Chapter XVII (2)

Questions and points concerning the patrimony of the Church came before almost every Assembly. At this time it was asked, whether the Assembly should proceed against those who unjustly possessed the patrimony of the Church and the poor, and if so, how far? The Assembly unanimously concluded that they might be proceeded against, first by way of doctrine and admonition, and if in this way no remedy was obtained, then to try the censures of the Church against them. The Assembly reappointed the committee on the polity of the Church, and enjoined its members to hold meetings at St. Andrews, Montrose, Glasgow, Edinburgh, and Stirling, and to invite all ranks of the people to attend and give their opinion on the proposed polity.¹

¹ _Ibid._ pages 360‒362.

The French Protestants who had taken refuge in England from persecution, addressed a letter to their brethren in Scotland, bewailing their sad condition, and desiring that the money which had been collected for them among the Scots should be sent to them. The Assembly had delayed sending it, because much of what had been promised, was not yet collected; but it was resolved to forward at once the sum in hand to the persecuted Frenchmen.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, page 356.

In 1577 the General Assembly met twice at Edinburgh, and on both occasions the book on the polity and jurisdiction of the Church was discussed. The various heads of the subject were put into form and read in the Assembly, and sanctioned by the majority; but the book itself was still reserved for further reasoning. The Regent was asked to attend the Assembly, but he excused himself on the ground that he was otherwise occupied. The Assembly, however, resolved to lay the proposed polity before him. Morton, however, who had never been very popular, was now tottering towards his fall. Early in 1578 he resigned the regency; and the government was committed to a Council of twelve men and the young King, then in his twelfth year.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
115‒117, 120; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II.,
pages 677‒679; _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 383‒385,
391, 393, 394.

The popular party of the clergy were very active. In 1578 they held three General Assemblies. These enacted that the bishops in the Reformed Church of Scotland should henceforward be called by their own names, and the chapters were prohibited from making any new elections of bishops, under the penalty of deprivation of their offices. All the bishops were ordered to submit themselves to the General Assembly for reformation, and if they refused after admonition, they were to be excommunicated; indeed the ruling party in the Church pursued the bishops with astonishing energy. In the General Assembly which met at Dundee in July, 1580, the subject of bishops was proposed for discussion, and full liberty given to all the members to reason on the matter and express their opinion. After this the Assembly unanimously found that the office of a bishop, as then used and commonly understood, had no warrant nor ground in the word of God. It was therefore declared that this pretended office should be terminated, as being unlawful in itself――a corruption and an invention of men. All the bishops were charged to demit their office at once, to cease from preaching or administering the sacraments or in any way exercising the functions of pastors, until they received admission anew from the General Assembly, under the penalty of excommunication. So energetic were the measures of the Church that within a year all the bishops had submitted except five;¹ the democratic spirit had become so strong and determined that the Episcopal party had no longer any chance of retaining their position in the Church.

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 408, 409, 413, 423‒425,
432, 433, 453; Dr. Grub’s _Ecclesiastical History of
Scotland_, Volume II., pages 210, 211; Dr. M‘Crie’s _Life of
Melville_, Volume I., pages 162, 163.

In 1579 the General Assembly had presented a long address to King James VI., putting him in remembrance of things pertaining to the advancement of God’s glory, the welfare of the Church, and the common good of the nation. In this they pointed out to him his duties to the Church, and warned him of his perils. Referring to the translation of the Bible, which under the direction of the Assembly, had been newly printed and dedicated to his highness, they went on to say:――“This holy book of God should be set forth, and printed within your own realm, to the end that in every parish church there should be kept at least one, to be called the common book of the Church, as a most meet ornament for such a place, and a perpetual register of the Word of God, the fountain of all true doctrine, to be made patent to all the people of each congregation, as the only rule to direct and govern them in matters of religion, as also to confirm them in the truth, and to reform and to redress corruptions wherever they may creep in; certainly we have great occasion both to glorify the goodness of God towards this country, and highly to extol and commend your highness’s most godly purpose and enterprise. Oh! what a difference may be seen between these days of light, when almost in every private house the book of God’s law is read and understood in the Vulgar language, and the age of darkness, when scarcely in a whole city, without the cloisters of monks and friars, could the book of God ever be found, and that in a strange tongue of Latin, not good, but mixed with barbarisms, used and read by few and almost understood and expounded by none; and when the false named clergy of this realm abused the gentle nature of your highness’s grandfather of worthy memory, made it a capital crime to be punished with the fire to have read the New Testament in the Vulgar tongue; yea, and to make them more odious to all men, as if it had been the detestable name of a pernicious sect, they were called New Testamenters.... Call for the wisdom of Solomon to endue your grace with a spiritual spirit, as well in the civil policy as in advancing the spiritual policy of the Church; imitate the fervent faith of Jehosaphat putting his whole trust in the Lord and believing his prophets; imitate the diligence of Jehoash, in repairing the house of the Lord; follow godly Ezekias in rooting out all monuments of idolatry, making the book of the law of God, a long time ignored and left in silence, yea, utterly forgotten, to be publicly read and accepted by the people and recommended to their posterity. To such diligence as this did the prophets of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi exhort the princes of the Jews.... This is a matter most worthy of your royal heart, a purpose proper for the exercise of the vivacity of your divine and high genius.... All other glory at last shall decay, and all commendations that result from other princely acts, are either not of long duration, or commonly mixed up with such things as are also deserving of blame; but the honour of this act shall endure for ever, and shall be fully approved by Him whose judgment must be equal and right, who is the eternal Lord of lords and King of kings; whom with most humble hearts and instant prayers we beseech to bless your majesty with continual and daily increase of His abundant blessings both spiritual and temporal; and to maintain in wealth and prosperity your princely estate to the praise and glory of His holy name, your assured salvation, the comfort and quietness of this country, the overthrow of the power of Satan and the advancement of the Kingdom of Jesus Christ. Amen.”¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 441‒448.

While the clergy were busy abolishing the remaining fragments of Episcopacy, they were, as we have seen, intently engaged in maturing their own scheme of church polity. It had been laid before several Assemblies, and its various chapters and heads had been discussed, altered, amended, and rendered as perfect as possible. It was adopted by the Assembly which met at Edinburgh in April, 1578. This polity, which then became the authorised form of church government in Scotland, is known by the title of the Second Book of Discipline; it was placed before the King, but it was not ratified by the Privy Council nor by Parliament. The Reformed Church, however, acted upon it, and inserted it in the Register of the Acts of the General Assembly in 1581.¹

¹ _Ibid._ pages 408, 409, 432, 487‒512; Calderwood, Volume
III., pages 414‒418; Melville’s _Diary_, pages 87‒116.

This book of polity is a comparatively short but logical and compact treatise. It contains thirteen chapters, each of which is again divided into a number of short expository statements of the different points of the general heading or doctrines to be established. It is essentially a deductive work, and presents an admirable example of that method of exposition. In the general scope and spirit of the book there are many points of difference between it and the First Book of Discipline: the earlier book was a meritorious and comprehensive production, but some parts of it were ill arranged and not fully developed, and several other matters were simply introduced to meet the exigencies of the time. There is a notable difference in the view taken of the authority of the civil power in the two books, touching ecclesiastical matters; in the latter the distinction between the Church and the State is far more fully worked out than in the earlier work. The first book, as we have seen, gave a large share of power to the people in the election and control of their ministers; the second book also gave a share of power to the people, but divided it between the judgment of the eldership and the consent of the congregation. It deals less with doctrine and more with the external form and order of the Church than the first book. But according to the second scheme, the Church would be altogether independent of the civil government, and the civil government would in things spiritual be subject to the orders of the Church. “This power and ecclesiastical polity is different and distinct in its own nature, from that power and policy which is called the civil power, and belongs to the civil government of the Commonwealth; albeit they are both of God, and tend to the same end, if they be rightly used, namely, to advance the glory of God, and to have godly and good subjects. This power ecclesiastical flows immediately from God and the Mediator, Christ Jesus, and is spiritual, not having a temporal head on earth, but only Christ, the only spiritual King and Governor of His Church. Therefore this power and polity of the Church should lean upon the Word of God immediately as the only ground thereof, and should be taken from the pure fountains of the Scriptures, hearing the voice of Christ, the only spiritual King, and being ruled by His laws.... Notwithstanding, as the ministers, and others of the ecclesiastical estate, are subject to the civil magistrate, so ought the person of the magistrate in spiritual matters to be subject to the Church, and in ecclesiastical government.

“The Civil power should command the Spiritual to exercise and perform their office according to the Word of God. The spiritual rulers should require the Christian magistrate to administer justice and punish vice, and to maintain the liberty and quietness of the Church within their bounds.... The magistrate ought neither to preach, minister the sacraments, nor execute the censures of the Church, nor yet prescribe any rule how it should be done, but command the ministers to observe the rule commanded in the Word of God, and punish the transgressors by civil means. The ministers do not exercise civil jurisdiction, but teach the magistrate how it should be exercised according to the Word.” This style of illustration by contrast is much employed in the Second Book of Discipline. “The magistrate ought to assist, maintain, and fortify the jurisdiction of the Church. The ministers to assist their princes in all things agreeable to the word, provided they do not neglect their own charge, by involving themselves in civil affairs.

“So it appertains to the office of the Christian magistrate to assist and fortify the godly proceedings of the Church in all behalfs, and to see that the public estate of the ministry be maintained and sustained, according to the Word of God. To see that the Church be not invaded nor hurt by false teachers or hirelings, nor their places occupied by dumb dogs and idle bellies. To assist and maintain the discipline of the Church, and to punish them civilly that will not obey the censures of the Church. To make laws and constitutions agreeable to the Word, for the advancement of the Church and her polity, without usurping anything that does not belong to the civil sword, but belongs to the offices that are ecclesiastical.... And although kings and princes who are godly, sometimes by their own authority, when the Church is corrupted and all things out of order, may place ministers and restore the true service of the Lord, after the example of some of the godly kings of Judah, and divers godly kings and emperors also in the light of the Gospel; yet where the ministry of the Church is once lawfully constituted, and those that are placed in offices perform their duties faithfully, all godly princes and magistrates ought to hear and obey their voice, and reverence the majesty of the Son of God speaking by them.”¹

¹ The _Second Book of Discipline_ is printed in the _Book of
the Universal Kirk_; in James Melville’s _Diary_; and in the
third volume of Calderwood’s _History of the Church of
Scotland_.

This treatise laid down the lines of Presbyterianism, that form of church government and organisation which has taken the firmest hold upon the national mind. For some time the Assemblies had been taking steps and labouring incessantly to complete this organisation, but much still remained to be done and various obstacles had yet to be overcome. The most pressing difficulty was the want of a sufficient number of qualified ministers. In 1567 there were upwards of a thousand parishes and churches in Scotland under the charge of two hundred and fifty-seven ministers, one hundred and fifty-one exhorters, and four hundred and fifty-five readers. Thus a number of parishes had neither ministers nor readers. There were only 868 persons, including the superintendents, for all the churches of the country. In 1574 there were two hundred and eighty-nine ministers and seven hundred and fifteen readers engaged in the religious instruction of the people, but there were many complaints that a number of those who had charge of churches were not qualified for the office. To meet the aim of the Presbyterian polity in 1581 a rearrangement of the parishes was proposed. Excepting the Diocese of Argyle and the Isles, it was resolved to reduce the number of parish churches to six hundred, and to divide these into fifty presbyteries――“twelve churches to every presbytery, or thereabout.” But for some time it was found to be impracticable to carry this scheme fully out, although the unwearying perseverance of the leading ministers was rewarded with a considerable measure of success. It was agreed to abolish the office of reader, and gradually to replace it by regularly ordained ministers. The General Assembly of 1580 concluded that all the readers who had been two years in office should be tried and examined by the superintendents and commissioners, and if they were found unqualified to be pastors and to preach the word, to depose them; and in 1581 it was resolved that no new readers should hereafter be admitted in the Church. We find, however, that there were still readers in the Church at the end of the century. Many of the readers had belonged to the Roman Catholic Church, but they were not allowed to administer the sacraments or to solemnise marriage. Still there was a lack of qualified ministers. This was owing partly to the small and uncertain provision assigned to the ministry, and partly to the disturbing circumstances of the times. Even in 1596 there were four hundred churches destitute of ministers. In Argyle and other parts of the Highlands the doctrines of the Reformation were only very imperfectly introduced, and in some of these portions of the kingdom the people long remained Catholics. “Besides the Diocese of Argyle and the Isles, of which no rentals were ever given up, there are in Scotland nine hundred and twenty-four churches.” But several of them were very small, and many of the churches were demolished. The Diocese of Argyle and the Isles seems to have stood in a rather distant attitude towards the Reformed Assemblies of the Church. In 1586, one of the petitions presented by the Assembly to the King ran――“That the bishops and commissioners of Argyle and the Isles may be subject to attend upon the General Assemblies, and to keep their synodial meetings as in other parts of the realm, which is a furtherance of the King’s majesty’s obedience, since otherwise they appear to be exempted out of his dominions.” Since the Reformation, however, the means of diffusing religious instruction had been immensely increased; and the facilities for acquiring information were steadily widening.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume II., pages 6‒7,
261‒264, 351‒352; _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, Volume
I., pages 325‒328; _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages
455‒457, 479, 480‒487, 523, 530‒533, 549, 513, 535, ♦627,
661.

♦ “927” replaced with “627”

Although Morton had resigned the regency, he was still greedy of power and struggled to regain it; but his enemies were closing in around him and plotting his ruin. The young King naturally had his favourites. They were constantly with him, and aroused the suspicion of the Protestants and the clergy. In the year 1579 Eme Stewart, a cousin of the king, arrived from France. He was kindly received by his royal kinsman, with whom he soon became a great favourite. The two were always together, and whatever interested the King and engaged his attention was sure to interest his cousin. The result was that Eme Stewart speedily rose to greatness. First, he was made an Earl, and shortly after, Duke of Lennox. Then he was appointed High Chamberlain; and in order that his wealth might be commensurate with his rank, the once rich Abbey of Arbroath was freely granted to him. To complete his influence in the councils of the kingdom he was made governor of the Castle of Dumbarton. About the same time a Captain James Stewart, another of the King’s favourites, came upon the scene. In the spring of 1581 he was elevated to the rank of Earl of Arran, and put in possession of a portion of the estates of the house of Hamilton. As long as Morton was at liberty, however, these two upstarts were insecure; they therefore contrived to compass his destruction.¹ The new Duke of Lennox was known to be a Roman Catholic, and it was whispered that he had come to Scotland as a secret emissary of the Pope. To allay the suspicion of the clergy he professed that he was converted and joined the Reformed Church. But the popular mind was not satisfied. It was still feared that a scheme was being formed among those about the court to bring back the old religion; and to calm this apprehension, at the request of the King, a document was prepared, and signed by himself, the Duke of Lennox, and the other members of the royal household in March, 1581. Hence this paper has sometimes been called the King’s Confession, the First Covenant, and in later times the Negative Confession, from its extremely condemnatory character. It was a most vehement protest and denunciation of many of the tenets of the Roman Church, and it concluded with these words, “And because we perceive that the peace and stability of our religion and Church depends upon the safety and good behaviour of the King’s majesty, as upon a comfortable instrument of God’s mercy granted to this country, for the maintenance of His Church, and the administration of justice among us: we protest and promise solemnly with our hearts, under the same oath, hand write, and pains, that we shall defend his person and authority with our goods, bodies, and lives, in the defence of Christ’s Gospel, the liberty of our country, the administration of justice, and the punishment of iniquity, against all enemies within and without this realm, as we desire our God to be a strong and merciful defender to us in the day of our death, and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: to whom with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, be all honour and glory eternally. Amen.”²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
237, 248‒254; Spottiswood, Volume II., page 266, _et seq._

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 515, _et seq._;
Calderwood, Volume III., pages 501‒505; _Collection of
Confessions_, pages 101‒107. 1722. This confession was drawn
up by John Craig, one of the ministers of Edinburgh.

About the beginning of the year 1581 the Duke of Lennox accused Morton of complicity in the murder of Darnley, the King’s father; and the fallen regent was taken and imprisoned, first in the Castle of Edinburgh, and afterwards in Dumbarton Castle. He was brought to trial on the 1st of June; and on his own confession that he was privy to the plot for the murder of Darnley, was condemned and beheaded on the 2nd of June. Morton faced death as he had faced life, and died with characteristic firmness.¹

¹ Pitcairn’s _Criminal Trials_, Volume II.; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 116‒118.

Lennox and Arran were now supreme in the court and in the government. But, as usual in the history of Scotland, a party of the nobles entered into a bond against the favourites to crush them, take the King into their own hands, and hold the reins of government themselves.¹ Some time, however, elapsed before the project was matured. This interval afforded Lennox an opportunity of trying his skill in the affairs of the Church. On the death of Boyd, the Archbishop of Glasgow, the disposal of the see was given to Lennox; and although the regulations which recognised Episcopacy had been abrogated by the General Assembly, and virtually abandoned by the court, they were revived by an act of the Privy Council. The Duke offered the see to various ministers upon the condition of their giving over to him the revenues, and agreeing to accept an annual pension; and at last the offer was accepted by Robert Montgomery, the minister of Stirling. To the reformed clergy this simoniacal paction was extremely odious. The matter came before the Assembly in October, 1581, and in spite of Lennox, the court party, and the King, Montgomery was subjected by the Church to a form of treatment which made him glad to submit, and in the end to supplicate for permission to take the charge of a congregation, instead of the Archbishopric of Glasgow. The King’s favourites and the court party had not reckoned on the determined stand which the clergy made against them; and were greatly enraged at being defeated.²

¹ The bond contained the names of the Earls of Gowrie, Mar, and
Glencairn, Lord Lindsay, the Master of Glamis, and a number
of others.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., pages 474‒477;
_Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 524, 525, 529, 532, 539,
541‒547, 557‒566, 569, 571, 575, 578, 580, 583, 590, 599,
607, 609, 691, 700‒701, 709.

The feeling of uneasiness amongst the people, springing out of a fear that the Catholics were preparing plots, continued. The adherents of the old faith were very active; some of the most ardent of those who had fled to the Continent after the Reformation were then returning; and the court was showing a decided leaning towards Episcopacy. The reformed ministers were not silent. They frequently expressed their sentiments and opinions in the pulpit with irritating plainness. Walter ♦Balcanquhal, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, in a sermon which he preached in October, 1581, said,――“That within these few years Popery had entered into the country, not only in the court, but in the King’s hall, and was maintained by the tyranny of a great champion, who was called Grace; and if his grace would oppose himself to God’s Word, he should have little grace.” For this sermon he was called before the King’s Council, but he declined to recognise their right to try him for anything which he had spoken in the pulpit, and offered to submit the matter to the General Assembly. His case came before the Assembly, and his brethren, after inquiry among the preacher’s session, unanimously found that there was nothing wrong in his sermon; “but that it was solid, good, and true doctrine.”¹

♦ “Balcanquhall” replaced with “Balcanquhal”

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 527‒529, 540, 542‒543.

By the freedom which they took in the pulpit the ministers of Edinburgh were extremely annoying to the dominant faction, who had the King’s ear. John Dury charged the King himself to his face for exchanging presents with the Duke of Guise, “that cruel murderer of the saints.” When he ascended the pulpit, he made the church resound with his denunciations of the bishops, the King, and his favourites, who ruled the kingdom. Dury was at first an exhorter in Leith, and though not a learned man, he had much energy and intense earnestness of purpose. He could wield a weapon on the field of battle, as well as preach a sermon in the pulpit. It was on the evening of Wednesday, the 23rd of May, 1582, in the Cathedral Church of Edinburgh, that he made his great attack upon the court faction. “I pray you,” he said, “what should move Guise, that bloody persecutor, that enemy unto all truth, that pillar of the Pope, to send this present by one of his trustiest servants to our King? not for any love, no, no, his pretence is known.... What amity or friendship can we look for at his hands who has been the bloodiest persecutor of the professors of the truth in all France, neither was there any notable murder or havoc of God’s people, but what he was at in person. And yet for all this, the Duke and Arran will needs have our King to take a present from him. If God did threaten the captivity and spoil of Jerusalem because their King Hezekia did receive a lure and present from the King of Babylon, shall we think to be free when committing the like or rather worse?” In his prayers, he prayed that the Lord would either convert or confound the Duke. For his sermon he was called before the Privy Council, and banished from Edinburgh by an Act of Council. When the General Assembly met in June, 1582, he placed the whole process against him before it, and the members of the Assembly found nothing amiss in what he had spoken. “The whole Assembly found nothing in him but sound, true, and wholesome doctrine; and that he was upright and honest in his life and conversation.” As the King had banished him from the capital, the Assembly gave him liberty to preach wherever providence might cast his lot, until he should be restored to his own flock.¹

¹ _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 576, 578, 580;
Calderwood, Volume III., pages 620, 622‒625; _Register of
the Privy Council_, Volume III., pages 335, 489. Dury was
called before the King and Council at Dalkeith――“Where he
narrowly escaped being slain by the duke’s cooks, who came
out of the kitchen, with spits and great knives to take his
life, as he often told me.”――Melville’s _Diary_, page 129.

The plot against the King’s favourites was at length ripe for execution. The King was very fond of hunting, and on August 22, 1582, his Majesty, by invitation, proceeded to the grounds of Ruthven Castle, in the neighbourhood of Perth, to enjoy his favourite amusement. When the sport was concluded for the day, he went to Ruthven Castle as the welcome guest of its noble lord. Everything passed off in the most agreeable fashion, and his Majesty at last retired to rest. The following morning, when he arose and looked abroad, he was alarmed by the throng of armed men around the place, and when he wished to depart, discovered that he was a captive. The Earl of Arran was seized and imprisoned; and the Duke of Lennox was warned to leave the country without delay. This affair is known in history as “The Raid of Ruthven.”

The King was permitted to step about, but he was attended by a body of well-armed followers to preserve his royal person from danger. In a few days he was removed to Stirling, and in October was conveyed to Holyrood House. A Parliament was then held at Edinburgh on the 19th of October, and an act of indemnity, or rather a vote of thanks to the chief actors in the enterprise, was passed. This was a farce which the aristocracy often played. They proclaimed that, under the providence of God, they were moved to attempt the reform of many abuses in the State, which threatened to subvert the established religion, and were equally perilous to his Majesty and the crown.¹ By the most ardent Protestants and the clergy, “The Raid of Ruthven” was regarded as a deliverance for the Church, and the ministers declared their satisfaction from the pulpits. When the General Assembly met at Edinburgh on the 9th October, 1582, the members heartily approved of the proceedings of the Earl of Gowrie and his adherents, and passed an act declaring “that the prosecution and following out of the said good and godly cause, all particulars put aside, is and shall be most acceptable to all that fear the majesty of God aright; and to all who tender the preservation of the King’s Majesty, most noble person, and estate, and loves the prosperous and happy success of this troubled nation.” The members of the Assembly were therefore recommended to explain the affair, and the proceedings of the noblemen connected with it, to the people throughout the country.²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
326‒331.

² _Book of the Universal Kirk_, pages 591‒592, 594‒596;
Melville’s _Diary_, page 134; Sir James Melville’s _Memoirs_,
pages 282‒283.

During the time that the King was in the hands of Gowrie and the barons who joined him, the government was carried on pretty much in accordance with the views of the Church. When ambassadors arrived from France in January, 1583, the Presbytery of Edinburgh appointed some of the ministers to go to the King and admonish him to beware of them. The King thanked the preachers for their friendly admonition, but said that he must show the common courtesies to the ambassadors of his old ally, the King of France; but promised, however, to use no great familiarity with them. The ♦distinguished strangers were permitted to celebrate the mass, and their celebration of it excited the popular displeasure; the ministers of the capital declaimed bitterly against them, especially against La Motte, a knight who wore a white cross on his shoulder, which they called the badge of Antichrist. Indeed, such was the feeling aroused against them that the representatives of the King of France could scarcely appear on the streets without being followed by the jeers and hooting of the mob. The King desired the magistrates to entertain them at a banquet before they departed; but the ministers were extremely opposed to it, and immediately proclaimed a fast to be kept on the day of the banquet. On that day the preachers in St. Giles made the walls resound with their denunciations. Three ministers, in succession, mounted the pulpit, and, without intermission for four hours, thundered out maledictions against the nobles and the magistrates who waited on the ambassadors, and took part in the banquet.¹

♦ “distintinguished” replaced with “distinguished”

¹ Calderwood, Volume III., pages 694, 697, 698, 699, 700;
Spottiswood, Volume II., page 298.

Despite the vigilance of his keepers, the young King contrived to escape in the end of June, 1583, and to throw himself into the Castle of St. Andrews. The power of the Ruthven party was shortly after terminated. The King issued a proclamation on the 30th of July, touching the Raid of Ruthven, and announcing that he had resumed his independent authority. Referring to the Raid, he expressed his willingness to forget the offence and grant forgiveness to all concerned in it, if they should timeously profess their penitence; and for some time several of the nobles implicated in the Raid continued members of the Privy Council. But on the 23rd of August the Earl of Arran reappeared in the Council, and shortly resumed his power and influence in the government; and he seems to have instigated the young prince to prosecute to the utmost those concerned in the Raid of Ruthven, and at last, on the 31st of March, 1584, it was denounced as high treason. By this time, a number of those implicated in the Raid had been tried one by one or collectively, and sentenced to banishment or imprisonment, and disgraced. But the hatred of the Earl of Arran’s rule had become general, and a new plot, sanctioned by a bond, was formed against him, in which the Earls of Mar, Angus, and Gowrie, the Lords Lindsay, John Hamilton and Claud Hamilton, the Master of Glamis, and others, were associated. They resolved to seize Stirling Castle, and then to raise a general insurrection. On the 10th of April, Mar and Glamis, with a body of their followers, captured Stirling Castle; but on the 15th of April, the Earl of Gowrie was arrested by Colonel Stewart at Dundee, and immediately conveyed to Edinburgh. The capture of Gowrie somewhat disconcerted the insurgent nobles. Arran, with a strong force, advanced against them, and on the 24th of April, they fled from Stirling, leaving only a garrison of twenty-four men in the Castle. The following day, a proclamation was issued for the pursuit and capture, dead or alive, of the Earls of Mar and Angus, the Master of Glamis, and other rebels; but they escaped by Lanark to Kelso, and crossed the border into England. The King and his army appeared before Stirling, the small garrison left by the insurgents surrendered the Castle, and on the 28th of April, their captain and other three men were hanged. On the 2nd of May, the Earl of Gowrie was tried for treason at Stirling by a jury of his peers, including ♦Argyle, Arran, Crawford, and others; he was convicted, and beheaded the same day beneath the castle wall. The same month an Act of Parliament was passed for disinheriting his posterity, and in August an act of forfeiture was passed against the Countess of Gowrie. From May 1584, till Midsummer 1585, Arran was the supreme ruler of Scotland, and his policy was clearly manifested in the two short sessions of what is known as the “running” Parliament, and in the proceedings of the Privy Council during the brief period of his sway.¹

♦ “Argyll” replaced with “Argyle” for consistency

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
301‒304; _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., pages
574, 585, 590, 602, 608, 611, 614, 644, 651‒662.

Meanwhile the apprehensions of the clergy had risen to an unusual height. They had applauded the Raid of Ruthven, and some of them still continued to reiterate their former sentiments on that enterprise. John Dury, who had returned to Edinburgh, was ordered to retire beyond the Tay, and to abide in Montrose. In the middle of February, 1584, Andrew Melville, one of the chief leaders of the clergy, was cited to appear before the Privy Council, touching seditious language which he had uttered in his sermons. When he came before the Council, he at once offered to give an account of the sermon upon which he was accused, and after he had done this, the Council resolved to proceed with the trial. Melville then protested and declined to answer, on the ground that the case ought in the first instance to be tried by the Presbytery. The reading of his protest seems to have greatly irritated Arran and the King. On the second day of the trial Melville lost his temper, and told the King and Council that they had taken too much on themselves to control the servants of a Master far higher than they were. That they might see their rashness, he took a Hebrew Bible from his girdle, and throwing it down on the table challenged his judges to try conclusions on that and then they would see their folly. The record states that he “proudly, irreverently, and contemptuously declared that the laws of God and the practices observed within the country were perverted and not observed in this case.” The court ordered him to enter as a prisoner into the Castle of Blackness within ten hours, under the penalty of being proclaimed a rebel and an outlaw; but Melville preferred to choose his own place of imprisonment, and immediately fled to Berwick, which in those days was the city of refuge.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., page 631;
Melville’s _Diary_, pages 141‒144; Scott’s _Narrative_,
page 51.

The contest between the Crown and the clergy had now reached a crisis. Archbishop Adamson, acting in concert with the King and Arran, was busy concocting a plan for the reintroduction of Episcopacy and the destruction of the Presbyterian polity, which had been rapidly completing its organisation. Adamson drew up a series of articles for the constitution of the Church and the acceptance of the Government. According to this scheme, which recognised in emphatic terms that the King was head of the Church, and that it was therefore his prerogative to appoint the order of her polity, the government of the Church consisted, subject to the headship of the King, in the power and authority of the bishops, whose office is of apostolic institution and in accordance with the primitive purity of the Church of God. On the other hand, it was pointed out that presbyteries in which laymen associated with the ministers, were in fact a continual source of sedition. No General Assembly was to be allowed to meet without a license from the King.¹ These ideas were instilled into the mind of the young King at this impressionable period of his life, and throughout the rest of his career he never ceased to hold and enforce them to the utmost of his power.

¹ Calderwood, Volume IV., pages 53‒55; Dr. Grub’s
_Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, Volume II., pages
232‒234; Melville’s _Diary_, pages 151‒153.

Rumours of impending calamities to the Church and the nation filled the land. In the beginning of May several of the most energetic preachers fled to Berwick, and joined Melville and the banished lords. When Parliament met at Edinburgh on the 19th of May, 1584, these gloomy forebodings were fully realised. A series of acts were passed which placed in the hands of the King powers quite unprecedented in Scotland. One act declared that the King had an absolute power and authority over all ranks in the kingdom, and that he was supreme judge in all matters civil and religious. Another enacted that to speak against any of the proceedings of Parliament should be accounted treason; a third, that all the acts and judgments of the church courts, if unsanctioned by Parliament, were to be held as unlawful, and all meetings of the people to consult and deliberate on any matter, either civil or ecclesiastical, without the King’s special licence, were declared criminal and deserving the severest punishment. A fourth act placed the chief ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the hands of the bishops. A fifth commanded that no person whatever should dare to comment upon the proceedings of the King and Council, either in sermons or declamations, in public, in private, or in familiar conversation; nor at all presume to utter any false and slanderous statements to the reproach, the disdain, or the contempt of His Majesty, or to the prejudice and dishonour of his highness and his parents and worthy progenitors, under the penalty of the laws against the makers and tellers of lies. And that these royal prerogatives which by the gift of heaven belonged to his highness and to all his heirs and successors on the throne should continue unimpaired, it was deemed absolutely necessary to condemn Buchanan’s _History of Scotland_ and his _Jure Regni apud Scotos_; and therefore all persons who possessed any copies of these books were ordered to deliver them to the royal officers within forty days, “that they might be purified of the extraordinary matters which they contained.”¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
292‒296; Calderwood, Volume IV., page 38, _et seq._

The clergy had become aware that these acts were preparing, and some of them went to the Parliament House, with the intention of protesting for the rights of the Church, but the doors were closed against them. When the Acts were proclaimed at the cross of Edinburgh, three of the ministers, Lawson, Pont, and Balcanquhal, protested publicly against them as injurious to the former liberties of the Church. These acts had been passed in great haste, the parliament having sat but two days, and passed forty-nine acts; and the King and Arran made a bold attempt to carry them into effect. For some time nothing was heard of but arrests, trials, hornings and forfeitures. These measures unquestionably expressed the intentions of the party in power. Orders were issued to apprehend the preachers who had protested against the acts, but they had saved themselves by flight. Soon after more than twenty ministers took refuge in England; and there was then a pretty large party of Scots in Berwick, Newcastle, and other parts of that kingdom.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., page 668;
_Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, Volume I., pages 411‒419;
Calderwood, Volume IV., pages 64‒65, 72; Melville’s _Diary_,
pages 167‒172.

The King and his party having now asserted their supremacy, resolved to crush the rebellious nobles and the bold preachers. Parliament again met in August, 1584, and passed thirty-eight acts to strengthen the hands of the government. A process of treason against the banished lords and others associated with them was carried through, and their property was forfeited to the Crown. An act was passed which commanded all beneficed men, ministers, readers, masters of colleges and schools, to subscribe and faithfully promise that they would humbly and dutifully submit to the King, and obey the acts of the last parliament; and to show their submissive spirit, they were ordered at once to obey the bishops and the commissioners appointed by the King to rule over them in all religious matters, under the penalty of forfeiting their stipends.¹ All the ministers between Stirling and Berwick were summoned to appear at Edinburgh, on the 16th of November, 1584, there to attest their submission to the will of the King. This was a very hard measure, and many of the ministers refused to comply with it. When Craig and other leading preachers were before the court, Arran asked them, how they durst venture to be so bold as to find fault with the acts of parliament; Craig answered that they durst find fault with anything which was repugnant to God’s Word. Upon this Arran started to his feet and threatened that, “he would shave their heads, pare their nails, cut their toes, and make them an example to all rebels.” After some further debate, Craig and the most of his brethren signed the deed, with a clause which was added――“agreeable to the Word of God.” Erskine of Dun, the venerable superintendent, also signed it, and used his influence in persuading others to conform. On the 2nd of January, 1585, it was proclaimed that all those who had not subscribed the acts of parliament were then offered the last opportunity of doing so; and that in the event of their declining, their stipends would be withheld, and their persons punished for contempt of the laws.²

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
331‒333, 336‒346, 347.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., pages 701‒704,
712, _et seq._; Calderwood, Volume IV., pages 198‒200,
209‒211, 246‒247; Fifth Report of the Commissioners on
Historical manuscripts, page 636.

But neither the rage of Arran, nor the kingcraft of James, could stifle thought and feeling. The ministers, however, were extremely hard pressed. The laws against them were rigorously enforced; and even the wives of the refractory preachers were turned out of their houses, and commanded to leave the country.¹ By such means the King and his associates fondly imagined that they would crush the spirit of the clergy and the people; and an onlooker might well have thought that the clergy were completely subdued; but the inner springs of the movement the King with all his craft and acts was unable to touch. It was here that he failed. He could enforce compliance with certain things; but it was beyond his power to control the motives, the ideas, and the convictions; and it is these which ultimately prevail.

¹ _Miscellany of the Wodrow Society_, Volume I., pages 432‒437.

One of the inner political peculiarities of the history of Scotland appears in the rapid rise and fall of the factions of the nobles who ruled the country, or rather the king. This process of action and reaction was always at short intervals producing sudden and unexpected changes at the centre of authority. Looking merely at the external features of these manifestations, they seem to be capricious, irregular, and extremely confused; but when we extend our view over a series of centuries, and learn to appreciate the position and the power of the aristocracy, these surprising changes in the government become intelligible and full of sequence. In this light, the long series of unforeseen changes in the government, the seizures, the imprisonments, the depositions, and the murders, of the kings are seen to be the results of a movement springing out of the social and political organisation of the nation. In other words, the aggregates of society in Scotland had for ages circled round the nobles, but often in separate and conflicting groups; hence the comparative weakness of the Crown arose partly from its having to contend with the freaks of these natural and traditional centres of power.

Lord Maxwell had been for many generations the leading local noble in Dumfries and its neighbourhood, and had frequently held the office of Warden of the Western March. On the 29th of April, 1581, John, Lord Maxwell, was appointed to that office by the King and Council. A supporter of Lennox and Arran, immediately after the execution of the Regent, he was created Earl of Morton, and on the 5th of June, 1581, he obtained a charter granting the Earldom to him. The new Earl was at feud with John Johnstone of Johnstone, a powerful border laird, and formerly a Warden of the Western March; and on the 26th of May, 1582, a royal proclamation ordered them not to appear with their armed followers in Edinburgh――“to a day of law appointed to be held on the last day of May.” On the 19th of November the Earl of Morton was deprived of the Wardenship of the Western March, and his rival, Johnstone of Johnstone, was appointed to the office. The Earl of Morton was subsequently charged with many misdemeanours, and denounced as a rebel. In the winter of 1585 he appears as the leader of a border revolt against Arran’s government; and in April a muster of the loyal vassals of the Crown was ordered, and then to proceed against him, while the gift to Maxwell of the Earldom of Morton was revoked; and therefore he was at war with the King and his government. Maxwell had a thousand armed men in the field, and the banished Lords at once saw their opportunity, and joined him. In the beginning of November, 1585, they returned, and having collected their adherents, met Maxwell at Selkirk. Thence they marched on Stirling with a force of eight thousand men. The King and Arran were at Stirling when the rebels appeared before it. Arran fled towards the Highlands; while the King, notwithstanding all his craft and the astuteness of his favourites, had no alternative but to receive the proffered homage of his rebellious nobles, and pardon them.¹

¹ _Register of the Privy Council_, Volume III., pages 376, 487,
531, 534, 540, 739; Bannatyne _Miscellany_, Volume I., page
119; Melville’s _Diary_, pages 223‒225; Sir James Melville’s
_Memoirs_, pages 384‒385.

With the nobles most of the exiled preachers had returned, and the hopes of the Protestant clergy were somewhat brightened. But if they expected much aid from the party whom they had befriended, they were quickly disabused. The nobles told them that first of all their own estates must be restored, and that when they were, they would work intently for the Church. This was the characteristic form of the policy of the aristocracy towards the reformed clergy, when a party of the clergy had interests of their own at stake, they were ready to promise assistance to the clergy; but, excepting a few individual nobles who appeared from time to time, there was no real religious principle or living conviction amongst them from the beginning to the end of the conflict. The clergy themselves, however, continued to struggle on, and fought manfully for the redress of their grievances. The Parliament met in the beginning of December, 1585, and restored the estates of the nobles who had been disinherited for their rebellion. But the despotic acts of 1584 were left untouched. The only act in favour of the Church was one which restored all the ministers and masters of colleges to their offices and possessions.¹

¹ _Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume III., pages
383‒387, 395.

It has become apparent that the King had an enormous amount of self-conceit; and that he was filled with a passion for polemics. He had been so flattered and puffed up by those who had lately associated with him, that he verily thought he could settle theological questions, make a commentary, or handle a text better than all the preachers and professors in the kingdom. About the beginning of the year 1586 he attended worship in the High Church of Edinburgh, when Balcanquhal the minister made some derogatory remarks touching the authority of bishops. James immediately rose from his seat and asked him what Scripture he had for his assertions. The preacher said he could adduce sufficient proofs from Scripture for what he had stated. The King vehemently denied this, and offered to pledge his kingdom that he would prove the contrary, and he added that it was the practice of preachers to busy themselves with such matters in the pulpit, but he was aware of their intentions, and would look after them. The interlude continued for a quarter of an hour, after which the King resumed his seat and heard the sermon to the end. Balcanquhal was subsequently sent for, and in the palace his Majesty had the satisfaction of engaging him for more than an hour.¹ It should be stated, however, that the preachers sometimes provoked the King. A short time before this incident, James Gibson, the minister of Pencaitland, preached a sermon in Edinburgh, and uttered the following statement――“I thought that Captain James Stewart, Lady Isabel his wife, and William Stewart, had persecuted the Church, but now I have found the truth, that it was the King himself. As Jeroboam and his posterity were rooted out for staying of the true worship of God, so I fear that if our King continue in his present course, he shall be the last of his race.” For this, Gibson was brought before the Privy Council and imprisoned. He was afterwards liberated, and for a time suspended by order of the General Assembly.²

¹ M‘Crie’s _Life of Melville_, Volume I., pages 340‒345.

² _Register of the Privy Council_, December, 1585; _Book of the
Universal Kirk_, pages 688, 690, 699, 709‒712.