Chapter XXXII: Literature of the Nation in the Seventeenth Century

THROUGHOUT the seventeenth century the ablest minds in Scotland were mainly absorbed in religious and political struggles, or devoted to theology and practical religious duties; yet law, science, and cognate subjects began to attract more attention, especially towards the end of the century. The theological and religious literature diverged but little from the leading doctrines of the Reformation, for though in some writings there might be greater elaboration of doctrinal points, there was no radical change in the method of investigation or of interpretation of the fundamental doctrines. The Westminster Confession, like the Reformation one of the Scotch Reformers, is essentially Calvinistic; and the chief doctrines in both are viewed from the same standpoint. After the lengthy account of the social condition of the nation, and of the tendency of the stream of history given in the preceding chapters, it would be superfluous to enter into a minute detail of the religious literature of the century. Both the contending parties were represented by writers of reputation and authority in their day; but comparatively few persons now read their productions. The religious difficulties which demand discussion in the present day have assumed different forms, for in the interval of two centuries, the ideas and convictions of the people have gradually undergone a great modification and change. It will be the aim of the remaining part of the work to explain the causes of this change in the opinions and habits of the people.

David Calderwood, a Presbyterian minister, is the author of numerous works, mostly of a polemical character.¹ He was a man of unbending integrity, bold and fearless in maintaining his opinions, and thoroughly consistent in his profession. He was acute and learned, and familiar with the writings of the Fathers, and theological literature generally. The greater part of his writings and pamphlets related to ecclesiastical disputes in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I.; such as the polity of the Church, the five articles of Perth, and cognate matters. But the most important and valuable of his writings is “The History of the Church of Scotland, from the beginning of the Reformation to the end of the reign of James VI.”; although, strictly speaking, it is not a history, but rather a collection of the materials for history, than a digested and critical narrative of events. It contains a great number of historical papers, Acts of Parliament, Acts of the Privy Council, Acts and proceedings of the General Assembly, royal proclamations, and other documents of a public character. Calderwood was extremely greedy of information, and notices incidentally many curious facts and notions which prevailed amongst the people. Hence his History of the Church is very valuable to the historical student.

¹ Born 1572, died 1650.

John Spottiswood,¹ Archbishop of St. Andrews, is the author of a “History of the Church and State of Scotland.” Though he leans to the side of his own party in the Church, his statement of facts is generally fair and moderate. In extent and variety of material his history falls much below Calderwood’s, but in arrangement and in style, it is superior to any contemporary history composed in the vernacular language.

¹ Born 1565, died 1639.

Robert Baillie was one of the most eminent and learned of the Presbyterian clergyman of the Covenanting period.¹ He was actively engaged in the struggle of the Civil War, but he was more reasonable and moderate in his views than the majority of his brethren. His writings are numerous, and were chiefly devoted to Church polity and religion. He wrote both in English and in Latin, but the greater part of his works were published in the former language. He devoted much attention to the Oriental languages, and was conversant with the Hebrew and cognate tongues. He was one of the Scotch ministers who sat in the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and subsequently he was appointed Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow. After the Restoration, he was admitted Principal of the University of Glasgow, an office which he held until his death. His principal works are “An Historical Vindication of the Government of the Church of Scotland,” a work of considerable ability, and his “Chronology,” written in Latin. One of Baillie’s first productions was levelled against Laud, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and published in 1640, under the title, “The Canterburians Self-convicted, or an evident demonstration of the avowed Arminianism, popery, and tyranny of that faction, by their own confession.” A third and enlarged edition of this pamphlet was published in 1641, and a fourth in 1643. Several of Baillie’s pamphlets directly attacked the Liturgy, as his “Comparison of the Liturgy with the Mass-book, Breviary, the Ceremonial, and other Romish Rituals,” published in 1641; “Inquiries anent the Service-book, an antidote against Arminianism.” He was earnest in addressing the people on the reforming work of the time, especially in his sermons preached before Parliament in 1643 and 1645, the former entitled “Satan the Leader-in-chief to all who Resist the Reformation of Zion,” and the latter, “Errors and Induration are the great Sins and the great Judgments of the Times.” A list of Baillie’s publications was given in Dr. Irving’s _Lives of Scottish Writers_. But his Letters and Journals relating to the wars and the affairs of the period from 1637 to 1662, are now the most interesting and the most valuable of his compositions.²

¹ Born 1599, died 1662.

² An imperfect edition of his _Letters and Journals_ was
published in 1775, but a more complete one in three volumes,
edited by the late Dr. Laing, appeared in 1841‒42.

Zachary Boyd, minister of the Barony Parish, in the suburbs of Glasgow, was a writer of note in the first half of the century.¹ At first he seemed inclined to side with the Loyalist party, but at last he signed the Covenant, and continued a firm adherent of the popular cause, although he did not take so active a part in the field as some of his brethren. But when Cromwell, with his army, arrived at Glasgow, “he rallied on them all to their face in the High Church.” Having chosen for his text the eighth chapter of the book of Daniel, he expounded the vision of the ram with two horns, which was overcome and trampled down by a he-goat, and exerted all his ingenuity to extend the parable to existing circumstances, and demonstrating that Cromwell was the he-goat. In another sermon, on some verses of the thirty-eighth Psalm, he made many pointed and bitter references to the sectarian General; and it was reported that one of the officers whispered into Cromwell’s ear, and asked permission to “shoot the scoundrel at once,” but he replied that “we will manage him in another way.” Cromwell invited Boyd to dine with him, and completely gained the preacher’s respect by the fervour of the devotions in which he spent the evening, and it was said that their mutual exercise was continued till three in the morning.²

¹ Born 1590, died 1653.

² _Life of Boyd_, prefixed to his _Last Battle of the Soul_.

Boyd was the author of various works, chiefly of a religious character. In 1629, he published a work entitled “The Last Battle of the Soul in Death,” which is written in a kind of dramatic form, and sustained with spirit and interest, and differs from most of the religious works of the period in not being controversial. He had an imaginative and vigorous mind, and his thought is often strikingly original; and, with an exceedingly copious command of words and imagery, he combined a style which was remarkably good for the period. His highest flights are embodied in a work of two volumes, entitled “Zion’s Flowers,” which have received the name of “Boyd’s Bible.” They consist of a collection of poems on subjects of Scripture history, such as David, Jonah, and others, presented in a dramatic form, in the execution of which he sometimes produced extremely ludicrous and grotesque passages.

James Durham, minister of the Blackfriars Church in Glasgow, from 1647 to 1658,¹ was one of the most popular preachers of his day. His writings consist of commentaries on Scripture, and a large number of sermons on a variety of subjects. “He was a burning and shining light, a star of the first magnitude, and of whom it may be said, without derogation from the merit of any, that he had a name among the mighty.”²

¹ Born 1622, died 1658.

² _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 220.

David Dickson¹ was minister of Irvine for upwards of twenty years, and subsequently a professor in the University of Glasgow, and also in that of Edinburgh. He was a successful teacher and a popular preacher, and, as we have seen, he was a man of standing and influence among the Covenanting party. He is the author of commentaries on the Psalms, and on various parts of the New Testament, of a series of lectures, and other pieces, and his writings were for long popular.

¹ Born 1583, died 1663.

But none of the presbyterian ministers were more popular and famous than Samuel Rutherford.¹ He was actively engaged in the Covenanting struggle; and for the last ten years of his life, he maintained the battle on the side of the protestors. A talented, a consistent, and a learned man, he wrote on various topics of absorbing interest in his time, including his “Peaceable Plea for Presbytery,” a well-digested book, which he published in 1642. In 1649, he published, at London, “A Free Disputation against the Pretended Liberty of Conscience,” especially directed against the Independents, who were then rapidly rising to the height of power in England. Besides these he wrote several other treatises, some of them composed in Latin; but the most famous of his productions was “Lex Rex,” The Law and the King.²

¹ Born 1600, died 1661.

² His _Letters_ were published after his death, and reprinted
in 1824, and again quite recently.

This work on government is elaborate, and a good example of deductive exposition. After a very long preface, in which he says:――“That which moved the author was not, as my excommunicated adversary says, the escape of some fears, which necessitated him to write, for many before me have learnedly trodden in the path, but that I might add a new testimony to the times.” He gives a full and formal table of contents, and then proceeds to the discussion of his subject. He divided it into forty-four questions or leading topics, under each of which a great mass of matter comes in for discussion. He appeals to the authority of Scripture throughout, and refers to the examples in the Bible. But the general strain of the book leads to the utter overthrow of the idea that kings have prerogatives and absolute powers above the laws and acts of parliament; and this branch of the subject is well and conclusively reasoned. In the course of the long discussion, many other important political points are handled with ability and judgment. But it is a tedious book to read, though a valuable contribution to the principles of constitutional government.

Rutherford began his work by stating that, “I reduce all that I am to speak of the power of kings: (1) To the author or efficient, (2) the matter or subject, (3) the form or power, (4) the end and fruit of their government, and (5) to some cases of resistance.”¹ From these simple terms he proceeded deductively to expound his views and opinions on the origin of government, the power and rights of the king and of the people.

¹ Page 1. “It is reported that when Charles saw _Lex Rex_, he
said it could scarcely ever get an answer, nor did it ever
get any, except what the parliament in 1661 gave it, when
they caused it to be burned at the Cross of Edinburgh by
the hands of the common hangman. This was a summary way of
answering a book, but it was somewhat more innocent than the
practice of burning the authors of books. Charles’ parliament,
by the hangman’s hands, burned the body of the book, but they
could not consume its immortal spirit, with which the minds
of the patriots of that age were deeply imbued, which they
communicated to their children, and which ultimately produced
the Revolution.” Claud’s _Defence of the Reformation_ was
condemned to be burned, on which the editor of an old edition
very properly observes that “books have souls as well as
men, which survive their martyrdom, and are not burned, but
crowned by the flames that encircle them.”――_Scots Worthies_,
Volume I., page 223.

In discussing the powers of the king, he stated that, “The royal power rests in three ways in the people: 1. Radically and virtually, as in the first subject. 2. Collectively, by way of free donation, they giving it to this man, not to this man that he may rule over them. 3. Under limitation, they giving it so as that these three acts remain with the people: 1. That they may measure out, by ounce weights, so much royal power, and no more, and no less. 2. So as they limit, moderate, and set bounds to the exercise of it. 3. That they give it out, conditionally, upon that and this condition, that they take again to themselves what they gave out, if the conditions be violated. The first, I conceive, is clear: 1. Because if every living creature have radically in them a power of self-preservation to defend themselves from violence, as we see lions with paws, some beasts have horns, some claws, men being reasonable creatures united in society, must have power in a more reasonable and honourable way to put this power of warding off violence in the hands of one or more rulers, to defend themselves by magistrates. 2. If all men be born as concerning civil power alike, for no man comes out of the womb with a diadem on his head or a sceptre in his hand, and yet men united in society may give crown and sceptre to this man, and not to that man, then this power was in the united society, but it was not in them formally, ... therefore this power must have been virtually in them, because neither man, nor community of men, can give that which they neither have formally, nor virtually, in themselves. 3. Royalists cannot deny that cities have power to choose inferior magistrates: therefore, many cities united have power to create a higher ruler, for royal is but the united and superlative power of inferior judges, in one great judge, whom they call king.”

Thus it is concluded that the people make the king. “The power of creating a man a king is from the people, because those who may create this man a king, rather than another man, have power to appoint a king. For a comparative action does positively infer an action; if a man have a power to marry this woman, not that woman, we may strongly conclude, therefore, that he has power to marry.”¹

¹ Page 10, edition 1644.

Rutherford had the reputation of being an effective preacher and an able and successful professor of divinity in the New College of St. Andrews, where he occupied a chair for about twelve years. But he was under the influence of the intolerant spirit of the age, and wrote earnestly against toleration of religious opinions. Yet, at that period few had risen to the idea of toleration, though the Independents had approached nearer it than the other religious bodies in the Island. In the estimation of his own party he held a high place, one of them summing up his character in these words: “He seems to have been one of the most resplendent lights that ever arose on our horizon.”¹

¹ Wodrow; _Scots Worthies_, Volume I., page 229.

George Gillespie¹ was one of the prominent ministers of the Covenanting period. He was the author of a work which was long popular, entitled “Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, or the Divine Ordinance of Church Government Vindicated,” published at London in 1646; he also wrote several controversial papers and tracts.

¹ Born 1613, died 1648.

There were a number of other presbyterian ministers celebrated in their day as preachers, of whom may be mentioned James Guthrie, Hugh Binning, Robert Blair, Andrew Gray, John Livingston, and James Wood; while there were others, like Henderson, who were too ardently engaged in the struggles of the times to produce works for publication.

Dr. John Forbes was the second son of the estimable Bishop Forbes, of Aberdeen.¹ He was appointed professor of divinity in King’s College, Aberdeen, in 1619, and was the author of several learned works. In discharging the duties of his chair, he delivered lectures on the history and progress of Christian doctrine. He was disposed to peaceful measures, and to promote this he published a pamphlet in 1638, under the title of “A Peaceful Warning to the Subjects of Scotland.” This was quickly answered by a tract attributed to Calderwood, the warm defender of the presbyterian polity. The professors and the ministers of Aberdeen offered a determined opposition to the Covenant, argued against it and disputed its lawfulness, and at last issued a printed paper containing, “General Demands concerning the Covenant.” This was answered by Henderson, Dickson, and Andrew Cant, whereupon the Aberdeen Doctors emitted replies, which called forth further answers from the Covenanters’ side; to these the Doctors published a rejoinder, and thus they had the satisfaction of the last word. Their learning, however, could not protect them, for they were all deprived of their offices in the Church and in the University, because they refused to sign the Covenant.²

¹ Bishop Forbes himself is the author of several works, some
of which were published in a volume, entitled “A Learned
Commentary upon the Revelation of St. John, newly corrected
and revised, Middleburgh, 1614.” The volume also contained
a treatise in defence of the lawful calling of the ministers
of the Reformed churches. He is the author of “A Dialogue,
wherein a rugged Romish Rhyme (Inscribed questions to the
Protestant) is confuted, and the questions thereof answered,”
Aberdeen, 1627.

Soon after his death, a volume, with a portrait, was
published, under the title, “Funerals of a Right Reverend
Father in God, Patrick Forbes of Corse, Bishop of Aberdeen,
1635.” It contains five funeral sermons in English by
different professors and doctors, a Latin oration and a
dissertation, and also a large collection of verses in
the form of laudatory epitaphs on the deceased prelate,
contributed by many of the learned men of the day; and at the
end, “Edward Raban, master printer, the first in Aberdeen,”
contributed the last epitaph himself, which concludes with
these lines:

“Good Sir, I am behind the rest,
I do confess, for want of skill:
But not a whit behind the best
To show the affection of good will.”

² The general demands of the Aberdeen Doctors, and the answers
and replies, were published at Aberdeen by order of the
Scotch parliament. A collected edition of Dr. Forbes’ Latin
works was published in 1703.

Robert Leighton, Archbishop of Glasgow, in the reign of Charles II., was perhaps the most cultured and learned, as well as the most humane of the prelates of the period. He was educated in the University of Edinburgh, and graduated in the year 1631. Afterwards having lived for several years in France, he learned to speak French like a native. Having returned to Scotland, he became a minister of the Presbyterian Church, and was appointed pastor of the parish of Newbattle in 1641, in which he laboured quietly till 1652, when he resigned his charge. In 1653, he was installed principal of the University of Edinburgh, to which office the chair of divinity was joined. After the Restoration, he accepted the bishopric of Dunblane, in which he officiated for about eight years, and was exceedingly attentive to his duties. He endeavoured to promote measures of moderation and conciliation, and disapproved of the severe modes of forcing a formal compliance with the established worship, and accordingly granted the nonconformists of his own diocese that liberty of conscience, which the laws of the times had ignored. In 1670, when he became Archbishop of Glasgow, he redoubled his efforts to persuade the ejected ministers to listen to terms of accommodation, but failed. At last, disheartened and tired of his position, he resolved to retire from all public employment, tendered his resignation, finally relinquishing the See of Glasgow in 1674. Afterwards, this truly religious and humane man retired to England, where he died in 1684.

Leighton’s writings consist of his “Commentaries on St. Peter,” sermons preached at Newbattle, lectures delivered in Latin before the University of Edinburgh, spiritual exercises, letters and other papers. None of his works were published in his lifetime, but collected editions of them have been issued in England and America, the most complete one having appeared in 1869‒70. His writings have been long and widely known, and it is unnecessary to enter into a lengthy criticism of them. His style is simple and easy, and glowing with genuine piety, the expression of a warm and generous heart.

Bishop Burnet was the greatest name in literature which Scotland produced in the seventeenth century. He was born in Edinburgh in 1643, but belonged to an Aberdeenshire family, and was educated at the University of Aberdeen. He was licensed to preach at the age of eighteen, visited England, Holland, and France, and having returned home, was appointed minister of the parish of Saltoun in 1665. Subsequently he became professor of divinity in the University of Glasgow. After the Revolution he was appointed a bishop in the Church of England. He was an exceedingly voluminous writer, and tried his hand on many subjects. He is the author of a large number of sermons, many of which were delivered on public occasions, of numerous discourses and tracts on divinity, and of tracts and pamphlets of a polemical description on popery, politics, and miscellaneous subjects. A considerable number of historical works emanated from his fertile mind, of which the most important are his “Memoirs of James and William, Dukes of Hamilton,” “History of the Reformation of the Church of England,” and his great work entitled, “History of His Own Time.” Burnet was a man of varied accomplishments and vast information, and was himself engaged in many of the events and transactions which he recorded in the above named work.

He had a wide and ready command of language, and his historical method and style are equal, if not superior, to the best English writers of his day. His narrative is always methodical, and runs on naturally with much simplicity and ease. His chief historical works are still valuable as sources of information, and they are also more interesting reading than almost any writings on the same subjects of that generation or the succeeding one. As a single specimen of his style, I may quote the passages of his history on the character of Archbishop Tillotson. “Tillotson was a man of a clear head and a sweet temper. He had the brightest thoughts and the most correct style of all our divines, and was esteemed the best preacher of the age. He was a very prudent man, and had such a management with it, that I never knew any clergyman so universally esteemed and beloved, as he was for above twenty years. He was eminent for his opposition to popery. He was no friend to persecution, and stood up much against atheism. Nor did many men do more to bring the city to love our worship than he did. But there was so little superstition, and so much reason and gentleness in his way of explaining things, that malice was long levelled at him, and in conclusion broke out fiercely on him.

“I preached his funeral sermon, in which I gave a character of him which was so severely true, that I perhaps kept too much within bounds, and said less than he deserved. But we had lived in such friendship together, that I thought it was more decent, as it always is more safe, to err on that hand. He was the man of the truest judgment and best temper I had ever known; he had a clear head, with a most tender and compassionate heart; he was a faithful and jealous friend, but a gentle and soon-conquered enemy; he was truly and seriously religious, but without affectation, bigotry, or superstition; his notions of morality were fine and sublime; his thread of reasoning was easy, clear, and solid; he was not only the best preacher of the age, but seemed to have brought preaching to perfection; his sermons were so well liked and heard, and so much read, that all the nation proposed him as a pattern, and studied to copy after him; his parts remained with him clear and unclouded, but the perpetual slanders and other ill-usage he had been followed with for many years, more particularly since his advancement to that great post, gave him too much trouble and too deep a concern; it could neither provoke him, nor fright him from his duty, but it affected his mind so much that this was thought to have shortened his days.”¹

¹ _History of His Own Time_, Volume I., pages 324‒325, 1823.

In the department of poetry, Scotland in the seventeenth century, unlike the two preceding ones, was rather barren. Sir William Alexander, subsequently better known as the Earl of Stirling, was a writer of rhymed compositions in the reigns of James VI. and Charles I. He broke away from his native dialect, and essayed to write in the literary English of the period; but his style is not pure or correct. He had a good command of language, but he lacked the poetic glow, though he tried his hand at various themes; his poetry is commonplace and monotonous, and often pervaded with a moralising strain.¹

¹ Alexander’s so-called “Monarchic Tragedy” was published at
Edinburgh in 1603. “Thus known to James in Scotland as one
of the most accomplished of his subjects there, Alexander
continued after the union of the Crowns to put forth volume
after volume, professedly as a British poet using the common
literary tongue, vying with his English contemporaries.... At
length, in 1614, appeared the huge poem, in twelve cantos of
heavy eight-line stanzas, entitled ‘Doom’s Day, or the Great
Day of the Lord’s Judgment.’” About this time he entered the
King’s service, and was promoted step by step till he became
Earl of Stirling in 1633.――Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_,
Volume I., page 421.

William Drummond, of Hawthornden, attained to some distinction as a poet in the first half of the century. He was a notable man in his own lifetime, having travelled abroad, residing for some time in Paris and in Rome, and visited the most celebrated universities of the Continent. He corresponded with Ben Jonson and other English poets, and they recognised him as a member of their fraternity. He wrote a number of poems and sonnets, also a history of the first five Jameses; but his history is not of much historic value, as his special information on the subject was limited and incomplete. He left behind him various political papers relating to affairs between the years of 1632 and 1646, mainly written in support of the cause of Charles I. He died in 1649.

Drummond holds a place among the minor English poets, but represented nothing distinctively Scottish, as he wrote in the literary English of the period. His taste and culture were formed under the influences of Italian and English literature, and he seems to have shut himself out from the association and the inspiration of the vernacular. His poetry lacks fire and force, and emotional power; but on the other hand, he had a cultured taste, fancy, and a command of descriptive imagery. Some of his sacred poems exhibit poetical imagery and an easy flow of versification. In one of them, called “The Shadow of Death,” the following lines occur:――

“So seeing earth, of angels once the inn,
Mansion of saints, deflowered all by sin,
And quite confus’d by wretches here beneath,
The world’s great sovereign moved was to wrath.
Thrice did he rouse himself, thrice from his face,
Flames sparkle did throughout the heavenly place,
The stars, though fixed, in their rounds did quake,
The earth, and earth-embracing sea did quake.”

His piece composed on the King’s visit to his native land in 1617, is one of his best; and in it he pays a warm tribute to the King’s love of peace.

But “his sonnets in particular have been praised in modern times, as among the second best in the language. In his narrative and descriptive poems he is decidedly one of the English Arcadians, with something of Browne’s sweet sensuousness, and using very musically the same metrical couplet.... If, as a poet of sensuous circumstance, Drummond has any one particular excellence, entitling him to a kind of pre-eminence, so far as that excellence could bestow it, among the minor poets, it is the description of the clear nocturnal sky and the effects of quiet moonlight on streams and fields”; as in these lines:――

“To western worlds when wearied day goes down,
And from Heaven’s windows each star shows her head,
Earth’s silent daughter Night is fair though brown,
Fair is the moon though in love’s livery clad.”¹

¹ Dr. Masson’s _Life of Milton_, Volume I., pages 424‒425. An
edition of Drummond’s Poems was published in 1656; a fuller
one in 1711; but the most complete edition of his poems was
printed for the Maitland Club in 1832.

With the progress of social organisation and civilisation, laws and legal writings accumulate; hence more legal literature was produced in Scotland in the seventeenth century than in the sixteenth. Sir Thomas Hope, the eminent advocate, and warm Covenanter, was the author of several well-known legal treatises, which were long esteemed among the faculty.

But the most famous writer of Scottish Jurisprudence was James Dalrymple, Viscount Stair, and president of the Court of Session.¹ His chief work, “The Institution of the Law of Scotland,” was long the standard authority on legal matters.² He is also the author of a digest of “The Decisions of the Court of Session, in the important cases debated before the judges, with the Acts of Sederunt,” published at Edinburgh in 1683‒87. It contained a report of cases from 1660 to the month of August, 1681, and thus it has an interesting and special historic value.

¹ Born 1619, died 1696.

² The first edition of Stair’s _Institutions_ appeared in 1681;
a second edition greatly enlarged, was published at Edinburgh
in 1693; a third, corrected and enlarged, with notes, in
1759; a fourth, with commentaries and supplement by George
Brodie, in 1829‒31; and another with notes and illustrations
by John S. More, 1832, in two volumes.

But Lord Stair was the author of several other works of a different character. In 1686, he published in Latin a treatise entitled “Physiologia nova Experimentalis,” which was favourably noticed by Boyle. His last publication was “A Vindication of Divine Perfections, illustrating the Glory of God, by Reason and Revelation, methodically digested into several Meditations,” which appeared in 1695. In 1690, he published a defence of himself in a tract of four leaves.

Sir George Mackenzie, the notorious lord-advocate of the reign of Charles II., was a writer of reputation in his time, and a clear and vigorous thinker. He tried his hand on various subjects. His legal writings consist of “Institutes of the Law of Scotland,” “Laws and Customs in matters Criminal,” “Observations on the Laws and Customs of Nations as to precedency, with the Science of Heraldry as part of the Law of Nations.” Of these, the first is a well-arranged and digested treatise, but it is short and summary, and falls much behind Stair’s work on the same subject. The other two contain useful information forcibly expressed.

Concerning both the knowledge and the art of medicine the civilised world was still in a backward condition. The practice of surgery especially was very rude, even in its most elementary principles. In the treatment of simple wounds, “instead of bringing the edges of the wound together, and endeavouring to unite them by the first intention, as is practised in the present day, the wound was filled with dressing and acid balsams, or distended with tents and leaden tubes.... In those days every lap of skin, instead of being reunited was cut away, and every open wound was dressed as a sore, and every deep one was filled with a tent lest it should heal.”¹ Although in this branch of science there was no great advance in Scotland, yet more interest began to be manifested in the subject, and some progress was made.

¹ _Physic and Physicians_, Volume I., pages 42‒43.

It was stated that Sir Andrew Balfour¹ first introduced the dissection of the human body into Scotland. He projected a sick hospital for the relief of pain and poverty at the public expense. He also drew up a scheme for the Royal College of Physicians at Edinburgh, and formed the botanic garden there. To the public he bequeathed a museum which at that time would have been considered a great acquisition to any city. Further, he introduced into Scotland many foreign plants; and as in his youth he had travelled in foreign countries, he greatly extended his information, his culture, and experience.²

¹ Born 1630, died 1694.

² Though the Royal College of Physicians was not incorporated
till 1681, it is recorded that “the doctors of physic”
petitioned parliament in 1693, craving that a college of
physicians should be established in Edinburgh.――_Acts of the
Parliaments of Scotland_, Volume V., page 283.

James Sutherland was appointed keeper of the new botanic garden in 1683. He published “A Catalogue of the Plants in the Physic Gardens at Edinburgh, containing their most proper names in Latin and in English.” In the dedication of it to the Provost of Edinburgh he says, “It has been my business for seven years past, wherein I have had the honour to serve the city as ♦intendant over the garden, to use all care and industry, by foreign correspondence, to acquire both seeds and plants from the Levant, Italy, Spain, Holland, England, and the East and West Indies, and by many painful journeys, in all seasons of the year, to recover whatever this kingdom possesses of variety, and to cultivate and to preserve them, with all possible care.”

♦ “intendent” replaced with “intendant”

After Dr. Balfour’s death, his library, consisting of about three thousand volumes, besides manuscripts, was dispersed; but his museum was placed in the hall which, till 1829, was used as the University. “There it remained many years useless and neglected, some parts of it falling into inevitable decay, and other parts being abstracted. Yet even after 1750, it still contained a considerable collection, which I have good reason to remember, as it was the sight of it about that time that inspired me with an attachment to natural history. Soon after that it was dislodged from the hall where it had been long kept, was thrown aside and exposed as lumber; was further and further dilapidated, and at length almost completely demolished. In the year 1782, out of its ruins and rubbish I extracted many pieces still valuable and useful, and placed them here in the best order I could. These, I hope, may long remain, and be considered as so many precious relics of one of the best and greatest men this country has produced.”¹

¹ Walker’s _Essay on Natural History_.

Sir Robert Sibbald attained a reputation as a physician and a naturalist. When the Royal College of Physicians of Edinburgh was incorporated in 1681, he became a member of that institution. In 1684, he published his valuable work entitled, “Scotia Illustrata sive Prodromus Historiæ Naturalis Scotiæ,” and a second edition appeared in 1696. He devoted much attention to the indigenous plants of Scotland, and discovered some rare species. In 1694, he published an interesting treatise containing “Observations on some Animals of the Whale Genus, lately thrown on the shores of Scotland.” He was also the author of a number of essays and papers, chiefly on topics connected with the antiquities of Scotland, which were written for the Royal Society, and published after his death in 1739. He wrote a description of Fife, published in 1710, which is full of interesting and curious information.

Dr. Robert Morison¹ was an industrious and persevering student of botany, and for ten years he held the position of intendant of the gardens of the Duke of Orleans. After the Restoration, the King invited him to England, and on his arrival, he was appointed royal physician, and professor of botany. In 1669, having been elected professor of botany in the University of Oxford, “he made his first entrance on the botanic lecture in the medicine school, on the 2nd of September, 1670, ♦and on the 5th of the same month, he translated himself to the physic garden, where he read in the middle of it, with a table before him, on herbs and plants thrice a week for five weeks, not without a considerable auditory. In the month of May, 1673, he read again, and so likewise in the autumn following; which course, spring and fall, he proposed always to follow, but was diverted for several years, by prosecuting his large design of publishing the universal knowledge of simples.”²

¹ Born 1620, died 1683.

♦ “aud” replaced with “and”

² Wood’s _Fasti Oxonienses_

He produced a work on botany which claimed to make some improvement on the system of classification, the first part of which appeared in 1672, and the second in 1680, but he did not live to finish it, having only completed nine of the fifteen classes of his own system.

Dr. Archibald Pitcairn was one of the original members of the Royal College of Physicians, and one of the most eminent of the profession in Scotland at that period.¹ He was a keen supporter and promulgator of Harvey’s doctrine of the circulation of the blood, and in 1688 he published a treatise touching that subject. He composed a number of dissertations on medical matters, which were published in a collected form in 1701; and in 1713, shortly before his death, he issued a new and enlarged edition. He belonged historically to what was sometimes called the mathematical school of physicians, that is, those who then insisted on the application of mathematical reasoning and demonstration to subjects of anatomy and physiology. Be that as it may, Pitcairn contributed to the improvement of the theory and practice of medicine, having assisted to complete Harvey’s theory of the blood, and made some advance in explaining the process of secretion. He exerted himself to explode some of the errors of preceding writers, and adopted a clear and concise mode of reasoning, and his dissertations are admirable specimens of exposition.²

¹ Born 1652, died 1713.

² An English translation of Dr. Pitcairn’s works was published
in 1727, and there have been several editions of his writings
issued.

Notwithstanding the unsettled state of Scotland in the seventeenth century, some of her sons contributed to the progress of science, although no genius of the highest rank arose to illuminate the pages of our annals; still several steps in science were taken which tended to extend the bounds of knowledge. Dr. James Gregory,¹ the inventor of the reflecting telescope, had directed his attention to the study of mathematical science from his boyhood, and in 1663, when only twenty-five, he published his treatise on optics. In this work he gave the first description of the reflecting telescope. The year after the publication of his work, he went to London, with the intention of having his telescope constructed, and was introduced to Mr. Reves, an optical instrument maker, but he could not finish the mirrors on the tool so as to preserve the figure. Indeed so unsuccessful was the trial of the telescope, that the inventor was discouraged from making more attempts to improve it. Thus the want of mere mechanical manipulation for a time delayed the completion of the instrument, and the inventor never had the satisfaction of seeing it completed.

¹ Born 1638, died 1675.

Sir Isaac Newton objected to this telescope on the ground that ♦the hole in the large speculum would cause the loss of so much light, and six years later invented his own one, in which this defect was obviated. Both forms, however, were long used, the Gregorian when the instrument was of moderate size, and the Newtonian one generally when the instrument was required to be large.¹

♦ duplicate word “the” removed

¹ Hutton’s _Philosophical and Mathematical Dictionary_; _Life
of Dr. Reid_, prefixed to Hamilton’s edition of Reid’s works.

Dr. Gregory was the author of several other geometrical treatises, which were important contributions to the science of the time. Having been elected a member of the Royal Society, he read various papers before it. He was also appointed professor of mathematics in the University of St. Andrews; but was subsequently transferred to the mathematical chair in the University of Edinburgh, which he held till his death in 1675, at the early age of thirty-seven.

David Gregory, a nephew of the preceding professor, attained distinction as a professor of mathematics, a scientific writer, and a commentator.¹ He was educated at the Universities of Aberdeen and Edinburgh, and when only twenty-three years of age, he was appointed professor of mathematics in the latter. The following year he published a small treatise in Latin concerning the dimensions of figures, in which he made various references to the speculations of his uncle, from whom he received some of his materials.

¹ Born 1661, died 1708.

He has the distinction of being the first public teacher who taught the Newtonian system in the schools, which his brother James likewise introduced into the University of St. Andrews. David Gregory remained in the University of Edinburgh for seven years, expounding “The Principia” of Newton, and lecturing on optics. In 1691, the Savilian professorship of Astronomy in the University of Oxford became vacant, and Gregory proceeded to London with the view of offering himself as a candidate for the post. There he was introduced to Newton, who gave him a testimonial, which stated: “Being desired by David Gregory, mathematical professor of the College in Edinburgh, to testify my knowledge of him, and having known him by his printed mathematical performances, and by discoursing with travellers from Scotland, and of late by conversation with him, I do account him one of the most able and judicious mathematicians of his age now living. He is very well skilled in analysis and geometry, both old and new. He has been conversant with the best writers about astronomy, and understands that science very well. He is not only acquainted with books, but his invention in mathematical things is also good. He has performed his duties in Edinburgh with credit, as I hear, and advanced the mathematics. He is reputed the greatest mathematician in Scotland, and that deservedly so far as my knowledge reaches, for I esteem him an ornament to his country, and upon these accounts do recommend him to the electors of the astronomy professor for the place in Oxford now vacant.” Newton also gave him a letter of introduction to Mr. Flamsteed, the astronomer-royal. Gregory was elected professor of astronomy at Oxford in 1692; and about the same time he was admitted a member of the Royal Society, and he contributed to their transactions various papers. He occupied the chair of astronomy till his death.¹

¹ _Letters Written by Eminent Persons_, Volume I., page 177,
1813; Whiston’s _Memoirs_.

Gregory’s writings were mainly on mathematical subjects and the principles of the Newtonian system. In 1702 he published his greatest work, “Astronomiæ Physicæ et Geometricæ Elementa,” the aim of which was to present a connected view of Newton’s system, and thus it contained a digest of the “Principia.” Gregory manifested a great faculty of arrangement and exposition, and it was admitted by Newton himself that the work gave an excellent exposition and defence of his system. Much ability was shown in the illustrations. It appears that Newton had communicated to the author his theory of the moon, and given him some other curious information touching the notions of the ancients on the subject of gravitation. This work was reprinted at Geneva in 1713, and two editions of an English translation of it appeared, the last in 1726, in two volumes. Dr. Gregory edited an edition of the works of Euclid, which was published in 1703. He also left unpublished works, some of which were printed after his death.

John Keill was the author of several treatises on the new physics. He was a warm adherent of the Newtonian system, and it was reported that he was amongst the first who explained and illustrated the new system by experiments at Oxford about the end of the seventeenth century. His first work was an examination of Dr. Burnet’s “Theory of the Earth,” with some remarks on Whiston’s “Theory of the Earth,” published in 1698. It involved him in a controversy with the authors whose works he had attacked. In 1700 he published “An Introduction to Natural Philosophy,” being lectures read in the University of Oxford in Latin, but an English translation soon after appeared. This work was considered an able and useful introduction to the Newtonian system, and it has often been reprinted in England, and was translated into French.

Keill entered the arena as a warm supporter and defender of Newton in the famous dispute between Leibnitz and Newton about the priority of their claims to the invention of fluxions and the calculus. Into the evidence or the merits of this question I cannot enter here, but it may be said that Keill and some others who took part in the discussion introduced into it rather too much vehemence and passion. In 1712 Keill was appointed Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford, and in 1718 he published “An Introduction to the True Astronomy: or Astronomical Lectures read in the Astronomical School of the University of Oxford,” of which an English translation was published in 1721, which was long regarded as a standard work.