritual Jurisdiction is written as with a sun- beam. And, on the other hand, there is no real ground for the allegation which has sometimes been made, that the Confession was enacted by ' The Present Conflict between tlie Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, etc., by the Rev. A. Gray of Perth 1839, pp. 80-92. REVOLUTION SETTLEMENT. 1G5 the State and imposed upon the Church as its creed. The Act of Parliament says that the Confession was appro ven by them " as the avowed Confession of this Church." Ever since 1647 that Confession had been the Church's avowed Confession, and Parliament merely recognised it for what it already was — the Church's Creed, which they were to "ratify and establish," giving it such sanction as was com- petent. But while the Revolution Settlement as a whole cannot in fairness be charged with Erastianism, it had yet some serious defects. In abolishing patronage and cancelling the binding and astricting clause attached to it, they left the nomination of ministers in the hands of the Kirk Session and heritors. The heritors had only a civil qualification, and to give them Church power in such a case was wrong in principle. And there was another defect. In ratifying the Confession they failed to enact along with it one important proviso in the Act of Assembly of 1647, the effect of this omission being that the King might claim the power of calling and proroguing the General Assembly. This soon proved a root of bitterness. With all these 166 1690-1800. defects, however, tlie Revolution Settlement was accepted by the great majority of the Church and the people of Scotland, not as a perfect measure, but as one which they might act under, while using all the means in their power to have it made better. If ever there was a time when some allowance must be made, it was amid the turmoil attending the close of that long cruel persecution. It was a great thing that the friends of the Church, surrounded as they were by Jacobite influence and intrigue, were able to secure so much as they did — especially that the Church was recognised as holding her spiritual jurisdiction according to the Confession of Faith, not from the State, but from Christ. Thankino; God that so much had been made sure, the Church felt she must now set herself to the work which God had given her to do. Kinff William was no sooner seated on the throne than he showed the cherished purpose on which his heart was set — the union of the Presby- terian and Prelatic clergy in one Church. As a statesman it was to him a matter of pressing importance to have them brought together. He seems to have had no particular belief in any TKE KING AND THE CHURCH. 1G7 i'orm of Church government ; at all events, a united Church and a united people were far more to him than any difference between Presby- tery and Episcopacy. He soon saw, however, that the national Church must be Presbyterian. Both the ministers and the people believed in the Presbyterian system, and held its principles far too firmly to allow it to be interfered with. William acquiesced ; the people willed the Presl)yterian form, and so it must be. Still, his favourite idea was to get the Episcop- alians inside the Established Church — he would have a door left open for them, and would make it as wide as he could. Indeed, he would fain have orone so far as to brino- in at once with no questions asked all who would conform and sign the Standards of the Church. AVhen he wrote to ask that this should be done, he never seems to have doubted that the Assembly would agree, and on finding that they stood out it gave him deep offence. As a mark of his displeasure, he issued a proclamation cancelling the meeting of Assembly in November 1691, and proroguing it till July 1692. To that meeting he wrote in still stronger terms to say that the Episcopalian clergy must be admitted, 168 1690-1800. and he even sent down the formula which they were to sign on being received. The Assembly held firmly, on the other hand, that it was their business, not his, to say who were to be admitted to the ranks of the ministry,^ but they shrank from a collision, and allowed the matter to hang fire, till at last the royal Commissioner interposed. They had delayed long enough, and he dissolved the Assembly without naming a day for the next meeting, intimating that the King w^ould let them know when it suited him. It seemed as if the old conflict had reappeared, and as if William wanted, like James and Charles, to have the Church under his control. But, once more, the Moderator, supported by the Members of Assembly, was equal to the occasion ; he simply appointed the next meeting to be held in August 1693. ^ They had been taking steps to have tliis matter settled. Two Commissions had been appointed to visit the different parishes, one to the north, and the other south of the Tay. The incumbents were to be retained on two conditions — First, that they were doint; their work iaitlifully as parish ministers; and secondly, that tliey would sign the (^oniession of Faith and conform to the Presbyterian Chuich. It should be remembered that all along these Episcopalians had used the Presbyterian forms of worship. A COLLISION AVOIDED. 160 Here was a direct challenge. The Kintr was incensed against the Church for her obstinacy, while the Church was standing on her rio-lits against the Erastian interference of the King. An actual collision was skilfully avoided by the management of Secretary Johnston, son of the famous Johnston of Warriston. Parliament was got to address the King requesting him to call a meeting of Assembly, which he did, naming a day so near that named by the Church herself that there was no need to fioht for the difference. The Church had substantially gained her object, the Assembly was to meet. That meeting did not take place till 1694, owinof to the Kino-'s absence on the Continent. At last when it was held, it proved to be critical, and but for Carstares might have led to a disas- trous explosion. An oath of assurance and allegiance to William as King de jure had been imposed as a condition to the holding of any office, lay or clerical. The Episcopalians who were Jacobites of course refused. The Presbyterians had no objection to the oath in itself, but to have it imposed and made a condi- tion of spiritual office in the Church was an Erastian interference not to be endured. It 170 1690-1800. shows how sensitive they were on such points. The ministers and people alike got excited over it, and that meeting of Assembly in 1694 brought matters to an issue. The King; and Council were determined that all members must swear the oath before taking; their seats. The ministers and elders were determined to refuse. They petitioned the Council to be relieved, and were denied. The royal Commissioner sent an express to London stating the facts. It was, considered on a day when Carstares haj^pened to be absent from court, and he found on his return that orders had been issued to exact the oath. It is one of the most striking scenes in the history of the time when Carstares arrested the King's messenger, got possession of his despatches, and taking them in his hand, made his way into William's bedchamber late at night, woke him, fell on his knees at the l)edside, and begged his life. The indignation which followed when the King knew what he had done made him aware of how dangerous a man William was to interfere with. But Carstares laid before him information which no one else possessed, showing that these despatches would set all Scotland in a fiame and alienate his best friends. The result was that they PRINCIPAL CARSTARP]S. 171 were thrown into the fire. Other despatches in the opposite sense were written out and signed, the royal messenger was hurried off, and reached Edinburgh not a moment too soon, riding into the city on the morning of the day when the Assembly was to meet. There had been great anxiety, and such was the effect of William's timely compliance that very liberal concessions were made to meet his views, these concessions going further than man}^- of the more faithful ministers afterwards approved of. Still, William was dissatisfied, and showed his displeasure by proroguing and again proroguing the Assembly. The Church, on the other hand, resolved to assert her Spiritual Independence and make her position clear. After consultation they issued in 1698 a "Seasonable Admonition," as they term it, in which the spiritual authority of the Church is set forth in all its length and breadth. " We do believe ^ and own," so the testimony states, "that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of His Church, and that He has instituted in His Church ofiicers and ordinances, order and government, and not left it to the will of man, ^ Seasonable Adiiioiiitioii, etc., p. f). Quotetl by Uetlieriiij^toii, p. 576. 172 1690-1800. magistrate or Church to alter at their pleasure." They make it plain that equally after the Revol- ution, as before it, the Church held fast by that great principle of her Spiritual Independence under Christ, her only Head. William's attempts to tamper with it did not involv^e serious practical consequences, but they seemed to call for some emphatic testimony on the part of the Church, and certainly it was given in no doubtful terms. The same zeal which thus showed itself in defence of her rights showed itself no less in the Church's efforts to spread the Gospel among the people. All along her history these two things go together. At this period the difficulties in the north of Scotland especially were very great. The preachers whom she sent forth had very often to deliver their message amid scenes of turbulence and outrage. In spite of it all, however, the work went on. For the sake of the Master whom she served, she put forth her energies in proclaiming against all opposition the message of peace and goodwill. At last, in 1702, King William died. He had done much for the religion and the liberties of Scotland, and the Church honoured him for his services as an instrument in the hands of God. UNION WITH ENGLAND. 173 His attempts to interfere with her Spiritual Independence were, after all, on a small scale. She resisted him, but evidently it cost an eflfort to act in opposition to one to whom she owed so much. In 1702 Queen Anne ascended the throne, and the General Assembly at their first meeting- voted an address full of loyalty ; but taking their stand firmly on the Claim of Eight, the foundation on which the Revolution Settlement rested.^ Soon, however, all other subjects were lost sio^ht of in the negotiations that were going on for Union with England. The whole country was in a ferment, and the subject on which, above all others, the nation was determined was to have the Church made safe. The Commis- sioners appointed to negotiate with those of England were stringently bound not to allow the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Church of Scotland to be interfered with. They were to settle other matters as best they could, but the Church must be made secure ; every right and privilege belonging to her must remain intact. ' Acts of Assembly, p. 321. 174 1G90-1800. And very faithfully did the Commissioners carry out their instructions. The Act of Security was passed cjuarding the Church as far as human precautions and binding national engagements could avaiL The English Commissioners agreed that in all time to come her Confession of Faith, her Presbyterian government, and her constitu- tional rights should remain intact. Every possible interference in the direction of Erastianism or Episcopacy was barred. Nothing could be more complete. We are now to enter on the history of the Church during the eighteenth century under Queen Anne and the Georges. We shall meet with the rise of Moderatism, leading to the formation of the Secession Church under the Erskines and of the Eelief under Gillespie. It was not the State, however — it was the Church herself — which did what was then done. The one event which brought the Church into hostile contact with the civil mao;istrate was the re-en- actment of the law of Patronasre, but before speaking of this there are some minor references to Spiritual Independence which may be noticed. So early as March 1703 there occurred one of those slight attempts to encroach on the province SYNOD RECORDS. 175 of the Church ^ with which we are so familiar. Towards the close of the Assembly some Synod Records came up for attestation in the usual way. These were found to contain strong statements as to the rio;ht of Church courts to meet in virtue of their own inherent jDOwers. While they were under discussion, and the Assembly were about to record their approval, the Ro3^al Commissioner suddenly interposed, and in the Queen's name dissolved the Assembly. The Assembly, however, refused to close until they had appointed the time for holding the next meeting. The following year, accordingly, they were firm. The Synod Records were again brought up and formally approved. In 1712 an important Act was passed, depriv- ing Church censures of all civil penalties in time to come. Under Popery the sentence of excommunication was equivalent to outlawry, and that was one of the things that the Reforma- tion failed to remove. Parliament had retained it against the wishes of some of the leading ministers, Calderwood the historian, for example. It was now enacted in 1712 that the sentences ^ Willisou's Testimony, p. ,31. 176 1690-1800. of tlie Church should be effectual only to spiritual results, and in this way the ground was cleared between the two jurisdictions — the temporal and the spiritual. The Episcopalians were to enjoy full toleration, but they must first take the oath of abjuration renouncing the Pretender. Unfortunately, this oath containing one objec- tionable proviso was imposed also on Presbyter- ians. To many it was intolerable, and the Church was split into two parties — the Jurants and Non-Jurants. Among the laity especially the oath was detested. At one time a complete schism seemed imminent. It required all the influence of Carstares to prevent an entire disruption, but a change was made in the terms of the oath, and ultimately the storm spent itself and passed away. Another example of these minor collisions occurred in 1737 in connection with the Porteous Riot. The Government were so incensed at that outbreak that they seem for the moment to have lost self-control. Among other extreme measures the clergy were ordered to read during divine service a proclamation calling on the people to aid in bringing the rioters to justice. This proclamation was ordered to be made on PORTEOUS RIOT. 177 the first Sabbath of every mouth for a whole year, on pain of the ministers being expelled from the Church courts. It was too much however. The more faithful of the ministers flatly refused such interference w^ith the services of the pulpit/ and no steps were ever taken against the recusants. Thus there w^re signs from time to time that the old antagonism betwen the civil authorities and the Church was smouldering and ready to break out. The State gave orders, the Church refused the State's control. These matters, indeed, were of minor importance. All the time, however, the fatal root of bitterness was Patron- age, the cause of continual jarrings, which ran on through the eighteenth century down into the ^ " It converted ministers of the Gosj^el into messengers-at-arms " (('nnniui^hani's Hist. ii. 449). There was a still more serious objection. " The most part of the ministers in many Synods and Presbyterys . . . had not freedom to read the said Act, because tliey judged tlie penalty to be properly a Church censure, seeing by it ministers would be divested of the power of Church govern- ment and discipline, which is given them by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, and is [as] essential to their office as preaching or dispensing the Sacraments. . . . For ministers to become the magistrates' heralds to proclaim this law on the Lord's Day in such a solemn manner, would be an homologating of their encroachment, and a consenting to this Erastian jwicer of the Magistrate " (Willison's Testimony, p. 94). M 178 1690-1800. nineteenth, and culminated in the Disruption of 1843. Patronage had been abolished, as we saw, at the Eevohition, and the patrons were to be compensated by receiving a sum which seems to us small enough, but it may have been approximately the market value of their patronage rights at the time. When the Union with England came, the national faith was pledged to retain this arrangement inviolate. In 1712, however, all this was forgotten. The Union was but five years old — no more — when some Jacobite intriguers ^ misled the British Parliament, and in the most shameless way Patronage was restored to the former holders. The Bill was hurried through Parliament in hot haste. They succeeded in getting it passed by the House of Commons before the Scottish Church could send a deputation to oppose it ; and when the deputation had hurried up to London, those intriguers succeeded in getting the Bill read a second time in the House of Lords, passed through Committee, and read a third time in a single day. This indecent 1 Lockhart's Papers, vol. i. p. 418. PATRONAGE ACT. 179 procedure was an insult to Scotland, and well became an iVct destined to brino; about such disastrous results. In regard to Patronage, it is a question whether in its own nature it be not a direct invasion of the Church's Spiritual Independence. In the month of July 1712, immediately after the Act was passed, there was a meeting of the Commission of Assembly, and great resentment arose among the members. Some were opposed to Patronage out and out, holding it to be sinful ; others, including two Lords of Session, alleged that there might be a presentation to the tithes or temds. On this principle the Church all alono- souo;ht to g;uard herself. Patronage only referred to the temporalities of the benefice. The patron presented to the living, but the Church held in her own hands the whole power as to the formation of the pastoral tie. None but those she had licensed could receive a presentation, and after it was received none but those whom she approved and whom the people called could be ordained. Thus the Church's position under Patronage was defended, but practically the influence of the patron was great, and was ultimately found 180 1690-1800. to be indefensible. The great difficulty was to give the people by means of the call a really effective voice in the settlement of their pastors. Of these two antagonistic elements, the pre- sentation of the Patron and the call of the people, it was clear one or other must give way — Patronage w^ould practically suppress the call, or the call would limit Patronage. In fact, both of these results came to pass at two different stages of the history. During the eighteenth"""^ century Patronage gradually grew in power till it all but extino-uished the call. Durina: the nineteenth popular influence has asserted itself, and Patronage has been weakened by successive steps till finally it has been abolished and become a thing of the past. A glance at this history is necessary if we would understand the Church's position. Taking the first twenty years after the restor ation of Patronage in 1712, we find hardly a single case in which a preacher accepted a presentation simpliciter. In 1715, indeed, a Mr Duguid was presented by the Queen to the parish of Burntisland, and accepted the present- ation, but his case served as a warning. They brought him before the Church Courts ; and when RISE OK MODEKATISM. 181 lie stood upon his rights as a presentee, the General Assem])ly simply stripped him of his license/ Preachers found that their only safe course was to accept the presentation with a proviso that there must be a call from the people, and that they left themselves in the hands of the Presbytery. During those twenty years there were many settlements without a presentation, but no single settlement without a call. Whatever the law mio;ht sav, the essential thing was the call. In about twenty j^ears, however, Moderatism began to raise its head, and soon set itself to suppress the voice of the peo})le while the evangelical jJarty strove to uphold it. Disputed settlements became the order of the day. When cases came before the Assembly, the decisions were often uncertain, sometimes favouring the patron, and sometimes the people, l)ut gradually the friends of patronage prevailed. One of the most serious results of this was the first Secession in 1733. The immediate occasion was a sermon preached by Ebenezer Erskine before the Synod of Perth and Stirling, ' Patronage Report, pp. 365, 36(). Cminingh.uii Hist. ii. 41F. 182 1690-1800. in which he condemned what the Charch had been doing in " trampling on the rights of the Christian people by intruding pastors on reclaim- ing; congreo-ations." There were other reasons which came into the case, but this was the immediate and outstanding occasion of the first Secession.^ The result was that adherents in great numbers began to leave the Established Church, and in many cases they w^ere the best of the j^eople. Meantime, inside the Establishment there was no little disturbance. Instances began to occur in which the Presbyteries not only took the side of the people, but flatly refused to ordain the obnoxious presentees even though the Assem- bly ordered it. It went against their consciences to thrust a man on an unwilling people, and they would not do it. This was met by a special expedient. A Riding Committee, as they called it, was appointed — a body of ministers who had no such scruples ready at the bidding of the Assembly to settle any man anywhere. If there was a recusant congregation or a Presbytery absolutely declining iDrM'Ciie, Patronage "Report, p. 370. RIDING COMMITTEES. 183 to carry out a forced settlement, a moveable column of this kind was called into action to ride over the land and override the scruples both of Presbyteries and people. There was much work for them to do in those days. During the ten years between 1740 and 1750 more than fifty cases of disputed settlements came up before the Assembly.^ The people fought gallantly, but they fought a losing battle, the friends of Patronage went on steadily gain- ins; erround. In 1751 the Moderate party took a step in advance. The case of Torphichen, where the people resolutely opposed the presentee, was before the Church Courts. On two successive years the Assembly had ordered the Presbytery to go on with the settlement, and twice the Presbytery had refused. A Riding Committee was sent, and the presentee was ordained amidst great popular indignation. It was the last occasion on which that kind of Ridinof Com- mittee was appointed. When the case came before the Church Courts, Principal Robertson, then a young man, distinguished himself in the ^ Morren's Annals, i. .344-367. 184 1690-1800. debate,^ and afterwards a paper was issued, drawn, it is believed, chiefly by him, with all his well-known ability, laying down the ^^rinciples on which for many a day the Moderate party acted under his leadership. Presbyteries were thenceforth to have no choice. It was their duty to carry out the decisions of the Supreme Court ; that duty they must themselves dis- (iharge, and not leave it to be done by others. They might retire from the Established Church ; if they had scruples, it was their only remedy ; if they stayed in, they must obey. The case of Inverkeithing which took place almost immediately afterwards showed in what way these principles were put in force. The people had resisted the settlement, the Assembly had ordered the Presbytery to carry it out — • they refused, and the six recusant members — a majority of the Presbytery — were brought before the bar of the Assembly. A resolution was passed that one of the number be deposed as a warning to all Presbyteries in the future. Mr Gillespie of Carnock was fixed on, who thus became famous as the leader of the Eelief 1 Morrcn's Annals, i. 211, 231. MODERATISM PREVAILS. 185 Secession. The Moderates were carrying things with a high hand, as if resolved to crush the Evangelical minority, and yet the two parties up to that date seem to have been nearly equally balanced. A motion to restore Gillespie the following year was lost in the General Assembly only by three votes. ^ But the Moderate leaders were determined. In cases of disputed settlement the Assembly began invariably to decide against the people and in favour of tlie presentee, so that congre- gations ceased to resist ; they simply left the Church and built a Secession meeting-house. The Presbyteries also took warning by the fate of Gillespie, and ceased to object. Moderatism was triumphantly doing its work. Presbyteries and congregations were subdued. Patronage was victorious. \ It came to be the established practice, confirmed by a long series of decisions, that the secular influence of the jDatron with his civil rights must overbear the rights of the people in the settlement of their ministers. At last Principal Pobertson took yet another and a final step. The call of the people, he ^ Morren's Annals, i. p. 278. 186 1690-1800. maintained, was superfluous. In form it was kept up, but was regarded as of no real value. It had never been recognised in any Act of Parliament. They must go by the Act, and consider the call as of no effect. The only thing needed was a valid presentation by the patron. A paper of concurrence by the people, if they were disposed to express their goodwill, might be proper enough, but not the call as if it were of any avail, or as if the people had any right to express an opinion in regard to the minister to be ordained over them. The Church must do nothing; more and nothino; less than what the State ordered in the Act of Parliament. No matter for the First or Second Book of Discip- line ; no matter for the Church's immemorial practice, the Act of Parliament must be the Church's rule.^ Thus the Erastiauism inherent in the whole system of Patronage was made to 1 See Principal Hill's Sketch of Robertson's Ecclesiastical Policy. According to Dr Hill Burton, however (History of Scotland from the Revolution, ii. 55), this view of the law on which the Moderate leaders acted is more than question- able. " What seems chiefly to be overlooked is that it [the Patronage Act] left untouched the real popular element, whether of call or veto. Whatever privilege of this kind by the law of the Church the congregation possessed by the Act of 1692, was left uninjured by the Act of 1711." COURT OF SESSION. 18/ appear, but it was the Clmrcli herself that pushed it to this extreme. This fact should be carefully noted, because the civil courts of that day were disposed to leave the Church a free hand in dealing with things ecclesiastical. Cases might be referred to as showing how the civil judges guarded the Church's jurisdiction — more alive to her rights and responsibilities than was the Church herself. It may be enough to take the case of Duns, which became vacant in 1749. The patron had issued his presentation, but the Presbytery, when resolving to moderate in a call, determined to make it a call at large, the effect being that the people were left free to choose either the nominee of the patron, or any other whom they might prefer. On this the patron applied to the Court of Session to have the Presbytery inter- dicted from that course, and compelled to confine the call only to the presentee. This conclusion, the Law Report says, the Lords " would not meddle wuth, because that was interfering with the power of ordination, or internal policy of the Church, with which the Lords had nothing to do."^ 1 Hay V. Presbytery of Duns, February 26, 1749. See Claim of Right. 188 1G90-1800. It was a wise decision. If the Lords of Session in 1838 had been like the judges in 1749, there would have been no Disruption. The case of Lanark^ was not less clear. There were two rival patrons and two presentees. The Presbytery selected the one who seemed to them to have the best claim, and ordained him. The Court of Session decided that they had taken the wrong man, and they refused to give the stipend to the minister ordained by the Presbytery. But the remarkable thing is that his position as parish minister was not touched. The Church had given him his standing, the Civil Court did not interfere ; he was parish minister without stipend. This was the law of Scotland last century. In things ecclesiastical the jurisdiction of the Church was recognised by the civil judges. The Moderate party, however, went on their way. Cases came up such as that at Biggar and Fenwick, in which not a single name of any member of the cono;reo^ation was at the call. No matter, the ordination was ordered to go on. All opposition in the Church Courts was 1 Patronage Report, p. 419. VIOLENT 8KTTLEMf:NTS. 189 crushed, and Moderatism rode roughshod over the people. Meantime the people did not like it, and not unfrequently these forced settlements led to scenes of violence, and sometimes of riot, when the military had to be called in. Not only ministers in their robes, but bands of armed men, were required to induct the presentee into his parish. One of the first cases of this kind, Dr Lee states, occurred at Linton, Peeblesshire, in 1731, where "very tumultuous proceedings" took place. It was necessary to have an armed force quartered in the parish to preserve order. ^ It is needless to multiply such instances, which were all too numerous over the land. One may be mentioned, however, which occurred at Alloa in 1 7 50, '^ where Mr Syme, the presentee, was obnoxious to the conoreoation. The settle- ment had been fixed for the 28tli of September, but was resisted by the people. The colliers of Alloa and two or three adjacent parishes assem- l)ied riotously to prevent it, rang the Church bell from morning to night, and in the afternoon, 1 Patronage Report, p. 419. - Morren's Annals, i. 185, 356. 190 1690-1800. when the Presbytery retired, displayed a flag from the steeple in token of victory. The November meeting of C'ommission appointed a Ridino; Committee to carry out the ordination on the 21st of November, which they did success- fully, with the aid of four companies of soldiers. This Mr Syme so ordained was afterwards married to the sister of Principal Robertson, who accom- panied the Riding Committee on the occasion. Mr Syme's daughter, Miss Syme, the niece of Principal Robertson, married in England, and was mother of Lord Brougham, who was thus grandnephew of the great leader of the Mod- erates. One might almost suppose that the principle of heredity is to be traced in the well-known speech of Lord Brougham in 1839, when the Auchterarder case was de- cided in the House of Lords, and when he spoke with scorn of the idea that any weight was due to the views or feelings of the people. The colliers of Alloa ringing the church bell, driving off the Presbytery, and waving the flag of victory from the steeple, showed well enough what the popular sentiment was on such occa- sions, but sometimes the people became still more demonstrative. PARISH OF SHOTTS. 191 In 1762 a Mr Wells had been presented to the parish of Shotts.^ The whole of the congrega- tion, with a single exception, were keenly opposed to him, hut the Assembly ordered the settlement to go on, and every member of Presbytery must be present. When the Court met at the appointed time, the people mustered, and would not allow them to enter either the church or churchyard. A second attempt was made, but the people got hold of the presentee, carried him off, and made him sign an agreement never to trouble them more. Then followed another meeting, when the military, a body of horse and foot, with the Sheriff at their head, appeared on the scene. Even this failed. The people, knowing well the roads by which the different members of Presbytery would travel, waylaid them, and carried them off in various directions, treating them with all possible respect and kindness. The result was that when the hour arrived, the military were there at the church, horse and foot, the presentee was there, the Sheriff was there, but there was no Pres- bytery. At last a day came when the people ' Patronage Report (Parliamentary) Ai:)pendix, p. 154. Scots Ma On the other sid e the defenders of the '■^"^ Establis hment at once replied by repudiating the allegation, at the same time admitting that if the objection could be made good it would be fatal ; if the Church by becoming established must give up her spiritual independence, it would be an unlawful compact. Never could the Church be warranted in parting with the liberty with which Clirist had made her free. ' Report of tlie Annual Meeting of the Voluntary Association 1834, p. .33. 214 1800-1843. On this point it soon appeared that the leading advocates on both sides were resolved to con- centrate their streno;th. How this was done will be best seen if we take some of the representative men — Dr Inglis and Dr Chalmers, for example — as defenders of the Establishment, and Dr Marshall and Dr Wardlaw, two of their ablest opponents. First, let us notice how tlie matter is put by Dr Ino;lis.^ He had been the leader of the Moderate party in the Church, but now near the end of his life his views seem to have been greatly modified. He was a man of clear intel- lect, and his treatise was on all hands admitted to be the ablest vindication of Establishments wdiich appeared during the controversy. Reply- ing to the above objection, his statement is.^ "The Kingdom of Christ is not only spiritual and heavenly but also independent. No earthly Government has a right to overrule or control it. ... If any civil Government under pretence of providing for the welfare of Christ's spiritual kingdom shall usurp its 1 Father of Lord Glencorse, the late Lord Justice General. 2 Vindication of Ecclesiastical Establishments, by John Inglis, D.D., 1834. 2nd Edition, p. 90 seq. DK INGLIS DEFENDS ESTABLISHMENTS. 215 peculiar and appropriate jurisdiction ; if civil Government shall attempt to direct the appro- priate concerns of the visil:>le Church of Christ by either superseding or controlling its separate and indepentlent power, that Government is so far an adversary of Christ and of His cause in the world. But if the civil Government shall, on the contrary, abstain from intermeddling about such matters, and shall notwithstanding con- tribute its outward aid towards the maintenance of religious ordinances in the way which the office-bearers of the Church have themselves approved and appointed ; if it shall so provide for the temporal wants of the ministers of Christ as to enable them to devote their whole time and labour to the exercise of their spiritual functions, and shall by the same means extend the benefit of religious ordinances more equally and effectually to all who are under their charge — shall these thino;s be regarded as subversive of the independence of Christ's spiritual kingdom ? " When Dr Inglis's vindication appeared it made a powerful impression ; a reply was natur- ally called for, and there stepped forth the original assailant, Dr Marshall, who, in the words of Dr Cairns, "then stood among the 216 1800-1843. highest names in the Secession." ^ His plan was to reply seriatim to every section of the book, but his answer to the above is far less elaborate than might have been expected. It consists mainly of a quotation from one of Dr Cook's speeches giving those views of the Church's constitution with which the Evan- gelical party were so familiar in the Assembly debates, and which they so firmly repudiated. Having done this, he dismisses the subject with an intimation that Dr Inglis's opinion as to spiritual independence was a mere bravado. He should have remembered how often in the Church's former history it had been no bravado, but a principle held dearer than life. As time went on, this topic came more and more distinctly into the foreground, but its full importance is best seen in the London Lectures of Dr Chalmers, and in the reply by Dr Wardlaw. It was in April 1838 that Dr Chalmers, on the invitation of an influential Society, delivered a short course of Lectures in the Hanover Square Rooms, London. The general 1 Memoir of John Brown, D.D., p. 171 . ^ DR Chalmers's LECTURES. 217 question of Church Establishments was fully argued, and specially on the question of Spiri- tual Independence he put forth all his strength. To a friend he remarked in private at the time : "It is the most important point in the whole discussion ; it is the basis and strength of my whole argument ; without it I could not have opened my mouth on the subject ; and if there be any one of these Lectures on which my mind is clearer and more made up than another, it is on the Lecture I am going to deliver to-day." ^ Proceeding accordingly to show that the Church might be established and yet abide " as spiritual, as holy, as independent as before," he began by referring to a conversation he had had with an American clergyman, who said to him, " If all you mean by an Establishment is an organised provision fo]* the clergy, we should rejoice in it. The thing Ave deprecate is the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. Now this," Dr C went on, " this organised provision is truly all that we contend for . . . an arrangement which might truly be gone into, and which actually is gone ' Memoirs of Dr Chalmers, by Dr Hanna, vol. iv. p. 44. 218 1800-1843. into without the slightest infringement on the spiritual prerogatives of the Church, or the ecclesiastical indejDendence of her clergymen. . . . We know of nothing more perfect in this respect than the constitution of the Church of Scotland. There is to each of its members an independent voice from wdtliin, and from with- out there is no jDower or authority whatever in matters ecclesiastical. . . . We have no other connection with the State than that of being maintained l)y it, after which we are left to regulate the proceedings of our great Home Mission [the Church] with all the purity and the piety and the independence of any Missionary Board. We are exposed to nothing from with- out which can violate the sanctity of the apos- tolical character if we ourselves do not violate it. And neither are we exposed to aught which can trencli on the authority of the apostolical office if we ourselves make no surrender of it. In things ecclesiastical we decide all." It was on this footing, and on this alone, he stood forth to advocate the union of Church and State, and he goes on to expend his great powers of eloquent argument and striking illustration in making good his position. REPLY BY 1)K WARDLAW. 219 The impression which these Lectures made on the public mind was great — so much so that the London Nonconformists invited Dr Wardlaw to deliver a similar course in reply. Accordingly, in the same month of April of the following year 1839, he appeared in London and lectured with all his well-known ability, unfolding the argument on the side of Voluntaryism in its utmost strength. On the question of the Church's spiritual freedom he meets the views of Dr Chalmers at great length.^ "We charge it," he says, "on Estab- lishments as one of their serious evils that they interfere with the spiritual and divinely chartered independence of the Church." He quotes from Hallam to the effect that the Church has undoubtedly surrendered a part of her independ- ence in return for ample endowments and temporal power. " Such surrender," Dr Wardlaw continues, " we regard as necessarily involved in the constitution of every Established — that is, of every nationally endowed — Church ; and while we consider the requisition of the surrender as. ' National Establishments examined, a course of Lectures by Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., pp. 346 .wg. London : Jackson & Walford 1 839. 220 1800-1843. in the principle of it on the part of the State, perfectly fair, we denounce compliance with the requisition on the part of the Church . . . as a shameless dereliction of her primary allegiance — a simoniacal sacrifice of the exclusive authority of her Lord for temporal benefits — a sacrifice unjustifiable even on the ground alleged on its behalf of these temporal benefits being sought for spiritual ends." Following up this general announcement of his views, he proceeds to consider the sacrifice of the Church's independence from three points of view — her creed, the appointment of her minis- ters, and the power of her Courts. On each of these topics he presents an elaborate argument in which he puts forth all his strength. His own theory of the relation between Church and State is that there ought to be complete separa- tion. "The true and legitimate province of the magistrate," he says, " in regard to religion is to have no province at all." He was the advocate thus of Voluntaryism in its extreme form, but his Lectures were received with admiration by the London Nonconformists, who, as they state, anticipated from their publication " a new and decisive victory to truth." SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE ESSENTIAL. 221 We do not stay to go further into detail. This is not the place to give our own views as to the value of these arguments and replies. The single point on which we lay stress is that all these writers and speakers on both sides consider the principle of spiritual independence to be vital. It is the Thermopylae of the debate. And this was the view not only of outstanding men like Dr Inglis and Dr Chalmers on the one side, or of Dr Marshall and Dr Wardlaw on the other, but the same thing meets us all through the controversy. Hardly any pamphlet appeared, hardly any public meeting was held in crowded city or rural district, but the cry on the one side was that the Church if established must even in things spiritual bend its neck under the yoke of State control ; and the reply on the other side was that the Established Church must have, and actually had, spiritual independence and freedom in all her ecclesiastical proceedings, owning no Lord or Master but Christ. The vital and essential importance of this principle indeed is obvious. Spiritual indepen- dence means allegiance to Christ. Without that principle in the thick of the conflict it would have been impossible for the defenders of the J 222 1800-1843. Established Church to have stood their ground. If it were really true that in order to become established the Church must sacrifice her inde- pendence and her unfettered freedom to follow Christ, then the cause of the Establishment was lost. It was in this way that the Voluntary contro- versy prepared men for the Ten Years' Conflict and the Disruption. It brought home to their minds the importance of the great Free Church principle. Not for a moment, however, must it be supposed that the defenders of Establishment were driven by stress of argument to adopt the principle of spiritual independence in order to serve a purpose. That principle was heredi- tary with them. They had grown up in the belief of it. Many a time the Church had battled for it and upheld it in days gone by. Even in modern times, long before the Voluntary controversy was heard of, as, for example, in 1814 and 1816, we find Chalmers insisting on it in its integrity.^ But when the battle was at the gate threatening the existence of the Estab- lishment, the conflict sharpened and deepened 1 Memoirs, vol. i. p. 397. Appendix L, p. 496. THE CALL RESTORED. 223 men's sense of its importance. If the Established Church is to be saved, spiritual independence is essential. Give us spiritual independence, and we shall have much to say in support of Estab- lishments. Deprive us of spiritual independence, say that the Church is to be so controlled that she is no longer free to follow the mind of Christ according to her own judgment, let it be found that she must barter her spiritual juris- diction in return for her emoluments, the very idea of such a surrender would be intolerable. This was the truth which the Voluntary contro- versy drove home on the minds of men. If the Establishment is to stand, the Church must be unfettered and free to follow Christ. And free she was in the estimation of all those who composed the Evangelical party, the great majority in her ranks. While that controversy was being carried on to the end, not a man of us all had a doubt that the inheritance of spiritual independence for which our forefathers contended was actually in possession of the Church. The question, however, was soon to be put to the proof. How the trial came about and with what results must now be told as briefly and simply as the case admits of. 224 1800-1843. In 1834, when the Evangelical party obtained the power, it became their duty to redress the grievances against which they had so long been protesting during the times of Moderate ascend- ency. Two of these accordingly received im- mediate attention. First they reversed the policy of the Moderate party in regtxrd to the settlement of ministers. The call of the people, which had been all but extinguished, must be revived, and the old law of the Church must be acted on, that "no minister be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people." After much consultation, a rule was adopted — the Veto Law — as being the mildest form in which to give effect to the call ; all who did not oppose the presentee were counted as his supporters. Some thought that the abolition of Patronage should have been sought, but that would have required an Act of Parliament, and the prospect of gaining the assent of the House of Lords at that time was hopeless. Here, on the other hand, was a thing which the Church might do, and had legally the power of doing, as the Crown lawyers of the day assured her. At the same time, men were free to advocate the abolition of Patron- AUCHTERARDER CASE. 225 age if they saw fit, but this was a thing which could be done at once. A second step was that all chapel ministers were to have Kirk Sessions appointed to aid them in their work, and were admitted to a seat in the Courts of the Church, being thus put on the same footing with the rest of their brethren. This Act was carefully guarded — so far as the Church could do it — and confined to the spiritualities of the ministerial office. It seemed to be required in a rightly constituted Presbyterian Church, and it was essential if the Church were to meet the spiritual wants of an increasing population to the best advantage. These two Acts were passed in 1834, and the first led to a series of conflicts which ran on for ten years with ever-increasing severity. The conflict in regard to the second came later, but culminated in still more serious complications at the General Assembly of 1843. Under the first there arose a case at Auchter- arder, where the parishioners were all but unanimous in rejecting the presentee. Consid- ering himself wronged, he applied to the Civil Courts for redress. There was long litigation, but ultimately the decision was to the effect 226 1800-1843. that the Church was not at liberty to make the resistance of the congregation a ground for refusing to go on with the settlement. The rule of the Established Church must be that the judgment and the feelings of a Christian congregation were of no account. This decision, viewed by itself, was sufficiently damaging ; but taken in connection with the principles of law, laid down at the time by the majority of the Court of Session, and unani- mously in the House of Lords, it was fatal to all claim on the part of the Church to any spiritually independent jurisdiction. The crucial point was that according to the principles of law laid down the only authority which the Church had — the only authority, at least, which the Courts could recognise her as having — was that derived from the State. Her only jurisdiction was what the law of the land conferred. The claim to inherent spiritual jurisdiction and inde- pendence was utterly crushed. All the freedom she had was that conceded by the State, and the civil judges would tell her in each case how much or how little it was. Let us observe the position. A question has arisen as to what is required for the ordination of a minister. The Church MARNOCH. 227 decides that the nomiuee of tlie patron cannot be ordained against the conscientious opposition of the people. The old law of the Church forbad it, and morally and spiritually she held it would be a grievous wrong inflicted on the parish. The Civil Court, on the other hand, decided that the Church must go forward as if the will of the people had never been expressed. Thus far they claimed authority to control the Church as to what was necessary or not necessary in settling and ordaining men to the office of the ministry. If there had been any doubt as to what this meant, it was made plain at Marnoch, where the presentee was so obnoxious to the people that the only supporter in the parish who signed his call was the innkeeper. He applied to the Court of Session asking that the Presbytery " should be decerned and ordained," not only to examine him, but " forthwith to admit and receive him as minister of the Church and Parish." The Court granted his application ; it was merely a corol- lary to what they had already done in the Auch- terarder case. The Court knew that if he were to be settled, he must be ordained ; and the order, therefore, that he should be forthwith 228 1800-1843. "admitted and received" was in reality an order to ordain. They thus assumed the right to control the Church in the Act of Ordination.^ Now, if there is one Act more than another which belongs exclusively to the Church, it is ordination to the sacred office of the ministry, and the conditions on which ordination should be conferred or refused. The office is spiritual, all its functions are spiritual. The true minister is he who is moved by the Holy Ghost. In the whole proceedings connected with ordination there is a sacredness and solemnity which belongs to no other appointment. The fatal thing, therefore, in those decisions of the Civil Courts was not merely that they overbore the con- scientious opposition of the people, but they assumed the risfht to dictate to the Church as to what was or was not required in order to the solemn Act of Ordination. It was an interference ^ It is true that the Court was only ordering the Presbytery to do what of their! own accord they were willing to do. But they were prohibited by the superior Ecclesiastical Courts to which they owed obedience, and when the Civil Judges decerned and ordained that the Presbytery must go on to " admit and receive," i.e., to ordain the presentee, they obviouslj^ claimed to have authority over the Church in that part of her work — the ordaining of men to the office of the ministry. MARNOCH. 229 by the Civil Courts with the rights and liberties of Christ's spiritual kingdom to which the Church could not submit. Here, then, was a decision which cut to the quick, wounding the conscientious convictions of those who had championed the cause of the Established Church and upheld her claim to independence. In the Marnoch case there soon arose still more serious complications. The majority of the Pres- bytery belonged to the Moderate party. They were willing to intrude. To protect the parish from the intrusion of the presentee, it was found necessary to put on trial seven ministers of the Presbytery who were resisting their ecclesiastical superiors and violating their ordination vows. On their continuing to resist, they were first suspended from all clerical functions, and ultim- ately they were deposed. On their own applica- tion, however, the Civil Court came to their rescue, and professedly annulled the sentence of the Church. The ministers accepted this as valid, and went on with their w^ork as ministers under the authority of the judges. It was as if the Civil Court and these ministers had combined to trample in the dust the Church's spiritual jurisdiction. 230 1800-1843. There was, however, the second great Act of 1834, which admitted the chapel ministers, and here the results were, if possible, more formidable still. But before speaking of these, it may be well to notice the general principle which guided the Civil Courts in all these proceedings. There is no need to suppose that the judges had any hostile feelings against the Church. It was their duty in the Civil Court to protect what they believed to be the civil rights of all parties, and to see that justice w^as done to them. And it is obvious that if in giving redress for any supposed wrong they had confined them- selves to things civil and temporal, they would have ])een within their rights. The stipend might have been taken away, manse and glebe forfeited, and if that were not enough, other penalties imposed — that would have been com- petent. The fatal error was, that in order to protect civil interests they considered it neces- sary that the Church should perform certain ecclesiastical acts, and they held they had a right to control the Church in the discharge of her own sacred functions. Unfortunately, they introduced a new reading of the old Scottish laws assimilating them to THE CHAPEL ACT. 231 the Erastianised system of Eugiish law.^ " In England the sovereign is supreme governor of the Church, and his Law Courts have a control over her corresponding to that supremacy. Not the Legislature only in making the law, but the judges in administering it, control the Church in what is undoubtedly her native and proper pro- vince." ^ Following some such model, the Scot- tish judges assumed similar control over the Scottish Church even in her own proper sphere. It is well that we clearly understand what this means. The general principle of the law as now established in Scotland is that the Church derives its whole jurisdiction from the State, and holds it as defined by the State. In all ecclesiastical afi'airs the Courts hold that the State can set limits to the Church, and if ever they are of opinion that she has gone over the limits so set, they will give redress not only by adjusting the civil interests involved, but by controlling the Church in her own proper functions. The Church is thus subordinate, ' The formerly received view on this subject was upheld by a powerful minority of the judges, among whom was the oldest and one of the ablest men on the bench, Lord Glenlee, who spoke for the judges of a past generation. '■'A. Taylor Inues, Es(]^., Advocate. 232 1800-1843. for she is not at liberty to decide for her own guidance in her own work. This was manifest beyond all question in regard to the Chapel Act. The Church felt it to be her duty to meet the spiritual wants of a growing population. While pLanting new Churches, she felt it equally to be her duty to give them all the advantages of her Pres- byterian constitution, assigning them Kirk Sessions, and making the ministers members of Presbytery. This she held herself bound to do for the cause of Christ and the spiritual good of the people. She did it in virtue of her inherent right as a Christian Church bound to obey Christ her Head. She did her utmost to see that no civil interest was interfered with ; they were churches only quoad sacra. It was an ecclesiastical arrangement intended solely for the edification of the peoj)le. At first the Act was welcomed, and for five years all went well, but at last the question was raised in the Law Courts, and they decided that the Church had no power to do what she was doing. These chapel ministers must be expelled, their Kirk Sessions and parochial arrangements abolished, and interdicts were issued prohibiting ADVERSE DECISIONS. 233 them from sitting in the Church Courts, and prohibiting the Church Courts from allowing them to sit. But how could the Church submit to this ? If she is a spiritually independent Church, she must have the power to appoint her own office-bearers. Every independent institution has that inherent right. But there is something still more important. In carrying on the affairs of Christ's House, and in providing for the edification of the people, the Church is bound to listen to no voice but the voice of Christ. Freedom to fulfil the obligations laid on her by her Divine Master is essential. To be hampered and arrested in such work by the coercion of civil judges was a yoke which the Church could not consent to bear. But that was not all. When the interdicts began, the whole constitution of Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies was affected, and in cases of Discipline especially the results were disastrous. There was a minister, for example, charged with several acts of fraud. The trial had gone on, the charges w^ere found proved, he had confessed, and sentence had been passed. After all, he took 234 1800-1843. refuge in the Court of Session, pleading that the chapel ministers had taken part in the proceed- ings. After what they had done already, the Court could not logically refuse. They issued a decree of suspension and interdict, and shielded the accused from his sentence. Unfortunately, this was no solitary instance. Two other ministers were before the Church Courts — one accused of theft, and the other of drunkenness — and in both cases the Civil Court could not help coming to their aid. But what position was this for a Church to occupy '{ Was she so under control that she was not free to say who were to be members of her Courts in things spiritual, not free to protect her own purity ? Had the Civil Court a right to interfere and control the Church in such matters ? Then, surely, it was futile to speak any longer of the Church's spiritual independence. So far as the Establish- ment was concerned, the Civil Courts had made an end of it. One thing had all along been clear — the Church could submit on no terms to hold such a position. But the question remained, Did the State really mean it ? As yet these were merely the decisions of the Civil Courts. Did EFFORTS FO AVERT THE CRISIS. 235 the State actually intend to impose such conditions ? It only remained to ascertain this by making a formal appeal to Parliament and to the Queen. This was done in two forms. First, there was the Claim of Right, in which the Church, address- ing the Throne, set forth the grievances under which she suffered and craved redress. Next, a Convocation of Ministers met in November 1842 and forwarded a second appeal in similar terms, alonoj with formal resolutions to the effect that if redress were refused they must abandon the Establishment. Then, finally, in March 1843 the Commission of Assembly brought the whole subject by petition before the House of Commons. Everything that man could do was done to avert the crisis. But the crisis came. First, there was a reply from the Government, and next a vote by the House of Commons, and the result in both cases was decisive — every form of redress was directly refused, and in such terms as to preclude all hope for the future. It should be noted that if the question in the House of Commons had depended on the votes of the Scottish members of Parliament, the decision 23G 1800-1843. would have gone the other way. They were overborne by English influence. Here, then, we stand at an important crisis in the history of the Church of Scotland. It was the close of a long; &truQ;2:le which had g-one on for nearly three hundred years. The Church ever since the days of Knox had claimed her spiritual independence and freedom to serve Christ, according; to her own views of duty. She had fought for it against Mary and Lething- ton, against Morton with his Tulchan Bishops, against James and Charles with their kingcraft and violence. She had stood the storm of persecution through the blood-stained reign of the second Charles ; she had contended with King William ; and even through the long dead time of Moderatism a faithful band of noble witnesses had stood by her Constitution, over- borne as it was in the interests of Patronage. It had been a gallant struggle all along for the liberty with which Christ had made His Church free. But now at last it was over and done with. The Judges in our Civil Courts, the Grovernment of Sir Kobert Peel and the English House of Commons, did what no statecraft and no arbitrary violence of former generations had THE 18th of may, 1843. 237 ever been able permanently to do. The Con- stitution was broken down. Tlie sjiiritual independence of the Church was overthrown. Would this, then, be submitted to ? AVould the Church which had stood out in former days give way now? The reply came on the 18th of May 1843 in the view of all the world. The true old Church of Scotland, adhering to her principles, had once more, as in 1C62, to renounce her connection with the State, and leaving all emoluments behind her, go forth not only the Free Church of Scotland, but the Church of Scotland Free. The circumstances in which this was done, and the trials which it involved, I have been called on to narrate elsewhere, and need not here describe. But now what immediately concerns us is the question as to our present position. In this connection it should be carefully observed that the law of Church and State which was settled in 1843 remains the law still. Patronage has indeed been abolished. Unable as the Free Church was with all her efforts ever to wrino^ one concession for herself from the State, her influence in the country has compelled Parlia- ment at the instance of the Established Church 238 1800-1843. herself to wipe out the law of Patronage from the Statute Book. But in regard to the ques- tion of spiritual jurisdiction and independence the Church stands where it stood before. The law this day knows of no independent spiritual jurisdiction as held by the Church from Christ her Head. Her authority is from Caesar, and she must be content with what Caesar allows.^ It is not for us to say how it would fare with the present Established Church on the field of argument if the old Voluntary controversy were one day to break forth in its former keenness. On the general question of the union between Church and State, I hold the view which has been so generally held in the Free Church, that national religion in the form of an Establishment 1 It is sometimes alleged that the Free Church, after resigning her position, is still as much as ever under the control of the Civil Courts. This is unquestionably true in regard to the money and property of the Church, as well as the liberty and the lives of the members. These, " the Church has always maintained, are and ought to be under the control of the Courts of Law. But the ecclesiastical functions of the Church are under no such control." If the attempt were made to encroach on these functions, it would be an act of manifest injustice. We knew well enough before the Disruption that we could have no security against such encroachments outside the Establishment (Annals of the Dis- ruption, pp. 5, 6) any more than inside. Attempts might be made to deprive us of freedom of conscience, or subject us to per- OUR PRESENT POSITION. 239 iu certain circumstances is right and expe- dient, but all experience has shown how little likelihood there is of such circumstances arising in the present state of the country. In the meantime, one thing is clear, that Dr Chalmers and those who fought by his side in former days would have flatly refused the defence of Establishments on the present footing. It was spiritual independence, he says, which was " the basis and strength " of his whole argu- ment. "Without it I could not have opened my mouth on the subject." If the taint of Erastianism is to cleave to the Church, and if Voluntary assailants demand its Disestablish- ment, there is and there can be no defence. secution, which the Christian Church has often had to endure. In our case it would he specially unjust, for "no branch of the Chris- tian Church has ever made sjjiritual independence and freedom from all sucli encroachments so fundamental an article of its consti- tution as the Free Church has." The entire Church property, and the whole position of every member in the Church, is held expli- citly on that condition. But, after all, whatever encroachments might be attempted, the freedom of the Church is safe so long as she refuses her consent to such encroachments, and is prepared to take all the consequences of her refusal. This was what she did in 1843 ; she refused her consent to the Erastian conditions of the Establishment. If the Free Church is only true to herself and her principles and her history — if she is only true to the Lord Jesus Christ, her Spiritual Independence is safe. 240 1800-1843. Enough, I trust, has been said in these Lectures to show the importance of studying closely the history of our Scottish Presbyterian Church. No one can understand our present posi- tion without knowinsf how far it has its roots in O the past. The place which we hold to-day is the result of forces which have been acting through former generations. The influence of one of these forces — the spiritual independence of the Church — I have endeavoured to trace and to show, so far as our limits would allow, what it has done to make our people and our Free Church what they now are. It would be a shallow way of looking at the Disruption to regard it merely as an isolated fact. We must take along with it those causes of which it is the result. The place which the Free Church holds to-day is, under God, the outcome of forces which have been at work ever since Scotland, in the days of Knox, awoke into national life. Of that great Reformation movement, our whole country has ever since felt the benefit, and of that benefit our Free Church has had her full share. I remarked at the outset that the principle of spiritual independence which has done so UNION OF PKKSBYTEKIAN CHURCHES. 1^41 much ill the past may still have important work to do in the future. Of the problems now before us in Scotland, one of the most pressing is the question as to how our divided Presbyterianism is to be united. It can hardly be that the present state of things can go on long as it is. Three large Presbyterian denominations with so much in common can hardly continue to oppose each other as they do all over the land. The cause of religion in our country and over the world seems to demand that ere long there shall be among us a recon- structed and truly national Presbyterian Church. No one can be blind to the fact that there are forces in the midst of us silently and surely working towards that end. In these circumstances it may be asked, What is the duty of the Free Church ? What are we naturally called on to do ? The practical ques- tion is not one on which I have here a right to speak. But in connection with the subject of these Lectures, this much may be safely said, that whatever shape the movement for Union may take, the principle of spiritual independ- ence — come what may — will not be allowed to be put into the background. We know how 242 . ] 800-1843. completely our brethren of the United Presby- terian Church hold this princi})le in common with the Free Church. The difficulty will lie with our brethren of the Established Church. In 1843 they submitted to the conditions which the State imposed. The Veto Law which the Church had solemnly enacted, they held, did not even need to be annulled, because tlie Civil Court had disallowed it. Ministers whom the Church had solemnly deposed did not need to be reponed, for the secular judges had annulled their deposition. In regard to the quoad sacra ministers, t.he Church owmed herself powerless to give them Kirk- Sessions and a place in her Church Courts, and she owns herself powerless to-day, unless she gets permission from the civil judges. Thus it stood in 1843, the Church submitted to the Civil Courts, and the precedents then laid down are in force to this day. The law as to the union between Church and State is now defined and settled. Surely it is not for the Free Church to take such a position. Spiritual independence is a principle which rises far above all questions of Endowment or State connection. These are sub- ordinate arrangements, incidents which may come or go, but the Church's undivided loyalty to her SPIRITUAL INDEPENDENCE 243 Divine Head must stand fast as a sacred duty for ever. Still the Union of the Presbyterianism of Scotland into one great national faithful Church is an object for which every lover of our country and of the cause of Christ in the world is bound to strive and pray. If it shall be found that the great obstacle is the position which the Estab- lished Church now occupies, the question must arise, — shall that be allowed to continue as a dividing cause, keeping the Churches asunder ? The point may well be seriously considered by the Established Church herself. It is a question for the future, and possibly for the not distant future. In the course of these Lectures I have from time to time referred to the lessons which this History teaches. For nearly three hundred years our godly forefathers contended for the Headship of Christ and the spiritual independ- ence of His Church. In days of trial they thought it was not too high a price to pay when for these principles they laid down their lives. In all their contendings the leading motive was the deep feeling which they had of loyalty 244 1800-1843. to Christ as their personal Saviour. It was this endeared to their hearts the cause for which they suffered, and made them in so many cases the faithful, humble, fearless men they were. May God grant to the Church of these latter days something of the same spirit of devotedness to the Master whom she serves ! Only thus will she be enabled to fulfil her high commission, walking in the footsteps of the saints and martyrs who have gone before us, and, above all, in the footsteps of Him who is the Church's only King and Head. In the days that are to come the success of the Free Church must depend on the stedfastness with which she bears faithful testi- mony for God's truth in the world, and the zeal of her self-denying efforts in His service. Look- ing back on the past, we have good reason thank- fully to say, " Hitherto hath the Lord helped us ; " and looking to the future, we may well go forward trusting in the promise of our Divine Master, "Lo, I am with you alway. even unto the end of the world." PRINTED AT THE EDl.N BURGH FREbS, 9 AND II YOl'NG STREET, DATE DUE .i»rf**« 1; ^l^iKW^ ur\%^||||||g^ pi«r'^'^ .n Df c 1 „ „, A 1 ^ ,' T ' GAYLORO rniNTEOINU ■ A