(t ' '* '' s\

'*-!

'^ff*

» -T'Si T I

«^?!?

m

9VM
•Oj.lill

mF tinihnui]

sr ••¦..'

^^[P

tM*.-*.  MttK. .*^-.^^f(^*,^,

J '  a

WORKS

RiaHT REY. JOHN SAGE.

A BISHOP OF THE CHURCH IN SCOTLAND ;

MEMOIR AND NOTES.

VOLUME I.

EDINBUEGH:
PRINTED FOR THE SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.
M.DCCC.XLIV.

ALEX. LAURIE AND CO. PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY.

THE

FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER

PRESBYTERY,

AS IT HATH BEEN LATELY ESTABLISHED

KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND,
EXAMINED AND DISPR0V''d
BY THE HISTORY, RECORDS, AND PUBLIC TRANSACTIONS
OF OUR NATION.

TOGETHER WITH A
PREFACE,
WHEREIN THE VINDICATOR OF THE KIRK IS FREELY
PUT IN MIND OF HIS HABITUAL INFIRMITIES.

LONDON:
PRINTED FOR C. BROME, AT THE GUN, AT THE WEST END
OF ST PAUL'S CHURCH- YARD.
1695.

MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES

BISHOP SAGE.

)HE custom of writing the lives of eminent
authors is a very old and excellent one. By
this means, besides preserving their memories
from oblivion, and paying to them a tribute
which is justly due, students and readers
in general are peculiarly gratified by being, as it were,
introduced to a more intimate acquaintance with those
from whose labours they have derived both profit and
pleasure. And the place usually assigned to such lives — viz.
at the beginning of those works which were intended by
their learned authors to promote the cause of truth and
virtue — is a very apposite one ; because, as persons are
more ready to receive either joyful or bad news, when they
are satisfied concerning the integrity of him who communi
cates it, so they are better prepared for a candid investiga
tion and reception of truth, when they are assured of the
excellence of his character by whom it is propounded. In
accordance with this time-honoured usage, it were greatly
to be desired that a faithful and perfect picture of the emi
nent author of the foUowing Treatises could be drawn and
prefixed to this Cc^Uection of his Works, in order that
Churchmen might be thoroughly acquainted with the cha
racter and conduct of one who so " earnestly contended" and
suff'ered for the faith in a day of trial, and whose writings
have conferred such a boon, not only on the men of his
own generation, but on us, and all in every age who value
A

vi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF XHE
" Evangelical Truth" with " Apostolic Order." But, alas !
this cannot be. It has been remarked with regret by a
previous biographer of Bishop Sage, that " he could not get
such information as was necessary to enable him to publish
a full account of his life ;" and that he was limited to the
scanty materials with which his own memory supplied him,
and which he could gather from other personal friends of
the Bishop. If one, then, who himself enjoyed the privilege
of our author''s friendship, and wrote only three years after
his death, was so straitened for information concerning him,
the reader must not be disappointed that the present Editor,
after most diligent search in every quarter where informa
tion was likely to be obtained, has not been able to collect
many facts which throw additional light upon the earlier years
ofthe future Prelate, or introduce us to a better acquaintance,
than that which we now possess, with his habits and pur
suits at a more mature age. But out of such materials as
are within his reach, the Editor proceeds to supply the
Reader with a new biographical memoir of the illustrious
Divine whose writings are now presented again to the
world. John Sage was born at Creich, a small parish in Fife-
shire, in 1652 — at which period Scotland was in the
hands of Cromwell and his victorious troops. He was de
scended from an old and respectable family, who for more
than seven generations had resided in the same parish.
His father had served as a Captain in the regiment of Lord
Duffus, the G-overnor of Dundee, and was quartered in that
town, when it was besieged and taken by Ceneral Monk
and the Republican army in 1651. But what were the
family connections of his mother, and whether his parents
had any other children, it is now impossible to ascertain.
At the time of his birth, the worldly circumstances of the
family were extremely reduced. Like many others, the
Sages had suff'ered severely by their unflinching Idhe-
rence to the Royal cause ; and after the Restoration, they
found the Government ungrateful, and unwilling to make
any compensation for the arduous services which they had

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. vii
rendered, and the heavy losses "which they had sustained.
But if the fortune of Captain Sage had been impaired, he
possessed the inward consciousness of having endeavoured
to " fear Cod and honour the King" — a reward infinitely
outweighing all the gain of gold gotten by the dereliction
of duty ; and though his diminished acres and narrow purse
left him little wealth to bequeath to his son, the bright
example of loyalty and integrity, which he manifested under
most trying circumstances, was a far more precious legacy ;
and the sequel of young Sage's history shows us that it was
not lost upon him in after years. Notwithstanding the
narrowness of his means, the Captain was careful about the
education of his son. Very justly regarding it as an object
of paramount importance, he, most probably at much incon
venience to himself, provided that he should enjoy every
opportunity of acquiring learning and information, which
the country supplied. At that time, in those excellent in
stitutions — the parochial schools of Scotland — boys were
instructed in the rudiments of Latin and Creek, as well as
in other departments of useful knowledge. To these, then,
the subject of our memoir was sent, and the early indications
of talent and industry which he evinced under the tuition of
the parish schoolmaster, encouraged his father to strain
every nerve in order to give his son the benefits of a Uni
versity course. Accordingly, he was taken to St Andrews,
and regularly matriculated in St Salvador's College, as a
student of that tlien far-famed seat of learning. After having
finished his academical course, and performed all the exer
cises required by the statutes, in July 1669 he was advanced
to the degree of Master of Arts, beyond which it does not
appear that he afterwards proceeded.! It rarely happens
1 In various Biographies of Bishop Sage it is stated that he graduated
in 1672. But the following excerpt from the Books of the University,
made at the request of the Editor, by his friend Mr Lyon, the learned His
torian of St Andrews, shews the usual date assigned for the Bishop's gra
duation to be incoirect. The excerpt is also interesting, as containing
the names of other persons eminent iu the annals of Scottish Episcopacy,
who took their degrees at the same time, were fellow-sufferers with the
venerable Bishop for conscience sake, aud fought side by side with him

vm MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
that eminent talent and assiduous application are united in
the same individual; but in young Sage there was this
happy blending of these qualities. During his College life
he was not more distinguished for his surprising genius, than
for the diligent culture which he bestowed upon it. He
studied with avidity the Creek and Latin authors, and laid
the foundation of that profound learning, which gave him
such an amazing advantage over his adversaries in contro
versy, and entitled him to rank among the best scholars of

in defence of the " faith once delivered to the saints." The date, Jime, 2,
indicates the application for the degree, and Jxily 24, the day on which it
was confen-ed. The fac simile of Bishop Sage's signature, wliich is very
accurate, was traced hy Mr Lyon. " July 24. Armo 1669.
" Nomina candidatomm utriusque CoUegii quorumnominasubsequuntur,
qui, postquam, secundum leges Academise, domino domino pro cancellario
jusjurandum dedissent, lauream magisterialem consequuti sunt.

Candidati in Collegio Leonardino.
Juira 2, 1669.
AlLANUS LaMOHT.
GULIELMUS POPPLEWELL.
JOHANITES MaKGILL, MAJOR.
Johannes Makgill, minor.
Arthurus Makgill.
Alexr. Lundie.
Albxr. Gr.em.
David Thomsone.
David Henderson.
Alexr. Lindsay.
Jacobus Smart.
GuLIELMUS NaiRNE.
ROBERTUS LiNDSAT.

Candidati in Collegio
Salvatoriano.
Johannes Rymeeus.
Jacobus Barclay.
Pateicius Wallace.
Jacobus Oohtbrlont.
Jacobus Mercer.
Johannes Maloolme.
Georgius Blaeg.
Day. Ogilvy.
Geo. Ogilvy.
Dav. Cant.
DONALDUS MaOARA.
Patrioius Strachane.
Alexr. Monro.
Georgius Douglas.
Gulielmcs Methven.
David Ogilvie.
Robertus Ritchey.
GULIELMUS BrOCAS.
Johannes Reid.
Johannes Shaw.
GULIELMUS SpENCE.

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. ix
his age. Nor did he confine himself to the field of classical
literature. His was one of those comprehensive minds, sel
dom to be met with, which are capable of grasping a va
riety of subjects. Besides studying the authors of Greece
and Rome, he devoted himself to Logic and Metaphysics,
and was versed in the various parts of philosophical learning
which at that time generally prevailed in the schools. Per
haps to us in these days, who affect to despise the philosophy
of the ancients, it may seem as if the time spent in obtain
ing a knowledge of their abstruse theories might have been
expended more profitably on other things. But " he always
spoke of them as highly useful to him who would understand
the poets, historians, and orators of ancient Greece, and
even the Fathers of the Christian Church, many of whom
have adopted the principles of some one or other of the
systems of ancient philosophy, reasoned from their notions,
and often made use of their terms and phrases." In this
opinion every one who is even cursorily acquainted with the
writings of the Fathers, more especially Origen, Clement
Alexandrinus, and Tertulhan, will agree with him.
After leaving the University, the circumstances of young
Sage would not permit him to enjoy the " otium cum digni
tate^'' which is so favourable to study. He was obliged to
look around him for employment, in order to obtain his daily
bread. Nothing better presented itself at the time than the
office of parish schoolmaster of Ballingray in Fife, which was
easily obtained by one whose attainments were well known
throughout the surrounding district. He did not, however,
retain this situation long, for we find him soon after ex
changing it for a similar one at Tippermuir in Perthshire,
probably because the slender salary, which he received as
the reward of his laborious duties, was somewhat increased
by the change. To a person of our author's cultivated mind it
is easy to conceive that the teaching of a parish school must
have been intolerable drudgery, yet he appears to have dis
charged its duties with scrupulous care. But the constant
confinement and anxious excitement which it entailed on
him, together with his being deprived of the comforts of life,

X MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
were the means of his contracting the seeds of several
diseases, which, notwithstanding the native vigour of his
constitution, preyed upon and impaired his health, and
tended finally to shorten his days. Unfavourable to mental
cultivation as was the state of restless anxiety arising from
Mr Sage's " chill penury," which, according to the old
maxim — in paupertate et angustis non datur locus studiis — is
said to " Freeze the genial current of the soul,"
his thoughts were in vigorous exercise, and while his thirst
for knowledge increased, he was pursuing his studies with
renewed ardour and diligence. But if in the obscure school
room of Tippermuir, surrounded with the children of the vil
lage, and worn out from fatigue, he ever allowed himself
to indulge the aspirations of a laudable ambition, and to
cherish the hope of rising to a station more congenial to his
tastes, and better adapted to his great talents, he might with
exquisite propriety, deterred by the difficulty and remoteness
of the prospect, have exclaimed —
" Ah ! who can tell how hard it is to climb
The steep where Fame's proud temple shines afar ?"
Yet, discouraging as was the situation in which he was
placed, it led, by the providence of God, to his future ad
vancement. In the neighbourhood of Tippermuir Mr
Drummond of Cultmalundie resided, and having observed
the talents and diligence of the parish schoolmaster, he
wisely selected him as tutor to his sons. This promotion
was both seasonable and profitable to Sage. It relieved him
from the confinement and labour of a school, and brought
him into a position where, besides having his comforts
increased, he was introduced into better society, and bad
an opportunity of recommending himself by his attainments
and prepossessing manners. After spending some years
in the private tuition of the young Drummonds, their
father determined to send his sons to the public school of
Perth, and Mr Sage was entrusted with the care of them
while they remained at that seminary. Here he continued
faithfully to discharge his duty to his pupils, and to improve

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XI
himself in the various branches of useful learning. While at
Perth he became acquainted with Dr Alexander Rose, after
wards Lord Bishop of Edinburgh, then minister of the " Fair
City." That pious and eminent individual easily discerned
the excellent qualities and great learning of the humble
tutor, and admitted him to his friendship, which eventually
proved of the utmost advantage to Sage, and " was highly
valued by him all the days of his life." The progress which
the young Drummonds made under his instructions, and
their advancing years, rendered it necessary for their father
to deliberate whether or not he was to proceed further with
their education. In Scotland, where the facilities were much
greater than in England, there were few families who did not
give their sons the benefit of a collegiate course. Accord
ingly Mr Drummond resolved to send his sons to the University
of St Andrews, and determined that Sage should accompany
them thither, to assist them in their academical studies by
his knowledge, and to guide them during a critical period of
youth by his example and advice. This arrangement was
not more beneficial to the pupils, than it was agreeable and
useful to their tutor. It brought him into contact with
men of the same habits and pursuits with himself; and his
noble genius and vast acquirements, which had hitherto been
known within a very limited circle, began now to shine
forth more brightly in the enlarged sphere in which he
found himself placed, and to attract towards their possessor
the observation of the learned. " His piercing wit," says
Bishop Gillan, " solid judgment, and pleasant temper, en
deared him to all the members of the University. They
were not a little surprized to find a man, bred in obscurity
and retirement, of so great sense and learning, of so nice
and delicate a conversation, and who understood men and
manners so exactly well. His company was courted by all
the Professors and Masters, and himself honoured and
esteemed by all that knew how to value true merit." It
was the observation of the wise King of Israel, that " as iron
sharpeneth iron, so a man sharpeneth the countenance of
his friend ;" and this proverb was singularly verified in the

xii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
person of our author at this time, to whom alacrity and
spirits were imparted by his intercourse with men of learning
and science, and whose good parts and abihties were im
proved by the opportunities of conversation which he en
joyed. But this was not the only advantage which his resi
dence at St Andrews procured for him. In the valuable
Library of the University he had the means of becoming ac
quainted with books, with which his own limited resources
could never have supplied him, and thus of adding to that
already considerable stock of profound learning, which was
afterwards so skilfully employed in support of true religion,
and causes him to rank amongst the foremost of Scoto-
Catholic divines. Nor was our author himself insensible to
the advantages of his present position. While his excellent
sense prompted him to seize the opportunity, and improve
it with diligence, his sincere piety led him, adds his venerable
biographer, to " adore the Divine Providence which had
blessed him with the comfort and advantage of so desirable
and learned a society, and the opportunity of perusing the
best and choicest books."
The Collegiate course of his pupils being finished, Sage
was again thrown upon his own resources ; and both his
pecuniary circumstances, and his natural inclination to an
active and useful life, prompted him to seek for immediate
employment. In this, however, he was not successful.
Like many talented and deserving persons at the outset of
Hfe, he had to endure the burden of disappointment, doubt,
and anxiety. Probably there is no situation, in which a
young man of learning and high spirit can be placed, more
trying than when he finds his first struggles with the world
ineffectual, and feels himself as it were pushed back by the
failure of his attempts to advance. Happily for the subject
. of our Memoir, he was soon relieved from his distressing
position by the timely aid of friendship.
It has already been stated, that, while with the young Drum
monds at the public seminary of Perth, his learning and excel
lent demeanour had attracted the notice and gained him the
esteem of the worthy minister of the city, the Rev. Alex-

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. xiii
ander Rose. Of this venerable man it will be necessary to
say something, before we proceed farther with the narrative
of our author's hfe. Born of an ancient family in the North
of Scotland, he was educated and graduated at King's
College, Aberdeen ; but went through a theological course
at Glasgow under the tuition of Dr Gilbert Burnet, after
wards minister of Saltoun in Haddingtonshire, and the well-
known Bishop of Salisbury. Having been admitted into
Holy Orders, his first preferment was the parish of Perth,
which he left for the appointment of Professor of Divinity
in the University of Glasgow. In 1684, through the influ
ence of his uncle, the Primate of all Scotland, he was
nominated by the Crown to the Principality of St Mary's
College in the University of St Andrews. But his piety
and talents recommended him for elevation to a higher
sphere of usefulness. Accordingly, in 1687, the Royal
mandate was issued for his consecration to the See of
Moray, in the room of Bishop Colin Falconar deceased ; but
the Diocese of Edinburgh becoming vacant in the same year
by the translation of Bishop Patterson to Glasgow,' Dr Rose
was selected as his successor, and was translated to Edinburgh
" before," says Keith', " he had taken possession of the See
of Moray." Of this illustrious Prelate in his high position
in the Episcopate, much has been already written by various
authors ; and his journey to London at the Revolution of
1688, his aff'ecting interview with the Prince of Orange, by
which the destiny of the Episcopal Church as an Establish
ment was sealed, and his noble answer when asked to
follow the example of those English Bishops who joined
the standard of William, areso well known that they need
not be repeated here. Deprived of his Cathedral, spoiled
of his revenues, and stripped of his civil dignities, this
excellent man continued after the Revolution, and over
throw of the Church in Scotland, to exercise the authority
of a successor of the Apostles, of which no efforts of man
could deprive him ; and under his auspices the sacred ark
was directed during those trying and stormy times, when
the face of the civil power was turned against the Church,

xiv MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
and the " arm of flesh " was lifted up in the vain endeavour
to root out Catholicity from Scotland. He is described
by a contemporary as " a sweet-tempered man, and of a
venerable aspect ;" and these things, his excellent disposi
tion and benign appearance, combined with his discretion,
seem completely to have disarmed the Presbyterians, even in
those days of keen party spirit, and incautious malevolence
between persons attached to opposite and hostile interests, for
we do not find that the enemies of the Church ever ventured
to assail with false and malicious aspersions the character
of this genuine servant of God. Having outlived all the
brethren of his Order, and likewise all the Bishops of
England who had possessed Sees before the Revolution, he
remained as the remnant of a band hallowed by their suff'er-
ings for conscience sake ; and his grey hairs went down to
the grave with the respect of the clergy of his own Com
munion, and of the laity of both nations, who, whatever
were their opinions upon the question, admired the firm
integrity of principle which actuated the Scottish Prelates
in their refusal to recognize the Government of William and
Mary, and the dignified patience with which they submitted
to the loss of all those things which absorb and engage
men's attention and time. He died in March 1720, and his
mortal remains were interred in the church of Restalrig near
Edinburgh, the cemetery of which, from its retired situation
and other causes, was much used by the persecuted Epis-
copaUans as a resting-place for their departed friends. The
reader will excuse this digression in favour of one whose
name has descended as a sort of heir-loom in the Church
from generation to generation — of one whose position as
Bishop of Edinburgh forbids that we should pass him over
in silence, or with a mere allusion to his name, as it is con
nected with the learned individual whose biography we now
continue. In the moment of indecision, when young Sage had for
nearly two years been vainly endeavouring to find suitable
employment, his thoughts turned towards Dr Rose, and he
resolved to visit him and solicit his influence, which, consi-

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XV
dering their previous intimacy some few years before, he
did not despair of obtaining. Nor was he disappointed,
but found the warm hand of friendship extended to welcome
him, and a heart which, while it sympathized with him in
his helplessness, readily engaged in forming plans for his
advancement in life. Not only the situation of Dr Rose as
Professor of Divinity in the University of Glasgow, but his
connection with the then Archbishop of that See, Dr Arthur
Ross, his uncle, rendered him able to be of service to his
friend at this critical period. Being well satisfied of his
acquirements and excellence, he recommended him to the
Archbishop of Glasgow as one admirably fitted for the
sacred office of the ministry, and accordingly he was put in
Orders by him in the year 1686, and continued to officiate
as a Presbyter in the city of Glasgow until after the Revolu
tion. At the time when he entered the ministry of the
Church, Sage was about thirty-four years of age — a period
of life greatly beyond that which is usually required (the
canonical age for the Presbyterate being twenty- four), but
certainly not too far advanced for admission to an office,
which, at all times and in all places, but more particularly
in Scotland at that crisis, demanded that those, upon whom
it was conferred, should be persons of mature judgment
and considerable experience — persons in whom, according
to their blessed Lord's command, the " wisdom of the
serpent " ought to be combined with the " harmlessness of
the dove." Such qualifications were signally blended in
Sage, who, says one intimately acquainted with him, " did
not run too soon, or too inconsiderately, as too many do, into
an office which requires so many and great qualifications.
His judgment was mature, and improved by more than
ordinary experience. He had read the Holy Scriptures
with the best commentators and critics. He was no stranger
to ecclesiastical history and the writings of the ancient
Fathers, and particularly understood their Apologies for the
Christian religion. No man was better acquainted with
the school-divinity ; and yet this did not hinder but that
he reasoned not only closely and accurately, but also plainly

xvi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
and perspicuously. He had nicely examined the modern
controversies, especially those betwixt us and the Church of
Rome, and those betwixt the Calvinists and Remonstrants."
The entrance into their body of a man so qualified was
hailed with delight by the clergy of Glasgow, and the junior
Presbyter was in token of their respect soon raised by them
into an office in the Diocese which was of great importance,
viz. that of Diocesan or Synod Clerk.
For the benefit of our English readers, it will be interesting
to give some explanation of this office, and of the discipline
of the Church by which it is still recognised. In 1661,
when the Apostolical Succession, which has never since been
interrupted, was introduced from England with the sanction
of the reigning monarch, four Scottish beneficed clergy
men, two of whom had been episcopally ordained before
1638, and the other two, having renounced their previous
Presbyterian ordination, and being made Deacons and
Priests at the time, were consecrated on the 15th December
in Westminster Abbey. These persons, thus invested with
the Episcopal character, returned to their own country,
and committed the holy deposit to other " faithful men"
also, who had been previously appointed by the Crown to
fill the vacant Sees. But in rebuilding the Church in Scot
land " according to the Word of God, and the model of the
ancient and Primitive Christians," (as they were desired to
do by those, who, being disgusted with Covenanting Presby-
terianism, earnestly petitioned forthe restoration of Catholic
order) the Government of Charles II. acted with questionable
moderation. It was but right that they should have endea
voured to soften, as much as possible, the prejudices of the
Covenanters by every innocent and lawful concession ; but
when they proceeded to deprive the rulers of the Church of
their inherent powers, and to assimilate the heaven-devised
system as closely as possible to the democratical and dis
orderly platform which had been overthrown by its own
tyranny and turbulence, they transgressed the bounds of
their authority, and made it appear as if the Church were a
mere engine of State, which could be modelled according to

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. xvii
the various phases of civil politics, and adapted to the
capricious whims and wavering opinions of men. The
attempt on their parts to establish the Apostolical
order in Scotland was praiseworthy ; but the concessions
which they made were not only unlawful and injudicious,
but, as the event proved, utterly inexpedient. While they
failed to conciliate the Covenanters, they stamped a charac
ter upon Estahlished Scottish Episcopacy which makes its
overthrow less to be regretted, and causes the Churchman
in these days to magnify and adore the grace of God, which
enabled most of the clergy and laity of that period to rise
ahove their principles, and to " witness a confession" to the
world, which was scarcely to have been expected from the
discipline under which they had been trained, and the
circumstances of temptation in which they were placed. The
external appearance and policy of the Church during this
period has been thus described by a modern historian, and
it sufficiently corroborates the view here taken of the
Episcopacy of that day. " The Kirh-Sessions were kept up,
in which the parish minister presided ; Presbyteries met
under the direction of some experienced minister appointed
by the Bishop ; Diocesan Synods were regularly convened, in
which the Bishop himself, or the Dean, acted as Moderator ;
and even General Assemblies might have been held, had
the King seen fit to summon them. Besides this, kneeling
was not required at the administration of the Eucharist ; the
Established Clergy (with one or two exceptions) used no
Liturgy, nor wore any distinguishing dress in their public
services ; so that a stranger going accidentally into a place
of worship at that time, could not have told whether it were
Presbyterian or Episcopal, &c. AUincumbents were allowed to
retain possession of their livings, by whatever means obtained,
on condition only of submitting to receive their presentation
from the patron, and collation from the Bishop."^ No
circumstances could warrant such a departure from Catholic
order as is here presented to us ; and the conclusion which
' See Lyon's History of St Andrews, vol. ii. p. 72, 73.

xviii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
is forced upon the candid inquirer into this portion of our
ecclesiastical history is, that except the Apostolical Succession,
there was httle in the CTste-rnal appearance ofthe Church of
that period which resembled the " model of the Primitive
Christians." One of ^he novelties introduced at this time
was the system of holding Diocesan Synods, which were
established by an Act of the Privy Council, dated September
10, 1662. These Synods differed entirely from those con
vocations of the ancient Church, which consisted of the
Bishop and his Presbyters, wherein, as a Father, he delibe
rated with them upon matters of doctrine and disciphne,
and sought the advice of his " Council,'" before taking any
important step, or pronouncing any weighty decision. It
was not even pretended that they were founded on that
venerable usage. They were rather substitutes for the
" Presbyteries " which had just been overturned ; and the
members of these Synods, which were composed of the
clergy of the Diocese, in their collective capacity transacted
the business of the Church within their hmits. It is true
that these synodical meetings were held with the consent of
the Bishop, and that either he himself, or one delegated by
him, presided at them. But then the only superiority which
he enjoyed over any other member, was the privilege of
giving the casting vote in disputed cases. It is not quite
clear that they had what is called negative power, which the
Scottish Bishops at present possess over the deliberations of
their clergy .1 As all meetings require a chairman to pre-
^ The present Scottish Church retains these Diocesan Synods, which
are now better regulated. They are held at least once a year in each
Diocese, and are composed of the Bishop, and, in his absence, the Dean
and other clergy. It is not more primitive than reasonable that Bishops
should consult their Presbyters in the affau-s of the Church. Hence the
Church in Scotland has carefully provided for this by retaining the
synodical meetings, remodelled after the example of the early Church,
and our governors, in all matters of importance, take care that every
thing is maturely weighed in the Diocesan councils. The Bishops have
full negative power in these conventions, but in judicial matters there is
an appeal from the decision of a particular Bishop to the Episcopal
CoUege. See Canons XXXI.— XXX V. of the Scottish Episcopal Chni-ch,
p. 31, 35.

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XIX
serve order, it was thought good by the ruling powers in
the State to confer the right of perpetual Moderatorship
upon the Bishops, who were thus robbed of much of their
inherent and Divine authority, and the Church was deprived
of that paternal and monarchical feature of her government,
which is so familiar to persons even cursorily acquainted
with early ecclesiastical history. The record of the motions
carried, and general business transacted at these conven
tions, was carefully preserved in a Register kept by an
official, styled the " Synod Clerk," who was in general one
of the most respected members of the Diocese.
This was the office to which Mr Sage was appointed almost
immediately upon his admission into orders ; and it appears,
from the fact of his having been in possession of the Synod
Books at the Revolution, that he retained it up to that event
ful crisis. It is quite clear, from what the contemporary bio
grapher of Sage relates concerning his " faithful discharge of
all the parts of the ministerial function^'' and his " discourses
from the pulpit," that he must have been engaged in more
active and strictly clerical duties, than those which the Synod
Clerkship entailed on him. But at this distance of time it has
been found quite impossible to ascertain the particular sphere
in the city of Glasgow which enjoyed the labours and example
of this zealous, learned, and excellent man. A tradition
has been prevalent in the Church that he was minister of
the Barony Parish ; but it is contradicted by undoubted
documentary evidence. For in the " First Collection of
Papers," annexed to the famous pamphlet, " The Case of
the Present Affiicted Clergy in Scotland," there is a paper,
containing " A Brief Representation of the Sufferings of
the Regular Clergy within the Presbytery of Glasgow,"
which bears the signatures of " Al. George, minister of the
Barony Church of Glasgow, John Sage, one of the ministers
ofthe city of Glasgow" — which shows that Mr Sage's cure
was not that alluded to above. Whatever it was, we are
informed that he discharged the important duties involved
in it with faithful diligence, and that his judicious conduct
and exemplary life, while they gained him the esteem of

XX MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
the members of the Church, procured for him also the
good-will and respect of those without her pale. There
was a remarkable instance of this in the treatment which
he received at the hands of the Hillmen, who persecuted
and insulted the clergy just before the Revolution broke
out. These disorderly fanatics, who were generally of the lower
orders, were unswerving adherents to the Solemn League and
Covenant, violently opposed to the " usurping"" Government
of the Stuarts, and animated by a deadly hatred to every
thing in any way connected with Bishops and their autho
rity. Such being the main features in the character of
these zealots, they only wanted a good opportunity for
showing their antipathy to the Church, and inflicting in
jury and insult upon her ministers. In the palmy days of
the Covenant, after the famous 1638 — those days when
Henderson, and Loudon, and Johnston of Warriston, were
in the zenith of their popularity and power — they enjoyed
such an opportunity, and they did not fail to improve it.^
The day of their triumph happily soon came to an end —
Scotland was subdued by Cromwell, and even Scottish
Presbyterianism had to bow down beneath the galling yoke
of English Dissent. " Greek had met Greek" in this case,
and the result was, that Cromwell ruled Scotland with a rod
of iron, and the Covenanters, in lamenting their own misfor
tunes, were drawn off from persecuting the unfortunate Pre-
latists.2 At the Restoration, the Government of Charles II.,
1 See Lawson's Episcopal Church from the Reformation to the Revo
lution, chap, xvii, p. 635.
2 A venerated historian says of Monk, Cromwell's generalissimo in
the North, that — " He gave orders to the civil judges not to meddle with
the goods and estates of such as the Assembly should excommunicate, &c.
This check upon the arbitrary discipline of the Kirk was highly displeasing
to some, but as sathfactoi-y and welcome lo others." As an instance of this
joy at the subjugation ofthe Covenanters, we are told that Mr Irvine, the
Laird of Drum (one of the oldest and best families in Aberdeenshire,
and down to the present day firm in its attachment to « Prelacy "), wrote
a polite letter of thanks to Monk for restoring conscience to its just
freedom, and rescuing people from the intolerant tyi-anny of the Presby
teries. This gentleman, who had suffered greatly for his loyalty and

RIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. XXI
for its own security, kept a watchful eye upon the move
ments of the Covenantee, and restrained their irregularities
by the strong arm of the law. At the commencement of
the reign of the ill-fated James, the lawlessness of these dis-
aff'ected persons was effectually kept in check ; but upon
the news of the landing of the Prince of Orange in England,
the King was obliged to order all his standing forces in
Scotland to repair to the royal standard in the South.
This, while it weakened the Scottish Government, left the
country in a defenceless state, and furnished a splendid oc
casion to the discontented and fanatical for creating disturb
ances, and punishing those whom they chose to consider
Malignants. The Hill-men, or Cameronians, seized the pre
cious moment, and began a shocking system of persecution
and cruelty against the incumbents of the diff'erent parishes,
by which about two hundred ministers and their families
were driven from their houses in the winter season, and cast
upon the precarious benevolence of their neighbours. Their
method of procedure has been thus narrated by a contem
porary, and a sufferer from their violence: — -"They assembled
themselves in the night time, and sometimes in the day, in
small bodies, armed ; and in a hostile way went through the
countries, forcing their entry into private men's houses,
against whom they had any private quarrel, but most ordin
arily into ministers' houses, where they with tongue and
hands committed all outrages imaginable against the minis
ters, their wives and children ; where, having ate and
drank plentifully, at parting they used to carry the minister
out of his house to the church-yard, or some public place of
the town or village, and there expose him to the people as
a condemned malefactor — gave him strict charge never to
preach any more in that place, but to remove himself and
opposition to the Covenant, being cited on a suspicion of Popery by the
Presbytery of Aberdeen, summoned them in return before Colonel Over
ton, one ofthe English Judges, and appealed from their merciless tribunal
to the Parliament of England. This shews that, in the day of their
prosperity, they had created for themselves a ternUe name, which made
any authority preferable to theirs. See Skinner's Ecclesiastical History,
vol. ii. p. 429. B

XXII MEMOIE OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
his family out of it immediately ; and for the conclusion of
all this tragedy, they caused his gown to be torn over his
head in a hundred pieces — of some they spared not their
very clothes to their shirts. When they had done with the
minister, they called for the keys of the church, locked the
doors, and carried the keys with them ; and last of all, they
threw the minister's furniture out of his house in many
places, as the last act of this barbarous scene. This was
the most general method when the minister was found at
home, but in case he was absent, they entered his house,
made intimation of their will and pleasure to his wife and
servants, bidding them tell him to remove from that place.
If they found not a ready obedience, they would return and
make him an example to others."
Such was the real character of the system of " rab
bling," which the clergy had to endure about the period of
the Revolution. It seems, however, that the disorderly mob
treated Mr Sage with more mercy than they displayed gene
rally to the rest of his brethren in the Diocese of Glasgow ;l
for, as his venerable biographer quaintly informs us — " the
saints contented themselves with giving him a warning to
depart from Glasgow, and threatenings if he should ever ad
venture to return thither again." This forbearance on their
part was singular enough, when it is considered that Mr Sage
was a strenuous opponent and an avowed disapprover of
their principles and conduct. As a minister of the ever
lasting Gospel, which contains rules of faith and practice, he
felt himself imperatively called upon, both by argument and
pathetic exhortation, to enforce the duty of loyalty and
obedience to the " powers that be," which he saw was much
depreciated by his countrymen. Being firmly persuaded in
his own mind of the truth of the " Apostolical Succession "
and convinced of the invalidity of Orders which do not
emanate from duly consecrated Bishops, he was careful in
his sermons to set forth the necessity of communicating
with the Episcopal Church. Having marked in the sacred
1 See " Case of AfiUcted Clergy," First Collection of Papers.

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XXUI
Scriptures that striking feature of external unity by which
the Church of the blessed Redeemer is traced by the pens of
the inspired writers, and the warnings which are thickly
strewn upon the pages of the New Testament against " divi
sions," and instability in matters of religion, he was wont
loudly to censure the prevalent disposition for " change,"
and to insist that separation from the Church of Scotland —
receiving the Sacraments from other hands than those of
her Bishops, and inferior clergy — and frequenting places of
worship, off'ered to God by unauthorised men, were acts,
which constituted the sin of schism, and involved those who
practised them in the serious consequences which the Word
of God denounces against it. In these his discourses, he
had respect to two opposite parties by which the Church
was at that time attacked — 1st, To the disciples of the
Covenant, who, besides setting at nought the command to
" give unto Csesar the things that are Caesar's," i. e. to obey
the existing laws, and reverence the persons of those in
whom authority was invested, carried their notions of " Gos
pel liberty''"' so far as to reject every sort of restraint upon
their religious opinions, and to regard themselves as the only
true interpreters of the meaning of the Bible, and the late
discoverers of the scriptural model of the Church of Christ.
What the pious and amiable Leighton used to say of them
was strictly characteristic — " That they made themselves the
standards of opinions and practices, and never looked either
abroad into the world, to see what others were doing, nor yet
hack into tlie former times, to observe what might be warranted
or recommended by antiquity T ^ — 2d, To the members of
the Romish schism, who, though loyal so far as civil politics
were concerned, were the open enemies of the Church in
Scotland. Believing that the Bishop of Rome is, jure
divino, the Supreme Prelate of the Christian Church, and
that all spiritual authority must flow through him, they
regarded the Scotican Church, which rejected the Pope's
1 See Historical Relation of the late General Assembly continued,
p. 11.

xxiv MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
authority in Scotland, as schismatical, and zealously strove
to effect her overthrow both by secret stratagem and open
opposition. To both these classes of men, the discourses of Mr Sage
were directed, and he wielded against them " the sword
of the Spirit, which is the Word of God"— the Word of
God, not as interpreted by Scottish Covenanting Presby
terians, nor by those who own the sway of an Italian Bishop,
but by the Catholic Church, making herself heard in
General Councils, the decrees of which were afterwards
universally received by Christians both in the East and 'West
— both in the Latin and Greek Churches. It is easy to
imagine that discourses of such a nature were by no means
palatable, and that a clergyman, who in the " west" of Scot
land was so bold as to preach them, stood a very fair chance
of raising up a host of enemies against himself. There is,
however, an innate charm in consistency and earnestness,
which cannot fail to make an impression on all who are not
totally blinded by prejudice, and cause them, even though
they do not coincide with a man's opinions, to have a respect
for his character. This was the case with Mr Sage, at
this memorable crisis of our national ecclesiastical history.
An uncompromising Catholic himself, he endeavoured to
persuade his schismatical countrymen to come within the
pale of the Church, because he firmly believed her to be the
only lawful dispenser of the Word and Sacraments. But his
exhortations breathed the spirit of Christian charity, and
evinced his affectionate earnestness for the souls of the
people. Thus the malice of the enemies of the Church was
disarmed, and they were compelled to esteem the bold as-
serter of the Apostolical claims. " To this," says Gillan
" it may in some measure be imputed that he escaped those
outrageous insults and cruelties which the rabblers (after
the example of their schismatical forefathers  the Circum-
celliones in Africk) acted against others of his brethren
especially those who had trimmed."
There were many ministers, who, having hved before the
Restoration, and been great supporters of the Covenant,

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. X.KV
nevertheless saw that it was their interest to conform to
the changes which were occurring, and became very warm
advocates for Episcopacy, and very bitter opponents to their
former friends. This continued while the Government was
vigorous, but observing the " signs of the times," these persons
foresaw the approach of the Revolution, and wisely provided
for the coming exigency by modifying their tone, and affect
ing popularity. Others of them, again, who " had not been
thoroughly purged of the old leaven, with which they had
been soured before the restoration of the Church and Royal
Family," but whose consciences were of that flecoible nature
which permitted them to accommodate themselves to circum
stances, easily threw off' the mask, when they saw the power
of the House of Stuart declining, and appeared before the
world in their true colours. These trimmers, however, by
their variableness, defeated their own purpose, and were
treated by the mob of rabblers with greater severity than
was exercised towards their more unfiinching and consistent
brethren. Many of them were willing to retain their livings
by complying with the Revolution Government. But these
temporizers did not escape from the merciless violence of
the " Hill-men," nor save themselves from being " rabbled"
out of their manses. ^
While the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of Scotland
were in this unsettled state, the chair of Divinity in
the ancient College of St Mary's,^ in the University of
^ See Third Collection of Papers appended to the Case of the Afflicted
Clergy. ^ This CoUege represents, and. is supposed to be placed on the very site
of, the " Pedagogie," authorised by Bulls of the afterwards deposed Pope
Benedict XIIL, at the instance of James I., Bishop Wardlaw, and several
ecclesiastics, in I4I3. Archbishop Alexander Stewart, son of James IV.,
who, with his father, was afterwards slain on the fatal field of Flodden,
converted the " Pedagogium" into a College, and increased the incomes of
the Professors, by conferring upon their house the church of St Michael,
Tarvet, near Cupar in Fife. Archbishop James Beaton, and his nephew
the Cardinal, farther enriched this College, and by virtue of a Bull which
they procured from Paul III. in 1537, dedicated it to the " Blessed Virgin
Mary of the Assumption." The Archbishop also bequeathed a sum of
money for the erection of a noble pile, and the Cardinal had begun

xxvi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
St Andrews, became vacant. The presentation ' to it be
longed to the Crown, but the Primate was in reality the
patron, who in this case was Mr Sage's personal friend—
Dr Arthur Ross, by whom, when he was Archbishop of
Glasgow, he had been admitted into Holy Orders, and
who, now that he was elevated to the Primacy, did not
forget him. The Primate recommended Sage for the
chair, and the copy of his presentation was actually sent
up to London by Lord Balcarras.^ But when his Lord-
to carry out his uncle's plans when he was barbarously assassinated in
1546. Hamilton, the last Archbishop of the Ante-Reformation Succession,
who was afterwards executed by order of Lennox, completed the work
which had been commenced by his illustrious predecessors, and added
greatly by his liberality to the wealth of the College, which was endowed
for the express purpose of " defending and confirmkig the Catholic Faith,
that the Christian rehgion might flourish, the Word of God be more
abundantly sown in the hearts of the faithful, and to oppose the heresies
and schisms of pestiferous heresiarchs," &c. &c. Alas ! the venerable
Primate lived to see this College, which he had reared, turn against the
ancient Faith ; and, like many similar institutions in Scotland, it now
answers any purpose except that originally designed by the munificent
liberality of the excellent founders. See Lyon's History of St Andrews,
vol. i. p. 204, 253, 284, 316 ; vol. ii. p. 210-212.
1 Previous biographers of Sage speak of Lord Balcaskie as the bearerof
this oiEcial document; but, although there was an old Scottish family of Bal
caskie, the Editor has not been able to discover that, at the period alluded
to, the head of that family was prominently engaged in political affairs.
He has, therefore, substituted for Balcaskie Balcarras, as being the real
person intended by the original biographer Gillan, the former word being
palpably a typographical error. The person here referred to was Colin
third Earl of Balcarras, and one of the most distinguished members of
the Noble House of Lindsay. At a very early age he was introduced
at the gay Court of Charles II., with whom he became a great favourite.
Upon the accession of James IL, he continued still in the sunshine of
royal favour. Having been made a Privy Councillor m 1 680, he was next,
1686, appointed one of the six Secret Council in whom the Government of
Scotland was lodged. When the news of William's arrival in London
reached Edinburgh, Lord Balcarras was sent express by his colleagues of
the Secret Council to receive his Majesty's instructions. It was probably
at this time that he earned up Mr Sage's presentation for his Majesty's
approval. He had been in town only two or three days, when the unfortu
nate Jamesre-entered thecapital of his kingdom, after having been arrested
iu his flight at Feversham. In this moment of gloom, when all were desert
ing the fallen monarch. Lord Balcarras and the gallant Dundee -idsited him.

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XXVU
ship reached town all things were in confusion, and the
monarch a prisoner in his own metropolis. While so many
more urgent things demanded the attention of the King, and
the few faithful friends who still adhered to him in his dark
hour of misfortune, it does not appear that Mr Sage's pre
sentation ever received the royal sanction. In the course
of a few days James retired from his dominions, and William
and Mary were acknowledged as the sovereigns of England.
This important event changed the whole face of affairs in
Scotland, and the lateness of Mr Sage's nomination saved
him from the mortification of being deprived by the inquisi
torial tribunals, which were subsequently appointed to visit
and purge the Universities.
It has been already stated, that by the withdrawal
of troops from Scotland at the out-break of the Revo
lution, the Cameronians, or Hillmen, were enabled to ex
ercise unheard of cruelties and insults towards the mem
bers of the then Scottish Establishment, and that by their
illegal proceedings and fanatical violence, about two hun
dred incumbents were ejected from their parishes. We
and endeavoured to cheer his drooping spirits wdth the hope of brighter days.
James proposed a walk, and the two noblemen were his only attendants.
" When he was on the Mall, he stopped and looked at them, and asked
how they came to be with him, when all the world had forsaken him, and
gone to the Prince of Orange ? The Earl said — Their fidelity to so good a
master would ever be the same ; they had nothing to do with the Prince
of Orange. Lord Dundee made the strongest professions of duty. ' WiU you
two, as gentlemen, say you have stiU attachment to me ?' — ' Sir, we do.'
' WUl you give me your hands upon it as men of honour ? ' They did
so. ' Well, I see you are the men I always took you to be ; you shall
know aU my intentions. I can no longer remain here but as a cypher, or
be a pensioner to the Prince of Orange ; and you know there is but a
smaU distance between the prisons and graves of kings, therefore I go for
France immediately ; when there, you shaU have my instmctions. You,
Lord Balcarras, shall have a commission to manage my civil affairs, and
you. Lord Dundee, to command ray troops in Scotland." After this,
the Earl returned to Scotland, and untU his death, exerted himself in
the interests of the exiled family. He died in 1722, much lamented by
his chUdren and friends, who passionately loved him, and was buried
with his fathers in the chapel of Balcarras. See Lord Lindsay's " Lives
of the Lindsays," Wigan, 1840, vol. ii. p. 1-97.

.xxviii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
must now inquire in what light the new Government viewed
the conduct of those zealots, and whether they took any
steps for restoring the unfortunate clergy to their benefices,
of which they had been unjustly deprived. The sufferings
of the clergy were so severe, that various accounts were
sent up to London concerning them, in order to induce the
authorities there to interfere in their behalf. The Bishop
of Edinburgh, and many of the Scottish Episcopal Nobility,
who were then in London, applied to their friends in high sta
tions about the Court, in the hope of persuading them to use
their influence for the '' afflicted clergy." But these repre
sentations and private appeals were all in vain. At last
the clergy resolved to send up a public petition, properly
attested, to the Prince, and to depute one of their number
to go to Court and present it. Dr Scott, Dean of Glasgow,
was the person selected for this purpose. Having arrived
in London, he laid the petition before the Prince, who saw
at once the reasonableness of its prayer, and issued a pro
clamation on the 6th February 1689, ordering the peace to
be kept, and forbidding any one from being persecuted or
disturbed in the exercise of his religion, whatever that might
be. But this proclamation was disregarded by the rabblers,
and a serious riot occurred in the Cathedral of Glasgow on
the very next Sunday after it was issued. Another repre
sentation therefore was made to the Prince of Orange
through Dr Fall, the Principal of Glasgow College, who
was then in London ; but the only satisfaction, which he
obtained, was an assurance that the case of the persecuted
clergy should be referred to the Meeting of Estates, which
was to be held on the 14th of March.
The helpless ministers and their friends looked forward
with much anxiety to the approaching day. The Estates
were convened, and the first business of importance which
they transacted was hearing a letter from William read
recommending them " to enter with all speed upon such
consultations with regard to the public good, and to the
general interests and inclinations of the people, as may
settle them on sure and lasting foundations of peace."

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. Xxix
The macer entered the Convention, bearing a letter from
the King, dated on board the St Michael, 1st March 1689,
enjoining them to loyalty, and threatening them with punish
ment if they were disobedient. This epistle, however, was
" thrown aside with cool indifference," and they passed a
vote declaratory of their determination " to continue undis
solved until they settle and secure the Protestant religion,
the government, laws, and liberties of the kingdom^ This
declaration raised the hopes of the ejected ministers, who-
were not conscious of having any tendency to " Popery,"
and who had " rights and liberties'''' sanctioned by law,
which required the protection of their Legislators. But
alas ! the bright prospects, which had cheered them, be
came speedily overcast with a gloomy and portentous cloud.
It soon became evident that theirs were not the " rights
and liberties " which were to be protected. For numbers
of the West Country mob came flocking into Edinburgh,
and took their station about the place of meeting, where
they insulted the Episcopal Nobility and gentry, and
especially the Bishops, who claimed a seat in the Con
vention. The lives of the members were endangered by
their tumultuous and violent proceedings, and accordingly
the most obnoxious were obliged to retire from the meeting,
and many of them. Lord Dundee among others, to leave
the city, in order to escape the plots formed for their
destruction. Having by this method of intimidation cleared
the house of all " suspected" persons, and having obtained a
body of standing troops under General Mackay, the Con
vention passed a vote of thanks to those very persons who
had " rabbled" the ministers, and complimented them as
being " well affected to the Protestant interest." This was
extremely disheartening to the ejected clergy, and greatly
diminished their chance of redress. But the death-blow to
their hopes was yet to be inflicted. On the 4th of April
the Meeting of Estates passed a vote that King James had
" forfaulted " his right to the Crown, and declared the
throne vacant. On the 11th they brought in their Claim of
Right, in which the " Article " controverted by Bishop Sage

xxx MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
in the Fundamental Charter occurs, and proclaimed Wilham
and Mary, King and Queen of Scotland. As yet nothing
was directly done either for or against the clergy, and the
Hill-men were amusing themselves, as usual, in rabbling them
from their livings ; but the minister of Ratho, near Edin
burgh, having had a visit from these rioters, his case, which
was specially referred, brought the subject of their sufferings
before the Convention. And now came the fatal thrust.
On the 13th it was resolved, that King James should be
disowned — that all ministers of the gospel should pray by
name for William and Mary, as the de jure sovereigns of
the realm — and that the proclamation to this effect should
be read by all ministers in Edinburgh after sermon next
morning to their people, and by others on such days as
appointed, threatening them with deprivation of their bene
fices if they refused to comply, and promising protection to
all " then in possession and exercise of their ministry" who
should obey it. It was proposed as an amendment by the
Duke of Hamilton, the President, that those who had been
forcibly extruded from their parishes should be included in
this conditional protection of the Government ; but this
motion was overruled, upon the ground that, if carried, it
would " disoblige the Presbyterians'''' and might have very
fatal (political) consequences." Accordingly, the " rabbled "
ministers and their starving families were altogether omitted.
The Convention of Estates, to which they had been taught
to look for redress, turned a deaf ear to their cry, and by
drawing away the shelter of the law, gave fresh encourage
ment to the mob to persevere in their lawless course against
them. While this was the case with them, matters were
not much better with their brethren, who still held their
livings. The suddenness of the proclamation, and the
importance of the duty required of them, took the Edin
burgh clergy quite by surprize, and threw them into a state
of perplexing doubt. They did not receive the astounding
command tiU late on the Saturday evening, and they were
ordered next morning to dethrone a sovereign, and transfer
their allegiance to, and invoke the Divine blessing upon,

RIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XXxi
another. As was to have been expected, many of them
shrank from this difficult point of obedience, and begged
for time to consider. But those who did not comply with
the edict were called before the Council on the following
day, and forthwith deprived, although they off'ered many
substantial pleas in justification of their conduct, in addition
to that ofthe shortness of time afforded them for consideration
— as for instance that the order to make public prayers for
the new King and Queen did not come to them through their
Ordinaries, whom alone, as conscientious ecclesiastics, they
were bound to obey — that William and Mary had not
accepted the Crown— and other equally good reasons.^ All
these arguments, however, were of no avail. By a hasty
severity, unparalleled in Scottish history, the clergy in all
the surrounding neighbourhood, who refused to obey the
proclamation of the 13th of April, were ejected from their
benefices,^ and the rabble in the meanwhile were anticipating
the sharpness of the law. This posture of affairs continued
until the Convention was converted into a Parliament, which
met under the authority of William and Mary, June 5,
1689. Henceforth the " work" went more rapidly on. On
the 19th of July, the doom of the Church as an establish
ment was sealed, by the passing of an Act " abolishing
Prelacie." The Parliament adjourned on the 2d of August ;
and on the 22d of the same month an edict was set forth
by the Privy Council, at the instigation of the Earl of Craw
ford, " allowing and inviting parishioners and other hearers
to inform against ministers who had not read the proclama
tion of the Estates, and prayed for King William and Queen
Mary." Such a general invitation, proceeding from such an author
ity, had a very ready obedience given to it by an in
flamed populace ; and as few men are without their secret
1 See Case of AfBicted Clergy, p. 10, 11, 12, 13.
^ The ejecting Act of 1662, which Presbyterians characterize as being
very cruel, allowed the incumbents four months to deliberate about whe
ther they could comply with the conditions upon which their churches
might be retained.

xxxii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
enemies, it afforded an ample opportunity for the gratifica
tion of private revenge. The result of it was, that in the
course of a short time almost all the parochial clergy in the
Merse, Lothians, Fife, Stirlingshire, Perthshire, besides
some in Aberdeen, Moray, and Ross, were expelled.^ But
the most iniquitous of all the irregular proceedings which
occurred at this time, was an inhibitory Act of the Privy
Council, passed 29th December, by which the civil courts
were enjoined not to take up the cases of the rabbled clergy,
who should appeal to them for the recovery of the arrears
of their stipends, which had not been paid up before their
expulsion. It must be remembered that they had actually
done the amount of labour, for which they were justly en
titled to remuneration, and the law, if it had been permitted
to have free course, would undoubtedly have decided in
their favour ; but the Act of Council precluded this, and shut
their last remaining door of relief.^ Such were some of the
main features of the proceedings which took place at this
time. They were full of irregularity and injustice ; and
though the same results would most likely have followed had
the Government of the day acted with greater fairness, and
only imposed a necessary condition for its own security, this
is no extenuation of the measures which were adopted for
overthrowing the then legal estabhshment, while it serves to
excuse the jealousy and suspicion with which Scottish Epis
copalians long regarded the new Government. It cannot be
forgotten that the transference of allegiance was in reality
their stumbling-block, and that no concessions on the part
of the Government could have satisfied their scruples on this
point. It is now admitted by all candid persons that
William was anxious to have preserved the Episcopal esta-
^ See Case of the Afflicted Clergy, p. 15.
^ How different was the conduct of the Government at the Restoration
of Episcopacy in 1662. The Parhament, indeed, found that the Covenant
ing preachers who had got mto the livings during the grand Rebellion
without presentation from the patron, had no right to them, and declared
them vacant. StUl they enacted that this should not be " prejudicial to
any of those ministers in what they have possessed, oris due to them since
their admission."

EIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. XXxiii
blishment, and that at the Revolution the majority of the
Nation, including by far the greater part of the Nobihty and
gentry, were either members of the Church, or favourably
disposed towards it. As for the reasons which induced the
Bishops to refuse to " follow the example of England" as
they were asked to do, there will be much variety of opinion.
But however persons at this day may differ on the subject,
they must admit that the Hon-jwrors were not without strong
arguments in favour of the stand which they made for King
James and his heirs — that though they may see their way
clearly through the intricate question of Revolutionary
changes — others, without much over-scrupulousness, might
find it a very difficult path, and even be stopped from walking
in it at all.l This really occurred ; while the great bulk of
the clergy of England — many of whom were men of un
doubted piety and learning — were rejoiced at the overthrow
of the Stuart dynasty, and the accession of the Prince of
Orange, and even went so far as regard the Revolution as a
work with the approval of Heaven ; some few of the English
Bishops and inferior clergy, and all the Bishops of Scotland,
with a large proportion of their clergy, took an opposite view
of the whole aff'air, grieved at the downfall of the Stuarts as
the most untoward event which could have happened to the
Nation — and regarded the disaffection and desertion of their
^ As an instance of the perplexity in which men of thought were in
volved at this time, we may mention the famous Dr South, who, when
urged to sign the invitation to the Prince of Orange, refused, alleging
that prayers and tears were the only means it became him to employ agaiTist his
Sovereign. And although he afterwards acknowledgod the legality of the
succession when James had withdrawn, and took the oaths to the new
King and Queen, he yet refused the Mitre, on its being proposed to him to
succeed one of the deprived Bishops. See " Literature of the Church of
England," by Rev. Richard Cattermore, B. D., London, 1844, vol. ii.
p. 444. In reference to the above instance, Mr C. writes — " In common
with all loyal and patriotic Englishmen, but especially the members of
clerical profession. South was at this time torn by profound anxiety at
the prospect presented by the Established Church, and at the posture of
the national affairs in general." We adduce this remark to prove to
persons who are disposed to view the conduct of the Bishops and Clergy
of Scotland with severity, that theirs was a path beset with extreme
difficulty, and that the greatest minds in England were puzzled how to
act in that extraordinary emergency.

xxxiv MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
subjects as a National sin of the deepest dye. Whatever
view, then, we repeat, may be taken in this day, of the steps
of the latter class — it is impossible for any candid mind to
withhold the tribute of admiration to that integrity of prin
ciple, which made them submit to the loss of all things for
conscience sake — to relinquish power, station, wealth, honours
— all those things which men crave and labour for, and to
face persecutions, misrepresentation, and poverty — those
dreadful evils from which the human heart recoils. ^ What
might have been the present state of the Church in Scot
land, had her Bishops, at the Revolution, adopted another
line of conduct, is a matter of allowable speculation. Sup
ported by the authority of the Civil power, and possessed
of the revenues to which she was justly entitled, it is reason
able to suppose that she would have retained her hold in
the land, and thus many of those schisms which deform the
face of Scotland, might have been prevented ; but when
we consider the opinions of the statesmen of those days,
it is to be feared that her retention of the seat of power
would have involved the sacrifice of much that is excellent
in her system, and Catholic in her Standards. Whereas,
by her separation from the State — although poor and
despised, and bearing the Cross — she retained her original
freedom, and deprived of the '" arm of flesh," was thrown
altogether upon the care and protection of Him, who pro
mised to be with His church " unto the end of the world."
AU that human efforts could do to extinguish her was done,
but done in vain : Though persecuted, she was not forsaken
— though cast down, she could not be destroyed. In the
1 It wOl scarcely be beUeved that in violation of every principle of that
" charity" which "hopeth aU things," and in the utter disregard of the
rule of our Divine Master, " by their fruits ye shaU know them," a writer
of gi-eat note and in much admiration with Presbyterians, has not scrupled
to caU the bishops and clergy of that day « time servers, court flatterers,
and ready, for any thing I can discover in their writings, to faU in with
Popery itself, to please the King, and Iceep tlieir places!" Wodrow, vol. iv.
p. 468. Either what a mist of prejudice and ignorance must have obscured,
or what a degree of malice must have poisoned the mind of him, who, in
spite of facts, could thus write of those venerable sufferers !

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XXXV
exercise of that spiritual authority which the rulers of the
earth neither gave, nor had power to take away, her Bishops
continued to govern the Apostolic Communion over which
they were the divinely appointed overseers ; and her inferior
clergy to teach and administer the ordinances of religion to
those who steadfastly continued within her pale. As was to
have been expected from persons of their principles, the
Archbishops and Bishops, who were ejected at this time, went
into quiet retirement, and meekly submitted to their reverse
of worldly fortune, and to what they considered, the melan
choly change which had occurred in the civil politics of the
Nation.l And here it may be remarked, that the conduct of
the triumphant party in the Government towards them, was
by no means conciliatory or merciful, and shews more forcibly
than any arguments, the weakness of the foundations upon
which it was established, which required to be propped up
by arbitrary enactments, and illiberal conduct. It is not
attempted to be denied that the then ruling powers were
right in using every precaution for their own security ; but
had they exercised more lenity towards their fallen enemies,
the end which they desired, would have been more easily
gained. In their parsimonious treatment of the ejected
Prelates, they contrast badly even with the zealots of the
Reformation, who were not particularly remarkable for feel
ing and generosity. They, while sacrilegiously parcelling out
the property of the Church among their greedy adherents,
nevertheless considered that it would be disgraceful to leave
the " Popish Prelates," as they called them, penniless and
destitute, and consequently allowed them to " hold and
possess two-thirds of their benefices, on their own calculation,
to their dying day." Whereas the Grovernment of William
and Mary swept all the revenues ofthe Bishops' rents into the
Royal Exchequer,^ and except in one or two cases, as in that
' For short notices of the ejected Bishops, after the Revolution, see
Lawson's History of the Episcopal Church from the Revolution to the
Present Time, page 30-36.
^ It is not generaUy understood that Scotland, in a pecuniarypoint of view,
is not relieved by the abolition of Episcopacy. It still continues to pay
a pittance to the Church, and the snpport of ihe Apostolic order. The revenues

xxxvi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
of Archbishop Patterson, whose influence through his family
connexions was powerful, and of Bishop Rose of Edinburgh,
whose personal friends and popularity with all classes, were
many and great, they heartlessly permitted the disestablished
members of the Episcopal College to struggle with poverty,
and to depend upon the voluntary liberality of their friends.^
It is time now to turn from the Church in general, to her
illustrious son, the subject of this Sketch. When the per
secutions of the Rabblers, and the unexpected occurrences
in the State, rendered it imprudent and useless for him to
remain in Glasgow, he came to Edinburgh, the seat of
Government, in order at least to obtain protection for his

in every See are now as regularly levied as if it was filled by a successor
of the Apostles ! The Grown swallows up all the Bishops' rents, except
those of the Dioceses of Argyll and of The Isles. The emoluments of these
Bishoprics, by a gift from Queen Anne, dated July 14, 1705, were granted
during pleasure to the Moderator and Provincial Synod of Argyll in the
Presbyterian Establishment, in trust, to be by them applied for in
stituting schools, repairing churches, educating and training ministers,
&c. &c. They are regularly collected by a person appointed by the
Synod, and appropriated to the purposes for which they were granted.
We understand that the small sum, which is irregularly doled out to
the present Bishops iu Scotland, is paid fi-om the Scottish Exchequer
from the rents of the property which belonged to their ecclesiastical pre
decessors ; and in various influential quarters it has lately been mooted,
whether, if a proper application were made to the Throne, this trifling
grant might not be more regularly paid, and even increased in amount.
When it is remembered what large sums the Roman Catholics and Presby
terians in Ireland annually receive from the State, it is scarcely credible
that a weU-supported petition from the Scottish Episcopal Church, as a
body, for a participation in the liberal bounty of the Government, would
be rejected. At all events, it is worth whUe to make the request, and we
should hope that the matter only requires consideration, to induce the
wealthy and aristocratic members of the Episcopal Church in Scotland
to bestir themselves in it.
1 In England, where the vacant Sees were immediately filled by other
duly consecrated occupants, it was scarcely to have been expected that the
Government could have provided for the Non-jurors ; but in Scotland
where the Bishops had no successors, it is impossible to offer any excuse
for their illiberality towards those conscientious and venerable men ; and
we are almost warranted in charging them with a spirit of revenge, the
worst feature which a governing power could assume or manifest, espe
cially towards quiet and consistent enemies.

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. XXXVH
person. Though in England the Revolution was expected,
and a regularly organized plan had been devised prepara
tory to its breaking out, and though some of the Scottish
Presbyterians, who were in Holland, had been plotting
against James, and holding a secret correspondence with the
leaders of their party at home, it is well known that the
Bishops and clergy — indeed the majority of the Scottish
nation — were quite unprepared for the important event, and
when the news of the invasion of the Prince of Orange was
communicated, they were in a manner stunned by the
intelligence. Even after matters had passed the crisis —
when James had retired into France, and his daughter
and her husband had been proclaimed in his stead, the
partizans of the unfortunate monarch never for an instant
doubted that the cloud which had gathered over the for
tunes of his House would speedily pass away, and that in a
short time he would be reseated on his throne. Buoying
themselves up with this delusive hope, they set about forming
schemes for hastening what they considered so desirable an
event. It was not until after the battle of Killiecrankie,
and when the master-spirit who guided their deliberations,
and cemented their strifes, had fallen on that fatal field of
victory, that the more judicious of the Jacobites began to
fear that the sun of the House of Stuart had set for ever.
Even after the death of Dundee we find that the devoted
friends of James were plotting for his return, and, while an
heir in the direct line existed, some of them did not despair
of seeing him reinstated in his paternal rights. ^
1 As instances of this, we need not call the reader's attention to the
Enterprizes of 1715 and " the '45," in which the representatives of many of
the best and wealthiest famUies in Scotland lost their lives and fortunes. To
show the tenacity, almost amounting to a weakness, with which the ultra-
Jacobites adhered to their favourite hope, in despite of circumstance.s,
a venerable living Bishop, the last of his generation, relates a traditional
anecdote of the father of Mr Lindsay (the clergyman to whom Boswell
mentions that Johnson paid respect, when he observed him habited in his
cassock). Episcopal minister of St Andrews in the last century. The old
gentleman to his dying day expected the happy hour to arrive when
" the Prince " should ascend his father's throne, and actually gave him"
C

xxxviii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
This hope ofthe return of James, and the re-establishment
of the Church, serves to account for an act of Mr Sage, when
he was obliged to quit Glasgow, which might otherwise seem
questionable — his carrying off with him the Diocesan Re
cords, containing an account of the ecclesiastical affairs of
that Diocese from the year 1581 to 1682. Being Diocesan
Clerk, and regarding the local disturbances, then occurring
as mere temporary outbreaks which would soon subside,
he naturally adopted what he considered the best means
of providing for the safety of the important documents which
had been entrusted to his care, by keeping them in his
own possession, and privately conveying them to the place
where he was to reside. The same reason induced him to
retain them even after the Revolution, and at his death to
bequeath them to his friend Bishop Rose, doubtless in trust
to be brought to light and restored when Episcopacy
should be again established ! Whether the venerable Bishop
had not such sanguine expectations of this event as his
zealous and learned Presbyter, or whether his directions
concerning the Records were not attended to by his friends
after his death, does not appear. The documents them
selves, however, were sold with the rest of that Prelate's
Library to a Mr M'Intosh, Episcopal clergyman at Doune,
and were not regained by the Presbytery until after the
elapse of a whole century. Having been restored, they were
deposited in the Session-House of the Laigh or Tron Kirk of
Glasgow, but when that edifice was consumed by fire in
1793, " they were all injured, and some of them entirely
lost."iself great uneasiness about matters of Court etiquette, fearing lest, during
the long interval which had elapsed, his manners might have become
rusty, and he should not cut a good figure when presented to his sovereign
after the " Restoration."
1 The foUowmg extracts from the Records of the Presbytery of Glasgow,
with which the Editor has been furnished by his friend the Rev. J. W. Fer
guson, Minister of St Peter's, Edinburgh, and Synod Clerk of the Diocese
of Edinburgh, may be interestmg, as containing an account ofthe recovery
of the Records which Mr Sage secreted after the Revolution, and a list of
the contents of the several volumes :— « At Glasgow, 7th December 1791.—

EIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. XXxix
When Mr Sage took up his residence in Edinburgh,
neither his inclination nor his zeal would permit him to lead
Sederunt, Mr Pollock, Moderator, Dr Taylor, Dr Porteous, Mr Balfour, &c.
It having been represented to the Presbytery that a considerable number of
volumes of the Record of the Presbytery of Glasgow, from the year 1580
for more than a hundred years, are in the hands of Henry Stirling, Esq.
at Keir Park, or some other person, the Presbytery resolve to do every
thing competent to them to recover said Record ; and in order thereto,
appoint the Moderator, Dr Porteous, Dr Taylor, and Mr Balfour, or any
two of them, as a Committee to correspond in name of the Presbytery
with Mr Stirling, and the said Committee, or any two of them, to take
whatever steps may be necessary for effectuating of the said Record.
Dr Porteous is appointed Convener of the Committee, with power to
them of adjoiu-nment from time to time, as they may think jiroper ; and
the Presbytery appoint the said Committee to report at next meeting.
"At Glasgow, ith Jamiary 1792. — Sederunt — Mr Pollock, Moderator,
Dr GUlies, Dr Taylor, Dr Porteous, Mr Burns, Dr Lockhart, Mr Balfour,
&c. — The Rev. Dr Porteous, Convener of the Committee appointed at last
meeting for recovering the old Record, gave in the Report, whereof the
tenor follows : — ' Glasgow, Zd Jammary 1792. — Present, Drs Taylor and
Porteous, the Committee appointed to attempt the recovery of the
Register of this Presbytery, agree to report as follows : — That they have
corresponded with Mr Henry Stirling at Keir Park, acting for Mr M'Intosh,
Episcopal clergyman at Doime, who having purchased the whole of Bishop
Rose's Library, was pnt in possession of the volumes after mentioned, for
restoring which Mr Stirling thought Mr M'Intosh entitled to a recompence
of ten guineas. The Committee, considering that the said Record is a
matter of public importance, agreed to state the facts relating to it in a
letter to the Lord Provost, which has been followed by an Act of the City
Council, ordaining the ten guineas to be paid out of their funds. In con
sequence of this, the Committee have been put in possession of nine
folio volumes of the following description, which will be delivered to the
Presbytery with this Report. Vol. I. — This volume is not bound, but
roughly put together under an old parchment cover. It begins with a
record of ecclesiastical transactions from June 1581 tUl June 1582.
These transactions refer to the counties of Lanark, Renfrew, and Dun-
barton, and seem to have been conducted at Glasgow by a kind of
Synodical meeting, which was held very frequently sometimes once in
each week, and was called " The Kirk." The remainder of this volume,
which is by much the gi-eater part of it, contains the Register of the
Session of Glasgow, from 28th November 1583 to October 1592. Vol. II.
contains the Records of the Exercise at Glasgow, which was the first
name o-iven to classical meetings, afterwards named Presbyteries. It
contains also the Acts of the Kirk, or of Synods, and of General Assem
blies relating to these three counties above mentioned. It begins on the
I9th day of November 1585, and ends 4th October 1592, about the

xl MEMOIE OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
a life of ease and inactivity. Driven by violence from the
proper sphere of his labours, he eagerly embraced every
opportunity which presented itself of applying the culture of
true religion to the souls of his countrymen, and of support
ing the cause of the Church. While any of the parochial
incumbents in the Scottish metropolis retained possession of
their churches, he was in the habit of assistingthem in the per
formance of Divine Service, and of occasionally relieving them
from the burden of a sermon ; and afterwards, when the " in
quisitorial tribunal" of the Kirk, acting upon the authority
delegated to them by the Parliament of 1690, had " purged
out all insufficient, negligent, scandalous, and erroneous minis
ters,'''' i. e. had, by a system of continual vexation and insult,
deprived all the Episcopal clergy in the city, both compilers
and noncomplierSji of their livings, Mr Sage was appointed
time the Presbyterian Church Government was established by Act of
Parhament. Vols. III. IV. and V. contain the Register of the Presby
tery of Glasgow from 24th October 1592 to 10th January 1627. After
this period the Record is wanted for twenty years, but the Committee
are not without hopes that it may yet be recovered. Vol. VI. contains
the Register of the Presbytery of Glasgow, from 2d April 1647 to 11th
October 1650. Vol. VII. contains a Record of transactions during a
part of the same period which is included in Vol. VIII. ; but how far
they are the same, or wherein they differ (has not been discovered —
Cleland), the Committee have not had sufficient opportunities to dis
cover. Vol. VIII. contains the Register of the Presbytery of Glasgow,
from 11th December 1G50 to 15th August 1634, after which there is a de
ficiency for about nine years. Vol. IX. contains the Register of the
Presbytery of Glasgow under Episcopacy, from 3d June 1663 to 20th
September 1682. (This volume (IX.) containing the Record of the
Church during the days of Burnet, Leighton, and Ross, was said, in 1793,
after having been injured by fire, to be " generally legible by a person
careful and accustomed to the style."— J. W. F.) The Committee have
only to add, that the Presbytery are much indebted to Mr Henry Stirling.
He was the first who brought these volumes to the knowledge of the"
Presbytery after having been amissiug for a hundred years, and as far as
was consistent with his duty to the clergyman in possession, has behaved
with great attention to the public interest, and gi-eat regard to this
Presbytery. (Signed) ' William Pobteous, ilodr. of Committee: "
1 It was usual for the leaders of the Presbyterians of that day to apply
the above-mentioned epithets to the Episcopal clergy, and that the reader
may form some idea of the gi-ounds for these serious charges-some idea
of what constituted "insufficiency," "negligence," &c. &c. in the opinions

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. xh
to the pastoral care of one of the principal " meeting
houses" in Edinburgh. The members of the Church, when
they saw the clergy expelled from their parish churches,
very properly fitted up places of worship or chapels in
different parts of the city, in which they might enjoy
the benefit of authorised preaching, and have the Sacra
ments " rightly and duly administered." An inscription
over the door of St Paul's chapel, in an alley off the
High Street called Carrubber's Close, intimates that it
was erected in 1689 ; and there is a tradition that the
Bishop of Edinburgh, when he was driven from his cathedral
of St Giles, used to minister in this less imposing edifice.
A recent historian, however, informs us that this tradition
is groundless, as " Bishop Rose did not statedly officiate to
any particular congregation as pastor after the Revolution."
Now, as there could not have been many of these "meeting
houses" erected at this time — probably that in Carrubber's
of those worthies, we subjoin a few of the "libels" that were raised
against various clergymen. The minister of Saline was accused and
deposed for recommending such a " superstitious and erroneous book" as
the TVhole Duty of Man, to his people. The minister of Abbotshall was
UbeUed for opposing the Westminster Confession, and using the one
authorised by the Diocesan Synod of Edinburgh, afterwards enlarged
by the learned and eminently pious Bishop Scougall of Aberdeen. Others
were libeUed for using the Lord's Prayer and Doxology after the Psalms.
The incumbent of Ladykirk was deposed for " having said that the Cove
nant was no better than a band of rebellion." Another was charged with
being guilty of the scandal of " whistling." But the general object of
attack, which occupied a prominent position in every indictment, was
that the clergy had entered on their Uvings by presentation from a patron,
and coUation and institution from a Bishop, which, they boldly affirmed,
was " contrary to the Word of God, to the constitution of this Kirk, to
the Acts of Assemblies, and to the land's solemn engagements.'' Such
were the crimes which in the eyes of the triumphant Presbyterians con
stituted "insufficiency," " erroneousness," "scandal," &c. &c.; and upon
these frivolous and vexatious pretences, the unfortunate men, who were
willing to comply with the terms of the Parliament, were deposed, and
turned out of their livings. So anxious were the " Inquisition" to de
prive the clergy, that they would not wait until their places could be
supplied declaring that " it was better that the Temple of the Lord did lie some
tim.e umbwilt and mwepaired, than be reared up by Gibeonites and Samaritans,"
i. B. Episcopal ministers !

xiii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
Close and another in Skinner's Close were the only ones —
it is more than a conjecture that the " meeting-house,
thronged with people of the best quality and sense," to
which. Bishop Gillan says, Mr Sage was invited, was one
of the churches in the above-mentioned locahties, either
the present St Paul's, or that in which the late Bishop
Abernethy Drummond officiated. In the absence of positive
proof, we can only hazard it as an interesting probability,
that one or other of these places was the scene of Mr Sage's
labours at that time. It is certain, however, that he, whose
writings are so deservedly esteemed, was not less admired as
a preacher, and from his eloquent discourses the members of
the Church, who attended his ministrations, derived much
edification and comfort. They have been thus characterized
by one who was capable of forming a correct judgment con
cerning this zealous minister of the gospel, and the character
given him shows that he was in the true sense of the term
an useful preacher.
" Extensive sense still into small compass drew.
Said what was just, and always something new.''
But this excellent pastor was not long permitted to pursue
the even tenor of his way, in fulfilling his pastoral duties to
the honour of God and the benefit of his fellow-Christians.
The relentless jealousy of the Presbyterians, not content
with driving the ministers from the parish churches, pursued
them even into the privacy ofthe "meeting-houses;" and with
that selfish intolerance which was the main feature of all
their proceedings, they resolved that the faithful people,
who adhered to the Church, should be deprived of the valued
privilege of hearing the Word and receiving the Sacraments
from those persons, whom they had been taught to regard
as the authorized priests of God. Accordingly, Mr Sage
and others of his brethren were dragged before the Privy-
Council, and ordered to take the Oath of Allegiance and
Assurance ; and when they candidly avowed that their con
scientious scruples would not permit them to comply with
the mandate, they were not only " forbidden to exercise any

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. xliii
part of their ministerial function within the city, but also
banished thence by an Act of the Council." It must be
remembered, that those respectable men had already suffered
the " loss of all things" without complaint, and, passively
obeying the rigorous laws of the Convention, had retired
into private life that they might possess " a conscience void
of offence ;" but even here they were not allowed to remain
in peace. This is mentioned merely to show that Presby
terianism has not always been that friend of " civil and
religious liberty," and " freedom of conscience," which its
warm supporters and advocates in later times would persuade
us to believe.l
After the banishment of our author and his clerical
brethren from Edinburgh, he withdrew into the retire
ment of the small country town of Kinross, on the banks
of Lochleven. His main inducement in selecting this place
of residence arose from the fact that in Kinross and its
neighbourhood, two of his most intimate friends resided —
Mr Christie and Sir William Bruce, both of whom he knew
would be happy to receive him, in the dark day of his dis
tress, under their hospitable roofs. The former gentleman
had been the parochial incumbent of Kinross before the
Revolution, and though deprived of his benefice for not com
plying with the terms of the famous Proclamation by the
Convention on the 13th of April 1689, he still continued to
reside within the parish, which had been the scene of his

^ It is an historical fact that WUliam and his Government would have
exercised much more clemency to the Jacobites, had they not been urged
on to severity by those who hated Episcopacy ; and it is admitted by all
candid persons, that most of those who suffered at the Revolution,
suffered for their love and attachment to the Church. In various contem
porary pamphlets, we find numerous proofs that the persecution at this
time was the effect of religious party spirit, which was far less merciful
than the political hostilities of the State rulers. Indeed, the sufferers fre
quently appealed to the Government for protection; the want of which we
may reasonably conclude was in a gi-eat measure the cause of their long
ing for the restoration of the exiled Family, which, with all its faults, was
not illiberal in matters of religion, or disinclined to tolerate those who
differed from it in opinion.

xliv MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
labours, and to which he was doubtless bound by many inter
esting ties. Concerning this excellent individual we unfortu-
natelyknowbutlittle. That little, however, provesthat he was
a person of considerable attainments in learning and piety.
Had he not been possessed of these qualities, it is by no
means probable that Sage would have chosen him for a
friend — the friend with whom he particularly delighted to
dwell — that he would have been selected by the Bishops
of the Church as one worthy of being advanced to the
high office of the Episcopate, in a critical emergency. For
we find that he was consecrated, April 28, 1709, and, by
an odd coincidence, his friend Sage was one of the three
Prelates, by whom he was invested with the " Office of a
Bishop in the Church of God." He died in 1718. The
other of Mr Sage's friends. Sir William Bruce, is better
known. Born during the troubled reign of Charles I., he
was witness to all the irregular proceedings which occurred
in Scotland, but too young to take an active part in the civil
and religious excitement which prevailed. No one was more
instrumental than Sir William in bringing about the Resto
ration. It is said that on one occasion, when he had an in
terview with Monk after the death of Cromwell, he repre
sented the present distractions of the country, and the
glory that would accrue to the restorer of the lawful heir to
the throne, and of the ecclesiastical estabhshment of Eng
land which is interwoven with the monarchy, in such lively
colours, and with so much genuine patriotic feeling, that he
melted the heart of the stern leader of the Puritans, who
opened his mind to the young and loyal Scot, and expressed
his intention, when the opportunity off'ered itself, of serving
the King. The bright hope, held out from such a quarter, was
soon communicated to his Royal Master, who in the course
of a short time was restored to his rights ; and, after the
Restoration, Charles II. was not unmindful of the person
who had done him such signal service in the day of adver
sity. He conferred upon him the dignity of a Baronet, and
appointed him to lucrative and honourable offices. Bound
therefore by gratitude as well as duty to the Stuart

RIGHT EEVEREND JOHN SAGE. xlv
Dynasty, he did not approve of the change of Government in
1688, and was always regarded with suspicion by the new
rulers for his well known attachment to the exiled Family,
while the Presbyterians disliked him for his avowed con
tempt for their religious system, and his devoted love to the
Church and her suffering clergy .^
Such were the two persons with whom we are informed
that our author went to reside, after his banishment from
Edinburgh. Knowing the principles and opinions of the three
friends, we can easily imagine the subjects which were fre
quently discussed and mournfully dwelt upon in the splendid
apartments of Kinross House, and perhaps made the subject
of fervent and united prayer in the more unpretending study
of the deposed pastor. His biographer says of Mr Sage at
this time — " In the society of those his intimate and dear
friends he comforted himself under his bad circumstances
and cross accidents of life, which did not near so much
afflict him as did the public calamities of the Church and
country." He saw tho monarchy overthrown, and the voice
of the people preferred to the voice of God — (of course we
are to be understood as representing things as they must have
appeared to the eyes of a person of Sage's principles and
¦'¦ As a reward for his services, Charles II. in 1660, appointed Sir William
Bruce to be Clerk to the BUls — an office in the Court of Session, the emolu
ment of which in those days was much greater than it is at present. Being
an excellent architect, he was also made Master of the King's Works, aud
finished the Palace of Holyrood as it now stands. In 1668, he was created
Sir William Bruce of Balcaskie in Fife. Having afterwards acquired
from the Earl of Morton the lands and barony of Kinross, he was ever
known by that title, and was made heritable Sheriff of the county. Near
Kinross he buUt a splendid residence, and expended a considerable sum
in beautifying and improving his grounds. He married Mary, daughter
of Sir James Halkett of Pitfirran, Baronet, by whom he had several
children, aud died in I7I0 at a great age. See Sibbald's History of the
Sheriffdoms of Fife and Kinross, Edin. 1710, foi. Douglas' Baronage,
vol. i. As an instance of Sir WUliam's principles, it is said that he was
expeUed from the Pai-liament .which met at Edinburgh in 1702, for main
taining, in reply to a motion for an Act to secure the Presbyterian Church
Government, that Presbytery was inconsistent wilh Monarchy I This, perhaps,
is an extreme view to us, but a greater man than Sir WiUiam — King
James VI. — expressed himself in almost the same terms.

xlvi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
prejudices, rather than as they actually were), — he beheld
the civil foundations of a great kingdom rashly shaken,
without being able to see those mighty props supplied,
which are now owned by the wisest to be the bulwarks of
our glorious constitution — He witnessed the rise and pro
gress, and had to endure the violence, of a political storm,
which seemed to rage with devastating power, but was not
permitted to view its happy termination. If it destroyed
in its course, the wisdom of subsequent legislators has
improved the opportunity afforded them by its ravages, by
rearing a system, in which the elements of social order are
more equally regulated, and from which we derive blessings
of incalculable magnitude — He saw a society, which he con
scientiously believed to have been founded by Divine authority,
for communicating to the people of Scotland privileges of
momentous interest — -which he believed to be the guardian of
the Sacred Scriptures — the only legitimate dispenser of the
Sacraments and other means of grace — He sawthat society, a
branch of Christ's Holy Catholic Church, trampled under foot,
persecuted, and despised by the rulers of the land — He saw its
governors, the lineal successors of those to whom " the keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven" had been committed by their
Divine Master, and with whom He had promised to be
" unto the end of the world" — he saw them and their
clergy, the duly commissioned ambassadors of Christ, in
sulted, and their authority and teaching nationally dis
owned — He beheld a polity, of recent date, and associated
in his mind with shameful acts, erected upon the ruins of
the Church, whose origin he had been accustomed to trace
to a heavenly source. He saw a nation involved in the
heinous guilt of rejecting those whom Christ had sent, and
deliberately dissevering itself from His body mystical on
earth. The considerations which these sad calamities sug
gested, were sufficiently sorrowful to have weighed down a
mind imbued with less of the spirit of genuine Christian
charity than Mr Sage possessed ; and we do not wonder
that they prompted him to seek the society of friends who
would sympathise with him, and share the burden of a real

EIGHT EEVEREND JOHN SAGE. xlvii
Churchman's grief, as he witnessed such distressing occur
rences, and lived in such gloomy times. It must not be
supposed, however, that he abandoned himself to vain re-
pinings, as he gazed upon the melancholy prospect. That
faith and that hope, which are such bright ornaments of
the Christian character, shone conspicuously in him at this
time, and yielded him consolation, such as no human means —
not even the " precious balm" of friendship — could impart.
We are told that " he possessed his soul in patience, and
adored the Divine Providence with perfect submission to the
will of God, being fully persuaded that the great Gover
nor of the world is just in all his ways, and orders all things
so as they shall tend to the good of those who love Him."
While officiating in the " meeting-house" at Edinburgh,
he had commenced the polemical warfare which ended only
with his life, and had sent forth some of those controversial
works which are such lasting monuments of his learning, abili
ties, and zeal. It seems to have been a principle with this
eminent defender of Episcopacy to suffer no assailant, in the
least worthy of an opponent, to remain long unmatched in the
arena of controversy, and to permit no public circumstance to
pass by in silence, if, by interfering, there was the slightest
chance of either vindicating or advancing " the suffering
Church ." Thus, wherever he was, his watchful eye was intently
fixed upon the movements of the enemy, and closely following
them through all their tortuous paths ; while his ready pen,
directed by learning and zeal, was exerted in providing a
counteracting remedy against their erroneous statements
and hostile designs. Although, therefore, he had previously
written one or two able pamphlets, which seemed to be
called for by passing events,^ his leisure and retirement at
Kinross afforded him an opportunity of executing a larger

1 As, for instance, " An Account of the Establishment of Presbyterian
Government by the Parliament of Scotland, anno 1690, &c. to which is
added, A Summary of the Visitation of the Universities, in a Fifth Letter
from a Gentleman in Edinburgh to his Friend in London ;" and " The
Second and Third of the Letters" so frequently referred to in the Funda
mental Charter.

xlvhi MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
and more important work. Accordingly, at this time he
devoted himself to writing the learned treatise which forms
the subject of the present volume, and when it was finished
he sent it to London to be published ; for, as he says himself
in another place, " it were easier to pluck a star from the
firmament than to get any thing published in Scotland
against the tyranny of Presbytery, or in vindication of
Episcopacy." The utmost care was used to conceal the
name of the author of these offensive Works, and it was
hoped that the distance of the place of publication would have
assisted to screen him from the notice of his enemies. In this
however, his friends were disappointed, and upon an early
occasion he had a tolerably strong proof given him, that he
was a " marked man," and had stirred up the wrath of the
Presbyterians against himself.
Being actuated by a great desire to see some dear friends
in Edinburgh, and having some private business to trans
act there, he ventured to revisit the metropolis ; but he had
no sooner appeared upon the street than a Privy Councillor,!
" whose greatest pleasure was to persecute the Episcopal
clergy," lodged intimation against him, and being appre
hended, he was held to bail to quit the town forthwith,
although the authorities connived at many of those who had
been previously banished with him, remaining in it. Expelled
again from Edinburgh by this severe order, he returned to
Kinross, and still further employed his learned and eloquent
pen in defence of the Church, and in confirmation of her
principles. At this time he reared that invincible bulwark
of Diocesan Episcopacy, entitled the " Oyprianic Age," the
appearance of which sharpened the resentment of the Pres
byterians, and made them doubly anxious to secure and
silence so strenuous and powerful an opponent. Unfor
tunately, an opportunity soon offered for that purpose, which
had almost been successful. Sir William Bruce had been
apprehended, upon a suspicion of corresponding with the
^ Perhaps Monro of Foulis, whose animosity towards the clergy was
fierce and unrelenting. See " the Second of the Four Letters," p. 26, for
an in.stance of his -violence.

EIGHT REVEREND JOHN SAGE. xHx
Royal Family in France, and was kept as a State prisoner
in Edinburgh Castle. For some private reasons. Sage, when
the time of his bail was out, rashly hazarded a visit to the
capital, and his enemies being made aware of it, rejoiced at
the prospect of getting him into their hands, intending to
give him his option either of a common prison, or banish
ment from his native land. His known intimacy with the
obnoxious Sir William was the pretext, which they put
forward against him ; and the Privy Councillor, already
mentioned, was the instrument, by whose authority they
hoped to accomplish their ends. This " honourable" per
sonage commanded the Captain of the Town Guard to
take a party of soldiers, and to make diligent search for
the Reverend Divine in the houses of his friends. After
one or two hair-breadth escapes, Mr Sage managed to
elude their vigilance, and hid himself among the Grampian
Hills, where " under the feigned name of Mr Jackson, and
the plea of requiring bracing air and goat's milk for his
health," he lurked many months, until his constant and
faithful friend Sir William was set at liberty, and the wrath
of his enemies was cooled by time.
Soon after this period, he was requested by Anne Countess
of Callendar, and grand-daughter of the famous Marquis of
Montrose, to become her domestic chaplain, and preceptor to
her son, the young Earl.l The circumstances of our author
at this time were such as to cause him gladly to avail himself
of so eligible a situation, by which, while he was serving his
Maker and benefitting his fellow-creatures, he would be pre
vented from being any longer a burden to his valued friends.
Bishop Gillan incidentally mentions a custom of his during
his residence at Callendar House, which shews how strictly
he observed the rules of the Church, and speaks volumes
for the principles of the excellent family to which he was
then attached — viz., that " he had daily reading of prayers
1 James fourth Earl of CaUendar was served heir to his father in 1693,
and succeeded his uncle as fifth Earl of Linlithgow in 1695. He joined
the Earl of Mar in I7I5, and forfeited his estates. His daughter married
Lord Kilmarnock, who was beheaded with Lord Balmerino on Tower HiU.

1 MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
and preaching on holy days." But neither the regular per
formance of the duties of his sacred office, nor the laborious
task of instructing his pupil, which, we might think, would
have been occupation enough for one, whose health was by
no means robust, could hinder him from active exertion,
when the welfare of the Church demanded the exercise of
his learning and talents. At this time, therefore, we find
him again appearing in the lists of controversy, and sending
forth the " Vindication" of the " Cyprianic Age," which had
been answered by Gilbert Rule, whose principal fame arises
from his having been the frequent, but vanquished opponent
of the learned subject of this memoir.^
When the Earl of Linlithgow had finished his studies,
Mr Sage accepted the invitation of Sir John Stewart, Bart.,
of GrandtuUy in Perthshire, to enter his family as chaplain,
and in this gentleman's house he continued performing the
pastoral duties until that event occurred, which, independ
ently of his learning and abilities, entitles him to the vener
ation of Churchmen. But before narrating the consecration
of Bishop Sage, we must take a hasty glance at the circum
stances of the Church, and the diminished members of the
Episcopal college.
We have already alluded to the hardships, to which the
Episcopal clergy were subjected, even after they had been
1 Gilbert Rule succeeded Dr Alexander ilonro, as Principal of the
University of Edinburgh, after the Revolution. He had been a zealous
son of the Covenant in its day of triumph, but during the tyranny of
Cromwell, which clipped the wings of the Covenanting partj-, he veered
towards Independency, and was made sub-Principal of King's College,
Aberdeen, by General Monk. After the Restoration, he became minister
of Alnwick in Northumberland, but was ejected by the "Bartholomew"
Act of 1662, and having repaired to Scotland, was confined in the Bass
prison for transgressing the commands of the Privy Council. He was
released upon giving bond that he would quit the country within eight
days ; and after his release he went to Holland, studied medicine, and
took his degrees. He practised afterwards at Berwick, but getting into
trouble there, he accepted a ministerial call to Dublin, where he remained
as a preacher untU after the Revolution, at which crisis he returned to
his native country, and on account of his frequent controversies, obtained
the sobriquet of the " Vindicator of the Kirk."

EIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. li
ejected from their livings. But the most severe blow was
inflicted on them in 1695. An Act of Parliament was then
passed " prohibiting and discharging any Episcopal minister
from baptizing any children, or solemnizing marriage betwixt
any parties in all time coming, under pain of imprisonment"
and perpetual exile ! Like the Apostles when prohibited to
preach any more in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, the
clergy chose rather to obey the voice of God than the com
mands of men, and using every precautionary method for
avoiding detection, they went about administering the Sacra
ments of religion, and preaching the gospel to those, who
knew the value of their spiritual authority, and adhered
through " evil report and good report" to their ministry. In
vain did the Episcopalians expostulate against the severity of
the enactment, and represent it as striking at the very root of
their Faith, which required them at least to have the Sacra
ments performed by proper administrators — the Govern
ment was deaf to their earnest entreaties, and their religious
opponents exulted over their depressed condition. In this
state they remained until the death of William in 1702,
when a brighter day dawned, and induced them to hope
that the time was now approaching when they would obtain
" gentler and more equitable treatment." Queen Anne
ascended the throne of her father, and her known attach
ment to the doctrine and discipline of the Anglican Church,
led the members of the suffering sister Church in Scotland
to expect that she would sympathize with them, and shelter
them under her powerful protection, from the tyranny of
their schismatical countrymen ; nor were they altogether
disappointed. Although the expected relief did not arrive so
soon as they could have wished, the soothing answer which
the Queen gave to their address and petition in the begin
ning of her reign, and her pointed discouragement of all
legal prosecutions against them, greatly ameliorated the dis
tressed state of the Church, and revived the drooping spirits
of her members. The bare idea of toleration being granted
to the fallen Church — an event to which the course of things
pointed as likely to happen — roused the fears and animosity

Iii MEMOIR OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
of the Presbyterians ; and their leading ministers, in their
sermons on public occasions, and through the press, inveighed
loudly against it. Hence in 1703, a fierce polemical strife
raged on this subject, and various combatants appeared on
the field — such as the renowned David Williamson and Mr
George Meldrum, on the side of the Kirk. Among the
foremost of the defenders of the Church, -and of the rights
of conscience on this occasion, Mr Sage came forth, and
seizing upon Mr Meldrum's " Reasons against Tolerations,"
he overturned them by that masterly reply so well known
under the title of the " Reasonableness of Toleration," which
demonstrates not only the sound, uncompromizing Church
principles of our author, but the solidity of his learning,
and the acuteness of his reasoning powers. Though Mr
Sage did not live to reap the full reward of his labour, his
writings had an effect even at the moment. The Church
for a year or more " had rest" from outward persecution,
and a mighty change was working in the human mind with
regard to the futility of the endeavour to fetter the con
science by Acts of Parliament, and to coerce a man against
his convictions to own whatever system of religion the civil
powers may choose to establish.
During this brief period of tranquillity, the attention of
the Governors of the Church was turned upon themselves,
and one of the most anxious subjects which occupied their
minds was the duty of providing for the future succession of
the Episcopal Order. By the death of the aged Primate,
Dr. Ross, in 1704, the number of Bishops was reduced to
five, most of whom, worn out with years and calamity, were
tottering on the brink of the grave. In order, therefore, that
the Apostolic line might not be interrupted, the venerable sur
vivors resolved to commit the sacred " Deposit" with which
they had been entrusted, to "other faithful men, apt to
teach and govern." In consequence of this determination,
Mr Sage, and Mr Fullarton the ejected minister of Paisley,
were selected by the Fathers of the Church, as persons
fit to be elevated to the Episcopa,te, and were duly and
canonically consecrated "«m sacrario"'"' ofthe house of Arch-

EIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. hii
bishop Paterson at Edinburgh, on the 25th of January 1705 ;
the Archbishop, Bishop Rose of Edinburgh, and Bishop
Douglas of Dunblane performing the holy rite.l
While these persons were thus solemnly invested with
the Episcopate, an agreement was entered into that they
were not to have Diocesan authority, or to interfere at all
in the government of the Church. Expediency and the
exigency of the Church were the inducements which led the
Bishops to insist on this stipulation, and to make a tempo
rary deviation from the usual rule. It answered, indeed,
the immediate purpose, for which it was designed by those
excellent men, but like all other plans founded upon a short
sighted policy, it was at length productive of great evil, and
involved the Church in confusion and unseemly disputes.
The controversies between the " College Party" and the
assertors of " Diocesan Episcopacy," are too well known to
require further notice here.
Being raised to the Episcopate, Bishop Sage seems to
have continued in the GrandtuUy family, executing his high
and useful duties for the benefit of the limited circle around
him. But now he first experienced the ill effects of his
laborious exertions, and unwearied anxiety during life,
which had gradually undermined a constitution never very
vigorous, and induced an attack of serious illness. His
biographer relates, that about the end of November 1706
he went to visit his friend Mr Christie at Kinross, where
" he was seized with a numbness in his legs, and an atrophy
over his whole body." It was thought by his physicians
that the attack would prove fatal ; but by the aid of
skilful advice, and the providence of God, he gradually re
covered, though he never regained his former health. Being
very delicate, he was ordered to try the " Bath" waters,
which were at that time considered very salutary, and caused
1 The letters of consecration, which were published by Bishop Russell
in his edition of Keith's Catalogue of Scottish Bishops, p. 518, are replete
with melancholy interest, as detailing the declining state of health in
wliich the Bishops were at the time, when they took the important step
which secured to Scotland the blessings of a valid ministry. D

liv MEMOIE OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF TUB
that city to be much frequented by the learned and fashionable
of the day. Accordingly he repaired to Bath, and there and
in London he remained for nearly a year. Though courting
privacy, it was impossible to keep himself concealed. The
fame of his writings had spread over England, and rendered
their illustrious author an object of interest to the learned
in that country. And besides this, there was a holier bond
which ensured him an affectionate welcome from English
Churchmen, and linked them to him— a bond independent
of country and all the differences of society — even " the com
munion of saints." In Bishop Sage they recognised the
Church to which he belonged, and for Christ's sake they
cordially gave him the right hand of fellowship, and loaded
him with kindness and attention. At this time, he became
acquainted with many of those distinguished persons who,
like himself, were suffering for their adherence to the exiled
family ; and the similarity of their circumstances, as a matter
of course, drew them more closely together. They pressed
him earnestly to remain longer among them, and to try the
waters for another season. Not having derived any benefit
from them, and feeling his health declining, he excused him
self, saying, " that he wished to return to Scotland and die
there." On his return, however, it seems to have pleased
God to protract the period of his existence, and to renew his
strength. If at this time he had been in comfortable circum
stances, the disease under which he laboured might have been
considerably retarded ; but his hard circumstances very pro
bably compelled him to enter upon certain literary labours,
which were too severe for his feeble physical powers. It
was now that he produced his life of " Gawin Douglas," and
together with the learned Ruddiman, his intimate friend,
published his " Introduction to Drummond of Hawthorn-
den's History of the Five Jameses" — the last effort of this
great man's mind. After this, he sank by a gradual decay
of the body, but retained his senses, and possessed his soul
in patience until the last. On the night before his death,
when some kind friend was condoling with him upon his
afflicted circumstances, he rephed — " You need not be

EIGHT EEVEEEND JOHN SAGE. Iv
troubled about me — I am as free from all uneasiness as
yourself;" and then thanking God for his freedom from
bodily pain, and for the peaceful composure of his mind, he
expressed his consciousness that his end was rapidly ap
proaching and very near. Thus this eminent man expired
at Edinburgh on the 17th June 1711, in the sixtieth year
of his age. His mortal remains were interred in the burying-
ground attached to the Church of the Greyfriars, and the
last offices of religion were performed over them by Bishop
Rose, amid the tears of friendship, and the regrets of all
Scottish Churchmen.!

^ The foUowing inscription was to have been put upon a monument to
the memory of Bishop Sage, which his friends then proposed to erect, but
which, for some cause unknown to us, was never accomplished : —
Hie reliquiae conduntur
Venerabilis viri Joannis Sage,
Honestis potius quam opulentis parentibus nati,
Qui omnia sua incrementa sibi debuit,
Suisque moribus sibi fortunam finxit.
Vera virtute nobUis,
Sine opibus et fastuosis titulis clams,
Absque pompa et arrogantia doctus.
Sine fuco et superstione pins,
Ecclesise Scoticanae Presbyter meritissimus.
In civitate Glasguensi Pastor fidelissimus,
In academia Andreana S.S. theologias
Professor designatus :
Sed, proh dolor ! fatali temporum injuria
Ne hoc fungeretur munere prohibitus.
Ob minim ingenu acumen et solertiam,
Eximium rerum peritiam et prudentiam,
Prsestantem morum gravitatem et sua-vitatem.
Bonis omnibus carus.
Populum quamdiu Ucuit, assidue admonebat,
Saluberrimis consUiis adjuvabat,
Facundissimis concionibus instruebat,
Eique fulgentissimo pietatis exemplo prselucebat.
Literas Grsecas optime callebat,
Tanta erat Latini sermonis suavitas
Ut nativus quidam lepor non adscitus videretm-.
In historiis tarn sacris quam profanis apprime versatus,
Sacrosancta principum jura constanter et strenue
Difficilimis etiam temporibus, asseruit.

Ivi MEMOIE OF THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THE
In Bishop Sage, the subject of this imperfect Memoir, we
have an excellent specimen of a catholic Churchman — of ono
who pursued the via media ; and, while he avoided the prin
ciples of ultra-Protestantism on the one hand, was not in
danger of rushing into any of the peculiarities of the Church
of Rome, on the other. Deeply versed in the sacred Scrip
tures, and admirably qualified by profound learning to
interpret them, he did not of himself dogmatise on any
point, nor oppose his mere opinion to those who ques
tioned his assertions, but appealed to the unanimous consent
of antiquity, and yielded to the decisions of the Church in
all matters which she had defined. It is true, the religious
controversy of his day was almost entirely limited to the
doctrine of the Church itself, but the same rule which he
applied to this, if occasion had required, would have been
extended by him to the more mysterious subjects of the
Creed. " Quod ubique, semper et ab omnibus," was his
grand support, and gave him on all occasions the vantage
ground over his enemies. Of his learning and acute reason-
Ecclesiam nutantem, et tantum non oppressam.
Ore, consilio, scriptis,
Tuebatur, sustinuit, suffulsit,
Apostolicum ecclesise regimen.
Per Episcopos, Presbyteros, et Diaconos,
Ex scriptis Cyprian icis,
Et reconditse antiquitatis Monumentis,
lUustra-vit, propugnavit.
Schismata et hsereses repnllulantes
Calamo suo erudite perstringebat,
Novatores et fanaticos hujus seculi circumceUiones
Contudit, DebeUavit.
Ob prfeclara in Rempublicam et Ecclesiam merita,
Dignus, omnium sequi amantium judicio.
Qui non solum cathedrS academica,
Sed et sacra cohonestaretur infulS.
Tandem studiis et laboribus debUitatus,
.ffirumnis et segritudine Confectus,
Cum tot malis, Ecclesise, Patrias, Sibique luctuosis
Diutius superesse non potuit,
Plaoide Obdormivit in Christo Venerandus Antistes,
Anno .ffitatis 59,
JErse Christianso 1711.

RIGHT EEVEREND JOHN SAGE. Ivii
ing powers, the Worksl which he has left behind him are
the best evidences. They display his profound skill in all
the ancient languages — his thorough acquaintance with the
writings of the Fathers of thte Christian Church— and his
complete knowledge of general history. These were the
quaHties which gave him an easy triumph over every anta
gonist with whom he was engaged.
If, in controversy, he may seem occasionally to write with
bitterness, and to indulge in coarseness of language, this was
the fault of the times in which he lived, and the consequence
of the party spirit which ran so high. Probably had he used
milder weapons, they would have failed to affecthis opponents.
They assailed the Church and her ministers with violence and
harshness, and the multitude were impressed with the truth
of their statements in proportion to their boldness, and vulgar
manner of supporting them. While such was the character of
his adversaries, and the method of their attacks, it was al
most impossible to avoid meeting them on their own ground,
and turning their own weapons against themselves. But even
when Bishop Sage is most severe, there is such a manifest
desire to arrive at truth, and the provocation of his anta-
^ The Works of Bishop Sage are as foUow : — " The Fundamental
Charter;" "The Cyprianic Age;" "The Vindication ofthe Cyprianic
Age ;" " An Account of the late Establishment of Presbytery by the
ParUament of Scotland in 1690 ;" Some Remarks in a Letter from a
Gentleman in the City to a Minister in the Country, on Mr David Wil
liamson's Sermon before the General Assembly," Edinburgh, 1703 ; " A
Brief Examination of some things in Mr Meldrum's Sermon preached on
the 6th of May 1703, against a Toleration to those of the Episcopal Per
suasion ;" " The Reasonableness of a Toleration of those of the Episcopal
Persuasion inquired into purely on Church Principles,'' 1704 ; the " Life
of Gawin Douglas," 1710 ; aud an Introduction to the Works of Drum
mond of Hawthornden, to which publication his friend the learned Ruddi
man lent his assistance. Bishop Sage also wrote the second and third
Letters concerning the persecution of the Episcopal Clergy in Scotland,
and left several unfinished MSS., one intended to have been a system of
Di-vinity, in which the Church and the sacraments, as the channels of
grace, were to have occupied their proper place ; another containing a
review of the Westminster Confession — a Treatise on the Culdees — a
History of the Commission of the General Assembly — together with one
or two letters, which will appear iu this collection of his Works.

Iviii MEMOIR OF THE RIGHT REV. JOHN SAGE.
gonist has been so glaringly presumptuous, that one forgets
his asperity in following his argument, and feels that the
object of his sarcasm meets with what he richly deserves.
It must be remembered, also, that he does not write under
any influence of personal revenge, but under a deep sense
of the injustice which has been done to the sacred cause of
religion. When his wrath waxes hot, it is not from any
injury he himself has received, but because truth has been
perverted, and sophistry and falsehood employed to deceive
the minds of the unwary.
In private life. Bishop Sage was deservedly esteemed for
the urbanity of his manners, for the pleasantness of his con
versation, and for the meekness of his deportment. Unlike
many men of learning and talent, who delight in exercising
the strength of their intellect upon persons of inferior
ability, and are petulant when contradicted, he delighted in
encouraging those with whom he came in contact to give their
opinions, was lenient towards the weak, and willing to think
that he himself might be mistaken. Hence in every society
he was a favourite, and had few personal enemies. Of his
integrity of principle and genuine piety, it would be super
fluous to speak. These qualities were never called in ques
tion even by his most virulent polemical opponents, and those
who knew him intimately have borne testimony that he pos
sessed them in no ordinary degree. Upon the whole, then,
we may reckon him with the good and excellent of the earth
— as a learned man, we may place him in the front rank of
those illustrious sons which Scotland has produced — and as
a Divine, he stands among the brightest of those mighty
names which grace the seventeenth (as it has been called,
that wonderful) century, and are the glory of the Anglo
AND Scoto-Catholio Churches.

EDITOE'S PREFACE.

>HE Title of the present Volume requires
some explanation. It is called the
" Fundamental Charter of Presbytery,"
but lest it should be imagined that it
relates to " Presbytery" in general, in contradis
tinction to Episcopacy, or rather Catholicity, •we beg
the Reader to turn to the Article in the Scottish
" Claim of Right," which is the basis of our Author's
argument. He will there see that it refers merely to
Scotch Presbyterianism, as it was defined in that sin
gular document, and that the whole enquiry contained
in this Volume is confined to the peculiar form of
schism which is established north of the Tweed.
It is to be observed also that this Treatise in some
copies of the Work has another title-page, in which it
is styled " Presbytery untwisted to the Bottom, &c."
The book itself is in every respect the same, although
published under another name. The change in the
title-page was made by the Bookseller to serve his
own purposes, without the knowledge of Bishop Sage.
The " Fundamental Charter" was answered after its
Author had gone to his rest, in a book entitled " A
Countryman's Letter to a Curate," and this answer
produced a " Vindication of Fundamental Charter,

Ix editor's preface.
&c." by "A True Son of the Afflicted Church of
Scotland," supposed to have been Bishop Gillan,
the biographer and friend of Sage.
The Editor, in his Memoir of the Author, has not
described the nature of his several Works, and the
particular circumstances which called forth the exer
cise of his learned pen, having reserved the perform
ance of this task for a Preface to each Volume of his
Works. The Editor is responsible for the substance
of the notes throughout the Volume within brackets
thus [ E. ], which have been revised by the Publish
ing Committee of the Spottiswoode Society. At
page 1.53 in note 2 — read "Lennox" for "Moray,"
— " by order ofthe Regent Lennox."
Edinburgh, December 18-14.

PREFACE.

?HIS Article which I have now examined, was
no sooner established in our Scottish Claim
OF Eight,! than I turned serious to satisfy
myself about it. I thought it concerned me
as a Scottish man to understand, as well as
I could, that which made such a figure in the original
contract between King and people. I thought I was no
less concerned as a Christian to be resolved about its merits.
I perceived it might readily affect my practice, and though
I abhor, as heartily as any man, all breaking of the Church's
peace for rattles or nutshells, yet I could not but reckon of
it as a matter of conscience to me, to endeavour to be sure
that I built neither my faith nor my obedience in a matter of
such consequence, as I take the G-overnment of the Church
to be, on a deceitful bottom. Perhaps I was bound to be
inquisitive by some other reduplications, not needful to be
named. I had not spent much application about it when I was
satisfied, and thought I had ground to hope the wisdom of
^ [This was the document in which the first Scottish Convention of
Estates after the Revolution, in 1688, set forth their grievances, and
assigned their reasons for having declared the Crown of Scotland vacant.
It consisted of twenty-four articles or counts ; and the one which has
been well named by our author, " The Fundamental Charter of Presby
tery," ranks as twenty-second, in this extraordinary catalogue of royal
delinquency and national suffering. It is remarkable that this Article is
the only one in the Claim of Right which refers to the Church, and that
the sole ground of the " grievance " of Episcopacy was its " opposition to
the inclinations of the Scottish people." It is hoped that the candid
reader of this volume will take a very different view of a plain matter of
fact, from that entertained by the framers of this famous document. — E.]
1

.;; THE PREFACE.
the nation, after more deliberate researches, might find it
reasonable either to restore to the Church her ancient and
just government, or settle the new one, on some (at least)
more spacious basis, but I was disappointed. For
Three Sessions of Parliament are now over ; and the
Article is so far from being either retracted or corrected,
that, on the contrary, it hath been still insisted on, and
deemed sufficient to support very weighty superstructures.
Each Session hath erected some new thing or other upon it.
This, with the importunity of some friends, at last deter
mined me to enquire more fully and minutely into the value
of the Article, and the Work hath swelled to such a bulk
as you see.
I confess I cannot apologise sufficiently for my adventur
ing to expose such an ill composure to the public view,
especially considering how nice and critical, if not piqued
and humoursome, an age we live in.
I ever thought that much of the beauty as well as of the
utility of books lay in good method and a distinct range of
thoughts, and I cannot promise that I have observed that
so punctually as clearer heads might have done.
I have less reason to be confident of the style. It is hard
for most Scottish men to arrive at any tolerable degree of
English purity. Our greatest caution cannot prevent the
stea;ling of our own words and idioms into our pens, and
their dropping thence into our writings. All things consi
dered, I have as little reason to think I have guarded or
could guard against them as any Scottish man. For not
only have mine opportunities, all my life, been none of the
best, but for finding materials for the following papers I
was obliged to read so many books written in right broad
Scotch, and take so many citations from them, that it is
little to be wondered if my book abounds with Scotticisms.
I thought myself bound to be faithful in my citations, and
I can promise I have been that. I could not reason from
the authority of these citations without using the terms and
phrases which are in them. This, no doubt, makes the
Scotticisms numerous, and I shall not deny that my familiar
acquaintance with these books, together with the prejudices
of education, custom, and constant converse in the plain
Scottish dialect, may have occasioned many more.

THE PREFACE. .3
Neither shall I be over confident, that, where I have ad
ventured to reason any point, I have done it to every man's
conviction. I may have been, as other men, apt to impose
on myself, and think I have advanced just propositions and
drawn fair consequences, when I have not done it. No
doubt, most men have such a kindness for themselves as too
commonly inclines them to applaud their own thoughts, and
judge their own reasonings just and solid, when they are but
coarse enough, and others may very easily discover where
the mistake lies. Yet this I can say for myself, I have done
what I could to guard against all such prejudice and partial
bias. Sensible of these infirmities, I entreat the reader's favour
able and benign censures. This I can tell him ingenuously,
if I could have done better, I should not have grudged him
the pleasure of it.
But perchance that which I am more concerned to account
for is, what assistances I had for what I have advanced in
the following sheets. And here I must confess I had not
all the advantages I could have wished. Such are my pre
sent circumstances, that I could not rationally propose to
myself to have access to the Public Records either of Church
or State, and no doubt in this I was at a considerable loss ;
for he who transcribes from authentic Public Records doth it
more securely than he who has things only from second hands.
Yet I do not think this disadvantage was such as should
have entirely discouraged me from the attempt I have made.
For some of my authors had access to the Public Registers,
and I am apt to believe there was not much to be found
there, relating to the controversies I have managed, which
they have not published ; so that, though it is possible I
might have been better, yet I cannot think I was ill pro
vided of helps. I cannot think any of my Presbyterian
brethren can be provided much better.
The principal authors from which I have collected my
materials are these: — Buchanan's History, published at
Frankfort, anno 1594; Lesley's History, at Edinburgh, 1675;
King Jaines the Sixth's Works, in English, at London, 1616;
Archbishop Spottswood's History of the Reformation of
the Church of Scotland, at London, anno 1665 ; his Refutatio
Libelli, &c. London, anno 1620 ; the True History of

4 THE PREFACE.
the Church of Scotland, &c. said to be written by Mr David
Calderwood, published anno 1678. Mr Petrie's History of
the Catholic Church, &o. Tom. ii. printed at the Hague,
anno 1662. Sir James Melville's Memoirs. The Old Scot
tish Liturgy. The Lord Herbert's History of the Life of
King Henry VIII. Doctor Heylin and Dr Burnet's His
tories of the Reformation of the Church of England. Cal
vin's Epistles, printed at Geneva anno 1617- Beza's Epistles
till the year 1573. Acts and Monuments by Fox, &c.
I have likewise considered our printed Acts of Parliaments,
the printed Acts of the General Assemblies from the year
1638, and as many pamphlets as I could find relating to the
matters on which I insist. It is needless to name them here.
You may find them named as occasion required in my book.
There are two books which I must insist on a little.
One is a manuscript copy of the Acts of our Scottish As
semblies from the year 1560 till the year 1616. Our Pres
byterian brethren may be ready to reject its authority, if it
militate against them. I give my reader, therefore, this
brief account of it.
It was transcribed in the year 1638, when the National
Covenant was in a flourishing state ; for I find at the end
of it the transcriber's name and designation written with
the same hand by which the whole MS. is written ; and he
says — " He began to transcribe upon the 15th day of
January 1638, and compleated his work on the 23d of
April that same year." He was such a reader^ as we have
commonly in Scotland in country parishes.
It is not to be imagined it was transcribed then for serving
the interests of Episcopacy ; for, as Petrie and the Presby
terians generally affirm, the Prelates and Prelatists dreaded
nothing more in those days than that the old Registers of
the Kirk should come abroad ; and it was about that time
^ [The office of Reader was appointed by the First Book of Discipline,
in order to supply parishes unprovided with ministers with persons com
petent to read the Common Prayers and Scriptures. This of&ce was
continued even after the present Establishment of Presbyterianism in
Scotland — and a recent writer mentions an instance of its existence in
the beginning of the nineteenth century. At that late period it was per
formed by the parish schoolmaster, who read chapters from the Bible be
fore the minister entered the pulpit. It is now quite abolished. See the
" Fundamental Charter of Presbytery." " Fifth Enquiry." — E.]

TIIE PREFACE. 5
that Mr Petrie got his copy, from which he published so
many Acts of our old General Assemblies. Nor is it to be
doubted but that, as several copies then were, so particu
larly that which I have perused was transcribed for the
ends of the good old cause. This I am sure of — the Cove
nant, as required then to be subscribed by the Green Tables,"^
is set down at full length in the manuscript. Besides,
The style and language testify that there is no reason to
doubt that the Acts of Assemblies which it contains have
been transcribed, word for word at first, from the authentic
records. And if Calderwood's or Petrie's accounts of
these Acts deserve any credit, my MS. cannot be rejected ;
for it hath all they have published, and for the most part
in the same terms, except where these authors have altered
the language, sometimes to make it more fashionable and
¦^ [This was the epithet applied to the body of disaffected subjects who
resisted the royal authority in reference to the Liturgy and Canons in
1638, and in order to overawe the Government of Charles I., formed
themselves into a so-called council, which sat iu Edinburgh. The name
was derived from the manner in which their deliberations were carried
on, viz. — at four separate tables, in four different rooms — one of which
was for the nobles, another for the gentry, a third for the preachers, and
a fourth for the burgesses. The deliberations of those bodies were finally
revised by a fifth or general table, composed of a delegate from each of the
other four. The first fruit which this illegal, and (as it has been well
characterized by the Presbyterian biographer of the noted Alexander
Henderson) " despotic " tribunal produced, was the " National Covenant
or Band," which was the germ of the subsequent rebellion. Its framers
adopted the Negative Confession of Faith subscribed by King James and
his household va. 1581, which was a -violent protest against Popery, and
ignorantly applied aU its negations to the Liturgy and Canons of 1638,
thus frightening themselves with a bugbear purely of their own inven
tion. With reference to the name applied to this self-constituted body,
a singular debate occurred just as the King's Commissioner was quitting
the Glasgow Assembly. The Earl of Rothes said — " When the commis
sioners from Shires and Presbyteries met and sat down, what absurdity
was there to caU them so Tnet a Table, seeing it is caUed a Cmi/ndl Table,
or a Judicial Table, such as Prelates call their Tables ? If we caUed it a
Judicial Table, let us be hanged for it. A tailor's table, sitting with his
men sewing upon it, is called a table, or a company eating at such a man's
table ; there is no absurdity in the speech, and we did not call ourselves
the Tables, but others gave us that name." " I except not so much," said
the Marquis of HamUton, " against the name of Table. I have no cause of
passion to hear their meetings caUed a Table, for there is passion enough
at my heart that I find so much power at these Tables, and so little at the
Council Table, for it is well known your positive councils are more re
garded than the King's Council Table."— E.]

C THE PREFACE.
intelligible, sometimes to serve their cause and the concerns
of their party.
It hath chasms also, and defects, where, they say, leaves
have been torn from the original Registers, and I have not
adduced many Acts from it which either one or both these
authors have not likewise mentioned in their Histories.
Calderwood has indeed conTJealed very many, having in
tended, it seems, to publish nothing but what made for
him, though I think even in that his judgement hath not
sufficiently kept pace with his inclinations. Nay, his Supple
ment, which he hath subjoined to his History, as well as the
History itself, is lame by his own acknowledgment. For
these are the very first words of it — " I have in the preced
ing History only inserted such Acts, articles, and answers to
questions, as belonged to the scope of the History and form
of Church government, some few excepted, touching corrup
tions in the worship of God, or the office and calling of minis
ters. But because there are other Acts and articles neces
sary to be known, I have selected such as are of greatest
use, passing by such as were temporary, or concerned
only TEMPORARY OFFICES," &C.
Here is a clear confession that he has not given us all the
Acts of Assemblies. Nay, that he has not given all such
as concerned temporary offices ; and amongst these we shall
find him in the following sheets more confidently, than war-
rantably, reckoning Superintendency and the Episcopacy
which was agreed to at Leith, anno 1572.
I have mentioned these things, that the world may see it
cannot be reasonable for our Presbyterian brethren to insist
on either Calderwood's authority or ingenuity against my
MSS. How ingenuous or impartial he has been you may
have opportunity to guess, before you have got through the
ensuing papers.
Petrie hath indeed given us a great many more of the
Acts of General Assemblies than Calderwood hath done, as
may appear to any who attends to the margin of my book ;
but he also had the good cause to serve, and therefore has
corrupted some things, and concealed other things, as I
have made appear ; however, he has the far greater part of
what I have transcribed from the MSS.
Spotswood hath fewer than either of the two Presby-

THE PREFACE. 7
terian historians, yet some he hath which I find also in the
MS., and which they have both omitted. In short,
I have taken but very few from it which are not to be
found in some one or more of these Historians, neither have
I adduced so much as one from it, nor is one in it which is
not highly agreeable to the state and circumstances of the
Church and the genius of the times, for which it mentions
them ; so that,
Upon the whole matter, I see no reason to doubt of its
being a faithful transcript ;1 and I think I may justly say of
it as Optatus said of another MS. upon the like occasion —
Vetustas Membranarum testimonium perhibet, &o. (Optat.
Milev. lib. i, f. 7- edit. Paris 1569). It hath all the marks
of antiquity and integrity that it pretends to, and there is
nothing about it that renders it suspicious.
The other book, which I said required some farther con
sideration, is the History of the Reformation of the Church
of Scotland, containing Five Books, &c. commonly attributed
to John Knox by our Presbyterian brethren. That which
I have to say about it is chiefly that Mr Knox was not the
author of it.
Archbishop Spottiswoode hath proven this by demonstra
tion in his History, page 267- His demonstration is —
" That the author, whoever he was, talking of one of our
martyrs, remitteth the reader for a farther declaration of
his sufiferings to the ' Acts and Monuments' of Mr Fox,
which came not to light till some twelve years after Knox's
death." Mr Patrick Hamilton was the martyr, and the

1 [This manuscript, to which the learned author refers, extended to
three volumes, and was called the " Booke of the Universal Kirk of
Scotland." It was produced at the Glasgow Assembly in 1638, and
after passing through various hands, came into the possession of Bishop
Archibald CampbeU, who carried it with him to London, and deposited
it in the Library of Sion CoUege. The Kirk made frequent attempts to
have it restored to their custody, and even went so far as to petition
ParUament for that purpose. A committee of the House of Commons
was appointed in 1834 to inquire into the matter, the Sub-Librarian of
Sion CoUege was ordered to produce the books, and persons from Scot
land were summoned to prove their authenticity. It is more than pro
bable that the Presbyterians would have succeeded in their endeavours
to recover them, but the great fire, which destroyed both Houses of
Parliament, occun-ed about the time, and these interesting relics and re
cords of Scottish ecclesiastical excitement perished in the flames. — E.]

0 THE PREFACE.
reference is to be seen, page 4 of that History, I am now con
sidering. Besides this I have observed a great many more
infaUible proofs that Knox was not the author. I shall
only instance in some three or four. Thus —
Page 447. The author, having set down a copy of the
letter sent by the Church of Scotland to the Church of Eng
land (of which more by and by) — " TeUs how the English
Non-Conformists wrote to Beza, and Beza to Grindal, Bishop
of London ; which letter of Beza's to Grindal, he says, is
the eight in order amongst Beza's Epistles ; and in that same
page he mentions another of Beza's letters to Grindal, calling
it the twelfth in number." Now, it is certain Beza's Epistles
were not published till the year 1573, i. e. after Knox's
death. It may be observed also, that he adds farther in that same
page, that " the sincerer sort of the ministry in England had
not yet assaulted the jurisdiction and Church government,
(which they did not till the year 1572, at which time they
published their First and Second Admonitions to the Parlia
ment), but only had excepted against superstitious apparel,
and some other faults in the Service-Book. From which, be
sides that it is evident Knox could not be the author, we may
learn from the author's confession, whoever he was, that the
controversies about Parity and Imparity, &c. were not so
early in Britain as our Presbyterian brethren are earnest to
have the present generation believe. Again,
Page 449. The author, narrating how Henry, Queen Mary's
husband, &c. was buried, adds, in confirmation of his own vera
city, thus — ^" If there had been any solemn burial, Buchanan
had wanted wit to relate otherwise, seeing there would have
been so many witnesses to testify the contrary, therefore
the contriver of the late History of Queen Mary wanted
policy here to convey a lie." Thus, I say, the author vouches
Buchanan's authority, and it must be Buchanan's History
that he refers to, for there is not a syllable about Henry's
burial to be found in any of his other writings, Now
Not to insist on the incredibleness of Knox's running for
shelter to Buchanan's authority concerning a matter of fact
so remarkable in itself, and which happened in his own time,
in that very city in which he lived, and was minister ; not
to insist on this, I say, Buchanan himself in his Dedica-

THE PREFACE. 9
tion of his History to King James VI. clearly decides the
matter. He tells his Majesty there were two considerations which
chiefly put him upon writing his History. First-^" He
perceived his Majesty had read and understood the His
tories of almost all other nations, and it was incongruous
and unaccountable that he who was so well acquainted with
foreign affairs should be a stranger to the history of his own
kingdom. Secondly, he was intrusted with the King's edu
cation. He could not attend his Majesty in that important
office by reason of his old age and multiplying infirmities ;
he applied himself, therefore, to write his History, thereby
to compense the defects of his non-attendance," &c.
And from both reasons it is evident that Knox was dead
before Buchanan applied himself to the writing of his His
tory, for Knox died anno 1572, King James was then but
six years of age, and is it credible that at that age he had
read and got by heart the histories of almost all other
nations ? Indeed Buchanan survived Knox by ten years, .
and for a good many of them was able to wait, and actually
waited on the King, so that it is clear it was towards the
end of his days, and after Knox's death, that he applied him
self to his History ; and it is very well known it was never
published till the year 1582. But this is not all.
The author of that which is called Knox's History, ad
duces Buchanan's authority for convelling the credit of the
contriver of the late History of Queen Mary, which was
written, I cannot tell how long after Buchanan was dead,
as well as Knox. Further,
Page 306. The author discourses thus — " The Books of
Discipline have been of late so often published, that we shall
forbear to print them at this time." Now, there were never
more than two Books of Discipline, and the Second was not
so much as projected till the year 1576, i. e. four years after
Knox had departed this life. Once more,
Page 286. We read thus — " Some in France, after the
sudden death of Francis the Second, and calling to mind the
death of Charles the Ninth in blood, and the slaughter of
Henry the Second, did remark the tragical ends of these
three Princes who had persecuted God's servants so cruelly.
— And, indeed, the following Kings of France, unto this

10 THE PREFACE.
day, have found this true, by their unfortunate and unex
pected ends." Now,
Charles the Ninth died not till the 30th of May anno
1574, i. e. eighteen months after Knox. The following Kings
of France, who made the unfortunate and unexpected ends,
were Henry the Third and Henry the Fourth. Henry the
Third was not murdered till the year 1589, Henry the Fourth
not till May 1610 — the former seventeen, the latter thirty-
eight years, after the death of Knox.
From this taste it is clear, that that History, at least as
we now have it, was not written by Knox. All that can be
said with any shadow of probability is, that Knox provided
some materials for it. But granting this, how shall we be
able to separate that which is spurious in it from that which
is genuine ? All I can say is this — ¦
It is plain to every one that reads it that he has been a
thorough-paced Presbyterian who framed it as we have it ;
by consequence its authority is stark nought for anything
in it that favours Presbytery or bespatters Prelacy ; and if
it ought to have any credit at all, it is only where the con
troversies about Church government are no ways interested,
or where it mentions anything that may be improven to the
advantages of Episcopacy, just as the testimonies of adver
saries are useful for the interests of the opposite party, and
not an ace farther ; so that I had reason, (if any man can
have it) to insist on its authority, as I have frequently done,
but no Presbyterian can in equity either plead, or be al
lowed the same privilege.
I could give the reader a surfeit of instances, which can
not but appear to any considering person to be plain and
notorious Presbyterian corruptions in it, but I shall only
represent one, as being of considerable importance in the
controversy which I have managed in my Second Enquiry ;
and by that the reader may make a judgment of the author's
candour and integrity in other things.
The English Non- Conformists, zealous to be rid of the
vestments, and some other forms and ceremonies retained
by the Church of England, which they reckoned to be
scandalous impositions, wrote earnestly (as is known) to
several Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines, beseech
ing them to interpose with the Church of England for an

THE PREFACE. II
ease of these burdens. It seems they wrote to some in
Scotland also, probably to Mr Knox. He was of their
acquaintance, and they could not but be secure enough of
his inclinations, considering how warm he had been about
these matters at Frankfort.^
However it was, the Church of Scotland did actually
interpose. The General Assembly met at Edinburgh, De
cember 27, anno 1566, ordered John Knox to draw a letter
to the English Clergy in favour of those Non-Conformists.
This letter was subscribed and sent. Now, consider the
tricks of the author of the History attributed to Knox.
The inscription of the letter as it is in Spotswoode, Petrie,
and the manuscript copy of the Acts of the General Assem
bly, is this — " The Superintendents, Ministers, and Commis
sioners of the Church within the Realme of Scotland, to their
Brethren the Bishops and Pastors of England who have re
nounced the Roman Antichrist, and do profess with them the
Lord Jesus in sincerity, with the increase of the Holy Spirit."
Thus, I say, Spotswood hath it (page 198), and the MS.
and Petrie (tom. ii. p. 348) have it in the same words, only
where Spotswood hath " wish," they have " desire," which
makes no material difference. But the spurious Knox has
it thus (page 445) — " The Superintendents, with other
Ministers and Commissioners of the Church of God in the
Kingdom of Scotland, to their Brethren the Bishops and
Pastors of God's Church in England, who profess with us
in Scotland the truth of Jesus Christ."
Now, consider if there are not material differences between
these two inscriptions. By the inscription, as it is in Spots-
wood, Petrie, and the MS. the dignity and superiority of
the Scottish Superintendents above the rest of the clergy
are clearly preserved. By the other account it is sadly ob
scured, and they are made (at least very much) to stand
on a level with other ministers, &c.
By the inscription as in Spotswood, &c. the sentiments
our Scottish clergy had then about the English Reforma
tion and Constitution are very plain, genuine, and charitable.
They were satisfied that the Bishops and Pastors of the
Church of England had renounced the Roman Antichrist,
1 [See Collier's Ecclesiastical History, London, Svo. 1841, vol. vi. p. 144-
1,52.— E.]

12 THE PREFACE.
and that they professed the Lord Jesus in SINCERITY ; and
they had for them suitably the Christian and brotherly
charity which the orthodox and sincere Christians of one
Church ought to have for the orthodox and sincere Christians
of another Church. They wished or desired to them the
increase of the Holy Spirit. How highly this was agreeable
to the sentiments of the then Protestants in Scotland I
have made fully appear in the discussion of my Second
Enquiry. But,
To the pseudo Knox, it seems, it looked highly scanda
lous to own that the Bishops and Pastors of England had
renounced the Roman Antichrist, or that they professed the
Lord Jesus in sincerity. How could these things be said so
long as they retained AnticJirisfs hierarchy, or had so many
Bomish mixtures ? And, therefore, to wish them the in
crease of the Holy Spirit was too bold a prayer; it was
founded on a false hypothesis ; it supposed they had the
Holy Spirit already. How suitable is all this to the Pres
byterian temper and principles ? And, by consequence, is it
not evident that these alterations were not the effects of ne
gligence or inadvertency, but of the true spirit of the party?
But this is not all.
In the body of the letter, as recorded by the pseudo
Knox, there are several corruptions. I shall only point at
one, but it is a considerable one.
The General Assembly which sent the letter, after a di
gression concerning the care that ought to be had of tender
consciences, &c. resume their main purpose thus — " We re
turn to our former humble supplication, which is, that our
bretliren who amongst you refuse these Bomish rags may
find of you, who are the Prelats, such favour as our Head
and Master commandeth every one of his members to shew
to another."
So it is not only in the MS., Spotswood, and Petrie, word
for word, but also in a virulent Presbyterian pamphlet called
" Scotidromus, directed to all noble Scots and kind Catholics
zealous for the Romish Religion," written anno 1638, to cast
dirt at that time upon Episcopacy, and render it odious to
the people ; which pamphlet I have by me in manuscript.
But The supposititious Knox has it thus — " Now again we

THE PREFACE. 13
return to our former request, which is, that the brethren
among you who refuse the Romish rags may find of you
(not the Prelates, but) who use and urge them, such favour,
&c." How unfit was it for the world to know that a Scottish
General Assembly had owned the Bishops of England as
Prelates ? It was scandalous, no doubt, to the godly. It
was expedient, therefore, to falsify a little, and foist in more
useful epithets ; to caU them, not PRELATES, but Users and
Urgers of the Ceremonies.
I have insisted the longer on this Book, because our Presby
terian brethren are so earnest to have the world believe that
it was written by Knox; particularly G[ilbert] R[ule],l in his
First Vindication, &e. (in answer to Question 1, § 8), where,
too, observe, by the way, how extravagantly that author
blunders. His words are — " Anno 1559. The Protestant
ministers and people held a General Assembly at St Johns-
town,2 saith Knox, Hist. Lib. ii. p. 137." Now there is not
so much as one syllable of a General Assembly in the text.
Upon the margin, indeed, there are these words — " The first
Assembly at St Johnstown ;" but no Presbyterian, I think
(unless he is one of G. R.'s kind), will be so impudent as to
say that all that is on the margin of that book was written
by Knox ; and that meeting which was then at Perth was
nothing like that Court which we call a General Assembly.
But enough of this.
To conclude : Though I am firmly persuaded that Knox
was not the author of this History,^ yet because it passes
^ [GUbert Rule, Principal of the University of Edinburgh, and the
vindicator of the Kirk in several scurrUous and ignorant pamphlets, one
of which is here quoted, and was written in answer to " Ten Questions "
put forth by some Churchman.. — E.] ^ [Perth. — E.]
' [This conclusion is incorrect. For the petition of Knox's secretary and
amanuensis, Richard Bannatyne, to the General Assembly held in Edin
burgh March 1572, places the genuineness of at least Four Books of the
History beyond doubt. Speaking of his master, he says — " Where it is not
unknown to your wisdoms that he left to the Kirk and Town of Edin
burgh his History, containing in effect the beginning and progress of Christ's
true reUgiou now of God's great mercy established in this realme,
wherein he hath continued and perfectly ended at the year of God 1564," (the
date ofthe end of the Fourth Book)," so that of things done sensyne nothing
be him is putt in that form and order as he hath done the former ; yet not-
theless, there are certain scroUs, papers, and minutes of things, left to me
be him to use at my pleasure, whereof a part were written and subscrived
with his own hand, and another be mine at his command, which, if they

14 THE PREFAI'E.
commonly under his name, I have still cited it so on my
margin. The edition I have used is that in 4to, published
at Edinburgh, anno 1644.
were collected and gathered together, would make sufficient declaration
of the principal things that have occurred since the ending of his former
History." Then Bannatyne proceeds to state that these scrolls and
detached papers were in a very disordered state, and that the placing
them in proper order would cost more time and money than he could be
expected to spend without remuneration, and begs the Assembly, that in
order to preserve these precious relics of his worthy master, they would
make some pro-vision to him for that purpose. The result of his petition
was a grant of L.40, " and a request to the Kirk of Edinburgh to appoint
some learnit men to support Richard Bannatyne to put John Knox's
History, that now is in scrolls and papers, in good forme." — (Booke ofthe
UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, printed for the Bannatyne Club, p. 259-60).
It is clear from this tliat Knox wrote Four Books of the History, -ivhich he
bequeathed to the Kirk and Town of Edinburgh, and that he left behind
him materials for a continuation of it, which were put in their present
form by Bannatyne and his " learnit " co-editors. The argument of our
author in regard to the History is sound in all respects, and would be
irresistible, if the passages, on which it is based, were not interpolations
by a later hand. But the truth is, he was misled by an unfaithful edition of
this work published at Edinburgh, 1644, by one David Buchanan, in which
are several additions (among others those quoted by our author) which
are not to be found in the earlier editions of the work. This Mr David
Buchanan published two editions of Knox — a quarto, Edinburgh, 1644 —
a folio, London, in the same year — both of which are interpolated, but in
different degrees. For instance, the passages quoted by Bishop Sage
from pp. 447-449, are to be found in the Edinburgh edition, but do not
occur in the London folio ; aud again, the quotation at page 36 of the
Fundamental Charter is omitted in the same edition, but inserted in the
Edinburgh 4to. The other passages, however, here quoted, are found in
both editions, at the pages referred to in the quarto, and at pp. 301 instead
of 306, 281 instead of 286, in the London foUo of 1644. But none of the
above quotations are to be found in any genuine edition of Knox's Works.
They are not printed in the early octavo edition of 1586, and do not
occur in an old MS. in possession of Da-rid Lauig, Esq., the learned
Keeper of the Signet Library, by whom, through the kindness of a mutual
friend, they have been collated with it. (The Editor understands that
Mr Laing is now engaged in preparing a new and faithful edition of Knox
for the press, a desideratum which has long been felt by the student of
Scottish Ecclesiastical History, who must rejoice that the work of sup
plying the defect has fallen to one so eminently qualified by attainments
and opportunities to execute it aright). It reflects no little discredit on
those who knowingly permitted the spurious work of David Buchanan to
pass current as the genuine production of Knox, and detracts greatly
from the merits of a cause which required to be supported by such dis
ingenuous subterfuges. The argument of our author, however, is by no
means impaired by the mistake into which he has fallen, for the work
haring been interpolated by dishonest persons to further the Presbyterian

THE PREFACE. 15
The other treatises attributed to Knox, and I know no
reason to doubt their being his, from which I have cited
any thing, are in an Appendix to the History.
I have not made it my work to cite Acts of Parliament,
and represent the favourable countenance Episcopacy hath
had from the State, so much as to consider the sentiments
of our Reformers, and those who succeeded them in their
ecclesiastical capacity, partly because the Acts of Parlia
ment have been diligently collected before, particularly,
whoso pleases may see a goodly train of them from the year
1560 till the year 1617 in the Large Declaration, page 33.3,
&c. ; partly because our Presbyterian brethren are in use
to insist more on the Books of Discipline and the Acts of
General Assemblies, &o. than on Acts of Parliaments.
One advantage, amongst many disadvantages, I think I
have : It is, that the authors I have most frequently cited
were Presbyterians — by consequence authors whose testi
monies can least be called in question by my Presbyterian
brethren. I do not pretend to have exhausted the subjects I have
insisted on. Any reader may easily perceive I have been at
a loss as to several things in history. Perchance I have
sometimes started things new, and which have not been
observed before. I wish I may have given occasion to those
who are fitter and better furnished with helps for such
enquiries, to consider if they can bring more light to our
history. In the meantime, I think I have said enough to
convince the reader that our Presbyterian brethren have not
cause, any thing in support of his argument, which the author extracts
from it is of course armed with double force against his opponents. It
becomes the unwiUing testimony of an unscrupulous enemy. As to the
judicious Spottiswoode, whose authority our author quotes, p. 13, in sup
port of his opinion, the Archbishop was evidently in error when he said
that Foxe's Martyrology was not in existence until twelve years after
Knox's death, for we find this book quoted and referred to by several
authors before that event occurred. (Gillan's Life of Sage, page 20).
The only way of accounting for the Primate's mistake, is by supposing
that the earliest edition of Foxe, with which he was familiar, was printed
subsequently to the times of the Scottish Reformers — a mistake which
might very readily occur in those days, when communication between
literary men and learned persons at a distance was not so easy as at
present. — E.]

16 THE PREFACE.
reason to be so confident as commonly they are, for their
side of the controversies I have managed.
Yet, after all this, I am not secure but that they will
endeavour to have my book answered, for all books must
be answered that militate against them ; and they can still
find some G[ilbert] R[ule] or other who has zeal and confi
dence enough for such attempts.
Upon the supposition, therefore, that I must have an
answer, I do for once become an earnest suiter to my Pres
byterian brethren that they would employ some person of
ordinary sense and discretion to answer me, and not the
common 'Vindicator of their Kirk, G[ilbert] R[ule], for I
have got enough of him, and I incline not to have any more
meddling with him.
Whoso reads the following papers I think may find such
a sample of him, such a swatch (pardon the word if it is
not English) of both his historical and his argumentative
skill, a talent which he bewails much the want of in his
adversaries, as may make it appear just and reasonable for
any man to decline him ; but lest he is not represented there
so fully as he ought to be, so fully as to justify my declining
of him, I shall be at some farther pains here to give the
reader a fuller prospect of him.
To delineate him minutely might perchance be too labo
rious for me, and too tedious and loathsome to my reader.
I shall restrict myself, therefore, to his four cardinal vir
tues, his learning, his judgment, his civility, and his modesty.
Or, because we are Scottish men, to give them their plain
Scotch names, his ignorance, his nonsense,^ his ill-nature, and
his im.pudence.
1 [In reading these severe terms, we cannot help feeling deep regret
that our author should have indulged in them. But we must remember
that in those days of party spirit, theological warfare was generally
carried on in this rough way, and in this particnlar instance Bishop Sage
was provoked by the person with whom he was contending, who had
published pamphlets teeming with malevolence and ignorance, and who,
though often admonished and refuted, still persisted in his endeavours to
damage the claims and character of the Church. Such a person could
only be sUenced by some strenuous effort to bring the blush into liis face,
and to weaken his influence -with the credulous multitude, and the Bishop
adopted the only method by which these ends could have been accom
plished. He painted his opponent in his true colours. Indeed, our

THE PREFACE. 17
Perhaps I shall not be able to reduce every individual
instance to its proper species. It is very hard to do that
in matters which have such affinity one with another as
there is between ignorance and nonsense, or between ill-
nature and impudence. But this I dare promise, if I can
not keep by the nice laws of categories, I shall be careful to
keep by the strict laws of justice. I shall entitle him to
nothing that is not truly his own. So much for preface ;
come we next to the purpose.
And in the first place, I am apt to think, since ever writ
ing was a trade, there was never author furnished with a
richer stock of unquestionable ignorance for it. To insist on
all the evidences of this would swell this Preface to a bulk
beyond the book.
I omit, therefore, his making Presbyterian ruling elders,
as contradistinct from teaching elders, of Divine institution;
his making the SENIORES sometimes mentioned by the Fa
thers such ruling elders ; and his laying stress on the old
blunder about St Ambrose's testimony to that purpose.
(Vide True Representation of Presbyterian Government,
Prop. 3.) These I omit, because not peculiar to him.
I omit even that, which for any thing I know may be
peculiar to him, viz. that his riding elders are called Bishops,
and that their necessary qualifications are set down at length
in Scripture, e. g. 1 Tim. iii. 2, and Tit. i. 6. (Ibid. Prop.
iii. 4).
I omit his learned affirmative, that — " Patronages were
not brought into the Church tiU the seventh or eighth cen
tury, or later ; and that they came in amongst the latest
antichristian corruptions and usurpations" (Ibid. Answer to
Objection 9).
I omit all such assertions as these — " That the most and
most eminent of the Prelatists acknowledged that by our
Saviour's appointment, and according to the practice of the
first and best ages of the Church, she ought to be and was
governed in common by ministers acting in parity" (Ibid.
author seems to have been conscious of the severity of his tone towards
his antagonist, for we find him apologizing for it in the body of the Work
— " I have treated him thus coarsely, because I know no other way
authors deserve who will needs speak nonsense, rather than speak no
thing."— E.] 2

18 THE PREFACE.
Prop. 12) ; that " Diocesan Episcopacy was not settled in
St Cyprian's time " (Rational Defence of Nonconformity, &c.
p. 157) ; that " Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed not for the
first three centuries, and that it was not generally in the
fourth century" (Ibid. 158) ; that "the Bishop St Cyprian
all alongst speaks of was a Presbyterian Moderator"'^ (Ibid.
197) ; that " Cyprian, Austine, Athanasius, &c. were only
such Moderators'' (Ibid. 175, 176, 177, 178).
I omit his insisting on the authority of the Decretal Epis
tles attributed to Pope Anacletus, as if they were genuine
(Ibid. 202), and that great evidence of his skill in the affairs
of the Protestant Churches, viz. " that Episcopacy is not to be
seen in any one of them except England" (Ibid. p. 10). Nay,
I omit his nimble and learned gloss he has put on St
Jerome's Toto Orbe Decretimi, &c. viz. " That this remedy of
schism in many places began then (i. e. in St Jerome's time)
to be thought on, and that it was no wonder that this cor
ruption began then to creep in, it being then about the end
ofthe fourth century when Jerome wrote," &c. (Ibid. 170).
Neither shall I insist on his famous exposition of St
Jerome's Quid facit Episcopus, &c. because it has been suf
ficiently exposed already in the " Historical Relation of the
General Assembly 1690," nor on his making Plutarch, Si-
monides, Chrysostom, &c. Every Grecian spoke Latin when
he had the confidence to cite them. These and fifty more
such surprizing arguments of our author's singular learning
I shall pass over, and shall insist only a little on two or three
instances, which, to my taste, seem superlatively pleasant.
And, 1. In that profound book which he calls " A Rational
Defence of Nonconformity," &c. in answer to Dr Stilling-
fleet's " Unreasonableness of the Separation from the Church
of England" (page 172), he hath glossed St Chrysostom
yet more ridiculously than he did St Jerome. The passage,
as it is in Chrysostom, is sufficiently famous, and known to
all who have inquired into antiquity about the government
of the Church. The learned Father having discoursed con
cerning the office and duties of a Bishop (Homily 10 on 1
Tim. iii.), and proceeding by the Apostle's method to dis
course next of Deacons (Homily 11), started this difficulty,
How came the Apostle to prescribe no rules about Presby
ters ? And he solved it thus — "On ov '^roXv ro f/jiffov ciVTaJu -/m)

THE PREFACE. 19
TMV KTitrxoTaiv. Kai yag zat kvtoi ^t^asx-OLkiav btTtu
avaBshyi/jSvoi xoi,} 'TCgoaraismv rrjg ^Kickritrtoi.g aat a tts^i sttict-
xoTcuv UTS, roivTot, %ai T^sa^vri^oig a^pjorlsi. Trj ya^
XiSt^OTOi/ia, ^ovri w£g(3s|8^»oso'<. Ka; rovroj (jijoi/ov Boxovffi
tXsovsktsiv 70vg T^sa^VTi^ovg. " St Paul," says he, " did not
insist about Presbyters, because there is no great difference
between them and Bishops. Presbyters, as well as Bishops,
have received power to teach and govern the Church. And
the rules he gave to Bishops are also proper for Presbyters ;
for Bishops excel Presbyters only by the power of ordination,
and by this alone they are reckoned to have more power
than Presbyters." Vide edit. Savil. tom. iv. p. 289.
Now, it is plain to the most ordinary attention, that in
the holy Father's dialect, xsi^oroniot, signifies the power of
conferring orders, just as ^iSaffxu'kix and T^offTDcaia, signify
the powers of teaching and governing. Consider now the
critical skill of G[ilbert] R[ule].
Bellarmine had adduced this testimony, it seems, to shew
that there was a disparity in point of power between Bishops
and Presbyters, and had put it in Latin, thus — " Inter
Episcopum atqiie Presbyterum interest fere nihil, quippe et
Presbyteris Ecclesise cura permissa est. Et quae de Episco-
pis dicuntur,! ea etiam Presbyteris congruunt ; sola quippe
Ordinatione superiores illi sunt." So G[ilbert] R[ule] has it.
I know not if he has transcribed it faithfully. It is not his
custom to do so, nor have I Bellarmine at hand to compare
them. Sure I am the translation doth not fully answer the
original. But however that is, go we forward with our learn
ed author. These are his words : —
" What he (Bellarmine) allegeth out of this citation,
that a Bishop may ordain, not a Presbyter, the learned
Father's expression will not bear. For ordination must
signify either the ordination the Bishop and Presbyter
have, whereby they are put in their office, to be different,
which he doth not allege ; or that the difference between
them was only in order or precedency, not in power or
authority ; or that it was by the ordination or appoint
ment of the Church, not Christ's institution ; but it can never
signify the power of ordaining." Are not these pretty pleasant
criticisms on -^UQ^OTOvia ? But the best follows. He gives a
' [Diodt in original, Bellarm. De Controv. vol. ii. p. 229. — E.j

20 THE PREFACE.
demonstration that ordination, as mentioned by Chrysostom,
can never signify the power of ordaining, for then, says he,
Chrysostom (who was sufficiently a master of words) would
have said — (mark it, beloved, he would have spoken Latin,
and said) Potestate Ordinandi, not Ordinatione. And have
we not our author now a deep learned glossator ? I cannot
promise a better instance of his critical skill, but I hope the
next shall not be much worse.
2. Then in that same Rational Defence, &c. p. 199, sect.
4, he undertakes to prove the Divine institution of popular
elections of ministers. His first argument he takes from
Acts xiv. 23. The word ^^e/gorov^ffaers? must needs do it.
Now, it is none of my present task to prove that that word
cannot do it. Whosoever has considered how it is used in the
New Testament may soon perceive that ; and if our author
had but read the book called Jus Divinum Ministerii Evan-
gelii, written by a Provincial Assembly of his own friends,
he might have seen that even they were confident it could
not do it ; nay, he himself, in that same fourth section,
acknowledges it cannot do it. " I deny not," says he, " that
this word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mis
sion, the effect or consequent of election, and that by one
person, without suffrages, as Acts x. 41." And I think,
after this, it was pleasant enough to make it do it for all
that. But, as I said, it is none of my present business to
debate the force of the word with him. All I am concerned
for is to represent his superfine skill in critical learning.
For he tells us gravely — " The word is most commonly used
in his sense," viz. as it signifies " to choose by suffrages."'"' And
he proves it; but how? These two ways — " 1. Of all the
instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of
the word, not one of them is to the contrary." Twenty
desperate significations, you see, would have imported no
thing ; and who can doubt but Scapula's Lexicon is an un-
controverted standard for the ecclesiastical signification of
words ? But our author proceeds — " 2. It cannot be instanced
that ever the word is used for laying on of hands : Lifting
up and laying them down being so opposite, it is not to be
imagined that the one should be put for the other." And
what needed more after this ? Yet, lest this was not pro
found enough, our author plunges deeper. He will needs have

THE PREFACE. 21
both the suifrages of the people and the imposition of the
Apostles' hands to be signified by the word ;;^£/goTOf^(rai'rs?
in that same text. Acts xiv. 23. " The Apostles appointed by
ordination elders for the people, upon their electing them by
suffrages." And then,in the close ofthe section — "Iconolude,
this being done xara Izzkrjtrtai/, in every Church, the people
respective choosing their pastors, and the Apostles ordaining
them, it is clear to have been generally the practice of these
times, and so the institution of Christ."
I told, when I began with him, there might be instances
I might have occasion to adduce, which it might be difficult
to reduce to their proper categories, and I am afraid this is
one. The truth is, it is very hard to determine whether igno
rance or nonsense can plead the better title to it. For my
part, let them share it between them. I shall only insist a
little on one thing more.
3. Then, one of his adversaries, whom he took to task in
his " Second Vindication of his Church of Scotland," the
author of the Second Letter,! had used the phrase Christian
Philosophy, when G[ilbert] R[ule] thought he should have
said Christian Divinity ; but, if I mistake not, G[ilbert]
R[ule], when he wrote his Answer, thought it had been for
the author's credit to have foreborn using such a phrase, for
never did cock crow more keenly over brother cock when he
had routed him, than G[ilbert] R[ule did over the Letter-
man on that occasion.
He told him (Second Vindication, ad Let. II. § 24, p. 62,
63, edit. Edin.) — " He thought the commendation of a minis
ter had been rather to understand Christian Divinity than
Christian Philosophy, but we must not wonder (says he) that
men so strongly inclined to Socinianism speak in the Socinian
dialect. — For indeed that which goeth for religion among
some men is nothing but Platonic philosophy put into a
Christian dress, by expressing it in words borrowed (some
of them) from the Bible ; and the preaching of some men
1 [This was the learned Bishop himself], who was the writer of the
Second and Third of Four Letters, containing " An Account ofthe Present
Persecution of the Church in Scotland." The First was written by the
Rev. Thomas Morer, then chaplain to an English regiment in Scotland,
afterwards Rector of St Anne's Aldersgate, and Lecturer of St Lawrence
Jewry, and the Fourth by the famous Principal Monro. — E.j

22 THE PREFACE.
is such morality as Seneca and other heathens taught, only
christianized with some words," &c. In short, he pursued
the poor Epistler, as he calls him, so unmercifully, that he
never left him tiU he concluded him an ignorant talker for
using that phrase.
Now, judicious reader, was it not indeed a demonstration of
deep thinking, and a penetrating wit, to make such a plain
discovery of such a prodigious spawn of heresies, crowded
into one single phrase, consisting of two words, or rather
in one solitary vocable ? I say one vocable, for it was the
word Philosophy which was the Lerna. I cannot think
the word Christian was either art or part. Socinianism,
Academicism, Stoicism (consistent or inconsistent was all
one to our author), all thronged together in one so innocent
like an expression ! Sad enough ! How sad had it been
for sorry Epistler if there had been a greater confluence of
such isms in our author's learned noddle when he wrote
that elaborate paragraph ! Had they been in it, it is very
like they had come out. However, even these were enough,
especially having in their society the fundamental heresie of
ignorance. And yet, after all this, I am apt to believe the poor
Epistler was orthodox and catholic in his meaning. I be
lieve he looked on it as a very harmless phrase, and in
tended no other thing by it than that which is commonly
called Christian Divinity. It is twenty to one, he used it
as having found it used before him by very honest men who
were never suspected of any of these dreadful heresies — the
ancient Lights, I mean, and Fathers of the Church, who had
scarcely another phrase which they used more frequently
or more familiarly. Of this I am sure. If it was not so,
it might have been so with him.
My present circumstances do not allow me to cite them
so plentifully as might be done ; yet I think I can adduce
the testimonies of half a dozen, whose authority might have
stood between the Epistler and all hazard, e. g.
Justin Martyr, in his excellent Dialogue with Trypho the
Jew, not only asserts the insufficiency of the Platonic, the
Peripatetic, the Pythagorean, the Stoic Philosophies, &c.
but expressly makes the ancient Prophets who were inspired
of God tho only true and infallible phUosophors (.lust.

THE PREFACE. 23
Opera Grsec. edit. Rob. Steph. Lutet. 1551. p. 36). And
having told how he himself came to the knowledge of Chris
tianity, he subjoins (p. 37), TccCrni' (/jOid^v ev^iffxoi' (piko-
a'o(pioiv a,(!(pot,'krj rs scot,) avfjj(po^ov, oiimog bl ku,) hia ratJTot,
(ptkoaopog lyu. " J have found Christianity to be the only
infaUible and useful Philosophy, and on its account I own
myself a Philosopher.''"'
Photius, in his Mug/06, discoursing of the same Justin, as
may be seen at the beginning of Justin's works, describes
him thus — "Ecr; §s (piXoa'o(pia,g ^\v 6 avriq^ Trig rs x,o!,d' rj^jjoig.
" He was a man of our (that is, the Christian) philosophy."
Origen, in his learned work against Celsus (edit. Cantab.
1658, p. 9), tells him, if it were possible for all men, laying
aside the cares of this life, jpKaX^tv tu (pi'koBOCpav, to apply
themselves to the study of true Philosophy, what a blessing
would it be to the world ! And the very next words declare
what Philosophy he meant — Eugs^^csra/ y«g h rai Xg;ffr«ai'-
lai/ju," &c. " For there may be found," says he, " in Chris
tianity most noble and mysterious disquisitions," &c.
Again, page 144, Celsus had alleged that the Christians
tookpainsto proselyte none but young people, ignorants, idiots,
&c., and Origen replies — It is not true. They call all men,
ffo(poug Koii avorjTovg, wise and foolish, to the acknowledgment
of Christ ; and what evil is there in instructing the ignorant ?
Do not you heathen philosophers the same ? "H vf/fiv f/jsv at
"'EXkrivig l^iGTt i/iSi^dzia, xa) oifcor^i^ag xai ot,\)orjToug avSgoj.
TTovg STTt fPiXoffo(pio!,v KoCketv, rj(beig h tovto TotouvTig ou <pi"k.
avdgaiirug kvTO T^UTTOiJbsi' . " Or is it allowable in you, 0
heathens, to call young men and servants, and ignorant
people, to the study of philosophy, but we Christians, when
we do the like, must be condemned of inhumanity ?" Once
more. Page 146, Celsus had objected that the Christians taught
privately, &c. and Origen answers, they did not refuse to
teach pubUcly, and if people would come to them they would
send them TiCpiKoaopriada,!, to be taught Philosophy by the
Prophets of God and the Apostles of Jesus. Whoso pleases
to peruse that excellent Apology for Christianity, may find
much more to the same purpose. Nay, farther, St Chrys
ostom, one of G[ilbert] R[ule]'s good acquaintances, has
this heretical phrase an hundred times over ; e. g. in the

24 THE PREFACE.
page immediately preceding that in which the testimony
is which his Learnedness glossed so singularly, the holy Father,
zealous against such as were Christians in profession only,
without a suitable practice, argues thus — " What can one say,
OQ^Zv oiix, h s^yoig oKk' ki/ Xoyoig (ptkoso(povvTa,g ^[/joig, &c."
" When he sees us not in works but in words only, pretending
to be philosophers ?" — or (for all is one with Chrysostom),
to be Christians ?
In his sixth Homily on St Matthew he says, God permitted
the Jews for a time to offer corporal sacrifices, &c. /ca ccvTOvg
fcocTo, i/iix^of Trig auvri6i'mg kiroaTaaag It; rr^v i)-'\)ViKr\v
ayayri (pt\o(!o(pioLV, i. e. " That by degrees he might lead
them to the elevated (i. e. the Christian) Philosophy." And
doth not the same Father in the same Homilies on Matthew,
call our Saviour's Sermon on the Mount, A«go;' Trig (piko-
trop'ocg—" The top of all Philosophy ?"
And in his 4th Homily on 1 Corinthians he discourses
elegantly how Christ by the doctrines of the Cross, and
evangelical polity, and true godliness and the future judg
ment, &c. mvTag Imititrs <piKo(ro(poug, hath " made aU men,
rustics, idiots," &c. philosophers.
Neither is this phrase less frequent with the Latin Fathers.
I shall only instance in two, but such two as most men use
(at least ought) to read, who have a mind to know anything
of antiquity. St Cyprian, I mean, and Vincentius Lirinensis.
St Cyprian, in an Epistle to Cornelius, the 57tli in number,
if I remember right, according to Rigaltius, characterizes No-
vatianus to this purpose — " Magis Durus Secularis Philoso-
phias pravitate, quam Philosophise Dominicee lenitate paci-
fious." And in his excellent sermon De Patientia — " Nos
autem, fratres charissimi, qui Philosophi non verbis, sed
faotis sumus," &c. — " We Christians who are philosophers,
not in words, but in deeds," &c.
And Vincentius, in the 30th chapter of his Commoni-
toriuni, admires the " Coelestis Philosophise Dogmata," the
" Doctrines of the Heavenly (i. e. the Christian) Philo
sophy." Indeed, some of these Primitive Glories of the Churcli give
us a solid reason for both the orthodoxy and the propriety of
the phrase. I cannot teU what notion G[ilbert] R[ule] has
of -Philosophy ; l.mt I am pretty sure, according to St Justin's

THE PREFACE. 25
and St Augustine's notion of it, it is a most proper name
for our holy religion.
Justin (ut sup. p. 33) teUs Trypho thus — -"Efrri yag tco ovTt
<pikO(TO<ptCC, [/jiyitTTOV ZT^f/jOt, XUI TIIMOITKTOV ©£», MTi X^OffuySI
xKi aviidTriaiv '^(^kg ^ovri, xat ouiot xg k'Kri6SJg ovtoi etaiv 6i
pXoffop'a, Tov i/ouv T^offSffxpixoTig. " True philosophy is the
richest and most honourable possession in the sight of God.
It is that which brings us near, and commends us to Him.
And they are all truly holy who apply themselves seriously
and heartily to the practice of true philosophy." And (page
34) he defines Philosophy thus — 'ET/ffr^jy/?; 'iiTTi Toii ovtos
xa,) 70V akri^ovg sTiymffig, Ivhati/jovia. §s ravTrig Trig stti-
ffTri(jtjrjg, xcct rrjg so<plot,g ysga?. " Philosophy is the know
ledge of God and the acknowledgment of the truth (i. e. of
Christ, as I take it) ; and happiness is the reward of this
wisdom and knowledge."
And St Austin, with whose works G[ilbert] R[ule] should
have been well acquainted, when he adventured to give him
the commendation of being the great light ofthe Latin Church,
as he doth in that same 24th section, in the first chapter of his
8th Book, iJg Civitate Dei, discourses thus — "Cum philosophis
est habenda collatio quorum ipsum nomen, si Latine inter-
pretemiir, amorem sapientise profitetiir. Porro, si sapien
tia Dens est, per quem facta sunt omnia, sicut divina autho-
ritas, veritasque monstravit, verus philosophus est ainator
Dei." — " The word Philosophy," says he, " signifies the love
of wisdom. But God is wisdom, as himself hath said in his
Word, and therefore a true philosopher is a lover of God."
And in the ninth chapter of that same Book — " Philoso-
phari est amare Deum — unde coUigitur tunc fore beatum
studiosum Sapientiae (id enim est Philosophus) cum frui
Deo cceperit," i. e. " To philosophize is to love God : One is,
then, a true philosopher when he begins to enjoy God," &c.
Nay, though G[ilbert] R[ule] should reject the authority of
these and twenty other Fathers who have used and justified
the phrase, it were no difficult task to find enough of modern
writers who have used it, though they were neither Stoics,
Platonists, nor Socinians ; but I shall only recommend to him
two who were his predecessors in that same chair which
he, now, so worthily possesses. Doctor Leighton, I mean,
in his " Valedictory Oration," lately published, and Mr

26 THE PREFACE.
Colville in his Treatise about Christian PhUosophy.l And
now, let our author's ignorance and his ill-nature debate it
between them, to whether he was most obliged when he so
fiercely scourged the poor Epistler for talking so heretically
of Christian Philosophy. By this time, I think, the reader
may have got a sufficient taste of our renowned Vindicators
singular learning. Proceed we now,
II. Tohiane-Kt cardinal virtue. Profound fearm'm^, such as
our author's, is a teeming mother, and commonly produces
congenial brood plentifully. Indeed, never was author's more
prolific. His learning has produced crowds of mysteries, but
such mysteries as plain speaking people commonly call non
sense. It were nonsense, indeed, to insist on all instances of this
nature which beautify his writings, such as his pretty position
• — " That all ceremonies of God's worship are worship them
selves" (Animadversions on Dr Stillingfleet's Irenicum, p. 30.)
His pleasant /efcA about " Ceremonies that stand in the place
of the Competerites or Catechumeni"'"' (Rational Defence, &c.
p. 72). His judicious conclusion — " That the affirmative
part of the Second Commandment is, that we ought to wor
ship God in the way prescribed in his Word" (Ibid. 125.)
His sublime notion about the unity of the Church in the case
of the Lutherans (Ibid. 148). " We shut not out the Luther
an Churches," says he, " from all possibility of union with
them ; we can have union with them as sister Churches,
but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of worship."
His surprizing proposition, viz. — " That the two govern
ments (Presbytery and Monarchy) of Church and State
have suited one another many ages since the nation was
Protestant." (Second Vindication, § 11. p. 14).
It were to vie with him for his own talent, I say, to insist
on all these and many more such, which are to be found in
his matchless writings. I shall, therefore, mention only
three or four of his most elaborate mysteries.
And, 1. Our judicious author wrote " Animadversions"
on Doctor Stillingfleet's " Irenicum," and you may judge
of the metal of the whole by this one specimen, which you
have not far from the beginning.
Dr Stillingfleet (p. 2) had laid down this foundation — " That
1 [To which we may add Dr Mcesimus Knox. Vide Knox's Essays,
vol. iv. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 27
difference of opinion about a point, and probable arguments
brought on both sides, by wise and able men, if it be not a
matter of necessity to salvation, gives men ground to think
that a final decision of the matter in controversie was never
intended as a necessary means for the peace and unity of
the Church."
Against this position G[ilbert] R[ule] reasons thus (p. 5) —
" If any things not necessary to salvation be so necessary to be
clearly revealed, that we are to look upon them as not Christ's
truth, if there remain a controversie about them, managed
with specious arguments on both sides, among wise and able
men, much more things necessary to salvation must be thus
clearly revealed, so that there is no truth in them if they
be so controverted ; but the consequent is most false and
absurd. Ergo," &c. Let the reader try his skill on this
mystery, and fathom the depth of it if he can.
2. The next mystery I thought to have insisted on, is that
grand one about the decrees of God (Second Vindication, p.
%Q), viz. that God has a " decree that is prceteritum as an act
of sovereignty, and a decree that is prwdamnatum, as an act
of justice," But I am told this has been sufficiently repre
sented already, and therefore I shall say no more about it
but this, that there is no reason to think it was a typogra
phical error ; for after it was thus printed in Scotland, it was
reprinted in England without alteration or correction, so that
there is all the reason in the world to impute it to the
author. But if so, was he not at best a mysterious theologue I
But 3. The next I shall produce, though not sounding so
directly towards blasphemy, is every whit as good mystery.
The story is this : —
Doctor Stillingfleet, in his " Unreasonableness of the Se
paration from the Church of England," forbore to sustain
the lawfulness of Liturgies, &c. because Dr Falkener had
done it so well before. But our author had " made some
collections on the subject." (Rational Defence, &c. p. 222).
And it was pity they should be stifled, and therefore they
behoved to be published. I am not to insist on every thing
that is mysterious in that learned disquisition on the subject
of Liturgies with which he has blessed the island. One thing
shall suffice.
In his burning zeal against Liturgies, or Set Forms, he

28 THE PREFACE.
advances this proposition, among many others — " That it is
unlawful to worship God by a frame of service that is not
warranted in the Word, both as to its matter and manner,"
(Page 226, sect 8).
" This I prove," says he, " 1. From Christ's condemning
the traditions of men as vain worship. Matt. xv. 9. They
taught these traditions, i. e. (saith Lucas Brugensis in locum)
they followed them, and taught others to follow them. The
same author calleth these men's traditions that are so, of
men, that they are not of God, or are devised by man (Ibid.)
So also Vatablus, Erasmus, Maldonate, Tirinus, Piscator,
Calvin, and Chemnitius say, here is meant whatever is
brought into religion without the Word. Now it is mani
fest that a frame of divine service not warranted in the
Word faileth under this general head." Thus, you have all
these gentlemen, Lucan Brugensis, Vatablus, Erasmus, &c.
(though some of them were Papists, some of them Lutherans,
and not one of them but owned and used Liturgies), strong
against Liturgies, if not directly, at least h-^ plain consequence.
But our author proceeds.
" Secondly, the Lord condemneth all worship offered up
to him that he hath not commanded," Jer. vii. 31 — (turn to
the text, and try if it is not pertinently adduced) — •" Where
not being commanded, but devised by men, is made the
ground on which that practice, though otherwise evil also, is
condemned, and Jeroboam's frame and way of service is
condemned, because devised (Heb. created) of his own heart,
1 Kings xii. 33."
" Thirdly, even reason teacheth that God ought to choose
how he will be honoured or worshipped by his creatures. He
best knoweth what will please him, and his sovereignty in
all things must especially appear in this that himself is so
nearly concerned in. This is a principle so rooted in nature,
that among the heathens, they that contrived their liturgies,
or ways of worship, behoved to pretend revelations from
their gods to guide them in this. It was never heard of
among the more religious heathens that religion, or the
manner of worshipping their gods, was enjoined only by
man's authority, and devised onl}' by him ; yea, in the so
much magnified Rosary of the Virgin Mary, it is alleged
that Saint Dominicus had it revealed bj- the A^irgin herself

THE PREFACE. 29
that this form of service was most acceptable to her ; and it
is added, that she was fittest to choose what way she would
be worshipped. I hope they (the Papists), and such as sym-
bohze with them, those of the Church of England, in order
ing of the worship of God, will give us leave to say the same
of her blessed Son."
" Fourthly, for the matter of worship, I think it will not
be questioned whether that must be appointed by God or
not ; but even the FRAME, conposure, and mode of Divine
worship, should have Divine warrant, otherwise it is not
acceptable to God, &c."
Now, not to make much needless work, consider, 1, Our
author's great business was to prove the unlawfulness of Litur
gies, or Set Forms of prayers, &c. in the public worship. Con
sider, 2, That he (as his sect generally) is against using the
Lord's Prayer, the only prayer I can find of Divine institution
in the New Testament, as to the matter, frame, composure,
and mode of it. Consider, 3, That our author would be very
angry, and complain of horrid injustice done him, if you
should charge him with Quakerism, or praying by immediate
inspiration ; for who so great enemies to Quakers as Scottish
Presbyterians ? Consider, 4, If his arguments can consist any
better with extemporary prayers, which are not immediately
inspired, and, by consequence, cannot be of Divine institu
tion as to MATTER, FRAME, COMPOSURE, and MODE, than
with set forms which are not of Divine institution as to
MATTER, FRAME, COMPOSURE, and MODE. Consider, 5, In
consequence of these, if we can have ajij public prayers at
all. And then consider, 6, and lastly. If our author, when
he wrote this section, had his zeal tempered with common
sense, and if he was not knuckle deep in right mysterious
theology. 4. But as good follows ; for never man spoke more pro-
fownd mysteries than he hath done on all occasions in his
surprizing accounts of the " Church of Scotland." He tells
us of a Popish Church of Scotland since the Beformation, and
a Protestant Church of Scotland.
He tells us (First Vindication, Answer to Quest. 1, § 10) —
" Presbyterians do not say that the law made by the Reform
ing Parliament, anno 1576, took from them (the Popish
Bishops) the authority they had over the Popish Church ;

30 THE PREFACE.
but it is manifest that after this law they had no legal title
to rule the Protestant Church."
This same, for once, is pleasant enough. The Reforming
Parliament, while it defined the Church of Scotland, and it
defined it so as to make it but one, as is evident from Act 6,
which I have transcribed word for word in my book, allow
ed of two Churches of Scotland, two national Churches in one
nation. But this is not all. He hath also subdivided the
" Protestant Church of Scotland" into " two Churches of
Scotland" — the " Presbyterian Church of Scotland," and the
" Episcopal Church of Scotland."
He insists very frequently on the " Presbyterian Church
of Scotland." Thus, in his Preface to his " First Vindication"
of his Church of Scotland, in great seriousness he tells the
world that " that which is determined concerning all them
that will live godly in Christ Jesus that they must suffer per
secution, is, and has long been, the lot of the Presbyterian
Church of Scotland." And in his Preface to his " Second
Vindication," § 7 — " I have in a former paper pleaded for the
Presbyterian Church of Scotland against an adversary,"
&c. And in answer to the " Historical Relation of the Gene
ral Assembly," § 12, his adversary had said " that General
Assembly was as insufficient to represent the Church of Scot
land as that of Trent was to represent the Catholic Church."
And G[ilbert] R[ule] readily replies — "But he cannot deny
that it represented the Presbyterian Church, and was all
that could be had of a Presbyterian Assembly."
He is as frank at allowing an " Episcopal Church of Scot
land." Thus, in " True Representation of Presbyterian Go
vernment," in Answer to Objection 10) — " The ministers
that entered by and under Prelacy neither had nor have
any right to be rulers in the Presbyterian Church. What
ever they might have in another [governing]! Church" — i. e.
the Episcopal Church — "that the State set up in the nation,"
&c. And more expressly in Answer to the Historical Re
lation of the General Assembly 1690, § 3 — " Again," says
he, " though we own them" — the Prelatick Presbyters — " as
lawful ministers, yet we cannot own them as ministers of the
Presbyterian Church. They may have a right to govern
the Episcopal Church, to which they had betaken them-
¦' [Not in the original text. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 31
selves, and left the Presbyterian, yet that they have a
right to rule the Presbyterian Church we deny."
By this time I think the reader has got enough of " Scot
tish National Churches," and their distinct governors and
governments. The " Popish Clergy," even since the Refor
mation was established by law, have right to rule the " Po
pish National Church of Scotland." The " Protestant Epis
copal Clergy" have right to rule the " Protestant Episcopal
National Church of Scotland." The Protestant Presbyte
rian members have only right to rule the " Protestant Pres
byterian National Church of Scotland." By the way,
May not one wish that he and his party had stood here ?
For if the " Episcopal Clergy" have right to rule the " Epis
copal Church ;" and if it was only right to rule the " Presby
terian Church," which they had not, why was their own
right to rule themselves taken from them I Are not the
Presbyterians unrighteous in taking from them all right to
rule, when they have right to rule the " Episcopal Church of
Scotland ?" But this, as I said, only by the way. That
which I am mainly concerned for at present is, that the
reader may consider if there is not a goodly parcel of goodly
sense in these profound meditations. Yet better follows.
After aU this laborious clearing of marches between Scot
tish National Churches, particularly the " Episcopal" and
" Presbyterian National Churches of Scotland," he tells you,
for all that, they are but one Church of Scotland ; but in such
depth of mystery as perchance can scarcely be paralleled.
Take the worthy speculation in his own words. (True Re
presentation, ad Objection 10). " Let it be further con-
sidered,"! says he, "that though we are not willing so to widen
the difference between us and the Prelatic party as to look
on them and ourselves as two distinct Churches ; yet it is
evident that their clergy and we are two diff'erent repre
sentatives, and two different governing bodies of the Church
^ [The passage within parenthesis is not to be found in the copy of the
" True Representation of Presbyterian Government " which is in the
hands of the Editor, although the next words quoted by our author in
this page follow in due course. It is not to be supposed that Bishop Sage
would have quoted a passage for ridicule which did not exist ; and there
fore it is probable that Mr Gilbert Rule, finding himself vulnerable on
this point, very wisely ordered it to be expunged from the copy of his
pamphlet " reprinted by the heirs of And)-ew Anderson, 1690." — E.]

32 THE PREFACE.
of Scotland ; and that they who are members of the one,
cannot at their pleasure go over to the other, unless they
be received by them."
Well ! Has he now retracted his making them <wo Churches?
You may judge of that by what follows in the very next
words ; for thus he goes on — ^" These things, thus laid down,
let us hear what is objected against this course" — the course
the Presbyterians were pursuing with might and main, when
he wrote this book, viz. that the government of the Church
might prima instantia be put in the hands of the known
sound Presbyterian ministers, &c. — " First, this is to set up
Prelacy among ministers, even while it is so much decried,
that a few should have rule of the Church and the rest ex
cluded." — Answer. " It is not Prelacy, but a making dis
tinction between ministers of ONE society and those of
ANOTHER. Though they be ministers, they are not ministers
of the Presbyterian Church. They have departed from it ;
we have continued in the good old way that they and we
professed" — for who can doubt that all the Scottish Prelatists
were once Presbyterians ? — " It is not, then, unreasonable,
that if they will return to that SOCIETY they should be ad
mitted by it," &c.
Now, what can be plainer than it is, hence, that they must
be still two Churches ? He makes them in express terms
twice over two distinct societies. He makes one of these
Societies the " Presbyterian Church ;" of necessity, there
fore, the other must be the " Episcopal Church ;" and is not
this unavoidably to make two Churches ? Yet, neither is
this the true yolk of the mystery, as I take it. That lies
here — ^That the Episcopal clergy and the Presbyterian clergy
are two diff'erent representatives, two different governing
bodies of the one Church of Scotland. I remember our
author, in his " Rational Defence of Nonconformity," &c.
exercised Dr Stillingfleet to purpose for talking of something
which he thought looked like two Convocations in England,
viz. the Upper and the Lower Houses. " He seems above,"
says G[ilbert] R[ule], " to make such convocations, and so
there must be either two Churches of England" — (and why
not, as well as these of Scotland ?) — " or the one Church of
England must be biceps, and so a monster.'"
Thus our author there (p. 195), I say ; and it seems he

THE PREFACE. 33
was mindful of it when he wrote his " True Representation
of Presbyterian Government." For he was careful, indeed,
to avoid the making of his one Church of Scotland biceps,
and made it something else. But what thing ? Your pardon
for that : I have neither Latin nor English name for it. I
thought once, indeed, on licorpor, but I found it could not do;
for he makes not his owe Church <«oo Bodies. What then? I
told you already, I can find no name for it ; but if I have any
idea of this his one Church, she is such a thing as this —
" A Body governed by two different governing Bodies with
out an Head."
That she is a Body, I think, cannot be controverted, for
all Churches are commonly owned to be Bodies.
That she is governed by two different governing Bodies
is clear from the text, for thus it runs : — " We will not so
widen the difference between us and the Prelatical party, as
to look on ourselves and them as two distinct Churches ; yet
it is evident that their clergy and we are two diff'erent repre
sentatives, and two different governing Bodies of the Church
of Scotland''
That she is governed by these two different governing
Bodies without an Head'ie, likewise evident, for there is not so
much as one syllable about an Head in the text ; and there is
all the reason in the world for it. For, besides the difficulty
of joining an Head conveniently with two Bodies, to what
purpose an Head for her when she is so well stored of
governing Bodies ? Are they not received maxims, that —
" Non sunt multiplicanda entia sine necessitate," and —
" Deus et natura nihil faciunt frustra ?" The definition, then,
is unquestionable. Well ! Perhaps the reader may be curious to know how
G[ilbert] R[ule] came by this superfine idea of a Church,
I have had my conjectures about it, and the most probable
that off'ered was this : —
No doubt he is wondrously well acquainted with Plato,
otherwise how could he have made the singular discovery
that Socinians and Stoics were Platonists ? Now, Plato
(Conviv. p. 322, edit. Lugd. 1590), as I remember, has a
pretty story about a certain species of rational animals which
were early in the world, and which he calls " Avh^oyvvog, as if
you would say Man-woman, or so. This creature had two
3

34 THE PREFACE.
faces, two noses, four hands, &c. In a word, it was a round
body, which contained both sexes in it, man and woman, as
it were, united by their backs. It was a vigorous, sturdy
kind of animal, and Jupiter turned afraid of it ; and there
fore, to weaken it, and make it more toward and subdueable,
he took an axe, or some such sharp instrument, and clave
it from top to bottom, in the very middle, as if you should
cleave an egg into two equal halves ; and then, being (as
you know) a nimble mountebank, he drew together the
skin on each back in a trice, and applied some sovereign
medicines, and both backs were made sound immediately ;
and the divided parts of the "Avh^oyvvog being now"Ac;?g and
Tuvri, man and woman, and having the felicity to look one
another in the face, they fell in love with one another ; and
this was the original of love, and courting, and marriage,
and all that. Now, I say.
The most probable conjecture I can make of the way how
G[ilbert] R[ule] came by his surprizing idea of the one
Church with the two different governing Bodies is, that when
he read this story in Plato, it made a deep impression on
his imagination ; and he, labouring to outdo Plato at nimble-
ness of design and invention, fell upon this stranger and more
surprizing notion of a Church. But however this was,
I think our author had reason to say (Animadversions
on Irenicum p. 51), " That a Church is a singular Society,
and of another nature than other Societies, and therefore
she ought to have a singular government." For, sure I am,
he has given the one Church of Scotland a government which
is singular enough. One thing is certain.
At this rate, she wants not government nor governors,
and, of all the Churches in the world, she is likest to have
the best Canons and the justest measures prescribed to her ;
for if the one governing Body prescribes wrong, the other
must readily prescribe right, for never were two governing
Bodies of one Society in greater likelihood of contradicting
one another. It is true, the governed Body may be some
times puzzled about its obedience, and reduced to a state of
hesitation about the opposite prescriptions, whither of them
it should follow ; but that is but a small matter. Our
author's invention is not yet so far decayed but that I can
promise for him, if he pleases, he shall as easily extricate

THE PREFACE. 35
it out of that difficulty as he can give an intelligible account
of this his one Church with the two different governing Bodies.
Only one thing more I add.
Our learned author tells us in his Preface to this his book,
in which he has this mystery, that " it was a work not
undertaken at first of his own private motion, and that (be
fore it was published) it passed an examen rigorosu/m of not
a few brethren." Now, if he spoke truth here (as I am apt
to beheve he did not), the world may judge of the accu
racy of some men's rigorosa examina ; and so much for a taste
of our author's second cardinal virtue. Proceed we now to
III. The third, which, though it looks as like ill-nature as
ever egg was like another, in compliance with our author's
generous inclinations I am content should pass under the
name of his excessive civility. I allow it this name, I say,
because our author himself hath so dubbed it.
For thus he tells us (Second Vindication, Preface, § 6) —
" I have treated the adversaries I deal with as brethren,
desiring rather to EXCEED than come short in CIVILITY and
fair dealing with them."
Never was author more plentifully furnished with this in
genuous quality than G[ilbert] R[ule]. Take a specimen of
it from his " Second Vindication," &c. edit. Edin. anno 1691 ;
and consider with what excess of civility he treats his adver
saries. The author of the " First" of " the Four Letters"— that
" military chaplain" (p. 14), "that man ofa vain mind" (p.
19), " was guilty of the height of disingenuity" (p. 9), " and
it was the highest impudence and sauciness for a stranger"
(such as he was) " thus to reproach the representative of
a nation, where he was so civilly treated" (p. 12). And yet
the whole nation knows the gentleman had asserted nothing
but truth, when he met with this civility from our author.
The author of the Second and Third Letters was " blinded
with rage" (p. 22), " was guilty of shameful hypocrisy
twisted with mahce" (p. 23), " His words were fuU of
monstrous hyperbolies, if not plain forgeries" (p. 28). " He
exposed his own folly, malice, and silly credulity" (p. 42);
" was guilty of the highest efforts of malice, blinding the
mind, and depraving the apprehension of things" (p. 45).
" His ignorant malice not to be answered but despised"

36 THE PREFACE.
(p. 52). " Judas Iscariot was his predecessor" (Ibid).
" He was a choleric Momus, whose patron was Rabshakeh"
(56). He vindicated the Prelatists from being persecutors
" with a confidence in asserting falsehoods and denying
known truths beyond any degree, that any sort of man, ex
cept Jesuits, have arrived at" (p. 67). " He told things ab
surd above measure" (p. 69). G[ilbert] R[ule] can convince
the reader — " if the author of this letter was the person
whom he guessed, of his most absurd and habitual lying,
known to most of the nation even to a proverb" (p. 71).
But I am apt to think he guessed wrong ; but whoever he
was, " he wrote in such a violent and insolent style as de
served an answer of another nature than a paper refutation,"
i. e. the gallows, as I take it.
" The Fourth Letter was not inferior to any of the rest in
abominable lies and reproaches" (p. 81). " The most bitter
invectives that could be invented filled up this author's few
pages" (Ibid). " What he wrote was not to be refuted
more than the words of a madman, or of one raging in a
fever" (Ibid). In a word, " This Letter was so unexamin-
able, so full of virulent reproaches, and so void of any thing
that was argumentative, that it was impossible for any man
to answer it, except his talent for railing, and his conscience
to say what he would, true or false, was equal to that of
this gentleman's." (Ibid).
The author of the " Case of the Afflicted Clergy," &c.
" spake rage and fury," (p. 84) was a malicious calumni
ator" (p. 89), " a common liar" (p. 101), " most petulantly
reproached the government" (p. 110). Twenty more such
excessive civilities he paid him.
The author of the late Letter, I think, had done well to
have saved himself the labour of writing it ; for if he got not
his share of G[ilbert] R[ule's] excessive civilities, G[ilbert]
R[ule] himself was mistaken. " This piece was behind
none of the rest in eflfronted and bold lies, and to say this
might be a just refutation of the whole book" (p. 117).
" This author spake broad-faced lies" (Ibid). " Impu
dent and broad lies, gross and malicious lies, bold calum
nies" (p. 118), " shameless lies, slanderous forgeries" (p.
119). " He maliciously belyed his nation" (Ibid). " Spat
venom" (p. 121). " Lying and misrepresentation were

THE PREFACE. 37
familiar to him" (p. 122). " He most impudently obtruded
upon people's credulity" (p. 125). " Was perfrictoe frontis"
(p. 126). " Nothing, though never so certainly and mani
festly false, could choke his conscience" (Ibid). " He spued
out the most spiteful venom that could lodge in a human
breast" (p. 136). Forty more such civilities he paid him,
and it was reasonable to treat him so ; for " the impudent
accusations of this scribbler, and the obligation that lay on
persons and Churches to necessary self-defence, constrained
0[ilbert] R[uleJ to treat him thus civilly" (p. 137).
The author of the " Memorial"! (though I am apt to think
G-[ilbert] R[ule] knew he was dead before his " Second Vin
dication" was published) got civilities paid him of the same
stamp, and out of the same repository ; for the " Memorial
was a print full of bitter and unreasonable invectives" (p. 137),
" full of malicious insinuations" (Ibid). " It was nothing
short of the rest for most gross falsehoods in matters of
fact, and most injurious representations of the Presbyterian
way and principles" (Ibid). " The moral qualities of the
author might be seen by his book to be none of the best"
(Ibid). " It was a parcel of false and malicious history as
ever was written in so few lines" (Ibid). " It began and
ended with lies and railing" (Ibid). " A man who took
liberty to slander at that rate of impudence deserved rather
chastisement than an answer" (p. 138). The writer was but
a " Scribbler" (p. 139). " He wrote neither like a Christian
nor like an historian" (p. 140). He wrote " perfect railing"
(Ibid). " He accused the Presbyterians with a bloody
mouth of what had been a thousand times refuted as an
horrid lie, viz. that the Scottish Presbyterians did perfi
diously give up their King to the English, who murdered
him" (Ibid). Now, if there was reason for being at the ex-
pence of such an excessive civility on this occasion, let the
world judge. And, indeed, it is a most surprizing defence
G[ilbert] R[ule] made for his Scottish Presbyterians in that
matter. Why ? " He was the King of the English" (forsooth)
" as well as theirs, and they could not withhold him from
them ;" so that the whole matter was no more than if an
English ox had strayed or been stolen, and falling into the
1 [The learned Dr Alexander Monro, Principal of the University of
Edinburgh. — E.]

38

THE PREFACE.

hands of Scottish Presbyterians, they had restored him, and
got so much for reward ; at most it was not the ox's price, it
was only black mail, as we call it. But to proceed. This author
of the Memorial advanced assertions " beyond what Jesuiti
cal impudence itself hath ever arrived at" (p. 142). And,
which is worst of all, worse than any thing that ever pro
ceeded from the mouth of " Platonist, Stoic, Socinian, or
Jesuit, he most wickedly reproached the Covenant" (p. 146.)
The author of the " Annotations " on the " Presbyterian
Address," &c. " quibbled more like a buffoon than a dispu
tant," (p. 147), " and wrote so pure railing, as admitted of
no other answer, but to brand the whole of it with this
motto, that it was void of truth and honesty," (p. 150).
But God a mercy on the miserable author^ of the " His
torical Relation of the General Assembly," &c. What an
heterogeneous piece of the creation was he ! " The most fit
refutation of this pamphlet were to write on the margin of
every page, lies and c alumnies" (p . 150) . This author spake
" broad lies" (p. 151). " Was a delicious scribbler" (p. 156).
" His fancy was tinctured with malice and prejudice" (p. 161).
" He advanced whole fardels of lies and malicious repre
sentations" (p. 162). " He gave no proof of either sense or
learning in his book, but many demonstrations of spite and
railing" (p. 165). " His tongue was set on fire of hell, and his
kind respects to any man were indeed a reproach to him"
(p. 166). " He had abandoned all reason and good nature"
(Ibid). "Had a brazen forehead" (Ibid). "Nothing
could escape the lash of his virulent pen" (Ibid). " His
tongue was no slander" (p. 168). " He was nothing but a
" Sciolist" (p. 169). " A choleric scribbler" (p. 170). " His
paper was leaden with lies" (Ibid). " He was not ashamed
to tell lies in the face of the sun" (p. 171). " He had so
inured himself to the foulest lies and calumnies, that he could
hardly speak or write truth" (p. 175). " He was a reviler"
(p. 182). " A railing scribbler who censured and condemned
all Presbyterians without wit or discretion" (p. 114). In
short, " he was a snarling cur" (p. 191), " and a spirit of
lying had possessed him" (p. 192).
Thus, I think, I have given a taste of our author's exces
sive civilities to the adversaries he answered in his " Second
^ [Bishop Sage himself. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 39
Vindication." What a formidable author had he been, if
he had suffered himself to have treated his antagonists with
such just (not to say excessive) severities as they deserved !
What authors have these been, to whom such treatment was
nothing else than excessive civility? So strangers might
think who were not acquainted with G[ilbert] R[ule]'s nature.
His nature, I say ; for indeed it seems to be natural to him
to exceed thus in civility towards all the authors he ever
dealt with, at least so far as I can learn by such of his books
as I have had the luck to be edified withal. Thus —
In his " Preface" to his " First Vindication" he discharges
thus against the author ofthe " Ten Questions," &c. — " Now,
when their" (the Prelatists') " hands are tyed, that they can
no more afflict her" (his Presbyterian Church of Scotland),
" their tongues and pens are let loose to tear her without
mercy, by the most virulent invectives, and the most horrid
lies and calumnies that their wit can invent." And in
answer to Question 4, § 2, he adorns him with the honour
able title of controversial scribbler ; and the first words of his
answer to the Sixth Question are singularly complimental.
" It may be observed from this author's conduct" (says he)
" in his pamphlet, what it is to be fleshed in bold averring
of what all the world knoweth to be manifest untruths.
Some, by boldness and frequency in telling lies, have come
at last to believe them as truths," &c.
I have also seen two books written by him against Dr
Stillingfleet ; one against his " Irenicum," another against his
" Unreasonableness of the Separation," &c. In both G[ilbert]
R[ule] is excessively civil to the Dr after his wonted manner.
In his Preface to " Animadversions on Irenicum," he says,
the Doctor " exposed himself between principle and prefer
ment." In the book he calls him " an abettor of scepticism"
(p. 5).' " For the most part he doth nothing but magno conatu
nihil agere" (p. 18). " He evidently contradicts himself," and
G[ilbert] R[ule] wonders " to meet with contradictions so
often in so learned an author" (p. 22). " Contradictions are
no rarities in him" (p. 27). " It was impudently said by the
Doctor that our Saviour kept the Feast of the Dedication"
(p. 124). " His propositions are such reflections on Scrip
ture that any but a Papist may be ashamed of" (p. 132).
These and twenty more such regular civilities he pays him.

40 THE PREFACE.
He is more civil to him, yet, in his learned answer to the
Doctor's " Unreasonableness of the Separation," &c. The
Doctor wrote " unexpected incoherencies" (p. 4). " Used
wonderful confidence" (p. 9). " Jeered the zeal and warmth
of devotion" (p. 16). "Was bhnded with passion" (p.20). "A
taiinter" (p. 21). " Advanced fallacious if not false history"
(p. 41). " Would have things so and so in despight of his
tory" (p. 50). " Woe to the eWorld if such false and partial
history carries the day !" (p. 52). (Just the same upon the
matter with his " woe to posterity if the lying stories which
some have printed, and with bold impudence avouched, pass
with them for authentic histories," Preface to Second Vindi
cation, § 1. So that the readers of that " Vindication" need
not be much amused with such cant. It follows of course with
our author.) But to go on with his civilities to Dr Stilling-
fieet, the Doctor used " ratiocinations that would better be
come Pharisees" (p. 68). Asserted things " so rashly and
falsely," that G[irbert] R[ule] had no name for such " asser
tions" (p. 69). " His prejudices darkened his understanding"
(p. 85) . "He made a mad exposition of the Second Command
ment" (p. 125). " Stretched and forced Scripture" (p. 126).
" Spake things beyond comprehension" (p. 148). " Made un
becoming refiections on the Word of God" (p. 189). " Used
sorry shifts" &c. (p. 204). " Outfaced plain light" (p. 206).
" Wearied not of writing beside the purpose" (p. 210.) Ad
vanced " conceits unworthy of a divine, and only fit for
Simon Magus" (p. 214). " He did not act the part of a
disputant, or a casuist, but of somewhat else," our author
thought shame " to name" (p. 275). These and God knows
how many more such wonderful civilities he paid the Doctor;
particularly two, for which, no doubt, G[ilbert] R[ule]
stretched his invention. Dr Stillingfleet had said something
concerning the " English" ceremonies (it is no great matter
what it was), and G[ilbert] R[ule] replies wittily (p. 55) —
" This is so indigested a notion that it doth not well be
come the learning of Doctor Stillingfleet, though it be good
enough for some to rant with over a pot of ale." How
many good glasses of forty-nine (alias good sack) has our
author got for this ? Again, the Doctor had said that the
cross in Baptism was a ceremony of admitting one into the
Church of England. " But I doubt," says G[ilbert R[ule],

THE PREFACE. 41
" it will prove but a mouse brought forth by the long labour
and hard throes of a mountain." Was not this a pure
flight — a lofty paraphrase on parturiunt montes ?
Thus we have seen a sample of his excessive civilities to
such single persons as had the honour to be his adversaries.
What a pity had it been if such civilities had been only dis
pensed to half a dozen of individuals ? Our author, no doubt,
was sensible of this, and therefore he has even thought fit,
when he had occasion, to extend them to whole Churches,
particularly the Episcopal Church of Scotland and the
Church of England. Indeed, the whole body of the Epis
copal clergy of Scotland have got a large share of his
civilities. Take this specimen only from his " Second Vin
dication," &c.
" Presbyterians are all Jacobs, and Prelatists Esaus"
(Preface, § 1). " Presbyterians the seed of the woman,
Prelatists the seed of the serpent" (Ibid). The Prelatists
are a " spiteful and clamorous sort of men" (§ 5). " Men
enraged by being deprived of the opportunity they had to
persecute their neighbours" (Book, p. 1). " Their course is
diametrically opposite to moderation" (p. 2). They are men
of " mean spirits and mercenary souls" (p. 4). " Unfaithful
men" (p. 17). " Men who use unmanly as well as unchristian
shifts" (p. 25). " Most of them who were put out" i. e. thrust
from their habitations and the exercise of their ministry
since the beginning of the late Revolution, " were put out by
their own consciences" (p. 36). " Arminians" (p. 60). Soci
nians" (p. 61). " The contempt of the ministry came from
the atheism and debauches ofthe clergy" (p. 64). " Their
immoral men may be counted by hundreds" (p. 65). " They
are generally liars" (p. 70). " Men who exposed the nation
to the reproach of barbarity" (p. 24). " Men of a restless
temper, embittered in their spirits by what inconveniency
they are fallen into, from the ease and dominion over their
brethren which they lately had" (p. 84) . " Men j ustly loath
some and a burden to the people" (p. 99) . " Instead of feeding
their flocks, they worried them" (p. 103). " Inciters to, and
abetters of persecution" (p. 126). " A faction that indulged
debauched men in their immoralities" (p. 166). " Hundreds
of their party guilty of gross immoralities for one Presby
terian" (p. 166). " Their debauchery tempts people to count

42 THE PREFACE.
allreligion a sham" (p. 173). "Generally favourers of Popery"
(passim). " Men who are wiser than to comply with the
present Establishment of the Church, from which it is like
they would have been excluded for their immoralities or
errors" (p. 5). And God knows how frequently he makes
them generally " ignorant or erroneous, or scandalous, or
supinely negligent." This, I think, may serve for a trial of
his excessive civilities to the Scottish clergy. Well !
But is he as civil to the Church of England ! Take
a proof from his " Rational Defence," &c. Those of the
Church of England "seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles,
from whom they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the
things controverted" between them and the Nonconform
ists (p. 71). " They are either strangers to England, or
strangely biassed, who see not cause to complain of the
ignorance, idleness, and vicious conversation of the English
clergy" (p. 40). " It is the spirit of the party still to create
trouble to the Church" (p. 63). " They are an imperious
superstitious clergy, that will be lords over God's inheri
tance in despight of the Apostle" (p. 80). And how often
doth he call them " liars, misrepresenters, calumniators,"
&c. ? (Vide p. 66, 274., 275, 276, &c.)
I shall only mention one instance of the English Episco
pal knavery, which G[ilbert] R[ule] resents very highly.
You may see it, page 276. " I have met with another in
stance" says he, " of Episcopal ingenuity for exposing the
Presbyterians among the foreign Churches. It is in a
letter of the famous Bochart, dated November 2, 1680, in
answer to a letter from Doctor Morley, wherein the Doctor
representeth the Presbyterian principles in three positions,
whereof the third is a gross calumny. The position is —
Reges posse vi et armis a subditis cogi in ordinem, et si se
prsebeant immorigeros, de sohis deturbari, in carcerem con-
jici, sisti in jus, per carnificem denique capite plecti. i. e.
That Presbyterians maintain that subjects may call their
sovereigns to an account by force of arms ; and if they are
stubborn, incorrigible sovereigns, they may cast them in
prison, judge them, sentence them, and order the hangman
to give them a cast of his craft." And now, kind reader,
judge impartiaUy, was not this a gross calumny I What
impudent lying rogues must these English Prelates and Pre-

THE PREFACE. 43
latists have been who so grossly calumniated such eminently
loyal subjects, such true friends to monarchy, such unques
tionable passive obedience and non-resistance men ?! But re
turn we to our Author.
One thing may be pleaded in his behalf. It is, that this
his " Rational Defence," &c. (as he says himself), was writ
ten about the time that K[ing] J[ames] came to the throne,
i. e. some four years before the late Revolution, and at that
time it was excuseable in him to teU his mind freely about
the English clergy, because he was then a Nonconformist
in England, and suffering under their yoke ; but now that
Presbytery is established in Scotland, and he has got a post
there in which he can live to purpose, his temper is become
a little sweetened, and he will not any more be an enemy to
the English clergy. Nay, has he not published so much
lately in his " Second Vindication ?"
True ! He has. More he seems to have promised, at least
professed so much, not only for himself, but for his whole
party. He has told the world in his answer to the First of
the Four Letters, § 12 — " That Scottish Presbyterians are
far from interposing in the Church of England's affairs ;
that they are not bound by the Covenant to reform England,
but to concur, when lawfully called, to advance reforma
tion. That it is far from their thoughts to go beyond that
boundary. That they wish their reformation, but leave the
management of it to themselves." And in his "Answer to
the Case of the Afflicted clergy," &c. § 1, he goes a farther
length. The author had said "that the Church of England
should bethink themselves how to quench the flames in Scot
land," &c. ; and G[ilbert] R[ule] answers — " Thus they sow
discord among brethren, and animate England to concern

1 [The biting sarcasm of those words will strike aU who remember the
infamous compact made at Newcastle between the leaders of the Cove
nanting Army and the Commissioners of the English rebels, by which
Charles I., who had thrown himself upon the honour and loyalty of his
Scottish subjects, was sold for a sum of money into the hands of his im
placable foes. In aUusion to this sordid and base transaction, a recent
historian remarks — " The prospect of establishing Presbyterianism in
England was held out by CromweU as a snare to the leaders of the party,
and this was one of their inducements to sell the King ; fanaticism thus
uniting with avarice in the most odious transaction which stains the
annals ofthe Scottish nation." — E.]

44 THE PREFACE.
themselves in the affairs of our Church, when we do not
meddle in their matters." Here, you see, he owns the English
clergy for no less than his brethren. Are they not cock-sure
now, they shall never have more of his excessive civilities ?
Well ! I cannot tell what may be, but I can tell something
of what hath already been.
This same loving brother to the Church of England pub
lished his " Rational Defence," &c. anno 1689, i. e. since
the beginning of the late Revolution, and it is evident his
Preface was written since likewise ; for therein he discourses
rhetorically — " How God, by the late Revolution, hath made
us like them that dream, and done exceeding abundantly
for us above what we could think, outdone our faith, as was
foretold, Luke xviii. 8."
Now, in that same Preface he owns he published his book
then because he thought it a fit season, and it seemed allow
able, if not necessary, " that each party should put in their
claim, and give the best reasons they could for their preten
sions" — which, how it consisted with designs for the peace
of the Church of England, let herself consider. This I am
sure of, if his excessive civilities could be helpful for unhinging
her, she got them in that Preface with a witness. Take
this for a taste.
He not only exhorts his readers " to purge the Church
of England of bad men, an ignorant, scandalous, heady, and
unsober ministry," but he further discourses thus — " God
will not be at peace with the Church while such are counte
nanced ; and good men cannot with any satisfaction behold
such scandals to religion, and such effectual instruments of
the ruin of souls, continued in the Church. While some
effectual course is not taken to remove them, the Church is
like to have little peace either with God or in herself. — Let
all, then, contribute their endeavours to have the unsavoury
salt cast out. — If this piece of reformation be endeavoured,
all ranks must put hand to it ; — the people, by discovering
such where they are, and not calling or countenancing them
when they want a guide to their souls ; — and magistrates by
endeavouring the regulating of such laws as do in any wise
open the door to such men to enter." And again — " Church
reformation must also be truly endeavoured by us, if we would
have Church peace. It is no token for good when sinful

THE PREFACE. 45
evils, images of jealousy which provoke the Lord to jea
lousy" — such as Episcopacy, the Liturgy, Ceremonies, Holi
days, &c. — " are in the Church, and yet all agree in these
way ; none lament them nor reprove them, nor take care to
keep their garments clean from the corruptions of the time,"
&c. Now, that all this is directly intended against the
Church of England, is evident from the whole contexture of
that Preface.
By this time the reader, I think, has got enough of G[il-
bert] R[ule's] excessive civilities to all persons and Churches
he has been pleased to take notice of. Proceed we now to
the last of his cardinal virtues, viz.
IV. His singular modesty. And here a vast field opens,
for, except the aforesaid three, there is scarcely another of
his qualities, good or bad, that makes any considerable ap
pearance ; but so it is, that generally the greater lights ob
scure the lesser. Nay, such an awkward quality is this in
our author, that one would think it has been at feud with
itself, and had designs for obscuring its own lustre ; for you
no sooner have found an instance which you may be apt to
apprehend is the very brightest impudence, than instantly an
other casts up twenty times more splendid, and before you
have got through them all, you are at a loss again, and you
cannot tell him which was the most surprizing. But I shall
only give a specimen of this virtue, as I have done of the rest.
1. Then the blot of impudence might have been charged
upon him though he had said no more than what he has
said concerning the Prelatical scribblers (Preface to First
Vindication), viz. " That they used a piece of cunning in
spreading their books in England only, where the things
contained in them could not be known nor examined, but
there was never one of them to be found in a bookseller's
shop in Scotland, where most readers could have discovered
the falsehood of their allegations." And his brother, Mr
Meldrum, in his Letter subjoined to G[ilbert] R[ule]'s " Se
cond Vindication," insists on the same ingenious speculation.
And yet both of them could not but know very well that
these Prelatic scribblers might have attempted to have
pulled a star from the firmament as plausibly, as to have got
anything that made against the Presbyterians printed in
Scotland. One thing I can assure G[ilbert] R[ule] of. His

46 THE PREFACE.
" True Representation of Presbyterian Government" had
not seen the light many days, when a licence was sought for
publishing an answer to it, but it could not be obtained ;
and how many innocent pamphlets have been seized by the
Government since the beginning of the late Revolution ? Did
not both these gentlemen know this sufficiently ? And was
it not -impude-nce in them, especially in G[ilbert] R[ule], con
sidering the post he had, to publish such a calumny, as that
it was the conscience of the falsehoods [which] were in them
that made his adversaries publish their books in England ?
2. Another instance of his impudence might be his so fre
quent insisting on the loyalty of his party. Believe him,
and no men can be more loyal than Scottish Presbyterians.
" Nothing but malice can make any think that Presbytery
is an enemy to monarchy. (First Vindication ad Question
2, § 2). Our obedience to magistrates in all their lawful
commands, and our peaceful sufferings of unjust violence are
notour to all that can behold us with an unprejudiced eye.
(True Report ad Observation 1) . None maintain more loyal
principles towards Kings than Presbyterians do. (Ibid, ad
Observation 2). They always abhorred rebellion. (Second
Vindication, p. 63). Yea, it is manifest it is not their prin
ciple to bargain with their Kings about allegiance. (Ibid.
p. 99). Our principles are known that we owe loyalty, and
have payed it, even to an idolatrous King," i. e. K[ing]
J[ames]. (Ibid. p. 115). Who can deny now that Pres
byterians are true passive obedience and non-resistance men ?
Or rather, who knows not that this is bantering the common
sense of all Britain ?
3. There is no less impudence in the large encomiums he
makes on the harmlessness and innocence of his party. It is
true, and it is much, he acknowledges sometimes^" They
are men, they have infirmities, they have been guilty of ex
cesses," &c. But try him to the bottom, and you shall
never find him descending below these generals ; you shall
not find him acknowledging that any particular instance,
wherein they exceeded, was not very excusable. Thus he can
not endure to hear that they were evev persecutors or rebels.
Not persecutors, for if they had been persecutors, it is not to
be doubted that the Prelatists had felt it. But what have they
ever felt? Hear him in his Preface to " First Vindication"

THE PREFACE. ' 47
— " It may be thought strange that the men with whom we
have to do should make such tragical outcries about their
sufferings, when it may be made appear, that in the late
times, when Presbyterians suff'ered from their hands, any
one of many, who may be instanced, suffered more hardships
and barbarous cruelty than aU of them have endured." I
must confess, these men who suffered so have suffered to
purpose, for I think it was pretty severe for one man to suffer
the deprivation of 500 or 600 livelihoods and have 500 or
600 famihes, perchance 4000 or 5000 persons, to maintain on
nothing. I know not how far our Author's skiU in Algebra
may reach, but I think in this he was hard enough for
common sense. But this is not all.
Hear him again in that same " Vindication," (ad Question
3. § 1.) — " All unbiassed men who know, and have ob
served the way of the one and the other, while they alter
natively had the ascendant, wUl say that the little finger of
the meanest Prelate and his underlings was heavier than
the loins of the greatest Assembly of the Presbyterian
Church." What, Sir ? No, not the Assembly 1645,1 nor
^ [This Assembly ratified and approved the " Solemn League and Cove
nant," the intolerance of which is too well known to require further notice
here. The other Assemblies named in this place were held during the
Covenanting " Reign of Terror," and are characterized for the severity of
their enactments, and the utter disregard e-vinced by them towards the con
scientious scruples of those whom they were pleased to call Malignamts.
The Parliament which met on the 19th April 1648 had issued a " Declara
tion" of a healing or remedial nature, but this was opposed by the Com
mission of the Assembly in the most virulent manner. They refused to
exert themselves to have the King (Charles I., who was in the hands of
English rebels) set at Uberty, unless " he did first subscrive and swear
to both Covenants." They insisted also that there should be no commu
nication with Malignamts in any of the three kingdoms, and that those
who refused to swear to certain articles of their own enacting should be
" i/nca'pable of any o^ce, civil or ecclesiastical, and should forfeit their estates."
Besides, they drew np a counter declaration to that of the Parliament,
which they transmitted to the several Presbyteries, and ordered ministers
to read it from their pulpit, " threatening all with exconmiwnication and divine
wrath who should en/rol under the standard of the King and Scottish Parliament."
When the Assembly met in the same year, it approved of all the pro
ceedings of its Commission, and of course this amongst the rest, and
" supperadded a variety of injunctions, couched in terms of defiance to
the supreme authority of the State." As it respects this Act of the Com
mission a Presbyterian writer has remarked — " A more monstrous in
stance of usurpation is no where to be found in the past history of the
Reformed Church." Records of the Kirk of Scotland, by Alexander

48 THE PREFACE.
1648, nor 1649, excepted ? And "Second Vindication," p. 23
— " The sufferings of the Prelatists are but flea-bites in
comparison of the bloody lashes that others suffered." And,
p. 45, " Their sufferings are but scratches of pins," &c.
And you know even the tenderest nurses, such as our Pres
byterians are to Prelatists, cannot constantly preserve their
dearest nurselings from such accidents. Who can say now
that ever Presbyterians were persecutors ?
Believe him and they were as little rebels. " Episcopacy
indeed raised a tumult in K[ing] C[harles] I's time, which
ended in its own ruin." (First Vindication ad Question
2. § 3). And yet in answer to that same Question, § 5 —
" It is true they (the Prelatists) raised no tumults." For if
there is a difference between raising tumults, and raising no
tumults, yet it is certain that they are only abstracts which
raise them and concretes do not raise them. WeU! were
the concretes, the Episcopalians, innocent of tumultuating f

Peterkin, Esq. 1838, p. 494, 530-1, from which references the substance
of this note is chiefly extracted. What has been weU styled the Cove
nanting Reign of Terror, which includes the years here referred to by Bishop
Sage, is thus described iu Lochiel's Memoirs — " We are told of this most
cruel tyranny that ever scourged and afl^ected the sons of men. Such as
they (the Presbyterian preachers) were pleased to caU Malignants, were
taxed and pillaged at discretion ; and if they chanced to prove the least
refractory, or deficient in payment, their persons or estates were seized.
The Committee of the Kirk sat at the helm, and were supported by a
small number of fanatical (persons) and others, who caUed themselves
the " Committee of the Estates," but were chiefly nothing else but the
barbarous executioners of their (the Presbyterian) wrath and vengeance.
Every parish had a (preaching) tyrant, who made the greatest lord in the
district stoop to his authority. The kirk was the place where he kept
his court, the pulpit his throne or tribunal, from whence he issued out his
teiTible decrees, and twelve or fourteen sour ignorant enthusiasts, under
the title of Elders, composed his council. If any, of what quality soever,
had the assurance to disobey his edicts, the dreadful sentence of excom
munication was immediately thundered out against him, his goods aud
chattels confiscated and seized ; and himself being looked upon as actuaUy
in possession of the devil, and irretrievably doomed to eternal perdition,
all that conversed with him were in no better esteem." If to this we add
the testimony of the Presbyterian Mr Scott, in his Notes to the MS.
Hospital Registers of Perth, that " the Commission of the General As
sembly was at that time perhaps the most formidable court that had ever
existed in this country," and had " taken away all exercise of private
judgment," we shall not require further proof of our author's allusion, and
of the " pin-scratches" of Presbytery in the palmy days of the glorious
Covenant. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 49
Consider what follows — " They did what they could to raise
a war for continuing on the necks of the people that yoke
that they had wreathed on them, and did effectually draw
on a bloody war," &c. But what did the Presbyterians on
that occasion ? Why, how far were they from being rebels ?
For thus saith our author (Second Vindication, p. 140) —
" These things" — whatever the Presbyterians did — " were
done by the body of the nation met in the most orderly
representative that the time and case could permit, and
I deny not that they were extraordinary actings." No
thing in these times like perjury, or treachery, or treason, or
rebellion, committed by Presbyterians, you see ! All were
" extraordinary ACTINGS !" In short, Presbyterians " are
beyond reproaches in the consciences of all that know them,
and do not hate them" (Second Vindication, p. 37).
Now, it was none of my designs to render the Presbyterians
peculiarly odious by adducing these instances. I know these
crimes are not peculiar to them. I doubt not many of them
are not violently inclined to persecution or rebellion. I
doubt as little many of them will be ready to acknowledge
they are peaceable as other men, and things have been done
by many of their party which such as are ingenuous will
not offer to apologize for. That which I was mainly con
cerned for was our author's impudence ; for who ever saw
greater impudence than there is in these ridiculous defences
he has been pleased to publish in vindication of his party ?
4. Another instance might be his making his party so
frequently the only Protestants in the nation — the only men
that resisted, or could resist, or were willing to resist, Popery.
Thus, the author of the " Ten Questions " had said, and
said truly, that " the Presbyterians accepted and gave
thanks for an Indulgence, notwithstanding that they knew
that all the designs of the Court were for advancing Popery."
How our author justifies their thankful addressing to K[ing]
J[ames] for such a favour shall be considered by and bye.
That which I take notice of at present is his apology for
their accepting of that Indulgence. " It had been a strange
thing," says he. First Vindication, ad Question 8, § 2, " if
they should have been backward to preach and hear the
gospel when a door was opened for it, because some men
had a design against the gospel in their opening of it." — -
4

50 the preface.
(The gospel, you know, was neither preached nor heard in
Scotland before a door was opened for it by that Indulgence ;
but this by the way) . — " Surely their silence and peevish re
fusing on that occasion had been much to the hurt of the
gospel ; for then Papists, who would not fail to use the
liberty for their part, should have had the fairest occasion
imaginable to mislead people without any to oppose them.
On the contrary, their using that liberty was the great mean
by which, with the blessing of the Lord, so very few, during
that time of liberty, were perverted to Popery in the nation."
Now, who should doubt, after this, that all the Prelatists
were silent encouragers of Popery, and that the Presbyterians
were the only people who preached against it zealously, and
opposed it boldly ? Here is such a master-piece of our
author's main talent, as I am confident no other Presby
terian in the nation will offer to extenuate, far less justify.
He insists on the same theme in his " Second Vindication,"
p. 91, where he tells that " wise men thought that the best
way to keep out Popery was to make use of the liberty for
setting the people in the right way," &c. ; as if there had
been no possibihty of keeping them from turning Papists,
but by making them Presbyterians !
5. Near of kin to this is that other common head he
sometimes insists on, viz. that all are Papists, or Popishly
affected, who were not for the late Revolution. Thus, in his
" First Vindication," ad Question 9, § 4, in answer to that
allegation that the Presbyterians denied the King's preroga
tive of making peace and war, &c. he teUs the world — " If
this his argument can cast any blame on Presbyterians,
it is this, that there are cases in which they allow the States
and body of the nation to resist the King so far, as to hinder
him to root out the religion that is by law established among
them, and one should think that he might have been by this
time convinced that this is not peculiar to Presbyterians, but
that all the Protestants in Britain are engaged in the same
thing." And in his " True Representation" (ad Objection 2),
he has these plain words — " What was done" — (in removing
K[ing] J[ames] from his throne) — " was not by us alone, but
by aU the true Protestants'^ in the nation, who were indeed
1 [The clause within brackets is omitted in the reprint of the work
referred to. It had most likely given offence, for it is well known that

the preface. 51
concerned for the safety of that holyreligion." Now,it is none
of my present business to justify or apologize for such as
were or are against the late Revolution. Let Jacobitism be
as great an heresy as our author pleases to call it. Let him
rank it with Platonism or Socinianism if he will ; only I dare
be bold to say that it was an odd stretch of impudencetovnake
it Popery. I mentioned a little above his apologizing for his
party's addressing so thankfully to K[ing] J[ames] for his
Toleration ; and truly his performances that way may pass.
6. For another instance of his having a good dose of brow,
as himself commonly calls his own prime accomplishment.
For it was such an arrant mixture^ of flattery and hypocrisy,
especially when enlightened by their subsequent practice,
that no sophistry can palliate it so as to make it seem inno
cent ; but it has been so frequently tossed already that I
need not to insist upon it. Far less am I at leisure to examine
all the ridiculous stuff our author has vented about it. Only
one thing I shall propose to the world to be farther con
sidered. Whoso has read any of our author's " Vindications " of
his Church of " Scotland," cannot but have observed that,
even to loathsomeness, he was precise in pursuing his adver
saries foot for foot, on all occasions when impudence itself
could afford him any thing to say; yet one thing of very great
consequence was alleged by the author of the " Second
Letter," to which he has answered nothing. What else
could move our author to this sinful and unseasonable
silence, but the conscience that it was not fit to meddle with
it ? The matter is this. " The author of that Letter,
having discoursed how amazed the Presbyterians themselves
were at the dispensing power, upon the publication of K[ing]
J[ames]"s first Proclamation for the Toleration, how httle
forward they were at first to accept of it, and how they
complied not with its designs till they got a second edition
of it, &c. offered at conjecturing aboutthe reasonswhich might
have induced them afterwards to embrace it so thankfully
and unanimously as they did. Amongst the rest I find he
many Presbyterians were loyal to Kmg James, and on that account the
authorprobablyconsidereditpnidenttoomittheparagraphaltogether. — E.]
1 Vide note infra page 65.

52 the preface.
insisted on this as one, viz. that " they had got secret instruc
tions from Holland to comply with the dispensing power in
subserviency to the ensuing Revolution ;" and he added,
that for this " he knew there were very strong presump
tions." Now, G[ilbert] R[ule], I say, passed this over in a
profound silence, which to me seems a considerable presump
tion that there was some truth in the matter, and the
Epistler had guessed right. But if it was so, I think the
Presbyterian Addresses to K[ing] J[ames] for the Tolera
tion may now appear in blacker colours than ever.
I am earnest not to be mistaken. I do not condemn their
keeping a correspondence with the Court at the Hague on
that occasion, let that have been done dutifully or unduti-
fuUy as it might. All I am concerned for is this, that if
they kept a correspondence there at that time — if they got
encouragement or advice thence to comply with the Tolera
tion — if they were instructed to comply with it in subser
viency to the ensuing Revolution — if these things were, I
say, then, what a villany was it in them to address K[ing]
J[ames] in such a manner ? If they had known nothing of
any designs for setting him beside his throne — if they had
been privy to no intrigues against him — if it had been no
thing but a surprize occasioned by such an unexpected
liberty that prevailed with them to address to him in such
terms as they did on that occasion, something might have
been pleaded to extenuate their guilt, at least, though they
had complied with the designs of the Revolution afterwards,
when they saw it prevailing. Their ignorance of intrigues
and the politic designs [which] were then on foot, and the
possibility of their having been sincere when they addressed
so to him, might have been pleaded in alleviation of the dis
honesty of their not performing what they promised in their
Address ; and it might have passed on with the common
crowd of infirmities which usually surprize men of weak re
solution in such critical junctures. But to be in plots and
intrigues against him — to snatch at his concessions that
they might be in a condition to ruin him, and in the mean
time to make such protestations to him — to flatter and cajole
him at such a rate, merely of design to wheedle him into a
deep security, that they might the more expeditely and ef
fectually supplant and ruin him, was such an instance of

the preface. 53
iniquity, of antichristian craft, of rank and vile oheatery, as
can scarce be paralleled in history ; and so I leave it.
^ Thus I have given half a dozen of instances which might be
sufficient, in all reason, for exposing our author's goodly
impudence, and yet they may be reckoned amongst the most
innocent of many scores that might be collected in his writ
ings. But it is not my present purpose to pursue him in
all his wild careers. I shall, therefore, insist only on three
or four things more, which, as I take it, may be sufficient to
give the world a surfeit of him. The things I am to take
notice of are some impudent shifts he has betaken himself to
for extricating himself, when at any time he or his cause was
put to it, by any present difficulty. In such cases no rule
obliges him, no law binds him, no equity bounds him, no
shame bridles him, no sense of reputation overawes him.
Thus, e. g.
7. Before he shall be forced to yield in his argument, or
seem to be nonplussed, he shall not fail to furbish his talent,
and make it keen enough for combating the common sense
of the whole nation. It were an endless work to trace him
through all instances he has of this nature. " What pos
sessions have any" — of the Episcopal clergy — "been deprived
of, unless for crimes against the State?" Second Vindication,
p. 6. Now, who knows not that more than three hundred who
were owfo^by the rabble were deprived of their possessions, and
that by an Act of Parliament, without so much as being charged
with B^rs.^ crime, or tried byany Court? Again, the author of the
" Second Letter" had called it K\ing\ /[«mes]'s retirement,
when he left England and went to France — " so he termeth"
— says G[ilbert] R[ule], Second Vindication, p. 23 — " that
which the Parliament called King James' abdicating the go
vernment." Now, his author was a Scottish man, and writing
upon Scottish hypotheses, and about Scottish affairs, so that if
G[ilbert] R[ule] spake sm,se, he spake of the Scottish Par
liament. But I am satisfied that the world reckon me as
impudent as G[ilbert] R[ule] is really, if there is so much as
onesyllable, orany thing that looks like an intimation of King
J[ames]'s either abdicating or deserting the Government in
any Scottish Declaration, or Law, or Claim of Right, in any
public deed done by the nation. Again, " Second Vindica
tion," p. 36, he says, that " most of them who were thrust

54 THE PREFACE.
out by the rabble were put out by their own consciences."
But after this, what might he not have said ? To trace him
through all such instances, I say, would be an endless work.
I shall, therefore, confine myself to two — one a matter of
fact, another a matter of right, or rather a mixed matter, in
which both right and/«c< are concerned.
The matter of fact shall be that story he so frequently in
sists on about my Lord Dundee's 2000 men, &c. in his
" Second Vindication." — " About the time the Convention
of Estates was to sit down, a design was discovered, framed
by the Viscount of Dundee and others, to surprize and seize
the Convention ; and for this end had secretly got together of
K[ing] J[ames]'s disbanded soldiers and others about 2000
strangers in Edinburgh" (p. 11). This plot did our author a
great many services. " It occasioned those of the West to
gather as many into Edinburgh to oppose them, and secure
the Convention" (Ibid.) Mark here— they were those of
the West who gathered the rabble into Edinburgh, and this
gathering was only occasional, and of their own proper mo
tion. Mark these things, I say, and compare them with
what follows. Again, that " there was a design to fall on
the ministers of Edinburgh is affirmed on no ground, and
without any truth, or that the College of Justice armed in
their defence. It was rather on the same design on
which the Viscount of Dundee had gathered forces into
the town, and it was for opposing of them, and not for
assaulting the ministers of Edinburgh" (Ibid. 39.) And (p.
40) — " The thanks the rabble got was for their zeal
in defending the Convention from that opposite rabble,
viz. the 2000 men Dundee and others had gathered into
Edinburgh to have seized the Convention." Again, (p.
96)—" That the Western rabble which came to Edin
burgh in the time of the Convention were in arms against
law," says he, " is false, for they were called by the author
ity of the Estates as their guard, when their enemies had
gathered a formidable party into Edinburgh; and though they
were together before the Earl of Leven got the command,
yet not before they were caUed together by the Estates,"
(Ibid.) And (p. 110)—" He (Dundee) had gathered a for
midable party to destroy the Convention of Estates, and
they gathered a force for their own security." Now, one

THE PREFACE. 55
who is a mere stranger to Scottish affairs, finding this plot of
Dundee's so confidently asserted, so frequently insisted on,
made use of to serve so many turns, would seem to have reason
to believe that there was really such a plot, and that all this
was uncontrovertible matter of fact. For how is it to be ima
gined that one who undertook to be the " Vindicator" of the
kingdom of Scotland should talk so boldly of such a recent
matter of fact, if there was no such thing really ? And yet the
whole nation knows this whole matter is as notorious [a] fig
ment,'^ as arrant poesy, as is in all Homer, or Ovid's Metamor
phoses. For my part, I never so much as once heard of it,
and I was at Edinburgh for the most part [of] the whole year
1689, tiU I found it asserted by G[ilbert] R[ule] in his " Se
cond Vindication," i. e. toward the end ofthe year 1691 ; and
let the world judge of its credibility. Poets themselves should
be careful to feign things plausibly, but it seems our author
has never read so much as the first ten lines of Horace —
" De Arte Poetica."
That convocation of the rabble from the West which was
at Edinburgh when the Convention of Estates met would
not have amounted to above 600 or 700 men. I saw them
actually drawn up between the Tolbooth and the Weigh-
House of Edinburgh2 upon the 18th day of March 1689. I
am confident they were not 800, yet though they were but
a rabble, raw and untrained men, they chased Dundee out
of Edinburgh, though he had 2000 trained and disciplined
men under his command ; and yet the same Dundee, with
scarce 2000 untrained, undisciplined Highlanders, routed
near to 4000 trained and disciplined men at Killiecrankie. ^
1 [It is expressly declared by contemporary writers that there was a
Covenanting plot to murder Dundee, who, being made aware of it, with
drew from the Convention for his own personal security. — Lochiell's
Memoii-s, 4to. 1842, p. 235. Letter I. pp. 3, 4.— E.]
2 [This is that part of the High Street of Edinburgh near the Castle
known as the Lawnmarket. The Tolbooth, a most hideous prison, cele
brated by Sir Walter Scott in the " Heart of Mid-Lothian," stood nearly
in the centre of the street, at the north-west corner of St Giles' cathedral.
It was removed in 1817. The Weigh-House, an ugly edifice, was erected
in the middle of the street at the Castle HiU, near the site of the elegant
edifice finished in 1844 for the meetings of the Established Presbyterian
General Assembly. The Weigh-House was taken down in 1822. — E.]
^ [It is only fair to add, however, that the Viscount of Dundee, who
was killed at that battle, was indebted for his rictory as much to the

56 THE PREFACE.
But this is not all. You may observe, he says, it was not
to defend the ministers of Edinburgh that the College of
Justice armed, but in pursuance of that same design with
Dundee, viz. the surprizing and seizing of the Convention.
Now, be it known to all men, that the convocation of the
rabble which occasioned the arming of the College of Jus
tice was quite different from that convocation which was
made when the Estates met. The Western rabble met
first at Edinburgh with a design to have insulted the minis
ters of that city! about the 24th of January, and their num
bers were daily increasing. The College of Justice^ armed
and kept guard about the 25th or 26th of that month.
About the middle of February there was a proclamation
over the Cross of Edinburgh, "commanding all in arms, ex
cept the garrisons, &c. to disband." Upon this the College
of Justice disarmed immediately. All this while Dundee
was so far from having got together 2000 to surprize the
Convention, that neither was the Convention so much as in
dicted ;3 for the letters by which it was indicted bear date
no sooner than February 5, at St. James's, and some six, or
eight, or ten days, I think, were gone before they were de
livered to all persons concerned in Scotland. Nor was
Dundee as yet come from England to Scotland.
Well ! was not the Western rabble, which was in Edin
burgh in the time of the Convention, called by the Meeting
of Estates for counterplotting Dundee's plot ? Pure poesy
still ! For did not our author himself say (p. 11), that
" Dundee's having got together 2000 men, &c. occasioned

nature of the ground as to the bravery of his Highlanders. This must be
obvious to any one who has visited the battle field of Killicrankie — one of
the wildest Passes anywhere to be seen. No troops, however numerous,
disciplined, or well ordered, could act ou such ground. It ought also to
be remembered that General Mackay, who commanded King William's
forces, was an of&cer of the most undoubted ability, corn-age, and ex
perience. — E.]
1 [The reader wiU of course understand that, in aU these aUusions to
the " ministers of Edinburgh," the Episcopal clergy are meant. — E.]
^ [This body consists of certain persons belonging to the legal profession,
or connected with the Courts of Law in Scotland. On several occasions of
danger its members have volunteered their services, been formed into
a regiment for the protection of the pubHc peace, and always distingiiished
ibr their loyalty and bravery. — E.]
' [Summoned to meet. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 57
those in the West to gather as many into Edinburgh to op
pose him." Now, if they were only occasionally gathered by
those in the West, how could they be called by the autho
rity of the Estates. Were those in the West, who gathered
them, the Estates ? Besides, I would only ask G[ilbert]
R[ule] if he can as readily produce the order of the Estates
for levying these men for defending the Convention against
Dundee, as I can produce their Act for returning thanks to
them ? Let him search all the Records, and try if he can
find such an order. In short, who knows not that that
rabble was in Edinburgh as early as the Estates themselves?
The Estates, as all Britain knows, met on the 14th day of
March.! The rabble threatened Dundee on the 15th or
16th. He represented it to tho Estates on Monday morn
ing, being the 18th. He could find no security for his per
son. He departed, therefore, from Edinburgh with some
28 or 30 persons in his retinue that same day, and never saw
it again.2 All this was done before Leven got his commis-
^ [Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ix. p. 5. — E.]
^ [All this is historically correct. Dundee publicly announced to the
Estates that the Cameronian Presbyterians from the western counties had
formed a combination to murder him, and when we recollect the hatred
they cherished to him, and their bitter ferocity, which they never at ¦
tempted to conceal, when he was simply Colonel Graham of Claverhouse,
we cannot doubt the fact. The Estates would offer him no security. The
Viscount of Dundee then told them that for his safety he must leave
Edinburgh. He did so at the head of about 30, but others say 60,
troopers. His route of departure was down the steep alley from the
east end of the High Street and the head or west end of the Canongate
known as Leith Wynd. He then turned to the left, and rode slowly
along the present line of Prince's Street, at that time a tract of grass land
on the north side of the North Loch, and the pathway designated the
Lang Saw or Gate. When at the west end of this pathway, near where
St John's Episcopal Chapel is now erected, he ordered his men to halt,
and he climbed up the west side of the castle rock, to hold a communica
tion with the Duke of Gordon, the Governor of Edinburgh Castle, who
commanded the fortress for King James, and who had observed Dundee's
movements from the walls. The Viscount met the Duke at the Postern
Gate, which has long disappeared. It is now ascertained that Dundee
earnestly entreated the Duke to retain the fortress tiU reinforcements
were sent to him from the Highlands. The Viscount then descended,
mounted his steed, and rode off with his troopers to Linlithgow, whence
he proceeded to the Highlands, and raised the Clans. This smgular inter
view was witnessed by thousands with varied feelings. The Convention
sent an officer named Bon tine after Dundee, to compel him to return.
Bontine overtook the Viscount on the road to Linlithgow, and it is need-

58 THE PREFACE.
sion from the Estates to command the rabble, or form
them into regular troops. Besides, let the world consider if
it required not even poetic expedition to have got that rabble
levied by order of the meeting of the Estates. There could
not be an order of the Estates for levying them before the
Estates met, as I take it. The Estates met on Thursday
14th, afternoon; on Monday the 18th, these men were in rank
and file on the street of Edinburgh, and many, most of them,
lived at fifty, sixty, seventy miles distance from the city. This,
one would think, was no or dinar j expedition. And now let any
man judge if G[ilbert] Rule] was not inspired with a goodly
dose ot poetic — (fire, shall I call it, or) — fury, -when he laid
this foundation of Dundee's plot, and raised so many pretty
structures upon it. And so much of his modesty in narrating
matter of mere fact. But is he as modest at mixed matters,
where both right and fact are concerned ? Consider him
but in one instance for brevity.
The author of the " Second Letter" had given an account
of Dr Strachan's Defence,! when he appeared before the
Committee of Estates, and was challenged for not praying for
W[illiam] and M[ary] as K[ing] and Q[ueen] of Scot
land, &c. This, for substance — " That the Estates had
found, in their Claim of Right, that none could be K[ing]
and Q[ueen] of Scotland till they had sworn the Coronation
Oath : For this reason they had declared that James, by
assuming the regal power, and acting as King, without
having taken the Oath required by Law, had forfeited the
right to the Croton : That all the Estates had yet done was
only the nomination of W[illiam] and M[ary] as the per
sons to whom the Crown should be offered; but they had

less to observe that the order was disregarded. Dundee plainly told Bon
tine that if he attempted any violence, he would be sent back to the Con
vention chopped to pieces in a blanket. He fell soon after at the Pass of
Killicrankie, in defence of " King James aud the Church of Scotland,"
which words were the war-cry of this illustrious Scotsman. For a minute
account of the Viscount of Dundee's departure from Edinburgh, and the
proceedings it occasioned, see " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church
from the Revolution to tlie Present Time," by John Parker Lawson, M.A.
Edinburgh, Svo. 1843, p. 93-5.— E.]
' [This learned and pious person was Professor of Divinity in the
Uuivt-rsity of Edinburgh, and one of the ministers of the Tron Church.
-E.l

THE PREFACE. 59
not yet actually made the offer, far less had W[iUiam] and
M[ary] accepted of it. It was possible they might refuse
it, but though they should not, yet they could not be King
and Queen of Scotland till they had solemnly sworn the
Oath. This was not yet done, and therefore he could not
see how he could pray for them as King and Queen of Scot
land, nor how the Estates in reason, or in consequence to
their own principles, could require it of him." One would
think there was some force in this Defence, yet our author
had such a force of impudence, as prompted him to offer at
confuting it. But how ? " It is known," says he, " that
the exercise of the Government had been long before ten
dered to the Prince, and that his Highness had accepted
and exercised it." True ; it was tendered to him on the
tenth of January 1688-9, and he accepted of it upon tkve four
teenth. But what was this to Mary ? Was the exercise of
the Government tendered to her also ? Or did this tender
made to WiUiam, and his accepting of it, make him King ?
Was he King even after the \Mh of January ?
Observe here, by the way, when our author had therabble to
defend, and the Estates to justify for not restoring the rabbled
ministers, and the nation knows hundreds were rabbled after
that 14th of January, he could tell it twenty times over that
that was an interregnum, a state of anarchy, &c. So that,
if I mistake not, it may try his reconciling skill to make
what he says here, and what he said on these occasions,
piece well together. Proceed we now to what he has said
more about Strachan's Defence.
" The nation's representative," says he, " had then owned
him (WiUiam) as their King, and therefore it was a con
tempt of the authority of the nation for any man to refuse
to own him when called to do so." Now, what could move
our author to such a stretch of his main talent, as thus to
say that the representative of the nation had owned him as
their King ? 1 confess I am not able to fathom. For how
could they own him as King so long as he had not taken the
Oath, nor agreed to the Claim of Right ? If they owned
him as King before that, was he not King before that ?
But if he was King before that, where is the use of the
Oath, or the Claim of Right ?
The Estates, indeed, upon the 11^7* of April declared

60 THE PREFACE.
W[iUiam] and M[ary] to be the persons to whom they had
resolved to offer the Crown, upon such and such conditions,
as is evident from that day's Proclamation ;! but the Jjctter
of the Estates, by which they actually made the offer of the
Crown on these conditions, was not written till April 24th,
and the return, bearing that they had accepted of the Crown
on these conditions, is dated May 17th. And was not Doctor
Strachan deprived even before the Letter of the Estates was
sent to London ? Were not more than twenty-four ministers
deprived before their Majesties' return came to Edinburgh ?
Besides, G[ilbert] R[ule]'s impudence, as sturdy as it is,
did not serve him, it seems, to give a faithful account of
Doctor Strachan's Defence, and grapple with all the force
of it. For the Doctor, if the author of the " Second
Letter" was right, made the supposition that William and
Mary might refuse to take the Crown with such conditions.
This was so far from being an impossible, that it was truly
a very reasonable, a very equitable, a very dutiful supposi
tion. Now, suppose they had done so, would they have
been King and Queen for all that, by virtue of the Declara
tion of the Estates of the 11^/i of April? If so, I ask
again what the Coronation Oath, or the Claim of Right,
signified ? Or were the Estates to make them King and
Queen whether they would or not ? If, upon that supposi
tion, they had not been King and Queen, as undoubtedly
they had not been, then what can be more evident than that
the Proclamation of the 11th of April did no more than
nominate them to be King and Queen, upon their agreeing to
such conditions ? So that G[ilbert] R[ule] was even him
self, when he said that the nation's representative had owned
them as King and Queen before the 13^/t of April.
I add farther — What though they had owned them as
King and Queen by their Proclamation of the 11th of April?
Did not the whole drift, the whole design, the whole train,
the whole tendency, the whole aspect, and the whole circmn-
stances of the deliberations, resolutions, and conclusions, of
the Estates evidently propose it to the dullest apprehension,
that the C'rown was not to be granted to them but on such
and such conditions ''. This question I propose for vindicat-
1 [Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ix. p. 38, 40, 41.— E.]

THE PREFACE. 61
ing Doctor Strachan from the guilt of contempt of the author
ity of the Estates, with which G[ilbert] R[ule] charges him.
For if the affirmative in the question be true — and, I think
G[ilbert] R[ule] himself dares not to say it is false — then,
I ask, how it could be called a contempt of the authority of
the nation to have refused then to own, W[iniam] and
M[ary] as King and Queen ? How can he be said to contemn
the authority of the nation who reasons upon the nation's
authority ? — who reasons upon the force of all the delibera
tions, resolutions, and conclusions, of the representative body
of the nation? If, doing so, he doth yet contemn the
authority of the nation, I am apt to think it cannot be his
fault. He doth but what a man must needs do when the
nation makes repugnant and contradictory determinations.
But, after all, is it not pleasant that G[ilbert] R[ule],
forsooth, should so zealously exaggerate the crime of con
temning the authority of the nation ? Good man ! He paid
it a wonderful dutifulness all his life ! Far was it still from
him to treat it with such contempt as Doctor Strachan's
amounted to !
But he has not yet done. He answers further, that it is a
" material mistake ofthe words of the Claim of Bight" — (that
was alleged in Strachan's Defence) — " which doth not say,
none can be King or Queen ;" but that " none can exercise
the regal power till they have taken the Coronation Oath. It
is certain that on the death of a King his rightful successor
is King, and may be prayed for as such ; and such praying
may be enjoined even before taking of the Oath. The same
may be said of one chosen, and proclaimed by the supreme
authority of the nation, which is the case now in hand."
Here is a piece of as odd stuff as one would wish to see ;
for if it was a material mistake to say " none can be King or
Queen," when it should have been said, " none can exercise
the regal power," it seems to me to have been a mistake made
of very mathematical matter, not of the solid sensible matter,
which can be felt and hamdled. For my part, I cannot for
bear thinking it must be compounded of negative quantities
till I shall learn how one can be a King, i. e. a person who has
right to rule and act as King, who has yet no right to exer
cise the regal power, or act as King. I know one may be
physically incapable of exercising the regal power, and acting

62 THE PREFACE.
as King by himself, in several cases, such as that of infancy,
&c. ; yet even then he has right which is not a physical but
a moral quality. Now, I say, I would fain understand how
one can be a King without this moral quality, or how he can
have this moral quality called right, and yet be morally in
capable of exercising it. I shall own G[ilbert] R[ule] is
good at metaphysics if he can give an intelligible account of
these things.
Well ! But it is certain " that on the death of a King his
rightful successor is King, and may be prayed for as such ;
and such praying may be enjoined even before taking of the
Oath." All this is true ; but then I affirm it is as true that
that " rightful successor" who is " King" may and can exer
cise the regal power, and act as King, before he takes the
Oath. So, I am sure, our Scottish monarchs have done, so
the Law allows them to do, so of necessity they must do. For
instance, they are not bound by Law to take the Oath but at
their Coronation. And, not to speak of other things, I
think it is truly an exercising of their regal power, and act
ing as Kings, to appoint the preparations for, the day, the
place, the solemnities, &c. of, their own Coronations ; for, I
think, none other can do it but the King, and if so he must
do it as King, otherwise another might do it.
But then, though I have granted our author this much,
that the " rightful successor" is " King" before he takes the
Oath, I think no reason can oblige me to grant what fol
lows, viz. that " the same may be said of ONE chosen and
proclaimed by the supreme authority of the nation, which
is the case NOW in hand." For, not to insist on the
liberty our author hath taken here to call their Majesties
elective sovereigns, in opposition to such as are hereditary,
though I think it was pretty bold in him to talk so, I think
this is one of the most notable differences between an here
ditary and an elective monarchy, that in the hereditary
the King never dies, i. e. in that same instant that the reg
nant King's breath goeth out, the rightful successor is King ;
whereas in the elective monarchy the King dies with the
man, and there is no King till there is a new creation. This,
I think, makes the cases pretty wide, and I think they are
wider yet, when he that is to be the elected King is not to
be King at all till he agrees to such and such conditions.

THE PREFACE. 63
Who sees not a vast difference between the hereditary and
the elective King in this case ? But not to press our author
farther, and once for all to end this controversy about
Strachan's Defence, take what foUows for undoubted truth.
Upon that same very 11th of April 1689, on which the
Estates gave out their Proclamation, importing that they
had resolved that William and Mary should be King and
Queen of Scotland, they enacted their Declaration, contain
ing the Claim of Right, and their resolution to offer the
Crown only on the terms of that Claim ; and not only so,
but they made this following Act word for word.
" Forasmuch as the Estates of this Kingdom by their
former Acts declare that they would continue undissolved
until the Government, Laws, and Liberties of the Kingdom
should be settled and secured ; and they having now pro
ceeded to resolve that WUliam and Mary, King and Queen
of England, be, and be declared. King and Queen of Scot
land : And considering that the nation cannot be without
Government until the said King and Queen of England ac
cept the offer of the Crown according to the Instrument of
Government, and take the Oath required before they enter
to the exercise of the regal power. Therefore the said Estates
do hereby declare and enact, that they will continue in the
Government, as formerly, until their Majesties' acceptance of
the Crown, and their taking of the said Oath be made known
to them."!
If this Act doth not make it evident that there was no
material mistake of the words of the Claim of Right in
Doctor Strachan's Defence, but that the Doctor pleaded
and reasoned upon the manifest principles of the Meeting
of the Estates ; — if it doth not demonstrate that the Doctor's
plea was solid and irrefragable ; — and if it follows not by
necessary consequence that it was an unaccountable proceed
ing of the Committee of Estates to deprive the Doctor, and
near to thirty more, for not praying for W[iUiam] and M [ary,]
as K[ing] and Q[ueen] of Scotland, before they were, or
could be, K[ing] and Q[ueen] of Scotland — let the intelligent
1 [See also Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ix. p. 41.— E.]

64 THE PREFACE.
reader judge. But if these inferences are notoriously just,
then let him judge again if G[ilbert] R[ule], by offering to
invalidate the Doctor's Defence, was not guilty of a palpable
indiscretion in refreshing the memory of such an unaccount
able proceeding of the Meeting of the Committee of Estates,
which had far better been buried in perpetual oblivion.
And lastly, let him judge if it argued not more than an
ordinary impudence in G[ilbert] R[ule] to have attempted
the defence of that procedure ; and if such an attempt was
not, with a fetch of his talent peculiar to himself, to offer
violence to reason and law, to justice and equity, to the light
of nature, and to the common sense of mankind.
One would think it was impudence enough in all conscience
to have made so bold with common humanity, and particu
larly with the universal convictions of one's native country
as to a plain matter of fact. But such is our author's share
of that daring talent, that, assisted by it, he could even flee
in the face of his dearer relations, and leave them in the
lurch, rather than appear to have been worsted in his argu
ments. Thus, e. g.
8. When he was put to it, and could not otherwise make
his escape, he never made scruple to flee in the face of the
present civil government.
He tells you, indeed, in his Preface to " Second Vindi
cation," § 6, that one of his designs in writing his book was
to vindicate and justify the actings of the civil government.
Believe him, on many occasions, and he is a most dutiful
subject ; there cannot be a greater reverencer of authority.
He tells you — " It is a saucy boldness for private persons
to meddle with the designs of legislators" (Second Vindica
tion, p. 112). And God knows how frequently he exposes
his adversaries to the resentments of the civil government.
How zealous is he for stretching necks, &c. ! And yet, for all
this, as much as he is obliged to it — as great a veneration
as he pretends for it, it must not only shift for itself, but
he must run through its sides, if he has not another hole to
escape by. I shall only take notice of two instances of his
behaviour this way.
The first is in his " Second Vindication," (p. 22). His
adversary had laughed at the Presbyterian Address, and
these protestations of loyalty to King Jaines. " But I would

THE PREFACE. 65
fain know," says G[ilbert] R[ule], " by what topic either of
these can be condemned." I think I have hinted at least at
topic enough about that. Go we on now with our author. — ^
" They gave thanks for restoring them to their just right."
Neither is this the matter. " They professed and practised
loyalty towards their lawful sovereign, though of a dif
ferent religion from them." Here it is. For do not you
hear him plainly affirming that K[ing] J[ames] was a law
ful sovereign? Now, what was this less than striking at the
very root of the present Establishment ? Is it not a direct
contradicting of the Claim of Right, which declares that
K[ing] J[ames] " had forfeited the right to the Crown, by
assuming the regal power, and acting as King, v/ithout ever
taking the Oath required by Law ?" i. e. manifestly for not
being a " lawful sovereign." If thus to contradict its
very foundation strikes not at the root of the present Con
stitution, let the world judge ; but so it was, that our author
could not otherwise justify the Presbyterian Address,! &c.
^ [The History of the " Dispensing Power" and " Address," which are so
frequently mentioned in the Preface, may thus be summed up : — James
the Seventh had applied to the Scottish Parliament in 1686 for a repeal
of the Penal Laws against Roman Catholics, and of the Tests, which
qualified for certain offices and privileges. But failing in his application,
he determined to gain his point by another way — by an absolute exercise
of the Royal prerogative, rescinding aU religious restrictions and tests.
Accordingly, on the 12th February 1687, he issued a Proclamation grant
ing a partial toleration to certain specified Dissenters in His ancient king
dom of Scotland. But this not completely answering the ends for which
it was designed, on the Sth July he granted a second Indulgence, con
taining free toleration to aU systems of religion. There can be no doubt
that the Sovereign in this instance infringed upon the laws of the land ;
yet so overjoyed were the Presbyterians at the freedom held out to them,
that, forgetful of their dislike to Popery and Papists, — for whose sake
they weU knew the change had been effected — they eagerly availed them
selves of it, and went out of their way to testify their gratitude, by pre
senting an Address to the King — full of expressions of loyalty and flattery
— which after-events, in which these same persons were chief actors, prove
to have been mere hypocritical professions, which they did not feel,
and to which they were determined not to adhere. The Address was as
foUows : — " To the King's Most ExceUent Majesty, the humble Address
of the Presbyterian Ministers in his Majesty's kingdom of Scotland.
May it please your Majesty : We your Majesty's most loyal subjects, the
Ministers of the Presbyterian persuasion in your ancient kingdom of
Scotland, from the deep sense which we have of your Majesty's gi-acious
and sui-prizing favour, in not only putting a stop to our long sad sufferings
for Nonconformity, but granting us the liberty of the public and peaceable
5

&

66 THE PREFACE.
Again — One of his adversaries argued that Episcopacy
was abolished by the Parliament, as being contrary to the
inclinations of the people, and, therefore, if the people should
alter their inclinations, it might be restored by another Par
liament. One would think there was reason here, and it
seems G[Ubert] R[ule] was sensible of it ; and, therefore,
finding no other way to avoid its dint, he straight impugns
the power of King and Parhament. Take his own words—
(" Second Vindication," p. 90)—" But he should have con
sidered," says he, " that whatever motive the Estates went
upon, it is declared against in the Claim of Right as a
grievance, and therefore cannot be restored without over
turning the foundation of our present civil settlement." He
is at this again in other places upon the like occasions, par
ticularly p. 152.
Now, not to insist on the irreligion and godlessness of that
exercise of our ministerial function without any hazard, as we bless the
Great God, who hath put this in your Royal heart, do withal find ourselves
bound in duty to offer our most humble and hearty thanks to your sacred
Majesty, the favour bestowed being to us, and all the people of our per
suasion, valuable above all our earthly comforts ; Especially since we have
ground from your Majesty to believe that our loyalty is not to be ques
tioned on account of our being Presbyterians, who, as we have, under aU
former temptations, endeavoured, so are firmly resolved, still to preserve
an entire loyalty in our doctrine and practice, (consonant to our known
principles, which, according to the Holy Scriptures, are contained in the
Confession of Faith, generally owned by Presbyterians in all your Majes
ty's dominions,) and by the help of God, so to demean ourselves, as your
Majesty may find cause rather to enlarge than to diminish your favours
towards us ; thoroughly persuading ourselves, from your Majesty's justice
and goodness, that if we shall, at any time be otherwise represented, your
Majesty wUl not give credit to such information until yon take due cog
nition thereof : And humbly beseeching that those who promote any dis
loyal principles and practices, as we do disown them, may be looked upon
as none of ours, whatever name they may assume to themselves. May it
please your most Excellent Majesty graciously to accept this our humble
Address, as proceeding from the plainness and simplicity of loyal aud
thankful hearts, much engaged by this your royal favour, to continue our
fervent prayers to the King of Kings for divine illumination and conduct,
with aU other blessings, spiritual and temporal, ever to attend your Royal
Person and Government ; which is the greatest duty can be rendered to
your Majesty, by your Majesty's most humble, most faithful, and most
obedient subjects. At Edinburgh, July 21, 1687." The reader wiU easUy
perceive, by a comparison of this Address with the subsequent conduct of
the parties who framed it, that the terms here and in other places applied
to it by Bishop Sage — see page 51 — were not undeservedly severe. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 67
wild fetch, viz. — That whatever the motives were which in
duced men to establish any thing, yet being once established
it cannot be altered : — Not to insist on the notorious un
reasonableness of separating the conclusion of the Estates
from their premises, and saying the conclusion must stand
though the premises be rejected, though they established the
conclusion on the strength they apprehended was in the
premises : — Not to insist on the ridiculousness of saying
that Episcopacy cannot be restored without overturning the
" foundation " of the " present civil settlement," though
nothing can be more ridiculous than to say that the " foun
dations" of the " present civil settlement" are subverted, if all
ecclesiastical grievances are not redressed : — Not to insist
that our author spake very much at random when he called
the abolition of Episcopacy one of the fundamentals of
the present civil settlement, considering that the present
civil settlement was not only founded but finished a good
time before! the abolition of Episcopacy : — Not to insist on
things, I say, however momentous, consider only how directly
and plainly he impugns the power of King and Parliament
by saying — •" They cannot restore Episcopacy without subvert
ing the foundations of the present civil settlement." What is
this less than that if King and Parliament should restore
Episcopacy, they should break their original contracts ? than
that both should forfeit their titles — than that the King
should be no more King, and the Parliament should be no
more Parliament ? Is it not clear, that with our author the
Articles of our present Claim of Right are unalterable — un
changeable rules both to King and Parliament ? Now, if
this is not to impugn their power, I know not what can be.
In effect, it is to evacuate the usefulness of all sovereign
power. For where lieth its usefulness, if it is not able to
rectify what is amiss even in the Constitution ? But how
can it rectify what is amiss in the Constitution, if the Con
stitution, right or wrong, is unalterable ?
For my part, I cannot see but there is still that supreme
power in the nation which was, when the present civil settle
ment was made ; and as it might, while it was a making settle-
1 [William and Mary were proclaimed King and Queen on the 13th
of March 1689, but the Church was not overthrown, and Presbyterianism
established, iintU .Inly 22.— E.]

08 THE PREFACE.
ments, have made either another or the same, with twenty
little varieties, so it may still alter that which is made. I
cannot think that it either disabled or exhausted itself,
so as to be no more capable of providing /ar^Aer or otherwise
for the good of the nation, when it shall find it necessary.
In short, is not that same power still in the nation which
established the Claim of Right ? If it is not, what is become
of it ? How can the nation subsist without a supraAegal,
supra-original contract, supra Claim of Bight Power ? It had
it once, otherwise how could it ever have had laws, or claims
of right, or original contracts ? And must it not have it
still ? Has it lost it, or thrown it away ? Or has any body
taken it from it ? But if it is still to the fore! — if the nation
is still possessed of it, where is it lodged, if it is not lodged
in King and Parliament? Was there more power in the
Meeting of Estates than there is now in King and Parlia
ment ? How came the Meeting of Estates by it then, or
whither is it vanished now ? What is become of it ? Espe
cially, I think, it was pretty bold to say that the samepower
is not in the present King and the present Parliament, con
sidering that the present Parliament is that same very
individual thing with the Meeting of Estates by which the
Claim of Right was created. Cannot the same, the very
same creators pretend to a power of altering their own ill-
made creature, and make it better ? Had they more power
under one name than under another ? Or have they weakened
or lost their power by communicating it to their King, so
that there is not so much power now in him and them both
together, as there was once in them singly ?
And now let the reader judge if G[ilbert] R[ule], for
avoiding a difficulty, has not impudently run himself into
the guilt of the most atrocious, the most criminal, the most
treasonable treason — the treason of impugning the power of
King and Parliament. This was odd enough for one in his
circumstances. But yet the next step seems to me a little
more surprizing.
For, 9. On several occasions he has not stood on dis
gracing his own dear party, the Presbyterians themselves,
and most undutifuUy as well as impudently discovering their
' [This query is peculiarly a Scotticism, meaning — Tfit still exists. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 69
nakedness. I shall not insist on all instances that might be
adduced to this purpose, particularly his loading the Came
ronians with so much guilt, and so many hard names upon
every turn. The Cameronians,^ I say, these men of plain
principles, these avowed Covenanters, these most orthodox and
honest Presbyterians in the nation — even them, though
they are the true Champions of the Cause, and were the
principal promoters of the Presbyterian interest in the be
ginning of the late Revolution, he has lashed to purpose
when his argument required it, as may be seen in every page
almost of his " Second Vindication." But this I shall not
insist on, I say ; leaving him and them to reckon for it, if
they shall think it fit.
I shall take notice only of one very tender secret of his
own anomalous species of pretended Presbyterians, which he
has even needlessly, and by consequence very foolishly and
undutifuUy, exposed. He has in his books made many more
inexcusable officious lies, than if he had made one for cover
ing such a mighty shame of theirs ; but it is hard for one of
' [So called from one Richard Cameron, who, from being a schoolmaster
at Falkland (from which ofiice he was deposed for insufficiency), turned
field-preacher, and having gathered crowds around him, broke out into
rebellion, and was slain in a skirmish at Aird's Moss, in Ayrshire, June
1680. His followers, after the death of Cameron, continued their rebel
lious proceedings, and though frequently slaughtered by the royal troops,
always seemed to increase, actuated by redoubled fanaticism and obstinate
resistance to constituted authority. After the Revolution they had ample
opportunity of testifying their hatred to Episcopacy, and the Government
stood aloof, while they exercised unheard of cruelties and insults towards
the ministers of the disestabUshed Church. As their principles would
not allow them to submit to Episcopacy in its connection with the State,
so neither could they ever amalgamate with Established Presbyterianism,
but have preserved a distinct existence, under the title of the " Reform
ed Presbyterian Synod." At present they are a very insignificant sect
in Scotland, and are only distinguished by their rigid adherence to the
Solemn League and Covenant, and theii- extreme dislike to State inter
ference in matters of religion, and to every thing savoring of Episcopacy.
It is curious that the Revolution Government caused to be embodied, and
enroUed on the list of the regular British army, a number of these
religious zealots, who, under military discipline, soon became as distin
guished for loyalty and order as their predecessors had been for rebellion
and anarchy. The 26th Regiment, or " Cameronians," are said to have
been formed from the motley group of " HUl men " who used to perse
cute the Episcopal clergy, and came from the West to Edinburgh for the
purpose of overawing the Convention of Estates in 1689. — E.]

70 THE PREFACE.
his prudence to avoid such escapes when pressed with a
pungent argument. The matter is this : —
The author of the " Case of the Afflicted Clergy" had
said, that the Presbyterian ministers never preached against
the disorders of the rabble. Now, hear G[ilbert] R[ule] —
" Second Vindication," p. 97—" This is false, though we
thought not fit to make that our constant theme." Now,
that rabbling work was such a barbarous and unchristian
work, that one would think it had not misbecome the Pres
byterian ministers themselves to have made it at least very
much their " theme " on that occasion. But the secret is not
here. He adds — " And if but few did it, it was because they
who were the actors in that scene little regarded the preaching
of the sober Presbyterians." A great many things may be
observed here. For besides that he owns they were but
few who preached against the rabbling, it might be of use to
inquire at our author what kind of scens he took it to be ?
Whether was it tragical, or comical, or both — tragical to
the Prelatists, and comical to the Presbyterians ? It were
worth inquiring, likewise, whom he meant by sober Presby
terian preachers ? If there are any such in the nation, how
many ? Where do they preach. Sec ? But I insist not on
these things, because the secret is not amongst them.
Yet the next thing he produces is worth the noticing.
" And they"— the sober Presbyterian preachers, if they had
preached against the rabbling — " should have lost their sweet
words." Now, here is subject afforded for several weighty
controversies. For it may be made a question, whether it
be the duty of sober Presbyterian preachers to preach righteous
ness to a " rebellious people, whether they will hear, or
whether they will forbear ?" It may be made another —
Whether our author here gave up all the rabblers to a
reprobate sense ? It is possible he meant so. For the
sweetest words the soberest Presbyterians can utter in their
preachings are not too precious to be spent on such as are
in a state of reclaimableness. But that which I take to be
the most proper question — the question that ariseth most
naturally from the text — is, whether Presbyterian words are
not sweeter than that they should be spent on such needless
purposes as the recommendation and assertion of righteous
ness, and the condemnation of iniquity ? Whether it had

THE PREFACE. 71
not been an unaccountable prodigality in them to have lost
their sweet words about such trifling concerns as these ?
But neither is the secret here ; but it foUows now.
' ' These practices of the rabble were publicly spoken against
by ministers both before they were acted for preventing them,
and after, for reproving them, and preventing the like."
Here it is, I say. Has he not here discovered an important
secret of his party ? Has he not discovered that the rabbhng
of the clergy! was not the product of chance or accident, but
a deliberated, a consulted, an advised politic ? Has he not
discovered that even the sober Presbyterian ministers were
privy to the plot of it ? Has he not told that " they spake
against it, before it was acted, for preventing it ?" And doth
it not follow clearly that they knew of it before it was act
ed ; for if they had known nothing of it, how could they have
spoken against it for preventing it ?
But though they knew of it, that it was to be done, yet
it seems they consented not that it should be done, for " they
spake against it for preventing of it !" But I am afraid our
author here turned weary of his sincerity. For who spake
publicly against these practices of the rabble ? Or where, or
when, were they spoken against " before they were acted ?" I
dare challenge him to name one of his most sober Presbyterian
ministers who preached publicly against them for preventing of
them. When I am put to it, I can name more than one or two
who pretend to be of the first rank of the " sober Presby
terian" ministers, who knew of them indeed, and consulted
privately about them, and said — " It was the surest way to
have the curates once dispossessed i" because — '¦'¦once dispossessed,
they might find difficulties in being repossessed." But I never
heard of so much as one who preached against them before
they were done. I am very confident G[ilbert] R[ule] can
not name one. Indeed, seeing, as our author grants, they
knew of the rabbling before it was acted, if they had been so
serious against it as they should have been, and as our
author would have us believe they were, how natural and
easy, as well as Christian and dutiful, had it been to
have given advertisements to the poor men who were to
1 [The account of the rabbling of the clergy, and the insults aud suffer
ings which they endured, forms the subjects of some other Works of our
author. — E.

72 THE PREFACE.
suffer it, about it ? Was ever any such thing done ? But it
seems Presbyterian words were sweeter to Presbyterian
palates than common humanity or Christian charity. They
were too sweet to be lost in such advertisements. By this
time, the reader, I think, has got a proof of G[ilbert] R[ule]'s
tenderness even to his own herd, when the argument of an
adversary pinched him. But this is not the highest step.
For, 10. If an argument straitens him, he never stands
to baffle, and expose, and contradict, and make a liar of his
own learned, sensible, civil, modest self. And here, again,
one might write a large volume, but I shall confine myself
to a competent number of instances.
First, then, you never saw a Prelatist and a Presbyterian
contradicting one another in more plain, opposite, and per
emptory terms, than he has done himself on several occa
sions. Take this taste — In his " Answer" to Dr Stilling
fleet's " Irenicum" (p. 64), he is at great pains to prove
that where Episcopacy is, Presbyters have no po-ijoer. Par
ticularly he has these two profound arguments for it —
"1. If Bishops be set over Presbyters, they must either be
only Prwsides, which is not contrary to Parity, or they must
have authority above and over their brethren ; and if so,
they may rule without their brethren, seeing they may com
mand them," &c. — " 2. If Presbyters under a Bishop have
ruling power, either they may determine without or against
his consent, or not. If so, the Bishop is but a President ;
if not, the Presbyters are but cyphers'' Now, who would
think that one of G[ilbert] R[ule]'s courage would ever
have parted with such an important proposition, especially
having such impregnable arguments for it ? Yet, consider
if he has not done it most notoriously in his Answer to the
Doctor's " Unreasonableness of the Separation," &c. n. 182,
where he has these words — " He (the Doctor) undertaketh
to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away
the whole power of Presbyters. We do not aUege that it
taketh away the whole power of Presbyters, for that were
to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the
people ; but we say it usurpeth an undue power over
them," &c.
Again, in his " First Vindication" oi his Church of Scot
land, his cause led him, in answer to Question 10, to say

THE PREFACE. 73
that " K[ing] J[ames]'s Toleration was against Law." He
was pressed with this argument about the inclinations of tlie
people, that not fifty gentlemen in all Scotland (out of the
West) did, upon the Indulgence, forsake the churches to
frequent meeting-houses, and his answer was — -" They clave
to the former way" — i. e. continued in the Episcopal Com
munion — " because the Law stood for it." Is it not plain
here that the meeting-houses were contrary to Law ? Hear
him now, in his " Second Vindication" (p. 43, 44, passim),
when he was pressed with the scandal of his party's com
plying with the dispensing power, and erecting meeting
houses contrary to Law. He affirmed boldly that the " dis
pensing power was according to Law," and " K[ing]
J[ames] was enabled by Law to grant his Toleration."
Again, in his " Second Vindication," in answer to Letter I.
§ 9, p. 12, when he had the Meeting of Estates to apologize
for, for suffering and aUowing persons to sit as members who
" were not qualified according to Law," he granted some
such members sat there, but " they had been most unjustly
forfeited in the late Reign." Even Parliamentary forfeitures,
you see, were most unjust forfeitures, and there was no reason
that they should exclude these gentlemen from their just and
ancient rights and privileges. But when he was pressed by the
author ofthe "Case ofthe AfflictedClergy,"&c. with this, that
" many ministers' benefices were unjustly and illegally kept
from them," he got his cloak on tlie other shoulder, as we say
— " If the authority of the nation in the Convention or
Parliament have determined otherwise, I know not where
their legal right can be founded" (p. 96, § 6). It was not
so much as knowable to our author in that case, that there
might be m^st unjust Parliamentary determinations.
It were an endless work to adduce all such little squabbles
as these between himself and himself. I shall insist, there
fore, only on two more, which are a little more considerable.
And, first, our author was not at more pains about any
one thing, in his Answer to Dr Stillingfleet's " Irenicum,"
than the inseparableness that is between the teaching and
ruling power of Presbyters. He spent no less than eight or
nine pages about it, stretching his invention to find argu
ments for it. "Whoso pleases to turn to page 79, may see
the whole deduction. He is as earnest about it in his

^4 THE PREFACE.
" True Representation," &c. These are his words (Prop. 13)
— " There being no disparity of power amongst ministers
by Christ's grant of power to them, no man can make this
disparity by setting one over the rest ; neither can they
devolve their power on one of themselves. For Christ hath
given no such warrant to men to dispose of his ordinances
as they see fit ; and power being delegated to them by Him,
they cannot so commit it to another to exercise it for them,
as to deprive themselves of it. Also, it being not a licence
only, but a trust, of which they must give an account, they
must perform the work by themselves, as they will be
answerable." Now, it is not possible for one to contradict
himself more than he hath done both indirectly and directly
in this matter.
He hath contradicted himself indirectly, and by unavoid
able consequence, in so far as he hath owned or owns him
self a Presbyterian, and for the lawfulness, not to say the
necessity, of Scottish Presbyterian General Assemblies of the
present constitution. For, are all the ruling officers of Christ's
appointment, both preaching and governing elders, allowed
to be members of General Assemblies ? Do they all discharge
their " trust," and " perform their work by themselves there,
as they will be answerable to Him from whom they got their
trust ?" Doth not every Presbytery, consisting of twelve,
sixteen, or twenty preaching and as many ruling elders, send
only some three or four preaching elders, and only one ruling
elder, to the General Assembly ? Do they not delegate these,
and devolve their power upon them, and constitute them their
representatives for the Assembly ?! Let their commissions bo
^ [Whatever may have been the practice or theory in Bishop Sage's time,
wliich was at the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, the EstabUshed
General Assemblies have ceased to be representative or delegated. They
are composed of " ministers" who are members by rotation, as their names
appear on the roll of the Presbyteries with which they are connected, but
the " ruling elders" are always elected. By Act 5th of the General As
sembly 1694, it is provided that all Presbyteries of twelve parishes, or
under that number, shall send two " ministers" aud one " niling elder" to
General Assembly ; — that all Presbyteries consisting of eighteen parishes,
or under that number, but above twelve, shall send three " ministers" and
one " ruling elder ;" — and that all Presbyteries consisting of twenty-four
parishes shall send five " ministers" and two " ruling elders." By an Act
in 1712 each Pro&by tery whose number exceeded thirty ministerial charges
was to send si.x " ministers" and tliroi- '•' ruling eldeis" to the General
Ai^semlily. Thi^; has been the rule since 1713. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 75
inspected, and let it be tried, if it is not so. Now, how is
such a delegation consistent with our author's position about
the indevolvibility or indeleg ability of such a power ? It were
easy to pursue this further in its consequents. Now, what
an ill thing is it for a man thus to sap and subvert all his own
foundations — to contradict the fundamental maxims of his
own scheme by such unadvised propositions ? But this is not
the worst of it. He hath contradicted himself most directly
in that same individual " True Representation," &c. in
answer to the 10th Objection ; and in his " Second Vindi
cation," p. 154, 155. For in both places he endeavours to
justify the taking of all ruling power out of the hands of
the Episcopal ministers, and the putting it only in the hands
of the known sound Presbyterians, reserving to the Episcopal
ministers their teaching power only. It is true, it is evident
he found himself sadly puzzled in the matter, and was forced
to bring in his good friend Necessity, and the old Covenant
distinction of status Ecclesice turbatus and paratus to lend
him a lift. I have considered his friend Necessity sufficiently
in my book, and thither I refer the reader for satisfaction
about it. But what to do with his prcesens Ecclesice status,
I do not so well know ; only this I dare say, granting it to
be so nimble as to break scot-free through Divine institu
tions, yet it can neither by itself, nor with Necessity to help
it, reconcile notorious contradictions.
The other instance I shall adduce is in a very important
matter — no less than the Presbyterian separation from the
Episcopal Church of Scotland. He was put to it to defend
it in both " Vindications " of his Church of Scotland. —
" First Vindication," in answer to Question 4 ; " Second
Vindication," in answer to Letter II. § 3. All the reasons
he has adduced for that separation may be reduced to these
three — 1. Episcopacy. 2. The Episcopal ministers were
usurpers or intruders. For, 3. They had not the call of the
people, and so the people were not bound to own them as
their ministers. These are his grounds, I say, on which he
justifies their separation from us. Now, hear him in his
" Rational Defence," &c. published, as I have told, since
the beginning of the late Revolution ; by consequence, after
the Scottish schism was in its full maturity. Hear him there, I
sav, and you never heard man reject any thing more fairly,

76 THE PREFACE.
more fully, or more directly, than he hath done these his own
grounds. Let us try them one by one.
1. For Episcopacy, turn first to page 95, and you shall
find these very words — ¦" Whatever fault we find with the
ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy, we do not sepa
rate because of these. We would join with you " — (the
English Church) — " for all these grievances, if you would
but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that
which is our personal action." Turn next to page 150.
There he offers at enumerating the causes that cannot jus
tify a separation, and he talks particularly about Episcopacy
thus — " We are grieved with Prelatical Government, and
taking away that parity of power that Christ hath given to
the ordinary ministers of his Church. This we cannot ap
prove, and therefore ministers ought rather to suffer depri
vation of the public exercise of their ministry than own it.
And people also ought not to own that their lordly autho
rity that they exercise ; yet, because this is not required to
be acknowledged as a lawful power in the Church by the
people, I see not that we should withdraw from the public As
semblies merely because there are Diocesan Bishops set over
the Church, except our owning them by submitting to their
jurisdiction is required as one of the terms of communion
with the Church." Whoso pleases may find more to the
same purpose, pages 157, 275, &c. Nay, so condescending
is he in that book (p. 159), that he can allow Bishops their
temporal honours and dignities. " We meddle not with
their titles and revenues," says he ; " these are the magis
trates' gifts, and do not cross Christ's institution, whatever
inconvenience may be in them."
2. As to the plea of the usurpation or intrusion of the
Prelatists, Dr StiUingfleet had alleged that the Dissenters
pleaded that " most of the present ministers of the Church
of England were usurpers, and that from such the people
might lawfully separate." — " We deny both parts of the
assertion," says Gjilbert] R[ule], p. 115, 116. " What
ever usurpation some of them may be guilty of, we know
most of them have the (tacite at least) consent of the
people a post facto ; and, therefore, however they may be
guilty of intrusion in their entry, in their continuing in their
places they are no usurpers. Neither do we own it to be

TIIE PREFACE. 77
lawful to separate from every minister that is an usurper,
merely on the account of his usurpation." And he dis
courses the point copiously, as the curious reader may find
(Ibid.) 3. Neither is he less positive about the third thing which,
in his Scottish management of the plea, he insists on as
the great reason of the former, viz. the popular call. For
Dr Stillingfleet had adduced Dr Owen as asserting, that the
depriving of the people of the right to choose their own
pastors was a just ground of separation. And G[ilbert]
R[ule] answers — " If Dr Owen hath done so, let it pass for
a part of the Independent judgment, which was a mistake
of that eminent servant of God : others are not of that
mind." And a little after — " The people, by the laws of
the Gospel, have the right of election of their own pastors ;
but it doth not follow that they ought not to bear with
being hindered the exercise of this right for the sake of peace
and unity." And, p. 151 — " Depriving the people of their
right of choosing their own church officers is also matter of
complaint ; but we must bear it rather than separate for
that from a Church." And, page 197, when he came to
assert that right of the people, he told he did " not make
the depriving of the people of that power a cause of separa
tion." Nay, not once, but very frequently, he lays the
whole stress of the English separation upon the sinful terms
of communion, as he calls them, imposed by the Church of
England. Let the Church purge her offices of human in
ventions. Let her lay aside the Liturgy, the Cross in Bap
tism, kneeling at the receiving of the Eucharist, and Holy-
days, &o., and he and all his party shall join with her cheer
fully. Vide p. 24, 81, 106, 107, 109, 120, 133, 144, 151,
&c. Now, let any man, even of his own sect, reconcile these
things. Let him shew why Episcopacy, usurpation, and de
priving the people of their right to choose their own pastors,
should be so every way sufficient grounds for separating
from the Church of Scotland, and so noways sufficient grounds
for separating from the Church of England. What could
move the man to venture upon such lumpish, bulkish con
tradictions ? For my part, I cannot guess at another mo
tive than that which I have frequently mentioned, viz. the
present Argument. In England he had some other things

V8 THE PREFACE.
to bear the burden, but no other thing in Scotland, and it
was necessary for his Vindicatorship to justify the separ
ation. And, therefore, what could not do it in England
behoved to do it in Scotland.
But perhaps he may endeavour to extricate himself by
running for shelter to the old Scottish plea of the Covenant.
For is not Prelacy abjured in Scotland ? Is not the oath of
God upon Presbyterians, nay, on all the nation, not to own
Prelacy ? Are not all the Prelatists perjured, &c. ? And
now may not the Presbyterians separate lawfully ?
He seems, indeed, to betake himself to this plea in his
" Answer" to the " Historical Relation of the General As
sembly," § 20, p. 189. " The setting up of Episcopacy,"
says he, " was more sinful in this nation (Scotland) than it
could be elsewhere, because of the oath of God that the na
tion is under against it, not in later times only, but in the
times of King James the Sixth, who caused the whole nation
swear the Shorter Confession of Faith, called the National
Covenant, where it is abjured." Now, not to insist on shew
ing that, upon the supposition all this were true, it militates
only against Episcopacy, it could conclude it only, but
neither the usurpation, nor the depriving the people of their
riqht, &c. to be a sufficient ground for the separation. Nor
yet to insist on the notorious falsehood of the supposition,
viz. that Episcopacy was a,bjured in King James the Sixth's
time : — not to insist on these things, I say, if he himself is
strong enough for himself, himself will not suffer himself to
make the abjuration of Episcopacy in Scotland a sufficient
ground for separating from the Episcopal Church of Scot
land. For in the fortieth page of his " Rational Defence,"
&c. attempting to shew a difference between complying with
the Church of England at the Reformation and complying
with her now, he opens thus : — " I might here allege the
obligation of the National Covenant that we are under, as
they were not to whom the Doctor! would' make our case
parallel" — i.e. those who lived at the Reformation — " though
I never thought that that Bond made any sins or duties
that were not such antecedently." Now, (not to insist on
the pleasantness of pretending that he might insist on a topic
1 [StUlingfleet.— E.]

THE PREFACE. 79
in which he instantly acknowledges there is no force) — if
oaths and covenants make no duties nor sins which were not
such antecedently, I would fain understand how the National
Covenant, or whatever Covenant has been in Scotland, could
make Episcopacy a sufficient ground for separating from the
Church of Scotland, if it was not a sufficient ground for such
separation antecedently to these Covenants. Thus, he him
self hath cut off himself from all hopes of escaping by the
Covenant. Indeed, there is no possibility of escape left him.
It is not in the power of nature to rescue one who
is so plunged over head and ears in such a sink of contradic
tions. What hath been said might be sufficient in all conscience
for representing his own unnatural unmercifulness towards
himself ; for what can be more unmercifully done to any one
than to demonstrate him to all the world to be a manifest
liar ? And who can be a more manifest liar than he who
upon every turn vomits contradictions ? Yet this is not all ;
perhaps it is not the worst.
There is such an intimate relation between himself, and his
books written by himself, that I think it is reasonable to say,
that whosoever treats his books with any degree of impu
dence, is every whit as impudent towards himself. Now, it
is not possible that ranker, more merciless, or more impu
dent injury can be done to any than himself hath done to
his " Second Vindication" of his Church of Scotland, at
least, to near three parts of four of it : — to it, so far as it
answers the " Four Letters," the " Case of the Afflicted
Clergy," and the " Late Letter." For he hath engraven on
it such indelible characters of disingenuity, partiality, in
justice, unfair dealing, effrontery, ridiculousness, &c. as per
haps never book was injured or bespattered with since writ
ing of books was in fashion. The reader may think this is
a very strange charge, but I can make it good to a demon
stration by a very plain and obvious deduction.
Thus : Some of the Episcopal clergy thought themselves
obliged for their own vindication to give some short repre
sentations of their circumstances, and the unkindly treat
ment they had met with from the Presbyterian party, anno
1688, 1689, &c. The whole nation knows they were so
far from feigning instances, or aggravating the circumstances

80 THE PREFACE.
of their sufferings, that they told not the twentieth part of
what they suff'ered, nor represented what they told in all
its proper blacknesses. However, so much was told, as was
enough to represent the Presbyterian temper in no very
lovely colours. The party were sensible of this, and, there
fore, it was necessary to try if there was a possibility of col
lecting and connecting some rags to cover their shame and
nakedness. The expedient they agreed to was, that the
accounts given by the Episcopal clergy should be answered
and refuted, but then the difficulty was to find an author
who had talents proper for such a task. It was committed,
first to Mr Alexander Pitcairn, but after he had thought
some time about it, it seems it stood with his stomach. He
had not so far abandoned all principles of truth, and honesty,
and ingenuity, as was necessary for such an undertaking.
He resigned the employment, therefore, into the hands of
another general meeting of the party, and told them he would
have nothing to do with it.
This, no doubt, was a discouragement to all others of any
wit or probity to undertake it, for if it was to be done to any
good purpose at all, Pitcairn was as fit for doing of it as any
of the sect ; and if he gave it over, after so much deliberation
about it, it was to be presumed there was frost in it ; it was
not safe to meddle with it. Thus it fell to the share of
G[ilbert] R[ule], as he teUs himself both in his Preface and
in the beginning of his book.
Such an odd undertaking did indeed require a suitable
undertaker, and now it had one as oddly qualified for it as
the world has heard of. For if we may believe himself in
his " Preface" to his " Animadversions" on Doctor Stilling
fleet's " Irenicum" — for who but himself would have been at
pains to write Prefaces to his books ? — " He died a worthy
and much lamented author, anno 1662." And, so far as I
can learn, he continued thus in the state of the dead till to
wards the end of the year 1688, i. e. about twenty-six years.
Then, indeed, he returned to life. Now it is not to be ima
gined [that] his soul, all this while was either in the regions
of eternal rewards or eternal punishments! ; for then, how
^ [It is impossible to justify the witticims here derived from allusions
to sacred subjects, and we only regret that our venerable author should

THE PREFACE. 81
should it have returned ? Doubtless, therefore, it was in some
Purgatory, but what Purgatory is not easy to determine. I
am confident it was not the ordinary Purgatory in which
people are purged from the dregs of corruption they carry
out of this world with them, for he came alive again more
corrupted and vicious than ever. Possibly he has been in
some new Purgatory which the Pope built lately for keeping
a seminary of such as he lets out upon occasion, for plagues
to the Protestant Churches. Whatever Purgatory it was, our
Author came out of it purged pretty clean of all principles
of sense, or shame, or lionesty. And now who fitter than he
to be the "Vindicator of the Kirk of Scotland ? Before his
death he wrote only such books as were little in their own eyes
(Preface to " Animadversions" on " Irenicum"), but he ven
tured on writing such books as his " Second Vindication"
after his resurrection.
I have given this account of our Author and the occasion
of his writing the book, for fixing the reader's attention,
that he may consider it with the greater application.
Now, in this book — his " Second Vindication," I mean —
he rejected by the bulk all the matters of fact which were
contained in the " Four Letters," because they were not
attested, as if, forsooth, the writers of the Letters had had
opportunity to have had all the particular cases tried in
formal courts before indifferent judges, and with all the
usual solemnities of process — as if it had been their inten
tion, by their Letters, to have made formal pursuits for the
injuries had been done the clergy — aS if the world could not
have easily discerned that all their purpose in writing these
Letters was not to sue legally for redress, but to represent
to their friends matter of fact in the common way of history.
Well ! to mend this, however, the " Case of the AflJict-
ed Clergy" gave him attestations enough in all conscience.
But did that satisfy him ? No more than if he had got none
at all, for they were not worth a button ; they were not pro
bative, they were but partial. He had reason to reject
every one of them.
have for an instant forgotten that reverence which ought always to be
preserved when discoursing upon the doctrines of religion. But in justice
to him we must add, that he only followed the practice common to all
sides in the party writings of the times.— E.] 6

82 THE PREFACE.
Thus, when the Author of the " Case," &c., cited Doctor
Burnet, G[ilbert] R[ule] replied in these words — " He far
ther proveth our persecution by citing some passages out of
Doctor Burnet, whom, being a party, we are not to admit as
a witness against us" (p. 85). What! No! not Doctor
Burnet ? No ! not the son of such a mother ? No ! not the
nephew of such an uncle ? No ! not the brother of such a
brother ? No ! not the cousin-german of such a cousin-
german ?! No ! not the man who has all alongst advised the
Scottish Prelatists, particularly Mr Malcolm, one of the
ministers of Edinburgh, to return to their native country,^
and submit to the ecclesiastical government now establish
ed ?3 Do you reject even him as a party ?4
'- [To understand this severe though amply merited attack on Dr Gil
bert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, who lived several years after Bishop
Sage pubhshed this work, a short statement is necessary. Bishop Burnet's
mother was a sister of Sir Archibald Johnston of Warriston, a noted Cove
nanting Presbyterian, who was the implacable enemy of the Church in
Scotland, and hence the sarcastic queries — " the son of such a mother" —
" the nephew of such an uncle." Burnet's mother was, like her brother, a
zealous supporter of the Covenanters, though his father steadUy adhered
to the Church, aud was exUed several years for his loyalty. The allusion
to Burnet's brother is not so clear. His coumi-german may indicate either
Sir Alexander Burnet, or one of Johnston of Warriston's children, who
were, according to Burnet himself, thirteen in number. Johnston was
executed for high treason after the Restoration, and occupies a prominent
place in the Presbyterian Martp'ology. — E.]
^ [The violence of the Presbyterians in Scotland after the Revolution
compelled many of the parochial Episcopal clergy to save their lives by
retiring into England and Ireland. — E.]
^ [It is certain that Bishop Burnet rendered this advice. Such was the
effect of private resentment, latitudinarian principles, and political parti-
zanship upon a man possessed of more than ordinary abilities and, in
other matters, of much acute discernment. — E.]
^ [To deny that we are greatly indebted to Bishop Burnet for his in
dustry in recording the events of his own stirring times, and for rescuing
from oblivion the memory of persons and things of very great interest,
would be ungenerous. But it is impossible to shield this eminent Prelate
from the charges of prejudice, want of consistent principle, and, what is
worse, of ingratitude to his native Church, in which he had been educated,
and ordained Deacon and Presbyter. In after years, when he was high in
Court favour, and might have cast his powerful influence as a defence
around her and her suffering ministers, he " stood afar off ; " nay, when
applied to for that purpose by a Prelate of his Mother Church, he cruelly
replied — " That he did not now meddle in Scottish affairs." The Church
iu Scotland has often in past years had to complain of such neglect aud
coldness from the dignitaries of her richer and more powerful Sister, and
her enemies in this country have made it an occasion of derision and doubt.

THE PREFACE. 83
But to proceed — If the person who was barbarously used
by the rabble gave an account of his own usage (and who
could do it better ?) and subscribed his name to it, this was
such an attestation as G[ilbert] R[ule] thought fit to reject,
with a Fie upon it. It was teste me ipso (p. 88), and so not
worth an halfpenny. As if it had been possible for a minis
ter, when the rabble surprized him, and came upon him un
awares, still to have had witnesses at hand for attesting all
their rudenesses ! As if it had not been enough, for all the
design of such accounts, that a man of known probity and
reputation subscribed his own narration of a matter of fact
which so nearly concerned himself, and thereby declared his
readiness to make the matter appear, as far as he was capable !
If the rabbled minister adduced witnesses, as was done in
the " Case,"! &c. in several instances, and they subscribed
the account, was he then satisfied ? Never an ace more than
before. " All of his witnesses are the sworn enemies of Pres
byterians, and in a combination to defame them" (p. 88).
And again (p. 100) — " His first collection is of accounts
that he hath had from his complices, a company of men
avowed and malicious enemies of all Presbyterians, and all
this attested by themselves." Nay, though they were not
Episcopal ministers, but laics, who attested, if it was done in
favour of Episcopal ministers, that was enough to prove
them friends to Episcopacy, and so they were no more boni
et legates homines, as he calls his unexceptionable witnesses
(p. 111).
Thus, the account which was sent to London^ immediately
after the second tumult at Glasgow, which happened on the
17th of February, anno 1688-9, was subscribed by James
as if she was despised by, or different from, the English Church ; but
to have been neglected and treated with coldness by One of her own
sons, when she was in such afflicted circumstances, was indeed severely
mortifying ; and his having been gnUty of such neglect and coldness,
tarnishes, in the eyes of Churchmen, any lustre which may surround the
name of Gilbert Burnet. — E.]
1 [See " Case of the Afflicted Clergy in Scotland," London, 4to. 1690.
-E.] 2 [It is worthy of notice, that aU the works of the disestablished Episco
pal clergy at that period were printed and pubhshed in London. No
Edinburgh printer had courage to raise a host of Presbyterian enemies
against himself tUl the time of the learned Ruddimans, who were ardent
members of the Church in its most trying times. — E.]

84 THE PREFACE.
Gibson, then one of the Magistrates of the city ; John Gil-
hagie, who had been a Magistrate the year before ; and
Patrick Bell, son to Sir John Bell, a discreet young gentle
man, and merchant in the city. These three subscribed it,
that it might make faith. It was directed to Dr Fall, Principal
of the College of Glasgow, that he might shew it to the then
P[rince] of 0 [range], and crave that, now that he had taken
upon him the government of the Kingdom of Scotland, he
would interpose his authority for discharging such tumults
for the future, &c. Doctor Fall actually addressed [it] to
his Highness, and shewed [him] the Account. All this was
done before the Scottish Estates met in March.
Now, consider [Gilbert] R[ule]'s discussion of this Account
(p. 94.)- — ^" John" — he should have called him James — " Gib
son was a party, and made a Bailie by the Archbishop ;!
and all know the Prelates' inclinations towards the present
civil Government."^ Have ye not here a goodly specimen
of both our author's ¦?«» and his logic ? " John Gilhagie is
looked on by all as a foolish and rash man, who little con-
sidereth what he doth." Now, what was his testimony
worth after our author had given him such a character ?
" Patrick Bell and his brother were soon after seized for
treasonable practices, were long in prison, and are now
under bail."^ And is not G[ilbert] R[ule] now a potent
author ? How easily and readily he can reject testimonies !
And these three once thus rejected, there never was such a
thing as that Presbyterian tumult at Glasgow, no, not
though there are hundreds in Glasgow who can attest that
every syllable of the Account was true. Again, p. 109, in
^ [John Paterson, successively Bishop of Galloway and Edinbm-gh,
Archbishop of Glasgow at the Revolution, son of John Paterson, Bishop
of Ross. If Mr Gibson was actnaUy " made" a Bailie or Magistrate of
Glasgow by the Archbishop's influence, Mr Gilbert Rule ought to have
recollected that this was strictly legal, his Grace being Lord of the
Regality.— E.]
^ [Archbishop Paterson was at that time residing in Edinburgh, where
he died iu December 1708, in the seventy-sixth year of his age. Like
his other ejected brethren of the Bishops and clergy, the Archbishop had
very sufficient reasons for not admiring Mr Gilbert Rule's " present ci-vil
Government." — E.]
^ [But Mr Gilbert Rule ought to have stated that those two gentlemen
had been in prison, and were " under bail," merely for disaffection to
William's Government. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 85
Mr GeUie's case,! how easily could he reject all the testi
monies that were adduced? Why? " They that testify for him
are of his own party .'" And then let them testify that they
saw a nose on G[ilbert] R[ule]'s own /ace, and for any thing
I know he should cut off his own nose to have them liars?'
And now let the world judge of this way of disproving
historical relations and attestations of matter of fact. Is
it not plain that, according to this standard, it is impossible
to attest any thing ? For, as I take it, the whole nation is
so divided between Prelatists and Presbyterians, or those
who favour one of the sides, that you shall not find many
neutrals. Now, who is obliged to take the testimonies of
Presbyterians in matters of fact more than the testimonies
of Prelatists ? Have they any divine, natural, or municipal
law for the validity of their testimonies beyond other men ?
If they have not, as I shall still be apt to believe, till G[il-
bert] R[ule] produces the law, then I would fain know how
G[ilbert] R[ule] by his own standard can allow, that Pres
byterian witnesses should appear before any Court Ecclesi
astical or Civil against Episcopal ministers. Nay, may not
the Presbyterians themselves reject even G[ilbert] R[ule]'s
testimony ? Nay, I say they ought to do it. Why ? He
stands nearly related to Episcopacy. How ? Let it be
inquired into, and I will hold him two to one, if he was
baptized at all, he was baptized either by a Bishop, or by a
Presbyter that submitted to Bishops. But if so, then good
morrow to his testimony. For thus the argument runs —
G[ilbert] R[ule] was baptized by a Prelate or a Prelatist,
" and all know the Prelates' inclinations" &c. Why this
reasoning should not hold in G[ilbert] R[ule]'s case, as well

' [The Rev. Paul GeUie, incumbent of the parish of Airth, in the county
of Stii-ling and Diocese of Edinburgh. Mr GeUie was accused of exhorting
his parishioners to pray for King James in private, and of saying that " he
expected a blessed reformation, but that they had only gotten wretched
tyrants and ungodly rulers to govern them, and the people had no se-
cm-ity for life or property." It is needless to add that he was deprived of
his parish. See Lawson's " History of the Scottish Episcopal Church
from the Revolution to the Present Time," p. 128, and note at page 95 of
this Preface. — E.]
2 [Our author is here rather personal in his sarcasm. Mr Gilbert
Rule is described by some of his controversial opponents as noted for a
peculiarly formed and very red nose. — E.]

86 THE PREFACE.
as in James Gibson's case, I desire to learn of G[ilbert]
R[ule] when he is at leisure. But this is not all.
As he rejected all the attestations in that book without
any shew of reason, so he did some in despite of the common
sense of mankind. For, setting this in its due light, it is
to be remembered, that in that book there are accounts of
the insolencies committed by the rabble upon such and such
ministers in the Presbyteries of Glasgow, Hamilton, Irvine,
Ayr, Paisley, Dunbarton, &c. Now, these accounts were
occasioned thus — When the rabble was in its fury, and
making havock of all the clergy in the western Diocese of
Glasgow, some of them met at Glasgow upon the 22d of
January 1688-9, to consider what might be proper for them
to do f()r their own preservation, and protection against the
rage of their persecutors ; and the best expedient they could
then fall upon was to send Doctor Scott,! Dean of Glas
gow, to London, to represent their condition to his High
ness the P[rince] of 0 [range], who had then assumed the
government of the nation, and crave protection according
to law. And that the Doctor might be the better instructed,
it was resolved that particular accounts of the violences
[which] had been done to the clergy within the above named
^ [The result of this mission was rather favourable, for in less than a
month a Proclamation was issued, " expressly prohibiting and discharging
all disturbance on account of religion," and " that no interruption be
made, or if any hath been made, that it cease, in the free and peaceable
exercise of religion, whether in churches, or in public or private meetings
of those of a different persuasion ;" and requiring aU men in arms " im
mediately to separate, disband themselves, and retu-e to their respective
dwellings." This Proclamation, however, instead of improving matters,
only rendered them worse, for the weU disposed people, who had taken
arms for the defence of their ministers, laid them down in obedience to
the royal mandate ; but the mob retained theu-s, and finding the clergy
defenceless, persecuted them -with renewed ardour. In the city of Glas
gow, on the very Sunday after the Proclamation had been made, there was a
furious outbreak of these misguided fanatics, who assaulted the ftlagis-
trates and congregation in the High Church or Cathedral, while they
were worshipping their Maker, and wounded many. This was the out
rage referred to, page 83, which was carefully reported to Principal Fall,
who happened to be in London at the time, in order that he might repre
sent matters truly to the Prince of Orange, and endeavour to get redress,
or at least the protection of Government, for his afflicted brethren. In
this, however, he did not succeed. Presbytery was in the ascendant, and
the new monarch could not afford to shield its foes, without exciting its
suspicion, and perhaps incurring its anger. — E.]

THE PREFACE. 87
Presbyteries should be digested by such ministers as lived
within these Presbyteries respectively. This was done.
The Account of the violences done to those who lived within
the Presbytery of Ayr was digested and signed by Mr
Alexander Gregory,! ]\|j. William Irvine,^ and Mr Francis
Fordyce ;3 that for Paisley by Mr FuUerton* and Mr Taylor,
ministers at Paisley ; that for Glasgow by Mr George^ and
Mr Sage, &c. And that the truth of these accounts might
be the more unquestionable, the subscribers (in some of
of them at least) undertook to make all the particulars ap
pear to be true, upon the greatest peril, if they should get
a fair hearing. What greater evidence of truth and in
genuity could have been expected or required of people in
such circumstances ? Yet even these accounts G[ilbert]
R[ule] rejected as readily and confidently as he did any
other. He rejected them, I say, indiscriminately, and with
out taking notice of any difference between them, and such
as were not written upon any such occasion — such as were
only vouched teste me ipso. Was this like either the sense or
the discretion that were proper for the Vindicator of a
Church? I do not incline so much as in the least to insinu
ate that any of the accounts contained in the " Case of the
Affiicted Clergy " were false. I am satisfied they were all
very true. AU I intend is to represent G[ilbert] R[ule]'s
impudent rashness in rejecting all accounts with the same
facility. And certainly, whosoever considers this seriously,
cannot but reckon of his book as written with as little wit
or discretion as truth or ingenuity. And all this will appear
more evident stiU, if it be considered that all this did not
content him, but he was such a fool as to stumble upon the
same methods [which] himself condemned most in his ad
versaries, when he had any matter oi fact to attest.
He was very careful, as he teUs frequently, to have his

1 [Parson of Ayr. — E.]
^ [Minister of Kirkmichael in Ayrshire, and afterwards Bishop of
Dunblane. — E.]
^ [Parson of Cumnock. — E.]
* [Afterwards Bishop of Edinburgh. He was consecrated at the same
time with Sage in 1705, succeeded Bishop Rose in the Diocese of Edin
burgh, and died in April 1727.— E.]
^ [He was minister of the Barony parish in the city of Glasgow. — E.J

88 THE PREFACE.
particular informations from all corners concerning all the
instances of rabbling which were represented in the Prelatic
pamphlets. But from whom had he these informations
mostly ? From the very rabblers themselves. It were both
tedious and unprofitable to trace him through all instances.
One may be sufficient for an example, and I shall choose
the very first that is to be found in his book, viz. that of
Mr Gabriel Russell, minister of Govan.!
The author of the " Second Letter " had given a brief
and just account of the treatment that poor gentleman had
met with, 2 and G[ilbert] R[ule] convels it thus — " To this
I oppose," says he, " the truth of the story, as it is attested
by the subscriptions of nine persons who were present " —
i. e. nine of the rabblers, for so Mr Russell himself assured
me, repeating over these very names which G[ilbert] R[ule]
has in his book. And is not this a pleasant attestation ?
Is it not pleasant, I say, to rely upon the testimony of such
barbarous villains, and take their own word for their own
vindication ? Yet there is one thing a great deal more
pleasant yet in the story.
The author of the " Second Letter" had affirmed that
Mr Russell was beaten by the rabble — " but they " — (the
nine whom he adduces) — " utterly deny that any of them
did beat him." And it is true, indeed, none of these nine
did beat him, but it is as true that he was beaten, and one
James Colquhoun was the person who did it ; and therefore
his name was concealed, and not set down with the other
nine. And now I refer it to the reader, if it is not pro
bable that he has got a parcel of sweet history from
G[ilbert] R[ule] in his " Second Vindication."
But I 20 on. As he thus adduced the rabble witnessing
for themselves, so when he was put to it he never stood on
^ [A parish on both sides of the Clyde, immediately south and west of
Glasgow, a gi-eat part of which is now a suburb, and the whole of it may
be considered one of the beantifnl envu-ons, of that city. — E.]
^ [About six o'clock m the evening of Christmas Day 1688, Mr RusseU
was assaulted by a number of Presbyterians iu his own house, his wife
aud daughter were cruelly beaten, the money belonging to the poor was
carried away, and he was threatened with a more severe treatment if he
ever agam officiated in the parish church. See Lawson's " History of the
Scottish Episcopal Church from the Revolution to the Present Time,"
p. 66, 67.— E.]

THE PREFACE. 89
adducing the testimonies of single Presbyterian ministers
witnessing for the honesty and integrity of the rabblers, or
in opposition to the Prelatical relations. Thus, in White's
case! (p_ 32)^ he adduces five men testifying that the ac
count of White's sufferings were false, 8sc. ; and for the
honesty of these five he tells us — " They have aU their testi
mony from their minister that they are credible and famous
witnesses." And, p. 105, he rejects BuUo's account, who
was Episcopal minister of Stobo,2 in one word, thus — " In
this narrative are many lies, which is attested by Mr Wil
liam Russell (Presbyterian) minister at Stobo. But the best
is, after he had run down all the Prelatical accounts by this
upright dealing of his, and concluded them all most horrid
liars and calumniators, and all their Relations most horrid
lies and calumnies, he tells you gravely in his Preface, § 6,
that " the truth of matters of fact asserted in his book is not
to be taken from him, but from his informers " — that " he
pretends to personal knowledge of few of them" — that
" therefore not his veracity, but theirs, is pledged for the
truth of the accounts he has published " — that " if they have
deceived him, or been deceived themselves, he is not to
answer for it."
Let the world judge if this was not a sure foot for sup
porting such superstructures as he raised upon it, and if
his " Second Vindication" is not a pleasant book. Was it
possible for him to have farced it with more barefaced ini
quities ? What piqued the man so at his own book, as to
publish it with so many fair evidences of disingenuity, par
tiality, effrontery, and downright ridiculousness about it ?
What could move him to treat his own brat with so httle
compassion ? Was not this even in a literal sense male
natum exponere foetum ? Or rather what meant he by treat
ing himself so unmercifuUy ? For who sees not that all the
infamy terminates on the author in the rebound ?

' [Jlr White was minister of Ballantrae in the county of Ayr. He
¦vvas struck on the face with the but-end of a musquet in his own house,
another enthusiast attempted to run him through with a sword, and some
others assaulted his wife, then far advanced in pregnancy. See Lawson's
" History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Revolution to the
Present Time," p. 67.— E.]
2 [A parish in the county of Peebles and Diocese of Glasgow. — E.]

90

THE PREFACE.

But, perchance, now that he is a profound philosophic
head of a College, he may fall on a way to distinguish be
tween his own and his book's credit ; perchance he may think
his own credit secure enough, whatever hazard his books may
run. Well ! He may try it if he will, but I would advise
him not to be rash in falling out so with the book, for as
sorry a book as it is. Yet I perceive that, with the assist
ance of a neighbour book, it can serve him a trick that may
be sufficient to put even his impudent self a little out of
countenance. I will be so kind to him as to let him see
where the danger lies.
He may remember that the author of the " Second Let
ter," which, by the most probable calculation I can make,
was written in December 1689 or January 1690, endeavoured
to make it appear as probable, that the leading men in
Government were then very much inclined to justify the ex
pulsion of the clergy by the rabble, and sustain their churches
vacated by that expulsion, and thereby cut off these poor
men from all hopes of being restored to their churches or"
livings, though they had neither been convicted of any
crime, nor deprived by any sentence. Now, there is another
book, called " An Account of the late Establishment of
Presbyterian Government by the Parliament, anno 1690,"!
which gives a full and fair account how the thing was actually
done ; how the expulsion of the clergy by the rabble was
actually justified by the same Act of Parliament which
established Presbyterian government. If G[ilbert] R[uleJ
has not seen that book, or is resolved to reject its testi
mony because probably written by a party, I can refer him to
the universal conviction of the whole nation that such a thing
was done by that Act of Parliament. Nay, I can refer him
to the Act of Parliament itself.2
That book tells also a shrewd story concerning a Presby
terian minister, called Mr Gilbert Rule, who preached a
sermon before the Parliament on the 25th of May, being
the Sunday before the Act was voted in the House ; and
before he published it, wrote a Preface to it, after the

1 [This was written by Bishop Sage, and will appear in the present
edition of his Works. — E.]
= [Sec Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ix.— E.]

THE PREFACE. 91
Act was voted, in which he thanked the House very heartily
for voting such an Act ; and if G[ilbert] R[ule] distrusts
that book, I refer him to 3fr Rule's printed Preface to his
sermon, where I am confident he may find satisfaction. Nay,
I dare appeal to G[ilbert] R[ule] himself, if he knew not all
these things to be true before he wrote one syllable of his
" Second Vindication ;" for these things were transacted
every one of them before the middle of June 1690, and his
" Second Vindication" came not abroad till more than a
year after. WeU ! But what of all this ? How can this
assist G[ilbert] R[ule]'s book against himself, if it should be
irritated to serve him a trick ? Why, turn over to p. 43,
44, &c. and consider how it discovers in him such a brawny
impudence as never ghost appearing in human shape was
guilty of before him. For though the Letter-man was fully
justified by the event — though what he said seemed to be
intended by the Government, [and] appeared undeniably to
have been intended by them in the execution — though they
justified the expulsion of the clergy by the rabble as plainly
and positively as an Act of Parliament could do it ; so -
plainly and positively that the whole nation was sensible of
it, and cried shame upon it ; that some members in the very
time resented it highly, calling it an indelible reproach upon
the justice of the nation ; that many members to this very
minute will frankly acknowledge there was never greater or
more notorious iniquity established by a Law.! Though
^ [In supporting a petition from some of the unfortunate clergy, pre
sented by Sir Patrick Scott of Ancrum, the Duke of HamUton, in reply
to a pretence that they had deserted their parishes, thus indignantly ad
dressed the Parliament — " It was wonderful to call these men deserten',
when it was notorious aU the kingdom over that they were driven away
by the most barbarous violence ; and it was no less wonderful to declare
their churches vacant, because of their being removed from them. For
what could be the sense of the word removed, in this case, but neither
more nor less than rabbled, and what might the world think of the justice
of the ParUament, if it should sustain that as a sufficient ground for
declaring the churches vacant ?" The Duke farther emphatically stated
that he was " sorry he had ever sat in a Scottish Parliament where such
iniquity was to be established into a law — that it was impossible Presby
terian government could stand, being built on such a foundation ; and it
grieved him to the heart to consider what a refiection this Act would
bring upon the Government, and justice of the House." His Grace imme
diately retired, and was accompanied by several members. Soon afterwards
the Duke of Queensberry, the Earls of Linlithgow and Balcarres, and many

92 THE PREFACE.
G[ilbert] R[ule] knew it so well, and was so much pleased
with it, that he thanked the Parliament with all his soul for
it, telling them — " He and his party were filled with joy
^vhile they beheld the religious regard which the High and
Honourable Court of Parliament had showed to the moun
tain of the Lord's House above other mountains, in the
great step towards the establishing thereof that they had
made by their vote" — (whereof that justification of the
rabble was a great part) : Though he prayed " that the
Lord would reward them for their good deeds " — (whereof
this was one) — "towards his House:" Though all these
things were and are clear as the light, and uncontroulable
as matter of fact can be, yet G[ilbert] R[ule] lashed the
Letter-man till he almost flayed him, made him a " railer,"
one who "understood" no "logic," a "strainer at sUly
quibbles," one who had an exti-aordinary dose of " brow,"
and whose " wit was a wool-gathering," &o. ; and all this
for telling this plain truth, that the Government had a
design to justify the expulsion of the clergy by the rabble.
Thus, I think, I have made it appear how little tender
G[ilbert] R[ule] was even of his own beloved self, when he was
straitened in his argument. I might have easily adduced
more instances, but the truth is I am now very weary of him ;
and he himself has done himself the justice to represent him
self to any man's satisfaction who shall not be satisfied with
the representation I have given of him ; for he hath fairly
owned that he sets himself in opposition to those whom he
acknowledges to be the soberest and loisest of his party. I
do not love to be unjust to him. I will give it you in his
own words, as I find them [in his] " First Vindication,"
Answer to Question 5, § 6.
He was complaining of the persecutions his party had met
with for keeping conventicles, &o., and amongst other things
he discourses thus — " There might have been some shadow
for such severity against meeting " — (at field-conventicles) —
" with arms, though even that was in some cases necessary ;
but this was always disallowed by the soberest and wisest
gentlemen, withdrew. See Acta Pari. Scot. vol. ix. p. 131, 133. Skinner's
Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, vol. ii. p. 548-550. Lawson's History
of the Scottish Episcopal Chinch from the Revolution to the Present
Time, p. 106, 107.— E.]

THE PREFACE. 93
Presbyterians." Now, it is plain there are here these two
affirmatives. 1. That " meeting with arms at field-conven
ticles was in some cases necessary." This is our author's
sentiment. 2. That " meeting with arms at field-conven
ticles was always disallowed by the soberest and wisest
Presbyterians." This, I say, he plainly affirms to have been
always the sentiment of the soberest and wisest. By con
sequence, are not both these affirmatives joined together
equipollent to this complex proposition — " Though the sober
est and wisest Presbyterians did always disallow of meeting
with arms, &o., yet in my judgment it was sometimes neces
sary ?" And now, have you not from his own friendly self
a fair demonstration of his own folly and futility ? For
who but a futile fool would have said that he differed in his
sentiments from the soberest and wisest ? And now to bring
all home to my original purpose. By this time, I think, I
have given reason enough for my refusing to accept of him
for an answerer of my book. No man on earth, I think,
would willingly enter the lists with one who is so singular
for four such cardinal talents. Though incurable ignorance
and incorrigible nonsense may be something pitiable, as being
the vices of nature rather than choice, yet it is no small per
secution for one to be obliged to grapple with them. What
must it be, then, to be committed with the other two —
rank ill-nature, I mean, and the most stubborn impudence ?
Some ill-natures may be cured : men may be either cajoled
or cudgeled out of them. Agelastus! himself laughed once ;
so did [the] Duke d'Alva.2 But what hopes can there be of
1 [He was the grandfather of M. Lucinius Crassus the Rich, and was
only kno-wn to have laughed upon one occasion, when he saw an ass eating
thistles. — E.]
^ [This Nobleman, born in 1508, was General of the Imperial Army, and
Minister of State to Charles V. He was a person of fierce and unrelent
ing disposition, and being sent by his master to queU an insurrection in the
Flemish provinces of his dominions, he practised the most unheard of
cruelties towards his unhappy victims. In the " Zurich Letters" there
is this contemporary notice of his proceedings — ^"The Duke of Alva is
clearly acting the part of Phalaris among our Low-Country neighbours.
For men, the rich especially, are daily dragged to execution without re
gard to any form of law," p. 208-9. He died at Lisbon in 1583, but
it is not easy to discover to what particular event in his life aUusion is here
made. There is an anecdote, illustrative of his fierce and forbidding aspect,
related by Campbell in his Court and Times of Frederick the Great, vol. ii.

94 THE PREFACE.
one whose common sense is so intrinsically vitiated, that he
can avouch the coarsest and most scurrilous scolding to be
excessive civility ? But this is not the worst of it. If there
had been any thing venust or lepid, any shadow of concinnity
or festivity, oi jollity or good humour, any thing like art, or
life, or wit, or salt, in any one of fifty of his excessive civilities
— if they had had the least tincture of the satire — nay, if
their mien had resembled so much as the murgeons of an
ape, I could have pardoned him, and let his talent pass for
tolerable. There is something delightful in marvelism, in
well humoured wantonness, in lively and judicious drollery.
There may be some enormous strokes of beauty in a surprizing
banter — some irregular sweetness in a well cooked bitterness.
But who can think on drinking nothing but corrupted vine
gar ? What human patience can be hardy enough for
entering the lists with pure barking and whining — with
original dullness ? Who can think on arming himself
against the horns of a snail, or setting a match for mewing
with a melancholy cat ? But what can be said of his impu
dence — his master-talent ? Why, to tell the truth of it, I
am not able to define it, and so I must let it alone. I
know nothing in nature like it. It is too hard for all the
ideas or words I am master of. Were I to talk any more
of it, I should design it his undefinable attribute.
'• And now I think our author may be sensible that it is
not a good thing to cast a bad copy to the world, lest some
for curiosity try if they can imitate it. For my part I do
acknowledge that I have crossed my temper to make an ex
periment, if it was possible to be even with him — to let him
see that others, as well as he, if they set themselves for it,
may aim at least at " arguing the case cuttingly," as he
phrases it. Preface to " Second Vindication," § 6.
One thing I am sure of — I have been faithful in my cita
tions from his books, and I am not conscious that I have so

p. 261. To scare strangers away, and hinder them from breaking in upon
his retreat of Sans Souci, Frederick " had a bust of the Duke of Alva, a
hideous and repulsive caricature, set up on a pillar of porphyry, six feet
high, close to the bridge in the garden leading to the basin and tei-race of
little Sans Souci, ' That,' as he once said to Lucchesini, ' strangers who
might be tempted to encroach on my domain may be frightened away by
the Duke's ugly face, and turn back.' " — E.]

THE PREFACE. 95
much as once forced an imnatural sense on his words. For
this I am satisfied, that what I have said [may] be tried
with the greatest and most impartial accuracy. But if he
is such an author as I have truly represented him to be, I
hope the world wiU aUow that I had and stUl have reason to
refuse to have any dealing with him. Nay farther, I think
it is nothing for the honour or reputation of his party that he
was ever employed to be the " Vindicator " of their Kirk. If
they can employ any civil, discreet, ingenuous person to write
for them, I shall be heartily satisfied ; and for his encourage
ment I do promise, if he falls to my share, I shall treat him
suitably. Nay, after aU, if G[ilbert] R[ule] himself will lay
aside such qualities as I have demonstrated adhere to him —
if he will undertake to write with that gravity and civility,
that charity and modesty, that honesty and ingenuity, which
may be thought to become one of his age and character, I
can as yet admit of him for my adversary, (for I think the
party cannot assign me a weaker one), and I do hereby pro
mise him an equitable meeting.

[The case of Mr GeUie, referred to, page 85, seems to have been a
singularly hard one, inasmuch as he had complied with the terms of the
new Government ; aud various representations aud strong efforts were
made to have him re-instated in his living, of which he had been
maliciously and unjustly deprived. The following letters shew the re
spect in which he was held by his parishioners, and their opinion of his
deprivation : —
" May it please tour Lokcship — We, your whole neighbour Heritors,
concemed in the parish of Airth, considering the vacancy of our church
through the removal of Mr Paul GelUe, our minister, by the rash depo
sition of two or tliree insignificant persons, and. the gi-eat insolencies of the
rabble thereupon, without law or order, in abusing and -violently possess
ing the church, conceived ourselves obliged to entreat your Lordship to
see what may be done for the redress and satisfaction of orderly people ;
and seeing we have nothing to object against the life or doctrine of our
minister, who is well-beloved by the whole body of the parish, whose loyalty
and painfulness in the ministry your Lordship knows, it is our earnest
desire that you interpose your endeavour to get him re-possessed again
in this church, if possible ; in doing of which you may be instrumental
for promoting the good of this place, and not only oblige the whole
body of the parish, but particularly us." Signed by seven Heritors of the
parish.

96 THE PREFACE. " Barnton, October 17, 1689.
" My Dear Loed. — Your Lordship knows how Mr Paul GeUie, your
minister, has deported himself in his ministry at Airth, and has gained
the affections of all the parish, except three or four of the very worst of
them, and how he was removed from his charge upon the depositions of
two flagitious fellows, who had resolved to damn themselves to get him
oiLt of his ministry. If your Lordship can get his case fairly represented,
and him reponed to his chai-ge, I hear that the whole Heritors and the
most substantial tenants will take it as a singular favour ; and albeit I
have no interest, but as a tutor [curator] to Airth, I will esteem it for a
singular kindness." Signed " Ro. Mylne."
The above letters were addressed to Lord E  ne, and are probably
the " Testimonies" referred to in this place. This Lord E  ne ap-
jjears to have been ,Iohn Lord Erskine, who succeeded his father as
eleventh Earl of Mar of the name of Erskine, and was the leader of the
Enterprize of 1715.— E.]

THE ARTICLE.

THAT PRELACY, AND THE SUPERIORITY OF ANY OFFICE IN THE
CHURCH ABOVE PRESBYTERS, IS, AND HATH BEEN, A GREAT
AND INSUPPORTABLE GRIEVANCE AND TROUBLE TO THIS NA
TION, AND CONTRARY TO THE INCLINATIONS OF THE GENERA
LITY OF THE PEOPLE, EVER SINCE THE REFORMATION, THEY
HAVING REFORMED FROM POPERY BY PRESBYTERS, AND
THEREFORE OUGHT TO BE ABOLISHED.

jHIS Article was established in our Claim of
Right, April 11, 1689. By virtue of this
Article, Prelacy was actually abolished by
Act of Parliament, July 22, 1689. Upon
the foot of this Article Presbyterian Govern
ment was established, June 7, anno 1690. This Act esta
blishing Presbyterian Government was ratified in the whole
heads, articles, and clauses thereof, June 12, 1693. It is
indisputable, then, that this Article is the great foundation
of that great alteration which hath been made in the go
vernment of the Church of Scotland since the beginning of
the late Revolution. Whether, therefore, this is a solid or a
sandy foundation cannot but be deemed a material question,
and, I think, I shaU bid fair for the determination of this
question, if I can give clear and distinct satisfaction to these
foUowing Inquiries : —
I. Whether the Church of Scotland was reformed solely
by persons cloathed with the character of Presbyters ?
II. Whether our Scottish Reformers, whatever their cha
racters were, were of the present Presbyterian principles ?
7

98 THE ARTICLE.
Whether they were for the Divine institution of Par 'ity,
and the unlawfulness of Prelacy, amongst the pastors of
the Church?
III. Whether Prelacy, and the superiority of any office
in the Church, above Presbyters, was a great and insupport
able grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to
the inclinations of the generality of the people, ever since
the Reformation ?
IV. Whether it was such when this Article was established
in the Claim of Right ?
V. Whether, supposing the premises in the Article were
true, they would be of sufficient force to infer the conclusion,
viz. that Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the
Church, ought to be abolished ?
The determination of the main question, I say, may com
petently result from a perspicuous discussion of these five
Inquiries. And therefore I shaU attempt it as fairly as I
can, leaving to the world to judge equitably of my perform
ance ; and without further prefacing, I come to
THE FIRST INQUIRY. — Whether the Church of Scotland was
Reformed solely by persons cloathed with the character of
Presbyters ?
If the framers of the Article meant that it was in these
words — " They having reformed from Popery by Presby
ters" — I think, I am pretty sure they meant amiss ; for there
is nothing more obvious to one who reads and compares our
Histories, than that persons standing in other stations, and
cloathed with other characters, had a very great hand, and
were very considerable instruments in carrying on our Re
formation. Particularly, 1, There were Prelates'^ who concurred in

^ [Of the ancient Hierarchy only four joined the Reforming party, who
went over rather as apostates, than as Bisliop.s, who, though they renounced
the Papal jurisdiction, had no intention to perpetuate the apostolic govern
ment ofthe Church. Indeed two of them, James Hamilton, Bishop of ArgyU,
and Robert Stewart, Bishop of Caithness, had never been solemnly invested
with the episcopate, or consecrated, being merely Bishops-Elect. The other
two, Adam BothAvell of Orkney, and Alexander Gordon of Galloway, were

THE ARTICLE. 99
that work as well as Presbyters. Knox says there were
present in the Parhament holden in August 1560, which
Parliament gave the first national establishment to our
Reformation, the Bishop of GaUoway, the Abbots of Lin-
dores, Culross, St Colm's Inch, Coldingham, St Mary-Isle,
and the Sub-Prior of St Andrews, with diverse others;
and of all these he says that " they had renounced
Papistry, and openly professed Jesus Christ."! Spottis
woode reckons up no fewer than eight of the Spiritual Estate,
all Protestants, chosen at that time to be Lords of the Arti
cles, namely, the Bishops of GaUoway and Argyll, the Prior
of St Andrews, the Abbots of Aberbrothwick, Kilwinning,
Lindores, Newbottle, and Culross.2 Lay these two accounts
together, and you shall have at least a round dozen of Re
forming Prelates. It is true Spottiswoode says — " The
Popish Prelates stormed mightily at such a nomination for
the Articles, alleging that some of them were meer Laicks."
But what if it was so .'' I am apt to think our Presbyterian
brethren will not be fond to make much advantage of this.
I am apt to think they will not say that all those whom they
allow to have been Reforming Presbyters, were duly and
canonically ordained : — that they were solemnly separated
from the ministry, by such as had commission and power to
separate them, and in such manner as had universally ob
tained, from the Apostles' times, in the separation of Presby
ters for their holy functions.
The plain truth is, 2, our Reformation was principally
carried on by such as neither did nor could pretend to be
canonically promoted to Holy Orders. Knox himself ^ tells
us, that when the Reformation began to make its more
public advances, which was in the year 1558, there was a
great scarcity of preachers. " At that time," says he, " we
had no public ministers of the Word ; only did certain
zealous men (among whom were the Laird of Dun,* David
duly consecrated Prelates. The union of those two with the overthrowers
of the ancient Hierarchy, and their having been recognised by the Re
formers, and named in ecclesiastical documents of the period as Bishops,
(see Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of Scotland, Part I. p. 32), sufficiently
contradict the assertion iu the " Claim of Right" that Scotland was
" reformed from Popery solely by Presbyters."— E.]
1 Knox, 260. ^ gpottiswoode, 149. ^ Knox, 127.
> [.lohn Erskine, a cadet of the Noble Family of Mar.— E.]

100 THE ARTICLE.
Forrest, Mr Robert Lockhart, Mr Robert Hamilton, Wil
liam Harlaw, and others), exhort their brethren according
to the gifts and graces granted to them ; but shortly after
did God stir up his servant Paul Methven!," &c. Here we
have but a very diminutive account of them as to number,
and such an account as, in its very air and countenance,
seems to own they were generally but Lay-Brethren — they
were but zealous men, not canonically ordained Presbyters.
And if we may believe Lesly, Paul Methven was by occu
pation a baker, and William Harlaw a tailor.^ The Laird
of Dun that same very year was Provost of Montrose, and
as such sent to France, as one representing not the first or
the Spiritual, but the third Estate of Parliament, the Bur
roughs, to attend at the celebration of the Queen's marriage
with the Dauphin of France.^ He was indeed a gentleman
of good esteem and quality, and he was afterwards a Super
intendent, but it no where appears that he was ever received
into Holy Orders.
Nay, 3, after the pacification at Leith, which was con
cluded in July 1560, when the ministers were distributed
amongst the several towns, we find but a very small number
of them. John Knox was appointed for Edinburgh, Chris
topher Goodman for St Andrews, Adam Heriot for Aber
deen, John Row for Perth, WiUiam Christison for Dundee,
David Ferguson for Dunfermline, Paul Methven for Jed
burgh, and Mr David Lindsay for Leith. Beside these, five
were nominated to be Superintendents. Spottiswoode for
Lothian and Merse, Winram for Fife, the Laird of Dun for
Angus and Mearns, Willock for Glasgow, and Carsewell for
ArgyU and The Isles. These are all who are reckoned up
by Knox and Spottiswoode.* And Spottiswoode adds —
" With this small number was the plantation of the Church
at first undertaken." And can we think, though all these
had been Presbyters duly ordained, that they were the only
men who carried on the Scottish Reformation ?
Farther yet : 4, Petrie^ tells us, that the first General
' [This person had a sad fall some years after, and being accused and
convicted of gross immorality, fled into England, where he remained, and
his descendants now occupy a high station. — E.]
2 Lesly, 496. ^ Lesly, 494 ; Spottiswoode, 95.
' Knox, 259 ; Spottiswoode, 149. = Petrie, 222.

THE ARTICLE. 101
Assembly, which was holden in December 1560, consisted
of forty-four persons ; and I find exactly forty-four names
recorded in my manuscript-extract ofthe Acts ofthe General
Assemblies, as the names of the members of that Assem
bly ; but of all these forty-four there were not above nine
at most who were called ministers, so that at least more than
thirty were but Lay-Brethren, according to the then way of
reckoning. Probably they were generally such, if you speak
in the dialect and reckon by the measures of the Catholic
Church in all ages.
In short, 5, There is nothing more evident to any who
considers the Histories of these times than that they were
generaUy laymen who promoted our " violent and disordered
Reformation," as Spottiswoode justly calls it.! And it is
reasonable to think the sense of this was one argument
which prevailed with our Reformers to declare against the
ancient Catholic and Apostolic ceremony of imposition of
hands in Ordinations,^ as is to be seen in the Fourth Head
of the First Book of Discipline,^ and as is generally acknow
ledged. Thus, I think, I have sufficiently deduced matters as to
my First Inquiry. It had been easy to have insisted longer
on it, but I had no inclination for it, considering that there
is a kind of piety in despatch, when the longer one insists on
a subject of this nature he must still the more expose the
failures of our Reformation, and the weaknesses of our Re
formers.* Proceed we now to

1 Spottiswoode, 60.
^ [Under the fourth head of the Fu-st Book of Disciplne we find the fol
lowing enactment — " Albeit the Apostles used the imposition of hands,
yet seeing the miracle is ceased, the using of the ceremony we judge not
to be necessary." — E.]
^ Spottiswoode, 156.
* [We cannot sufficiently admire and endeavour to imitate the delicacy
of feeling which caused our author to abstain from exposing the irregulari
ties incident to the great moral revolution in Scotland in the sixteenth
century, and the wanton boldness with which every principle of unity
and every time-honoured usage was outraged and flung aside. It be
comes us, while we deplore the means and principles by which, humanly
speaking, the change was effected, to adore the wisdom and power of God,
\\ ho hath worked good out of evU, and to be gi'ateful to Him for having
called us to the knowledge of " Evangelical Truth," and preserved to us a
system of " Apostolical Order."— E.]

102 THE ARTICLE.
THE SECOND INQUIRY. — Whether our Scottish Reformers,
whatever their characters were, were of the present Presby
terian principles ? Whether they were for the Divine Insti
tution of Parity, and the unlawfulness of Prelacy amongst
the Pastors of the Church ?
This Inquiry, if I mistake not, is pretty far in the inte
rests of the main question. For the Article, as I am apt to
take it, aims at this, that our Reformation was carried on
with such a " dislike to Prelacy, or the superiority of any
office in the Church above Presbyters, as made Prelacy, or
such a superiority, ever since a great and insupportable
grievance and trouble to this nation," &c. But if this
is the sense of the Article, what else is it than that our
Reformers were Presbyterians ? But whether or not this
was truly intended (as it is truly very hard to know what
was intended) in the Article, this is certain — this Inquiry
is material and pertinent, and if it faces not the Article
directly, undoubtedly it doth it by fair consequence. It
is as certain our Presbyterian brethren use with confidence
enough to assert that our Reformers were of their prin
ciples. This is one of the main arguments by which they
endeavour on all occasions to influence the populace, and
gain proselytes to their party, and therefore I shall endea
vour to go as near to the bottom of this matter as I can,
and set it in its due light ; and I hope it shall appear to be
competently done to all who shall attentively and impar
tially weigh the following deduction.
And, 1. Let it be considered that while our Reformation
was on the wheel, and for some years after its public esta
blishment, there was no such controversy agitated in Europe
as this, concerning the Divine institution of parity or imparity
amongst the pastors ofthe Church.
The Pope's pretended universal Headship was called in
question indeed ; and, called in question, it was run down
with all imaginable reason some years before the settlement
of our Reformation That controversy was one of the first
which were accurately ventilated by the patrons of Reforma
tion. And it was very natural that it should have been so,
considering what stress was laid upon it by the Pontifici.ans.
It is likewise true that tho corruptions of the Ecclesiastical

THE ARTICLE. 103
Estate were inquired into in most provinces, every where
where the truth began to dawn, and the Reformation was
encouraged; and it was not to be imagined but in such
scrutinies Bishops would be taken notice of for their general
defection from the ancient rules and measures of the Epis
copal office, and the vast dissimilitude between them and
those of the same Order in the Primitive times both as to
the discharge of their trust and their way of living. . And
who doubts but in these things the Popish Bishops were too
generally culpable ?
It is farther true that some countries, when they reformed
religion, and separated from the Church of Rome, did set
up new models of government in the Churches they erected,
as they thought their civil constitutions could best bear
them ; and having once set them up, what wonder if they
did what they could to justify them, and maintain their law
fulness ? Thus, for instance, Mr Calvin erected a model of
the democratical size at Geneva, because that State had then
cast itself into a democracy. And the Protestants in France,
partly for conveniency, partly in imitation of Calvin's plat
form, fell upon a method of governing their Churches with
out Bishops, and so it fared with some other Churches, as
in Switzerland, &c. ; while in the meantime other Churches
thought it enough for them to reform the doctrine and wor
ship without altering the ancient form of government.
But, then, it is as evident as anything in history that all
this while, from the first dawnings of the Reformation — I
mean till some years after the public establishment of our
Reformation — there was no such controversy insisted on
by Protestants either in their debates with the Papists
or with one another, as that about the divine and unalter
able institution of parity or imparity amongst the pastors of
the Church ; and I dare confidently challenge my Presby
terian brethren to produce any one Protestant Confession
of Faith for their side of the question. Nay more, I
dare challenge them to instance any one Protestant divine
of note who in these times maintained their side of the
controversy — who maintained the unlawfulness of impa
rity amongst Christian pastors before Theodore Beza did
it, if he did it. Sure I am they cannot, without the great
est impudence, pretend that Mr Calvin, the only trans-

104 THE ARTICLE.
marine divine I can find consulted by our Reformers about
matters relating to our Reformation, was of their principles ;
for whoso shall be pleased to consult his Commentaries on
the New Testament, particularly on 1 Cor. xi. 2, 3, or some
chapters in the beginning of his Fourth Book of " Insti
tutions," or his book about the " Necessity of Reforming
the Church," or his Epistles, particularly his Epistle
directed to the Protector of England, dated October 22,
1548 ; or to Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury ;! to the
Bishop of London ; 2 to Ithavius, Bishop of Urladistavia,^ dated
December 1, anno 1558 ; or his resolution of that case,* — "If
a Bishop or Curate join himself to the Church," &c. ; or
lastly, his Epistle to the King of Poland, 5 wherein he tells
him that " it was nothing but pride and ambition that in
troduced the Pope's supremacy ; that the ancient Church
had indeed her Patriarchs and Primates for the expedition
of discipline and the preservation of unity; as if in the
kingdom of Poland one Archbishop should have the prece
dency of the rest of the Bishops, not that he might tyran
nize over them, but for order's sake, and for cherishing
unity amongst his colleagues and brethren ; and next to him
there should be provincial or city Bishops for keeping all
things orderly in the Church. Nature teaching, says he,
that from every college one should be chosen who should have
the chief management of affairs.^ But it is another thing for
one man, as the Pope doth, to arrogate that to himself
which exceeds all human abilities, namely, the power of
governing the whole universe." Whoso shall perpend these
writings of Mr Calvin's, I say, shall find that he was very
far from maintaining the unlawfulness of Prelacy. Nay,
farther yet ; I challenge my Presbyterian brethren, upon
^ Calv. Epist. Col. 134, 135.
^ Col. 316. — [Edmund Grindal, afterwards Archbishop of York, and fa
mous for his controversy with Queen Elizabeth about the " Prophesyings"
(vide Grindal's Remains, published by the Parker Society, p. 376-90), in
which place there is a spirited letter, in which the Archbishop asserts the
distinction between civil and ecclesiastical power, and very plainly inti
mates to the Queen, that in her dealings with him she was overstepping
the proper bounds of the royal prerogative. — E.]
¦¦ Calvini Opera. Ed. 1677, foi. 9, p. 131, tom. ix.
» Col. 466. 5 Col. 190.
" Sicut hoc natura dictat, unum ex singulis CoUegiis deligendum, cui
jiviccipua cura incumbat.

THE ARTICLE. 105
their ingenuity, to tell me whether it was not a good many
years after 1560 that Beza himself, the true founder of their
sect, condemned Prelacy, if he did condemn it.
I say, if he did maintain the necessity of parity, and con
demned Prelacy, for however he may seem upon several oc
casions, not only to give the preference to Presbyterian go
vernment, and represent it as the most eligible, but to en
deavour to found it on Scripture, and represent Episcopacy
as an human invention, yet I have not observed that anywhere
he calls it absolutely or simply unlawful. On the contrary,
he says in express terms that "it is tolerable when it is
duly bounded — ^when the pure Canons of the ancient Church
are kept in vigour to keep it within "its proper limits."!
Sure I am he was not for separating from a Church, as
our modern Presbyterians are, upon the account of its go
vernment being Episcopal, as might be made appear fully
from his Letters ; so that whatever greater degrees of dislike
to Episcopacy he may have discovered beyond his predeces
sor Mr Calvin, yet it is not unreasonable to think that his
great aim was no more than to justify the constitution of
the Church he lived in, and recommend it as a pattern to
other Churches.
The scope of this whole consideration is this, that if what
I have asserted is true — if there was no such controversy
agitated all the time our Church was a reforming, nor for a
good many years after, then we have one fair presumption
that our Reformers were not Presbyterians. It is not likely
that they were for the indispensibility of parity, that being
the side of a question which in these times was not begun
to be tossed.
II. And this presumption will appear yet more ponderous,
if it be considered that we have no reason to believe that
our Reformers had any peculiar motives or occasions for
adverting to the pretended evils of Prelacy, or any peculiar in
terests to determine them for parity, beyond other Churches ;
or that they were more sharp-sighted to espy faults in Pre
lacy, or had opportunities or inclinations to search more
1 Humaniis Episcopatus tolerabilis quidem esset, mode veteres puri
C'anones ; impediendre oligarchije constituti, in usum revocarentur. Beza
in Resp. ad 1 QuiBst. a Dom. Glam. Propositam. — [Beza's Reply to the first
of the Questions proposed by Lord Glaramis, Chancellor of Scotland. — E.]

106 THE ARTICLE.
diligently, or inquire more narrowly, into these matters
than other Reformers. The truth is, the controversies
about Doctrine and Worship were the great ones which
took up the thoughts of our Reformers, and employed their
most serious applications. This is obvious to any who con
siders the accounts we have of them — so very obvious, that
G[ilbert] R[ule] himself fairly confesses it in his " First Vin
dication," ad Question 1, where he tells us that " the errors
and idolatry of that way (meaning Popery) were so gross,
and of such immediate hazard to the souls of people, that it
is no wonder that our Reformers minded these first and
mainly, and thought it a great step to get these removed ;
so that they took some more time to consult about the re
forming of the government of the Church." From which, it
is plain, he confesses the Reformation of the Church's govern
ment was not the subject of their main thinking, which in
deed is very true, and cannot but appear to be so to any who
considers what a lame scheme was then dressed up by them.
But however this was, it is enough to my present purpose
that our Reformers were more employed in reforming the Doc
trine and Worship than in thinking about Church govern
ments ; from which, together with the former presumption,
which was, that our present controversies were not begun to
be agitated in these times, one of two things must follow un
avoidably, viz. either, 1. That if they were for the divine and
indispensible right of parity, it is no great matter ; their
authority is not much to be valued in a question about
which they had thought so little : or, 2, That it is to be pre
sumed they were not for the divine right of parity, that
being the side of a question which was not then agitated in
any Protestant Church, and as little in Scotland as any.
To be ingenuous, I think both inferences good, though it is
only the last I am concerned for at present.
III. But this is not aU, for, so far as my opportunities
would allow me, I have had a special eye on all our Reformers
as I found them in our Histories. I have noticed their sen
timents about Church government as carefully as I could,
and I ha\'e not found so much as one amongst them who
hath, either directly or indirectly, asserted the divine and
unalterable right of parity.

THE ARTICLE. 107
By our Reformers here I mean such as were either, 1,
Martyrs ,¦ or, 2, Confessors for the Reformed religion before
it had the countenance of civil authority ; or, 3, such as
lived when it was publicly established, and had a hand in
bringing it to that perfection. Such, I think, and such
only, deserved the name of our Reformers. And here,
again, I dare be bold to challenge my Presbyterian bre
thren to adduce clear and plain proof that so much as any
one man of the whole number of our Reformers was of the
present principles of the party.
Some of them, indeed, seem to have laid great stress on
Holy Orders, and to have been of opinion that personal gifts
and graces were a sufficient call to any man to preach the
gospel, and undertake the pastoral office. Thus, that ex
cellent person, Mr George Wishart, who in most things
seems to have juster notions of the gospel spirit than most
of our other Reformers,! when at his trial he was charged
' [The historical reader of these days cannot but demur to this encomium
on George Wishart, upon whose memory certain writers have been accus
tomed to bestow more praise than modern research will allow us to believe
that he deserved. It is true he was brought to the stake by Cardinal Beaton
after a very summary and unfair trial, and that he sustained the agonies
of a cruel death with heroic fortitude. It is true that he preached against
the " errors of Romanism," and accused the clergy of being guilty of shame
less licentiousness ; but neither his conduct at the stake, nor his opposition
to the Church of Rome, nor his freedom from the prevailing vices of the
times, can g'lld the deformity which attaches to his character, from his having
been not merely the intimate associate of the murderers of Beaton, but the
agent whom they employed to barter away the life of that Prelate, not for
the sake of religion, but for the sordid purpose of gaining English gold as
the reward of their diabolical assassination. Let Beaton have been as
bad as possible, and as great an enemy to the cause of the Reformation
as his bitterest enemies have represented him, it is plain that those who
afterwards murdered l[iiia,perhaps because he had caused their friend to be con
demned, would two years before, if Henry VIII. had accepted their offer,
have made him the victim of 'Eia^\s]i political intrigue ; and that Wishart at
least concurred with them, and even forwarded then- dai-k designs. Very
probably it was the knowledge of 'WisharVs participation in such a consph-acy
againft hii- life, more than his heretical opinions, which stirred up the ven
geance of the Cardinal against him, and brought him to an untimely end.
At all events, with such details before us, we cannot admit that his notions
of the gospel were more correct than those of his neighbours, and cannot
without most painful misgivings permit him to be reckoned among " the
noble army of martyrs" — See Tytler, vol. v. p. 343, 344. " Historical
Remarks on the Assassination of Cardinal Beaton" appended to vol. v.
Lyon's History of St Andrews, vol. ii. Appendix, p. 358-66. In the latter

108 THE ARTICLE.
with this Article — " That every man was a priest, and that
the Pope had no more power than another man," answered
to this purpose — " That St John saith of all Christians, He
hath made us kings and priests ; and St Peter, He hath
made us a kingly priesthood : That, therefore, any man
skilled in the Word of God and true faith of Christ had
power given him of God ; but he that was unlearned, and
not exercised in the Word of God, nor constant in the faith,
whatever his state or order was, had no power to bind or to
loose, seeing he wanted the Word of God, which is the
instrument of binding and loosing."! And it is probable this
was a prevailing opinion in those times, from the too com
mon practice of it. But hath this any relation to the divine
right of parity? Doth it not strike equally against both
Orders, that of Presbyters as well as that of Bishops ? Is it
not plainly to set up the jus laicorum sacerdotale in oppo
sition to both ; and who can say but this opinion might
have been in a breast which entertained no scruples about
the lawfulness of Episcopacy ? No doubt it might, and no
doubt it was actually so with this same holy martyr ; for he
was not only willing that the then Bishops, though Popish,
should be his judges ; he not only gave them still their titles,
and paid them all the respect that was due to their Order
and character — homages infinitely scandalous with our mo
dern Presbyterians — as is to be observed through all the
steps of his trial, but in his last exhortation to the people,
at the very stake, he bespake them thus — " I beseech you,
brethren and sisters, to exhort your Prelates to the learn
ing of the Word of God, that they may be ashamed to do
evil and learn to do good ; and if they will not convert
themselves from their wicked errors, there shall hastily come
upon them the wrath of God, which they shall not eschew."^
Here you see the dying martyr was earnest that the
Popish Prelates might quit their errors, not their prelations.
What is there here that looks like a divine-r'ight-of parity -

work there is a compendious account of the evidence on this recently dis
covered point, and the arguments for and against Wishart's guilt in the
conspiracy to murder the Cardinal are fairly and dispa,ssionately discussed
by the learned writer. — E.]
= Knox, 64. 2 Knnx, 70.

THE ARTICLE. 109
man ? Indeed he was none of that principle. He had had
his principles from England, as we shall find hereafter.
Only one thing more about him here. He was not for club-
law Reformations — he was neither for violent possessions of
churches, nor for propagating the cause by rabbles, if we
may believe Knox's accounts of him.
Others, again, of our Reformers, declaimed loudly against
the Bishops of these times, and condemned them severely,
and perhaps too deservedly. But what is this to the Order?
Doth every man condemn the office who condemns this or that
officer ? If so, then sure the Order of Presbyters was as bad
as the Order of Bishops in the judgment of our Reformers.
For instance, hear Walter MUl in his exhortation to the
people at his martyrdom — " Therefore as ye would escape
eternal death, be no more seduced with the lies of" — (whom?
of Bishops only ? no, but of the whole collection of) — " the
Priests, Abbots, Monks, Friars, Priors, Bishops, and the
rest of the sect of Antichrist."! But it is needless to ad
duce the testimonies of private persons. We have the public
deeds of the Protestants of these times very clear to this
purpose. Thus, they directed a declaration of their minds
to the Popish clergy under this title — " To the Generation
of Antichrist, the pestilent Prelates, and their Shavelings
within Scotland," &c.2 And were not Presbyters of the
number of these shavelings ? And what can be more patt to
this purpose than the Supplication which was presented by
our Reformers to the Parliament, anno 1560 ? There they
tell the Estates that " they cannot cease to crave of their
Honours the redress of such enormities as manifestly are,
and of a long time have been, committed by the place
holders of the ministry and others of the clergy. — They
offer evidently to prove that in all the rabble of the clergy
there is not one lawful minister ; — and therefore they crave
that they may be decerned unworthy of honour, authority,
charge, or care, in the Church of God," &c.3 Whoso pleases
may see more of their public representations to this eff'ect
in Knox's " History."* Now, what can be more clear than
that all this work was against Presbyters as much as against

¦ Spottiswoode, 96. '' Knox, 146. -^ Knox, 260.
* P. 135 and 143.

110 THE ARTICLE.
Bishops, and by consequence against both offices, or against
neither ? as, indeed, it was against neither, as I shall after
wards demonstrate from this same petition. In short, no
thing can be more evident to an attentive reader than that
in all these efforts of the zeal ot our Reformers against the
Popish Bishops, it was only the Popery, and not at all the
Prelacy, that was aimed at. They never condemned Bishops
as Bishops, but only as Popish Bishops.
I have insisted the more largely on these things, because
I know people are apt to mistake in this matter who do not
sufficiently attend to the dialect oi these times, especially
when they read the " History" which is commonly called John
Knox's. I return now to my purpose, and repeat my as
sertion, viz. — -That our Presbyterian brethren cannot ad
duce so much as one of our martyrs, our confessors, or those
who had any remarkable hand in the establishment of our
Reformation in the year 1560, who was of the rnodern Pres
byterian principles.
Three authors have indeed attempted it — the author of
the pamphlet entituled " The Course of Conformity," Mr
Calderwood, and Mr Petrie.
The author of the " Course of Conformity," in his Fourth
Chapter, reckons up a full dozen of such, as he says, gave
" evident and full testimony against Bishopric" as he calls it.
But he has not recorded the testimony of any one except
Knox. All the rest he proves to have been enemies to
Prelacy by this one argument — " They preached zealously
against Popery, and Bishopric is one of the greatest errors
and corruptions of that." He neither offers at proving his
subsumption, nor at adducing any other topic. And has he
not proven the point demonstratively ? Besides, some of
his dozen were not heard of till several years after the Re
formation, and so cannot be brought in bar against my
challenge. Further, he has had the ill luck to name such for the half
of his dozen as would have laughed heartily to have heard
themselves cited as patrons of the divine right of parity,
particularly Mr WiUock, who lived and died Superintendent
of Glasgow ; Mr Pont, who died Bishop of Caithness! ; Mr
' [Bishop Sage is incorrect in this assertion. Pont never was even a

THE ARTICLE. Ill
Row, who was one of the three who stood for the lawfulness
of Episcopacy, when it was first caUed in question at the
Assembly in August 1575 ;! Mr Craig, whom Calderwood
himself censures severely for his forwardness to have the
brethren subscribe — " that they should give obedience to
their Ordinaries," and charges with making bitter invectives
against the " sincerer sort" as he calls the Non Subscribers.^
I may add Mr Knox, as shall be made appear by and by.
But I have taken but too much notice of " The Course of
Conformity ,"3 which is truly one of the weakest pamphlets
was ever seen in print ; and if that part of it which is against
Episcopacy was written by Mr James Melville, as Calderwood
affirms,* it is a demonstration that whatever his zeal was
against Prelacy, it was not according to much knowledge.
Mr Petrie mentions only two of our Reformers as divine-
right-of-parity-men — the Earl of Moray, who was Regent,
and Mr Knox. Calderwood insists on Knox, but doth not
mention Moray.
Petrie's^ evidence about Moray is, that he hath read of
him, that by his letter he did inform Queen Elizabeth of
the honour and happiness that would attend her Crown and
Titular or Tulchan. The See of Caithness had been offered to him by
James VI., 1587, and he would have willingly accepted it, but was pre
vented by the General Assembly. Pont died in 1608. Gladstanes was
appointed to Caithness in 1600, and held the See imtU his translation to
St Andrews in 1606, in which year Alexander Forbes, minister of Fetter-
cairn in Kincardineshire, succeeded to the vacant Diocese, and retained
it till long after the death of Mr Pont. Booke of the UniversaU Kirk of
Scotland, Part IL, p. 696-7. Keith's Catalogue — See of Caithness, Refor
mation. — E.J
1 Spottiswoode, 275 ; Calderwood, 69. '^ Calderwood, 167, 171, 187.
^ [James VI. had resolved, when he ascended the throne of England,
to permit the Bishops of that country to consecrate Bishops for his ancient
subjects, who had now been for half a century " as sheep without shep
herds ;" and in the Parliament which was held at Perth in 1606, an Act
was passed preparatory to the restoration of the apostolical succession to
Scotland. Against this a protest was made by several of the more violent
Presbyterians, soms of whom, by the way, became Episcopalians afterwards ;
and various reasons were assigned why Episcopacy should not be restored.
Among other things the King was reminded of the fate of Hiel, the Bethel-
ite, who re-edified Jericho, the city which the Lord had destroyed ; and
several sweeping assertions were made which the Protesters professed
themselves able to substantiate. It v.as in verification of " these things
offered to be proved," that the book called " The Course of Conformity"
was written. Calderwood, p. 532.— E.]
J Calderwood, 536. '' Petrie, 366.

112 THE ARTICLE.
State upon the establishment of Christ's government, and
of the profitable uses whereimto the rich benefices of Bishops
might be applied. But, 1, He tells not in what author he
read this ; and none who knows Mr Petrie's bias will think
it unreasonable to require some other thing to rely on than
his own bare authority. 2. If we should rest on his autho
rity, and allow that Moray wrote so, because Mr Petrie
said it, yet how will it follow that his Lordship was for the
divine right oi parity ? Might not he have been against
the temporal dignities and the rich benefices of the English
Bishops without being against Prelacy ? How many have
been so? Indeed, 3, there is all the reason in the world
to believe, that if Moray did write so to the English
Queen, this was all he aimed at. For had he been for the
divine right of parity, would he ever have so much coun
tenanced imparity in the Church of Scotland ? Was not he
one of the subscribers of the First Book of Discipline,!
wherein imparity was so formally established ? Was not he
Regent in December 1567, and did not he then give the
royal assent to some Acts of Parliament made clearly in
favour of imparity ? Or did he extend the royal assent to
these Acts in despight of his conscience ?
It is true, indeed, time has been when some men have
had such ductile consciences,^ that picqued the one year for
not having so much favour at Court as they thought they
deserved, they could boldly stand up in Parliaments against
iniquitous laws, and tell their fellow members that such
laws reflected on the justice of the nation, and what not ?
And yet the next year, when the Court smiled on them,
and gave them preferments and pensions to satisfy their
¦¦ Knox, 283 ; Spottiswoode, 175.
^ [The sharp rebuke contained in this passage seems to have been
pomted at the glaring inconsistency of the Presbyterians, who were " loud
in their wail" against the penal laws before the Revolution, when they
themselves groaned under their galling yoke. But after the overthrow
of the Stuart Dynasty, and the ascendency of their cause, the iUs which
they had endured, and which should have caused them to sympathize with
their neighbours under similar circumstances, were forgotten ; and instead
of repressing, we have too good reason for believing that they acquiesced
with the fanatical mob who " rabbled " the Episcopal clergy from theii-
livings, and instigated a jealous Government to practice unnecessary in
tolerance and severity towards the members of the newly disestablished
Church.— E.]

THE ARTICLE. 113
ambition or their avarice, they could retract all their former
niceness so much, that if they had got the management of
the royal assent, they would have made no scruple to have
applied it for the ratification, approbation, and perpetual
confirmation of the same laws, in their whole heads, articles,
and clauses, which seemed to themselves so scandalous and
wicked. But the Earl of Moray, while Regent, had no such
temptations. I believe he had no such yielding conscience.
If he had, I do not think his authority was much to be
valued. Once more : I think it is very strange that he
should have been for the Divine right of parity, and yet
should never have spoken so much out, considering his
occasions, except in his priv'h,te letters to Queen Elizabeth.
The only person now to be considered is John Knox. He
was certainly a prime instrument in the advancement of our
Reformation. His authority was great, and his sentiments
were very influential ; and it is not to be denied but it is of
some weight in the present question to know what was his
judgment. I shall, therefore, endeavour to account for his
principles a little more fully, and I shall do it by these steps —
1 . I slia,ll shew the insufficiency of the arguments that are
adduced by our brethren to prove him Presbyterian. 2. I
shall adduce the arguments which incline me to think he
was not.
The great argument insisted on by the author of the
" Course of Conformity," and Mr Petrie,! jg taken from a
letter of Knox's, directed, to the General Assembly holden
at Stirling in August 1571. The words are these — " Un
faithful and traitors to the flocks shall ye be before the Lord
Jesus, if that, with your consent, directly or indirectly, ye
suffer unworthy men to be thrust in within the ministry of
the Kirk, under what pretence that ever it be. Remember
the Judge before whom ye must make an account, and
resist that tyranny as ye would avoid hell fire." So the
author of the " Course of Conformity," without the least
attempt to let the world see where the argument lay. Mr
Petrie is indeed a little more discreet. He tells us where it
lies. " John Knox, in his letter to the Assembly, by the
word tyranny meaneth Episcopacy" So he, but without
1 « Course of Conformity," p. 32 ; Petrie, p. 375. 8

114 THE ARTICLE.
any fuller deduction. And is not this a demonstration
that Knox was Presbyterian? And yet, after all this, it
is not possible to make more of the letter, when it is nar
rowly considered, than that Knox deemed it a pernicious
and tyrannical thing for any person or persons whatsoever
to thrust unworthy men into the ministry of the Church ;
and ministers, who would make conscience of their calling
and trust, must resist such encroachments with all possible
concern and courage. No man, I say, can make more of
the letter. And who doubts but Mr Knox was so far in the
right ? But, then, let any man who looks not through Mr
Petrie"s spectacles, tell me what this has to do with parity
or imparity? *
The next argument is insisted on both by Petrie and
Calderwood.! It is, that Knox was at St Andrews in Fe
bruary 1571-2, when Douglas was advanced to that See —
that he refused to inaugurate him — nay, that in the audience
of many then present he denounced Anathema to the giver,
and Anathema to the receiver ; and if you ask Calderwood's
evidence for this, he tells you he found it in a certain manu
script, than which what can be more apodectic ? To be
short, though we had reason to give credit to Calderwood
and his uncertain certain manuscript, and to believe that the
matter of fact is true, and that Knox said and did so, yet
by what consequences will it follow that he was for the Divine
right of parity ? To deal frankly, it is like enough that
Knox said so, and it is very probable he had reason to say
so in that instance ; for at that time dreadful invasions
were made upon the patrimony of the Church. None more
deep in that iniquity than the Earl of Morton, then Chan
cellor, by whose influence Douglas was preferred to that
Archbishopric. And so it is like' enough that Knox, who
all his life, was singularly zealous for the rights of the Church,
upon suspicion, if not certain knowledge, of some dirty
bargain between Morton and Douglas,^ expressed suitable
1 Petrie, 374 ; Calderwood, 55.
^ [The Earl of Morton had received a grant of the revenues of the
Archiepiscopal See of St Andrews from the then Regent ; and when he
heard of the plan of institutmg the Tulchan Bishops, he naturally became
anxious about the serious loss which he was Ukely to sustain by the filling
np of the See, and set himself about derising means by which such a
calamity might be averted. He resolved, therefore, to procure the

THE ARTICLE. 115
resentments. But that it was not from any persuasion he
had of the unlawfulness of Prelacy is clear, even from what
Calderwood and Petrie themselves have recorded within a
page or two.! Por ^oth tell us, that when the next Assembly
continued Douglas in the Rectorate of the University of St
Andrews — a station he had been in before he was raised to
the Archbishopric, John Knox regretted that so many offices
were laid on one old man which scarcely twenty, of the best
gifts, were able to bear. For, as Petrie adds — " He was
now Archbishop, Rector of the University, and Provost of
the New College of St Andrews." From this, I say, it is
plain that Knox did not resent Douglas's advancement from
any opinion of the unlawfulness of Episcopacy, for no such
word was so much as once muttered by him, but from a persua
sion he had that no one man was fit for such a multitude of
offices. And I shall readily grant that Knox was not for
large Dioceses, such as St Andrews was then, as we shall
learn by and bye, though, I am afraid, little to the comfort
of my Presbyterian brethren. But I have not yet despatched
the whole argument. It is said — " He refused to inaugurate
the Bishop," Be it so ; but may not the grounds I have
appointment for a relative of his own, with whom he probably thought he
might make some bargain, although Douglas, at his spurious consecration,
in answer to one of the usual questions, solemnly averred that there was no
" simoniacal compact" between them ; and it does not appear that his
lynx-eyed enemies were ever afterwards able to detect one. His ad
vancement, however, was extremely unpopular, and Knox was particularly
strenuous in his opposition to it. But it was not the office to which the
Reformer objected. He seems rather to have disapproved of the man
on account of his age and infirmity, and of the manner by which he was
raised to the See, by the will of the Regent against the wishes of the
leaders of the Kirk. This view of Knox's refusal to maugm-ate Douglas
coincides exactly with the opinion of his friend Erskine of Dun, expressed
to the Regent Marr in a written expostulation on the subject (Banna-
tyne's Memorialles, p. 197-8, 201). That it was not the office, to which
Douglas was appointed, which raised objections in Knox's mind, is ad
mitted by the candid and learned Dr George Cook — " That he was not
influenced by the idea that Episcopacy was at variance with Scripture, is
evident from the communication which he, within a few months, made to
the Assembly at Perth, viz. his approval of the Convention of Leith,
which introduced and established the Tulchan Episcopate ; and from the
part in the ceremony taken by the Superintendant of Fife (Winram),
one of his confidential friends." — Cook's History of the Church of Scot
land, p. 188.— E.]
1 Calderwood, 57 ; Petrie, 375.

116 THE ARTICLE.
laid down already make it reasonable for him to have done
so, though he had no quarrel with imparity ? What an
argument is this — John Knox, a Presbyter, refused to conse
crate a Bishop — ergo, he was a Presbyterian I This is upon
the supposition that Calderwood and Mr Petrie have told
us true matter of fact. And yet, I must confess, I see not
the probability of its being true that Knox was desired to
inaugurate him ; for how is it imaginable that he would
be desired to perform that office when there was a Bishop
and a Superintendent at hand to do it, and who actually did
it, as both authors acknowledge ?
But that is not all. There is another argument insisted on
by both authors,! viz. that " Mr John Rutherford, Provost
of the Old College, alleged that Mr Knox's repining pro
ceeded from malcontentment ;" and " Knox purged himself
next Sunday, saying, I have refused a greater Bishoprickthan
ever it was, which I might have had with the favour of greater
men than he hath his ; I did and do repine for the discharge
of my conscience." Now, what more is there in all this than
that Knox's conscience would not have allowed him to take
a Bishopriok, with so much prejudice to the rights of the
Church for any man's feud or favour, as he suspected
Douglas had done in compliance with the Earl of Morton ?
Can the world see anything here that looked like the Divine
right oi parity ? But Calderwood has yet a more wonder
ful argument^ to prove Mr Knox one of his party. Mr
Beza, forsooth, " being informed by Mr Knox, as appeareth,
of the intention of the Court to introduce Bishops, wrote a
letter to him, wherein he told him that as Bishops brought
in the Papacy, so false Bishops, the relicts of Popery, would
bring in Epicurism to the world, and therefore prayed him
that Episcopacy might never be re-admitted into Scotland,"
&c. Petrie, indeed, mentions the same letter, but he had not
the courage, it seems, to say that it appeared to have been
occasioned by a letter of Knox to Beza, concerning the in
tentions of the Court to introduce Episcopacy. Indeed, no
such thing appeareth from any sentence, phrase, or syllable
in all Mr Beza's letter. How it came to appear to Mr
Calderwood, whether by some certain or uncertain manuscript,
1 Calderwood, 56 ; Petrie, 375. ^ Calderwood, 57.

THE ARTICLE. 117
I know not ; but however it was, make the supposition that
Knox did write so to Beza, where is the consequence of the
argument ? And if he wrote not, and it is impossible to
make it appear from Mr Beza's letter that he did, why was
Calderwood at such pains to give the world a citation out
of Beza's letter against Episcopacy ? Was that a good
proof that Knox was Presbyterian, that Beza sent him
such a letter ? The truth is, if anything can be collected
from that letter concerning Knox's sentiments, it seems
rather that he was for Prelacy. For Beza seems clearly to
import that Knox needed to be cautioned agSimst it, for thus
he writes^ — " One thing I would have you, my dear Knox,
and your brethren to advert to, as being very obvious, it is,
that as Bishops brought forth the Papacy," &c. But if
Knox needed this commonitory, I think it is no great argu
ment that he was Presbyterian, so much at least as Beza
would have had him. But to do Mr Calderwood justice, he
seems to have laid no great stress on this argument, and so
I leave it. So much for the arguments insisted on to prove
that Mr Knox was for parity. I come now to the arguments
which incline me to think he was not.
When we are inquiring after one's sentiments about a
point in controversy, it is not reasonable to build much on
far-fetched consequences, or refine upon incidental sayings,
which may be very frequently the results of negligence or
inadvertency. It is not proper to fasten on indirect propo
sitions, or snatch at this or that indeliberate phrase or ex
pression, which might have dropt unwarily from his tongue
or pen. Following such measures, we may easily strain
men's words beyond their meaning, and make them speak
nonsense or innumerable contradictions, when we have a
mind for it. The solid measure is to weigh a man's delibe
rate and serious thoughts, if any where he has expressed
them. To consider his reasonings when he treated directly
on the controverted subjects, or anything that stands so
nearly related to it, that one cannot readily discourse the
one without reflecting on the other ; to trace him through

^ Sed et istud, M. Knox, te cajterosque ; fratres velini meminisse, quod
jam oculis pene ipsis obversatur, siciit Episcopi papatum pepererunt, &c.
Beza, Epis. 79, page 316.

118 THE ARTICLE.
his life if the controverted point is relative to practice, and
try what was his behaviour when he had occasion to declare
his mind concerning the matter in question — this, as I take
it, is the true rule. Now, allowing this rule to take place, I
am very much mistaken if Knox shall be found to have been
for the Divine institution of parity, and the unlawfulness of
Prelacy. Had he been so persuaded, how seasonable had it
been for him to have spoken out so much when he was
brought before King Edward's Council ?! The question was
then put to him, — " Whether he thought that no Christian
might serve in the ecclesiastical ministration according to
the rites and laws of the realm of England ?" Here was a
proper opportunity for him to have declared himself against
Prelacy, if he had been really against it. How natural had
it been for a sincere parity man, on that occasion, to have
told that Council that no Christian could then serve with a
safe conscience as a pastor of the Church of England, be
cause, according to the laws of that realm, he behoved to
serve as a member of an umlawful Hierarchy ? Yet he an
swered nothing but that " no minister in England had
authority to separate the lepers from the whole, which was
a chief part of his office" — plainly founding all the unlaw
fulness of being a pastor of the Church of England, not on
the unlawfulness of the Hierarchy, which he spoke not one
word about, but on the King's retaining in his own hands
the chief power of ecclesiastical discipline, as it is known he
did. When was it more opportune for him to have expressed
these sentiments, if he had them, than when he was at
Frankfort ? Yet not one word of the Divine right of parity,
or the unlawfulness of Prelacy, in aU these controversies.^
He was warm enough then, and eager enough, to have found
faults in the Enghsh constitution, yet he never charged her
with the horrid guilt of Prelacy. Not so much as one word of
that in any account I have seen of these troubles. How
suitable had it been for him to have declared himself in this
1 Life of Knox ; Calderwood, p. 3.
2 Knox's Life ; Knox's History, 102 ; Ileylin's History of the Reforma
tion ; Burnet's History of the Reformation ; Calderwood, 3 ; Calv. Ep. ;
StiUingfleet's " Uni-easonableness of Separation," Part I. sect. 3.

THE ARTICLE. 119
matter in his " Appellation from the cruel and most unjust
Sentence pronounced against him by the false Bishops and
Clergy of Scotland" as he calls them, pubhshed by himself
anno 1558 ? Yet in aU that " AppeUation" not one syUable to
this purpose. On the contrary, he plainly supposes the law
fulness of the Episcopal office all along throughout it. He
appeals to a lawful General Council ! — " such a Council as
the most ancient laws and canons do approve." And who
knows not that the most ancient laws and canons made
Bishops the chief if not the only members of such Councils ?
He says2 if the Popish clergy, his adversaries, are for it,
he is " content that matters in controversy between him
and them be determined by the testimonies and authorities
of Doctors and CouncUs," three things being granted him,
whereof these are two — " 1. That the most ancient Councils,
nearest to the Primitive Church, in which the learned and
godly Fathers examined all matters by God's word, may be
holden of most authority. 2. That no determinations of
Councils nor men be admitted against the plain verity of
God's word, nor against the determinations of the four chief
Councils." Would he, if he had been Presbyterian, have
agreed so frankly to have stood by the determination of these
four chief Councils ? Could he have expected they would
have favoured the Divine right oi Presbyterian parity ? Will
any Scottish Presbyterian now-a-days stand to the decision
of these four Councils? Farther, in that same "Appellation,"^
he requires of the Nobility that " the Bishops be compelled
to make answer for the neglecting their office, which plainly
supposes the lawfulness oi the office, and charges guilt only
on the officers.
When had it been more seasonable than in his " Admo
nition to the Commonalty of Scotland," published, also, anno
1558 ? His great design in it was to excite them to a Re
formation, by loading the Papistical clergy with every thing
that was abominable. Yet not a syllable of it here neither ;
nothing but a farther and a clearer supposition of the law
fulness of Prelacy. " You may," says he,* " in a peaceable
manner, without sedition, withhold the fruits and profits
which your false Bishops and clergy most unjustly receive
' Page 2. 3 Page 32. ¦* Page 3, 32. ¦» Page 40.

120 THE ARTICLE.
of you, until such time as they shall faithfully do their charge
and duties, which is to preach unto you Christ Jesus truly ;
rightly to minister the Sacraments according to his institu
tion ; and so to watch for your souls, as is commanded by
Christ," &c. If this supposes not the innocency of the
Episcopal office in itself, I know not what can. Had he
been for the Divine right oi parity, how unfaithful had he
been in his " Faithful Admonition to the true Professors of
the Gospel of Christ within the Kingdom of England," writ
ten anno 1554 I His great work there was to enumerate
the causes which in God's righteous judgment brought Queen
Mary's persecution on them, but he quite forgot to name
the sin of Prelacy as one. Assuredly he had not done so had
he been of the same sentiments with our famous General
Assembly 1690.! How unfaithfully was it done of him, I
say, thus to conceal one of the most crimson guilts of the
nation ? But this is not the worst of it. In that same
" Admonition," he has a most scandalous expression ; sure
he was not then sufficiently purged oi Popish corruption !
" God gives," says he, " such strength to that Reverend
Father in God, Thomas Cranmer, to cut the knots of
devilish sophistry," &c.2 To call an Archbishop a Reverend
Father in God, what was it else but the plain language of
the Beast ? How rankly did it smell of the whore ?
How seasonable had it been in his letter to the Queen-
Regent of Scotland, written anno 1556, and published by
himself with additions, anno 1558 ? He talked very freely
about the Popish Bishops in it, but never a tittle of the un
lawfulness of the office. It is plain from that letter he
never dreamed of the doughty argument so much insisted on
since against Prelacy, viz. " That it is a branch of Popery,
and Bishops are limbs of Antichrist." For having stated
it as one of the Popish arguments! that " their religion
was ancient, and it was not possible that that religion could
be false which so long time, so many Councils, and so great
a multitude of men, had authorized and confirmed," he
gives his answer thus — " If antiquity of time shall be con
sidered in such cases, then shall not only the idolatry of the
Gentiles but also the false religion of Mahomet be preferred
1 See Act for a National Fast. ^ p.^„.g g^^ 3 p, ()o_

THE ARTICLE. 121
to the Papistry, for both the one and the other is more
ancient than is the Papistical religion ; yea, Mahomet had
established his Alcoran before any Pope of Rome was
crowned with a triple crown," &c. Can any man think
John Knox was so very unlearned as to imagine that Epis
copacy was not much older than Mahomet ? Or knowing it to
be older, that yet he could have been so ridiculous as to have
thought it a relict of Popery, which he himself affirmed to be
younger than Mahometism ? Whoso pleases may see more
of his sentiment about the novelty of Popery in his confer
ence with Queen Mary recorded in his History.! One
other testimony to this purpose I cannot forbear to tran
scribe. All that know any thing of the history of our Re
formation must be presumed to know that Superintendency
was erected by Mr Knox's special advice and counsel. That
it was in its very height, anno 1566, is as indubitable. Now,
we are told that Knox wrote the Fourth Book of his His
tory that year. Hear him, therefore, in his Introduction to
it2 — " We can speak the truth whomsoever we offend.
There is no realm that hath the Sacraments in like purity ;
for all others, how sincere that ever the doctrine be that by
some is taught, retain in their Churches, and in the minis
ters thereof, some footsteps of Antichrist and dregs of
Popery. But we, all praise to God alone, have nothing
within our churches that overflowed from that Man of Sin."
Let any man judge now if Mr Knox looked upon imparity
as a dreg of Popery.
Thus we have found Knox, when he had the fairest occa
sions, the strongest temptations, the most awakening calls,
when it was most seasonable for him to have declared for
the Divine right oiparity and the unlawfulness of Prelacy, still
silent in the matter ; or rather, on all occasions, proceeding
on suppositions, and reasoning from principles, fairly allow
ing the lawfulness of Prelacy. But is there no more to be
said ? Yes, more with a witness.
In his " Exhortation to England for the speedy embrac
ing of Christ's Gospel," dated from Geneva, January 12,
anno 1559, amongst many other Reformations, he is for
reforming their Bishoprics indeed ; but how ? By abolishing
1 Knox, 318. ^ Knox, 308 ; Calderwood, 40.

122 THE ARTICLE.
them ? Nothing hke it. How then ? Take it in his own
words! — " Let no man be charged in preaching of Christ
Jesus above that a man may do ; I mean, that your Bishop
rics be so divided, that of every one, as they are now for
the most part, may be made ten ; and so in every city and
great town there may be placed a godly learned man, with
so many joined with him, for preaching and instruction, as
shall be thought sufficient for the bounds committed to their
charge." So he ; and let our parity-men, if they can, give this
testimony a gloss favourable to their side of the question,
without destroying the text. The truth is, this testimony is
so very nicking, that I am apt to apprehend it might have
been for its sake that this whole tractate was left out of the
folio edition of Knox's Works, printed at London, anno
1641.2 However, the Inquisition, it seems, has not been so
strict at Edinburgh, for there it escaped the index expurga-
torius ; and yet though it had not, the good cause had not
been one whit the securer, for Knox's practice would have
sufficiently determined the matter ; for did not he compile
the " First Book of Discipline ?3 and is not imparity fairly
established there ? Did not he write and bear the letter
sent by the " Superintendents, Ministers, and Commissioners
of the Church within the Realm of Scotland, to their Bre
thren the Bishops and Pastors in England," anno 1566 ?*
Did not he, in that same title of that same letter, acknowledge
that these " Brethren, Bishops, and Pastors of England, had
renounced the Roman Antichrist, and professed the Lord
Jesus in sincerity?" And doth not the letter all along
allow of the Episcopal power and authority of these English
Bishops? Did not he publicly and solemnly admit Mr
John Spottiswoode to the Superintendency of Lothian, anno
1561 ?5 Did not he concur at the Coronation of King
James the Sixth with a Bishop, 6 and two Superintendents,
anno 1567?'' Was not he some time a Commissioner for
Visitation, as they were then called, i.e. a temporary Bishop ?

' Page, 110. 2 See note 3, Pref p. 13. ^ Spottiswoode, 174.
" Spottiswoode, 198 ; Petrie, 348 ; Calderwood, 41 ; Knox, 445.
' Knox, 289 ; Old Liturgy.
[" The notorious Adam Bothwell, Bishop of Orkney, who anointed the
infant monarch, and placed the crown upon his head. — E.]
' Spottiswoode, 211.

THE ARTICLE. 123
And did not he then act in a degree of superiority above the
rest of his brethren within the bounds of his commission ?
Did not he sit, and vote, and concur in many General As
semblies, where Acts were made for performing canonical
obedience to Superintendents ! In fine, doth not Spottis
woode tell us ! that " he was far from the dotages wherein
some that would have been thought his followers did after
wards fall" — " that never man was more obedient to Church
authority than he" — " that he was always urging the obe
dience of ministers to their Superintendents, for which he
caused diverse Acts to be made in the Assemblies of the
Church " — and that " he shewed himself severe to the
transgressors ?"
I have insisted the longer on this instance of Knox, be
cause he made a singular figure amongst our Reformers.
Besides, having so fully evinced that he, whom our brethren
value so much, was no Divine-right-of-parity-mMn, I think
it may readily pass for credible that neither were any of
the rest of our Reformers of that opinion. And now, to
bring home aU this to my main purpose, if not so much as one
of our Reformers, no, not Knox himself, was for the Divine
right of parity, I think it may amount to an undeniable
evidence, at least to a strong presumption, that they were
not of the present Presbyterian principles ; and all this will
appear still farther unquestionable when it is considered,
in the fourth place, how much reason there is to believe that
our Reformers proceeded generally on the same principles
with the Reformers of England, where the government of
the Church, by imparity, was continued without the least
opposition. This is a consideration which, I am afraid, may not relish
well with the inclinations of my Presbyterian brethren, yet,
withal, may be of considerable weight with unprejudiced
people, and bring light to several things about our Refor
mation, which even those who have read our histories and
monuments may have past over inadvertently ; and therefore
I shall take leave to insist upon it somewhat fully, and I
shall proceed by these steps.
1. I shall endeavour to represent how our Reformation,
^ Spottiswoode, 266.

124 THE ARTICLE.
under God, was principally cherished and encouraged by
English infiuences. 2. I shall endeavour to represent how,
in correspondence to these influences, our Reformers were
generally of the same mind with the Church of England, in
several momentous instances relating to Constitution and
Communion, the government and polity of the Church,
wherein our present Presbyterian principles stand in direct
opposition and contradiction to her. If I can make these
two things appear, I think I shall make a considerable
advance towards the determination of the Second Inquiry.
1. I say, our Reformation, under God, was cherished and
encouraged principally by English infiuences. That Scotland,
barring foreign influences, is naturally disposed for receiving
English impressions, cannot but be obvious to common sense.
We not only live in the same island separated from all other
neighbourhood — we not only breath the same air, and speak
the same language, and observe the same customs, and have
all the opportunities of reciprocating all the offices which
can result from daily commerces, and familiar acquaintances,
and easy correspondences, and matrimonial conjunctions,
and innumerable other such endearing relations, and allec-
tives to mutual kindness ; but also Scotland is the lesser,
England the larger — Scotland the more barren, England
the more fertile — Scotland the poorer, England the rich
er — Scotland the more penurious of people, England the
more populous — Scotland every way the weaker, England
every way the stronger kingdom ; and, by consequence,
Scotland every way the more apt to receive, and England
every way the more apt to give impressions. And nature
in this is fully justified by experience ; for what Scottish
man knows not, that when the late Revolution was a carry
ing on, as England cast the copy to Scotland, so it was
used and pressed, as one of the most popular and influential
topics to persuade the Scots to follow the copy, that England
had done it; and why should Scotland follow a separate
course? Was not England a powerful and a wise nation?
What defence could Scotland make for itself if England
should invade it ? And how was it to be imagined that
England would not invade Scotland, if Scotland did not
follow England's measures ? So that, to stand by K[ing]
.I[ames], when England had rejected him, what was it else

THE ARTICLE. 125
than to expose the nation to unavoidable ruin? Who
knows not, I say, that this was one of the most pressed,
because one of the most plausible arguments in the be
ginning of the late Revolution ? And who sees not that
the force of the argument lay in Scotland's obnoxi-
ousness to England's impressions? Let no true-hearted
Scottish man imagine it is in my thought to dishonour my
native country. I have said no more than all the world
knows to be true, and what cannot be denied. If we could
contend with them for virtue and integrity, for honour and
gallantry, for civility and loyalty, for glories that are truly
manly, it were for the credit of our nation, and it were our
own fault if we were inferior to them in such competitions.
But it is arrant vanity to contend with them for wealth, or
strength, or multitude. Now, to bring this home to my pur
pose. God had so ordered, in his wise providence, that, for
many ages before, Scotland had not been so free of foreign
influence as a little before and all the time our Church was
a reforming. The French were the only foreign influences
which were wont to find entertainment in Scotland ; and in
those times the French had treated us very basely! and
^ [It is not quite clear that Bishop Sage is correct in the inferences which
he draws from the ill treatment by the French in the beginning of his ar
gument, viz. that it turned away the affections of the Scots from France,
and led them to look to England. Their national jealousy of the latter
kingdom, and their desire to be revenged for the fatal disaster of Flodden,
far outweighed their sense of the continued coldness and neglect of France.
Indeed, it was the fear lest the Queen, to whom the tutelage of their
youthful Sovereign had been entrusted by the will of his deceased father,
might be influenced in the execution of her important task by her brother,
Henry VIIL, that induced the Scottish Nobles to petition the Court of
France for the presence of Albany, who, ou his first arrival in Scotland,
found that he was supported by a faction, embracing almost the whole
Nobility, and by the sympathies of the great mass of the people. But
though our author is wrong in the cause which he assigns for the influence
of England at this period, the fact itself soon became quite true. The
tempting bribes of Henry could not be withstood by the needy Barons of
Scotland, and their patriotism melted away at the contact of English
gold. It is notorious that they sold themselves to extend the influeuce of
the English monarch throughout their native land, and some of them were
so lost to aU sense of national honour, that they secretly joined in a trea
sonable plan for delivering their Sovereign into the hands of his ambitious
uncle. An idea may be formed of the shameful venality of the Nobles,
and of the indefensible system of meddling and espionage instituted by
Henry, which paralyzed every measure of Albany, from the following
quotations. Lord Dacre, Henry's agent, in a letter to Wolsey, says — " I

126 THE ARTICLE.
dishonourably. I shaU deduce the matter with all conve
nient brevity.
King Henry the Eighth of England had resolved upon a
war with France, anno 1512. The French King perceiving
this, applied to James the Fourth of Scotland, his old con
federate, to engage him in an alliance against Henry. His
application was successful, a private league was made be
twixt them in November that year.! Two of the Articles were,
that " if England should invade Scotland, France should
wage war with all its might against England ; Scotland
should do the like if England invaded France ; and neither
of the two should take truce with England without the
other gave his consent, and were comprehended therein, if
he pleased." In pursuance of this League, James raised a
potent army, invaded England, incurred the Pope's dis
pleasure to the very sentence of excommunication,^ fought
the fatal battle of Flowden, September 9, 1513,3 lost
his life and the flower of all the Scottish Nobility and
gentry, and left behind him James the Fifth, an infant, ex
posed, with his whole State, to the not very tender mercies
of King Henry. Here was serving the French interests
with a witness. WeU, how did Lewis requite this ? The
next year he patched up a Peace with Henry, without
labor and study all I can to make division and debate to the intent that, if
the Dnke wiU not apply himself, their debate may grow that it shaU be
impossible for him to do justice ; and also I have secret messages from the
Earl of Angus and others, and also 400 outlaws, and giveth them rewards
that burneth and destroyeth in Scotland." Wolsey, again, writing to his
royal master about some instructions which he had transmitted to Dacre
as to renewed efforts at corruption, adds — " And though some money be em
ployed for the entertainment ofthe said .ffomes and rebels, it wiU quit the
cost at length." And after the death of James, in a letter from the Duke
of Suffolk to the traitors themselves, the exact sums are specified which
some of them had received as the rewards of their perfidious conduct. " To
the Earls of Angus, L.200 ; Glencairn, 200 merks ; Cassillis, 200 merks ;
the Master of Maxwell, L.lOO ; Sheriff of Air, L.lOO ; Laird of Drumlan
rig, L.lOO ; Earl Marischall, 300 merks ; Sir George Douglas, L.200."
Bribery, therefore, was the real cause of the estrangement of Scotland
from France, and not the " treatment" which she had received from her
old ally. It is easy to see how our author was misled, for with the
light which he enjoyed, it could scarcely have been otherwise, but
modern research, by discovering additional information, has expiscated
the tmth. Vide Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. v. pp. 73-82, 98-9,
395.— E.]
1 Le,slie, 343 ; Herbert, 27. = Herbert 29. •' LesUe, 349 ; Herbert, 44.

THE ARTICLE. 127
comprehending Scotland, without respect to his faith and
promise, without pity to those who were reduced to such
extremities on his account. If this was not, what can be called
disobliging .?! But this was not aU. The Scots, reduced to
these difficulties, and sensible that it was not possible for
the nation to subsist under an infant King without a Regent,
became humble supplicants to the French King that he
would send them John Duke of Albany, then in the French
service, a man of great abilities, and next by blood^ to the
Scottish Crown, that he might be their Governor during
their King's minority. But Henry's threats for a long time
prevailed more with the French King 3 than Scotland's ne
cessities, or his obhgations to it, for Albany came not to
Scotland till May 1515,* so that for near two years, through
the French coldness and indifferency towards Scottish affairs,
the kingdom had no settled Government. The war broke
out again betwixt France and England anno . . . , and a
new Peace was concluded anno 1518, and Albany, our
Scottish Regent, was present in person when it was con
cluded. But the English obstinacy, not to comprehend
Scotland, was more effectual with Francis the First, who
had then got upon the throne, than all the intercessions of
Albany, or the merits of our nation. 5 Nay, if we may be
lieve Herbert, it was one of the main articles of that Treaty,
that Albany should not return to Scotland, 6 nor did he re
turn till October 1521;'' and returning then, Henry reckoned
it a main breach of Treaty, nay, and plain perjury in Francis
that he gave way to it.^ Thus were we treated then by
France. Let us now consider if Henry was at any pains all this
while to make an interest in Scotland. And if we may be
lieve the unanimous voice of our own historians, or my
Lord Herbert in the History of his Life,^ never was man
^ Pax pacta est, quae res non tantam tranquillitatem regno GallifE peperit,
quantam regi notam iuussit, quod, in ilia percutienda, Scotorum, qui illius
causa, Anglis, Bellum intulerunt, nulla omnino facta fuerit mentio.
Leslie, 355.
^ [He was the son of Alexander, Duke of Albany, brother of James
III.— E.]
^ Herbert, 50. -* Buchanan, 488. ^ Leslie, 372.
« Herbert, 122. '' Buchanan, 496. « Herbert, ibid.
^ Herbert, 49, 59, 60, 6.5, ^Q, passim.

128

THE ARTICLE".

more earnest for any thing than he in that pursuit, and he
had brave occasion for it ; for not only were the Scots highly
and justly irritated by the degenerous and undervaluing
slights France had put upon them, as I have now made appear,
but Henry had surprized them with an unexpected and un
accustomed generosity! after the battle of Flowden. He
had not pursued his victory, but had listened gently to their
addresses for peace, and told them, that though he might,
yet he would not take advantage of their circumstances ;
he would treat them frankly ; if they were for peace, so
was he ; if for war, they should have it :2 — a response so full
of true honour and gallantry as could not but work on their
affections. Besides, his sister Margaret, the Queen of Scots,
a lady of rare endowments, was all alongst working to his
hand, and making a party for him. James the Fourth, by
his testament, before he went to Flowden, had nominated
her Governess of the Realm during her widowhood. This
gave her once the principal hand in affairs. It is true she
was young and lively, and married within a year after the
King's death, and so lost her title to the Regency. But
then she married the Earl of Angus, the choice of all the
Scottish Nobility, and one who was in great repute with all
ranks of people ;3 so that however her marriage annulled her
title, it did not so much weaken her interest, but that she
had still a great party in the nation — so great, that though
Albany was advanced to the Regency, she was for the most
part able to overbalance him in point oi power Sknd following .
In short, such was Henry's and his sister's influence, that
all the time Albany was Regent the nation was divided
into two factions — the one French, headed by Albany, the
1 [Whatever were the professions of the EngUsh monarch on this occa
sion, they were hollow and false. It was against his will and special or
ders that the victory of Flodden was not followed up, and advantage
taken of the crippled and disordered state of the country ; and Surrey,
his able general, would not have thwarted his master except from neces
sity. In fact, the loss which the English army sustained in that fatal field
was so severe as to render it imprudent, and the want of a co-operating
fleet made it impossible, to invade Scotland immediately after the battle.
Tytler, vol. v. p. 73.— E.]
^ Henricus, animo magno et vere regio, respondit, sibi cum Scotis paca-
tis, pacem, cum beUantibus, bellum fore. Buchanan, 485.
•^ Buchanan, 484, 489.

THE ARTICLE. 129
other English, headed by the Queen-Dowager, and hers
was generally the more prevalent ; so much, that though
Albany was perhaps one of the bravest gentlemen that ever
was honoured with the Scottish Regency, he was never able
to prosecute to purpose any project he undertook for the
French service. Thus, anno 1522, he raised an army to in
vade England, but with what success ? Why, the Scottish
Nobility waited upon him to the Border indeed, but they
would go no further. They told him plainly they would
hazard lives and fortunes in defence of their country, but it
was another thing to invade England.! And Lesly plain
ly attributes all this refractoriness in these Nobles to the
Queen's influence ; nay, it is evident from the same Lesly,
that the baseness and ingratitude of the French in the fore-
mentioned Treaties was one of the principal arguments that
moved them to such backwardness ;2 and Albany was sen
sible of it, and therefore went to France, and told the French
King so much, and asked a swinging army of Frenchmen,
five thousand horse and ten thousand foot. With such a
force he promised to act something against England, but
from the Scots by themselves nothing was to be expected.
And this his absence was a new opportunity to Henry to
play his game in Scotland. Indeed, he neglected it not ; he
used aU arts imaginable further to advance his own and
weaken the French interest ; he harassed the Borders with
out intermission, that in the miseries and desolations of
war the Scots might see the beauties and felicities of peace
on the one hand,3 resolving as it were to cudgel them into an
accord, if no other thing could do it ; and, on the other hand,
he had his emissaries and instruments busy at work in the
heart of the kingdom, and about the helm of affairs, employ
ing all their skill and interest, all their wit and rhetoric, all
their eloquence and diligence, to persuade the nation to a
perpetual amity with England, the Queen being the chief

1 Buchanan, 487 ; Lesly, .386.
^ Regina etsi absens, hujus tamen consilii nobilibus auctor fuit. Lesly,
386. Albanius cum intellexerat Scotos Nobiles a bello gerendo abhorrere,
quod non reipublicse suse utilitate sed Regis Franci voluntate, tanquam
susceptum illud putavermt, in Franciam transmittit, &c. Lesly, 387.
" Hostis autem consilium eo spectabat ut feroces Scotorum animos,
malis fractos ad paciseendum secum cogeret. Buchanan, 499. 9

130 THE ARTICLE.
actrix.! Neither did this seem sufficient. He sent ambassa
dors, and wrote letters, and represented things in their fair
est colours, and made most charming overtures, &c.2 If
they would break the league with France, and enter into
one with England, the world should see, and they should
find by experience, that it was not humour, or ambition, or
love of greatness, that had moved him to treat them so, but
love of concord, and concern for the prosperity and happiness
of the nation — that he had but one only child, a daughter,
Mary ; her he would give to James in marriage ; hereby the
English would become subject to the Scottish, not the Scot
tish to the English Government ; and a great deal more to
this purpose. Whoso pleases may see this whole matter
transcribed by Herbert^ from Buchanan. I go on.
The French King was not at leisure, it seems, to afford
Albany such assistances as he required, so he was obliged
to return without them ; and, returning, found the French
interest still weaker and weaker, and the English stronger
and stronger, as appears from his success. For having re
turned to Scotland in September 1523,* he instantly gave
out his orders that the whole force of the kingdom should
meet in Douglasdale against the middle of October. He
found obedience so far, indeed, that they met ; but when he
had marched them to Tweed, and they found he designed
to invade England, they would not move one foot further,
but sounded aloud their old carol — " They knew by expe
rience what was to be gained by invading England ; it was
enough for them that they were willing to defend their own
country," &c.5 Here they stood, I mean as to their resolu
tions, not their ground ; for they left that, and instantly re
tired within their own Borders, so hastily, and with such
strong inclinations, it seems, to be at home, that with great
difficulty he got them to keep together some days, till he
should fall on some pretext which might give a fair colour
to his retreat, and cover it from appearing downright dis
honourable. It is true, his luck was so good, that he found
1 Nee segnius etiam Scoti, factionis Gallis adversse laborabaut ut per-
petuum cum Anglo foedus inu-etur, Regina principe. Buchanan, 499.
^ Si Scoti in animum inducerent, soliito cum Gallis fcedere, &c.
Buchanan, ibid.
¦* Herbert, 148, 149. " Buchanan, 499. ^ Buchanan, 501.

THE ARTICLE. 131
it — but how ? By the art and interest of the Enghsh fac
tion.! Thus, Queen Margaret, to wait her opportunities,
had come to the Border, and lodged not far from the Scot
tish camp. The Earl of Surrey commanded the Enghsh
army, with whom she kept secret correspondence ; and it
was concerted betwixt them, it seems, that the English
should by all means avoid fighting, and she should be em
ployed as a mediatress ; to bring matters to some honest
accommodation. The plot succeeded, a truce was readily
patched up, to the satisfaction, no doubt, of both parties.
Albany had reason to be glad of it, for he could make no
better of tho bargain, and it was with much difficulty he
brought his expedition to so honourable an issue ; and it is
plain the English faction had reason to be as glad, for they
had gained two points — they had got Albany to understand
the temper of the nation, and the weakness of the French
interest ; and they had treated the Scots, who were so
averse from fighting, so discreetly, by shunning all occasions
of engaging, and thereby shewing that they were no enemies
to the Scots, unless it was on the French account, that they
could not have fallen on a more successful politic for gaining
King Henry's great purpose, which was to disengage the
Scots of the French as much as he could ; and the success
was agreeable. For after that, Albany's authority and the
French interests decayed so sensibly, and the English fac
tion managed their designs so successfully, that within a few
months Albany was turned out of his Regency, and the
young King, then but twelve years of age, was persuaded to
take in his own hands the Government. It was the English
faction, I say, that wrought this Revolution, as is evident
from the whole thread of the history. And Lesly^ tells
us plainly that Albany was sensible of it, and was persuaded
it was in vain to endeavour any more to gain them to the
French side, and therefore he took his leave, and departed
the country .3 This was in the year 1524. The King so
young, all know, was not able to manage the Government
1 Lesly, 390, 391 . "- Lesly, 393.
^ Hinc inteUexit Gubernator se apud quosdam Nobiles non esse gratio-
sum, qui Regis pueri imperitiam, suo excusso imperio, volebant subire,
atqne nuUum bellum ( quod, Franci causa, acriter urgebat Albanius) cum
Anglis justum esse putabant. Lesly, 393.

132 THE ARTICLE.
by himself, but stood in need of counsellors. They were
English who had got him thus early to assume the Govern
ment in his own person. It is obvious to collect, there
fore, that they were English enough who were his counsel
lors, and such they were indeed. For, as Lesly has it,! g,
Parhament was indicted to meet in February thereafter,
wherein a Council was nominated for assisting the King in
the administration of the Government, but so as that the
Queen was to have the sovereignty, so far as nothing was
to be done without her special approbation and aUowance.
Albany, the great opposer of his interests in Scotland
thus despatched, King Henry's whole soul was divided be
twixt gladness and kindness. He was glad, almost to excess,
that he had got rid of such an eye-sore^ — he was kind to
the highest degree to his sister, and nephew, and the Scot
tish Nobility. He despatched two Ambassadors with aU
expedition for Scotland, by whom he off'ered to establish a
lasting peace, and, in the interim, agreed to a truce for a
year, till a fond for a solid settlement might be maturely
considered.^ On the other hand, our Queen, without doubt
with her brother's foreknowledge and allowance, having
now the reins in her hands, sends three Ambassadors to
England — the Earl of Cassillis, the Bishop of Dunk eld,* and
the Abbot of Cambuskenneth,^ to propose to Henry, in the
name of the Scottish nation, that there might be a firm and
perpetual amity established betwixt the two Crowns ; and to
this great end that a match might be agreed to betwixt
James and Mary. Henry entertained the proposition with
all imaginable shews of satisfaction, but demanded two
things — " That the Scots might break the league with
France and make one of that same nature with England ;"
and " that James might be educated in England till ripe
for marriage." But the Scottish Ambassadors were not
plenipotentiaries enough for adjusting these matters. Cas
sillis, therefore, comes home ; a new meeting of the States is
1 Ita tamen ne quid horum consUio omnino statueret vel antiquaret
Rex, quod Regina tanquam Regni Princeps, antea, sua authoritate non
fixerit aut refixerit. Lesly, 397.
^ Incredibili quadam tetitia elatns. Lesly, 394. ^ Lesly, ibid.
'' [Robert Cockburn, successor to the celebrated Gavin Douglas. — E.]
" [Alexander Milne. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 133
caUed, and Cassillis is returned to England with commission
to tell Henry — " That the Scottish Lords are content to re
linquish the French on condition the match with the Prin
cess Mary were secured."! It is true, nothing followed upon
this treaty but a truce for three years, for what reason I
know not : but from the deduction I have briefly made, it
may sufiioiently appear how weak the French and how
strong the English interest was then in Scotland — so very
strong, as clearly to overcome and almost quite extirpate
the other. Well ! Did Francis nothing to recover the Scot
tish amity ? Alas ! at that time, he had greater matters to
employ his thoughts. He lost his liberty at the battle of
Pavia, anno 1525, and became the King of Spain's prisoner,
and was not restored to his freedom till Henry interposed with
a powerful mediation ; for which he entered into another
league with Henry, 1527, without minding the Scots, or
being concerned for their security. This was a third slight
put upon the Scots by the French in their treaties with
England.2 It is true, indeed, Francis did not enter into
this league with Henry overawed by his threats, but con
strained by his kindness and good offices in his liberation
from his Spanish captivity. But it was all one to the Scots
for what reason it was, if they were deserted.
It is true, indeed, when James came to full age he had
strong inclinations for renewing the old amity with France ;
and no wonder, considering how much he was managed by
the clergy, who abhorred Henry for shaking off the Pope's
authority, and thought themselves concerned, with all their
might, to guard against Henry's contagious infiuences, as
they deemed them. But, however the King and clergy were
inclined, it is evident the body of the nation continued con
stant in their so frequently provoked coldness to the French
interests, and in their good affection towards England — so
much, that they would never thereafter, at least all the time
our Reformation was a carrying on, follow either King or
Regent to invade England. Thus, when James the Fifth,
anno 1542, was very earnest for it, the Nobility generally
1 See for aU this, Lesly, 394, 395 ; Herbert, 163.
2 Gallus studio, maxime et dUigentia Angli, in libertatem, ex Hispano-
rum manibus restitutus, fcediis adeo amplum cum iis fecit ut multum
Scotico fojderi derogaretur. Buchanan, 519.

134 THE ARTICLE.
declined it, and he was forced to dismiss them.! And when
shortly after that, his earnestness that way, it seems, encreas-
ing, he ordered an army to meet at Carlaverock, intending
therewith to enter England, so soon as Oliver Sinclair was
declared chief commander, and the King's intentions were
made known, all threw away their arms, and suffered them
selves to be taken prisoners.^ And when the Earl of Arran,
Regent, anno, . . . ., went with a goodly army to besiege
the church of Coldingham, which the English for the time
had fortified, he was forced to run for it abruptly, fearing,
as Buchanan says,^ his friends pretended, lest his army
should betray him into the hands of the English. And
anno 1557, when the Queen-Regent, Mary of Lorraine, was
most earnest to have had England invaded, thereby to have
made a diversion, and eased France of the English force
which was assisting Philip the Second of Spain against
Henry the Second of France, the Nobility could by no
means be gained to do it, as all our historians tell us. I
could have insisted on this deduction far more largely, but
I think what I have said may be sufficient for my purpose,
which was to shew how much Scotland was disengaged of
foreign infiuences, and by consequence how much it was
disposed to receive English impressions, from the very dawn
ing of our Reformation till its legal establishment 1560.
Let us next try, if according to these dispositions, the
E?iglish infiuences were communicated, and made suitable
impressions. And I think, in the first place, no man can reasonably
doubt but that it is fairly credible they did ; for no man
can deny that the Reformation made a considerable figure
in England more early than it did in Scotland. When
light was thus arising in the isle, it was natural for it to
overspread both nations ; and it was as natural that the
more and sooner enlightened nation should be the fountain
of communication— that is, in plain terms, that Scotland
should derive it, under God, from England ; especially con
sidering how at that time they were mutually disposed
towards one another.
' Rex minim iu moduin ciipiebat prselio decernere, adversa nobilitate ;
a quibus id impetrare non poterat. Buchanan, 528 ; Lesly, 435.
^ Lesly, 437 ; Buchanan, 529. » Buchanan, 544.

THE ARTICLE. 135
Indeed, second, it is certain, books deserve to be reckoned
amongst the prime vehicles oi such light as we are now con
sidering, and it is as certain, that the first books which en
lightened Scotland were brought from England.! Tindal
translated the New Testament into English, anno 1531, and
copies of it were dispersed here in considerable plenty ; and
other useful books were then written also in the vulgar
language, which was common to both nations ; which coming
from England had great success in Scotland, as is evident
even from Knox's History.2
But this is not all. The truth of all this will appear more
fuUy, if, third, we consider that King Henry had no sooner
begun his Reformation, such as it was, in England, than he
endeavoured to transmit it into Scotland. He shook off
the Pope's supremacy anno 1534, and he sent the Bishop
of St David's^ to his nephew, James of Scotland, anno 1535,*
with books written in English, containing the substance of
Christian religion, earnestly desiring him to read them, and
join with him in carrying on the Reformation. And Her-
berfS says, Henry was vastly solicitous " to draw James on
his side, as knowing of what consequence it was to keep his
kingdom safe on that part, and therefore laboured still to
induce him to abrogate the Papal jurisdiction in his domi
nions." And though this embassy of St David's had not
success, yet Henry gave not over, but continued to write let
ters to James, insisting still upon the same requests. Petrie
has transcribed one from Fox,^ wherein Henry " premonishes,
requires, and most heartily prays James to consider the

^ [It is certain that the principles of the Reformation had become
spread in Scotland before the year 1531 by the writings of Luther,
for we find in the Acts of the Scottish Parliaments, that so early as 1625
stringent enactments were made prohibiting foreign merchants from
importing heretical books, under the penalty of forfeiting the ships
which brought them into the country. This, however, only confirms
our author's general argument, and accounts in some measure for the
Lutheran aspect of early Scottish Protestantism. Vide Tytler, vol. v.
p. 163.— E.]
2 Knox, 38.
^ [Dr. W. Barlow, famous as having been one of the consecrators of
Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, December 17, 1559. The
other consecrators were Scory, Bishop of Hereford ; Coverdale, Bishop of
Exeter, and Hodgkins, Suffragan of Bedford. — E.]
" Buchanan, 520 ; Spottiswoode, 70. ^ Herbert, 396. "Petrie, 176.

136 THE ARTICLE.
supremacy granted by the Holy Scriptures to Princes in
Church matters: to weigh what God's Word calleth a Church;
to consider what superstitions, idolatries, and blind abuses
have crept into all Realms, to the high displeasure of God ;
and what is to be understood by the censures of the Church,
and excommunication (for the Pope had then excommuni
cated Henry) ; and how no such censure can be in the power
of the Bishop of Rome, or of any other man, against him
or any other Prince having so just ground ; to avoid from
the root and to abolish such an execrable authority as the
Bishop of Rome hath usurped, and usurps upon all Princes,
to their great damage ; requesting him, for these reasons,
to ponder of what hazard it might be to James himself if he
agreed to such censures, and by such example gave upper
hand over himself and other Princes to that Usurper of
Rome, to scourge all who will not kiss and adore the foot of
that corrupt holiness, which desires nothing but pride and
the universal thrall of Christendom," &c. Here was earnest
ness for reformation in Scotland with a witness ! And can
it be imagined that Henry, who was so serious with the
King of Scots, was at no pains at all with his subjects, with
the Nobility and gentry, with such as might have influence
either at the Court or in the country ?
No, certainly, as may be evident, if we consider, fourth,
that when, in the year 1540, or 1541, Henry was earnest for
a congress with James, to try, no doubt, if meeting face to
face, and personal and familiar converse and conference,
might prevail with him. All our Scottish Protestants were
mighty zealous that the interview might take effect, and
both time and place, which was York, might be punctually
observed.! Is not this a demonstration that they under
stood Henry's project, and approved his designs, and that
they were in the same bottom with him in pursuance of a
reformation? It is true, James foUowed other counsels,
and disappointed the interview, and therefore Henry turned
angry, and raised war against him ; but, then, it is as true,
that James found his subjects so backward, as I shewed.

' Factio sacerdotibus iuiquior toto conatu, atque animi viribus, eo in-
cubueruiit, ut Rex tempus locumque coloquii petitum obiret. Buchanan,
525.

THE ARTICLE. 1.37
and was so unsuccessful in the management of that war,
that he contracted melancholy, and soon after died.
Add to this, fifth, that after James's death Henry per
sisted in his concern to advance the Reformation in Scot
land as well as in England. To this end he was careful
that those of the Scottish Nobility and gentry who were
taken prisoners at Solway Moss might be lodged with such
persons as could instruct them in the Reforming principles ;
and so soon as he heard that James was dead, and had left a
daughter some few days old, yet heiress to the Crown, he
despatched them for Scotland to promote his interests in the
matter of the match he was zealous to have made betwixt
his son, Prince Edward, and our infant Sovereign. Indeed,
they were as diligent as he could have desired. They got it
carried in Parliament ; and that they did it from a prospect
of carrying on the reformation! of religion by that conjunc
tion cannot be doubted, if we may believe Dr Burnet, in his
" Abridgement of the History of the Reformation of the
Church of England ;" for there^ he not only tells — " That
CassiUis had got these seeds of knowledge at Lambeth
under Cranmer's infiuences, which produced afterwards a
great harvest in Scotland;" but also "that the other prison
ers were instructed to such a degree, that they came to

^ [If it be tme that religious motives entered at all into the heads of
the Scottish Nobles in this matter, we, who are acquainted with the
otiier secret causes of their devotion to Henry, cannot bestow upon them a
very high meed of praise for their zeal. It is well known that their own
liberty, which was to be the reward of the success of their treason
able plans, and large bribes from the English monarch, had more to do
with the conduct of those Nobles, than love for the cause of reformed reli
gion. And what are we to think of the honesty and principle of men, who,
as Henry said, " had not sticked to set the crown of Scotland upon his
head," nevertheless at the same time hypocriticaUy binding themselves by
an opposite engagement " to remain, true, faithful, and obedient servants
to their own Sovereign, to assist the Lord Governor (Arran) for defence
of the realm against their old enemies of England ;" and, what is worse, if
their reforming convictions were sincere, " to support the liberties of
Holy Church, and to maintain the true Christian Faith," i. e. the existing
Church and doctrine ? Such duplicity, upon the supposition that these
captive Lords were real supporters of the Reformed cause at this time,
only shews that they had deeply imbibed and boldly acted upon the
poisonous maxim — " The end. justifies ihe mca-its." Vide Tytler, vol. v.
p. 296-392.— E.]
2 Burnet, 279, 280.

138 THE ARTICLE.
have very different thoughts of the changes that had
been made in England from what the Scottish clergy had
possessed them with, who had encouraged their King to en
gage in the war by the assurance of victory, since he fought
against a heretical Prince," &c. And a little after they
were sent home, and went away much pleased, both with
the splendour of the King's Court, and with the way of re
ligion which they had seen in England. And that we have
reason to believe this author in this matter is evident, be
cause he is justified herein by all our historians, especially
Buchanan, as may appear by the sequel. Here was success
of the English infiuences — seven of the supreme order, i. e.
Noblemen, and twenty-four of inferior quality, considerable
gentlemen, all enlightened in England, for so Buchanan
numbers them.!
And here, by the way, it will not be amiss to consider the
strength of the Protestant party in Scotland when in this
Parliament, wherein the match, by the influence of the En
glish converts, was agreed to. They were so strong that
they carried the Regency for the Earl of Arran, prompted
thereto chiefly by the persuasion they had of his affection to
the Reformation, as is evident from the consentient accounts
of Buchanan, Knox, and Spottisv/oode.^ They carried it for
the match with England in opposition to all the Popish party,
as I have just now represented. Nay, which is more, because
more immediately concerning the reformation of Religion,
they procured an Act to be made " That it should be lawful
to every man to take the benefit of the translation which
they then had of the Bible,^ and other treatises containing

' Buchanan, 532. ^ Buchanan, 531 ; Knox, 36 ; Spottiswoode, 71.
2 [It is most likely that this was Tindal's translation made in 1531, but
whether any copy had been printed m Scotland at this time is doubtful ;
for the first authentic accounts which we have of a regular edition of the
Holy Scriptures being published and circulated throughout the parishes
of Scotland are derived from the Acts of a General Assembly held nearly
thirty years subsequent to this, when " a statement was laid before them
by Alexander Arbuthnot, burgess of Edinburgh, and Thomas Bassanden,
printer and burgess, respecting the publication of an edition of the Bible in
English." Correctors were appointed to oversee the work, the price was to
be L.4. 13s. 4d. Scottish money, and the time arranged at which it should be
published. If this M'as the first copy of the Scriptures jjn'«,fed and published
in Scotland, the only way of accountmg for the delay which ensued, after the

THE ARTICLE. 139
wholesome doctrine, &c.! Indeed, at that time the Refor
mation was so far advanced that the Regent kept his two
Protestant chaplains, Williams and Rough, both Church-of-
England men, as we shall hear, who preached publicly to
the Court,2 and declaimed boldly against the Roman cor
ruptions — so far advanced, that it stood fair within a short
space to have got the public establishment, if Arran the
Regent, to keep the Pope's cover on his title to the succes
sion, wherein without it there were a couple of sad chasms,^
and for other worldly ends, had not played the jade, by
renouncing his profession and returning to the Pope's
obedience. permission by the Parliament in 1542-3, is that the power and influence
of the clergy, who were opposed to the dissemination of the Scriptures
in the vulgar tongue, were still very great, and sufficient to withhold the
accompUshmeut of a project deservedly of the first magnitude in the
opinion of the Reformers. It is worthy of remark, in reference to this Act
of Parliament, procuring the free use of the translation of the Bible, that
it was introduced by Lord Maxwell, who had become a convert to the
Reformed doctrines during his imprisonment in England. This confirms
our author's argument as to English influences, and proves that amid the
inconsistency and sordid conduct of the Scottish Nobles, there was one
who had some regard to the spread of religious truth. This act of Lord
Maxwell, as it is a proof of his sincerity, only sets the conduct of his son,
the Master of Maxwell, who was a hired pensioner of Henry (vide note
supra, p. 126), in a more unfavourable light. — E.]
1 Knox, 38 ; Spottiswoode, 72.
2 Lesly, 443 ; Knox, 36 ; Spottiswoode, 72.
•* [These " chasms" originated m the marriages both of his father aud
grandfather. His grandfather. Lord Hamilton, married Mary, daughter
of James II., who had divorced her former husband. Lord Boyd, after
liis disgrace and attainder. The father of the Regent was the offspring of
this marriage. He was created first Earl of Arran, and was thrice married.
By his first wife he had no family. His second wife was Elizabeth,
sister of Alexander, Earl of Home, and the mpposed widow of Sir Thomas
Hay, of the FamUy of Yester. From this lady he was divorced on an
allegation that her first husband was still alive, and his Lordship having
obtained the authority of the Bishop of Rome to re-maiTy, took to wife
Janet, daughter of Sir David Beaton of Creich in Fife, and widow of Sir
Thomas Livingston of Easter Wemyss, by whom he had James, second
Earl of Arran and Duke of Chatelherault, Regent, and declared by Par
liament next heir to the throne to Queen Mary in her non-age. It is a
curious fact that Cardinal Beaton, with whom he was nearly connected,
objected to his legitimacy, and as the reward of not pressing his objection
always possessed the greatest influence over Arran. Hence it is easy to
perceive the interest which he had in adhering to the Church of Rome,
and keeping the " Papers cover" on the defects of his genealogical tree,
caused by the irregular marriages of his grandfather and father. See

140 THE ARTICLE.
Observe, further, by the way, that this first Parliament
of Queen Mary's was holden in her name, and by her autho
rity, upon the 13th of March 1542-3, as is clear not only
from our historians, but the printed Acts of Parliament,
and she was not crowned till the 20th of August thereafter,
if we may believe both Lesly and Buchanan.! And yet
there was not so much as the least objection made then
against the legality of the Parliament. No such thing was
thought on ; so that it is no new nor iUegal thing for Scot
tish monarchs to hold Parliaments before their coronations. ^
But this, as I said, by the way.
Such was the strength of the Reforming party then, and
this strength, under God, advanced so far principally by
English influences. And all this will appear more convincing
still, when it is considered, in the sixth place, that all alongst
the Popish clergy were very sensible of it, and very much
offended with it, and were at all imaginable pains to disap
point it and oppose it. Thus, when Henry sent the Bishop
of St David's, as we have heard, anno 1535, to treat with
James about Reforming, the clergy were in a dre-ekdiuX pother
how to keep off the interview, and used all imaginable argu
ments with the King to dissuade him from listening to it,
telling him it would ruin religion, and that would ruin his
soul, his state, his kingdom, &c.3 Nay, the Pope himself
was extremely solicitous how to prevent so great a mischief,
as he deemed it ; for, as Lesly tells us,* his Holiness, finding
that Henry had cast off his yoke, and fearing lest James
should transcribe his uncle's copy, sent his Legates to Scot
land to confirm him in the faith, and fortify him against
Noble's Historical Genealogy of the Family of the Stuarts, London,
1745, 4to. Anderson's Historical and Genealogical Memoirs of the House
of Hamilton, Edinburgh, 1825, 4to. Knox's Hist. Edin. folio, p. 40-1 . — E.]
1 Leslie, 444, 445 ; Buchanan, 537.
^ [It is difficult to say what caused this remark, but as to the fact of
the Scottish Kings holding Parliaments before their coronations it is un
doubted, and was practised by Chai-les I., WiUiam III., and Queen Anne.
Former Kings were invariably crowned, but after the accession of
James VI. to the throne of England, a change in the custom seems to
have taken place, probably because there was an inconvenience from the
residence of the Sovereign being for the most part in England. — E.]
' Sacerdotcs qui pro aris et focis sibi certandum videbant fremere ;
religionem hoc congressu ]uodi. Buchanan, .521.
¦'Lesly, 415.

THE ARTICLE. 141
Henry's impressions ; and Buchanan says,! he allowed him
the tenths of all the benefices within the kingdom for three
years' time to keep him right. Again, when Henry, anno
1540, insisted the second time for an interview, the clergy
were in a whole sea of troubles ; they used aU arts, and tried
all methods to impede it,2 At last they fell upon the true
knack, and a true demonstration of their concern, seeing it
was a knack that looked so unkindly on their pockets, which
was to promise him money largely, no less than 30,000
crowns yearly — says Buchanan — Knox calls them 50,000 out
of their benefices, besides a vast sum which might arise out
of the confiscated estates of heretics. Fifty thousand crowns
was a good round sum in those days in Scotland. Further,
how were they alarmed ? what fears were they under ? what
shapes did they turn themselves in ? what tricks did they
play when the match betwixt Edward and Mary (spoken of
before) was in agitation ?3 The Cardinal forged a will in
the King's name, nominating himself the principal of four
junct Regents for managing the Government during the
Queen's minority, intending thereby to secure the Popish
interests, and prevent the coming of the Nobility from Eng
land, who, he knew, would lay out themselves with all their
might to oppose him, being his enemies upon the account of
religion, and advance the designs of England. This not
succeeding, for the forgery was manifest, his next care was
that all the Popish party should tumultuate, bawl and cla
mour, confound and disturb the Parliament all they could ;
which, indeed, was done so successfully that nothing could
be done to purpose till he was committed to custody.*
Neither did this put an end to the practices of the party,
but so soon as the Parliament, having concluded the match,
was over, and he set at liberty, with the Queen Dowager's
advice, who was all over French and Papist, he convenes
1 Buchanan, 517.
^ Id cum sacerdotes rescissent, actum de ordine suo rati, nisi congres-
sum regum impedirent, &c. Buchanan, 525 ; vide Lesly, 431, 432.
' Occasio item snpremse potestatis invadendte, et celeritatis egere visa
est, ut oaptivorum et exulum, ex Anglia, reditum, prseveniret, ne quid in
approbatione sui honoris, eis, integrum reHnqueret, quorum et potentiani
et gratiam formidabat, et mentem a se aUenam, ob diversum pietatis
cultum non dubitabat. Buchanan, 531 ; ride Knox, 35 ; Spottiswoode, 71.
* Buchanan, 533.

142 THE ARTICLE.
the clergy, represents to them the impossibility of their
standing the certain ruin of the Catholic religion, everything
that could be frightful to them, unless that confederacy with
England were broken ; obliges them, therefore, to tax them
selves, and raise great sums of money for bribing some of
the Nobility that were not proof ' against its charms and
beauties ; and to use all their rhetoric with others to the
same purpose ; and, lastly, it was concluded in that religious
meeting that the match and alliance should be preached
against from the pulpits, and that all possible pains should
be taken to excite the populace to tumults and rabbles, and
treat the English ambassador with all affronting tricks and
rudenesses.! In short, the faction never gave over till they
had cajoled the weak Regent into an abjuration of Protest-
ancy, as was told before, and reconciled him to the French,
which, then in Scotland, was all one with the Popish interest.
Nay, his Holiness again interested himself in this juncture, as
Lesly tells us,2 sending Petrus Franciscus Contarenus, Patri
arch of Venice, his Legate, into Scotland, to treat with the
Regent and the Nobility in the Pope's name, and promise them
large assistances against the English if they would break the
contract of marriage betwixt Edward and Mary, which had so
fatal an aspect towards the Catholic religion. ^ By this taste
it is easy to discern how much the Popish party were per
suaded of the great influence England had on Scotland in
order to a reformation of Religion ; and, laying all together
that hath been said, it is easy to perceive they wanted not
reason for such a persuasion. Having thus given a brief
deduction of the state of our Reformation in King Henry's
time, and made it apparent that it was much encouraged
and quickened by English influences, then, I think, I need
not insist much on the succeeding reigns.
Briefly then, 7- As Edward the Sixth had the same
reasons for interesting himself in our Scottish affairs which
his father Henry had before him, so we find his counsels were
suited accordingly. No sooner was Henry dead, and Somer
set warmed in his protectoral chair, than the demands
1 Vide Buchanan, 533, 534 ; Spottiswoode, 73. " Lesly, 445, 449.
^ Studebat enim avertere illorum animos a nuptiis cum Anglo contra-
hendis, quod suspicaretur, per illam conjunctionem, aliquam fieri potuisse,
in Scotia, religionis eversionem, &c. Lesly, 449.

THE ARTICLE. 143
about the match were renewed ; and being rejected by the
Popish party here, who had our weak Regent at their beck,
and were then the governing party, the matter ended in a
bloody war. Somerset raised a great army, and entered
Scotland ; but before it came to fighting, he sent a letter to
the Scots,! written in such an obliging style, and containing
so kind, and so fair, so equitable propositions, that the Re
gent, advised by some Papists about him, thought fit not to
publish it to his army, but to give out that it tended to
quite contrary purposes than it really contained — that it
contained threats that the English were come to carry off
the Queen by force, and ruin and enslave the nation, &c. —
dreading, no doubt, that if he had dealt candidly, and shewed
the letter to such men of interest in the nation as were there,
it would have taken so with them that they would have laid
aside thoughts of fighting. Indeed, this was no groundless
jealousy ; the matter was above board ; for, as Buchanan
tells us, in the next convention of Estates which was holden
shortly after that fatal battle of Pinkie, those who were for
the Reformation being of the same religion with England
were zealous for the English alliance, and against sending
the Queen into France ;2 and that they were the Papists
only who were for sending her thither.
8. When Edward died, and his sister Mary ascended the
throne, a heavy cloud, indeed, did hang over both nations,
and threatened a dreadful storm to the reformation of Re
ligion. Mary, according to her surly humour, fell to down
right persecution in England ; and our Queen-Dowager,
having shouldered out Arran, and possessed herself of the
Scottish Regency in her subtle way, was as zealous to main
tain the superstitions of Popery, using less cruelty, indeed,
than Mary, but more policy, and to the same purposes.
And now the purgation of Christianity seemed to be brought
to a lamentable stand in both kingdoms, and the hopes of
those to be quite dashed who were breathing for the profession
of that holy religion in its purity. " Yet God, in his kind

1 Buchanan, 561 ; Spottiswoode, 88 ; Knox, 87.
^ Erant qui ob religii^nis consensum Anglorum oblatam amicitiam
censerent amplectendam  Gallise factioni favebant omnes Papaiii.
Buchanan, 566 ; Spottiswoode, 89.

144 THE ARTICLE.
providence, did otherwise dispose of things, and made that
a means to advance religion amongst us which men thought
should have utterly extinguished it ; for some of those who
fied from Mary's persecution in England, taking their re
fuge into this kingdom, did not only help to keep the light
which had begun to shine, but made the sun to break up
more clear than before," as Spottiswoode hath it from Knox.!
For then came into Scotland William Harlaw, John Willock,
John Knox, &c., of whom more hereafter. Thus we were
still deriving more light and heat from England.
9. Marv died, and Elizabeth succeeded in November 1558.
Our Queen was then in France ; it was morally impossible to
recover her thence. The English influences, which in Henry's
and Edward's time had cherished our Reformation, except
so far as God sent us Harlaw, Willock, and Knox, by his
special providence, as I told you just now, were quite cut
off all the time of Mary's Government. Our Reformers,
therefore, to make the best of a bad hand, were earnest to
be amongst the foremost courtiers with the Queen Regent ;
they were ready to serve her design with all possible frank
ness ; particularly they were amongst the most forward for
carrying on the match with the Dauphin of France, and
voted cheerfully that he should have the matrimonial crown^
conferred upon him after the solemnization of the marriage.
In consequence of this their frankness, the Earl of Argyll
and the Prior of St Andrews, two first-rate Protestants,
were the persons nominated to pass into France to honour
the Dauphin with that compliment, and theyundertook it cor
dially. But in the very instant almost they were informed
that Mary of England was dead, and Ehzabeth on the
Throne, and withal professing Protestancy. This altered
their whole scheme. They presently considered the English
influences, so long stopped in their courses, might now begin
to drop again ; and there were hopes of assistance from
that female sovereign. So these two Lords, no doubt with
the advice of the rest of the fraternity, gave over thoughts
of their French voyage. The Dauphin might purchase a
1 Spottiswoode, 92 ; Knox, 99.
^ [By this all the rights and pririleges of the husband ofa Queen were
conferred on the possessor of it. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 145
crown for himself, or wait till his father died, if he could
not do better ; they resolved to carry him no matrimonial
croions from Scotland. Indeed, their hopes of assistance
from England to carry on the reformation of religion
were better grounded then than ever ; for upon the death
of Queen Mary of England, by French advice our Queen, as
next heir to that Crown, had assumed the English titles. It
is not to be thought Elizabeth liked this well, and, resolving
to continue Queen of England, she had no reason. For
who knows not that her title was questionable ? But our
Queen's descent was uncontroverted. What wonder, then, if
Elizabeth thought herself concerned to secure herself as well
as she could \ And what more feasible and proper way for
her security than to have the affections, and, by consequence,
the power of Scotland on her side ? And what measure so
natural for obtaining that as to cherish the reformation of
religion in Scotland, and weaken the Popish, and, by con
sequence, the French interests there, and get the rule of
that kingdom put in the hands of Protestants ? The poli
tic was obviously solid ; all the work was to set it a-going.
But that difficulty was soon over ; for no sooner did she
employ some private instruments to try the Scottish pulses,
than they s-melt the matter, and relished it immediately.
The least intimation that she was so inclined was to them
as a spark of fire amongst gunpowder ; it kindled them in a
thought. They addressed her, quickly begged her protec
tion, and plighted their faith that they would depend upon
her, and stand by her, and to the utmost of their power se
cure her interests, if she would grant them suitable assist
ances. Thus the bargain was readily agreed to on both
sides, and both performed their parts successfully. For who
knows not that our Reformation was carried on by Eliza
beth's auspices, by English arms, and counsels, and money
in the year 1560 ? And who knows not that, by the Treaty
at Leith in July that same year, after the French were ex
pelled Scotland, when our Reformers, by her help, had got
the upper hand, her crown was secured, as far as the Scottish
Protestants could secure it ? Who knows not, I say, that it
was one of the Articles of that Treaty — " That the Queen of
Scotland and King of France should not thereafter usurp
the titles of England and Ireland, and should delete tho
10

146 THE ARTICLE.
arms of England and Ireland out of their scutchions and
whole household stuff?"! gy this time, I think, it may
competently appear how much our Scottish Reformation,
under God, depended on English infiuences. But I have
two things more to add.
10. Then it is considerable that some of our chief lumi
naries, of those who had a principal hand in preaching and
planting the gospel in purity among us, had drunk in these
principles in England, and brought them thence to Scotland
with them. Thus the excellent martyr, Mr George Wishart,
(of whom in part before), as Spottiswoode tells us,2 had spent
his time in Cambridge, and returned to his own country to
promote the truth in it, anno 1544 ; and Mr John Spottis
woode, that worthy man who was so long Superintendent
of Lothian after our Reformation, was one of Cranmer's
disciples, as you may see in the beginning of the Life of
Archbishop Spottiswoode his son, and also in his History .3
And John Willock and William!:Harlaw had both lived in
England before they preached in Scotland,'^as I have already
accounted ; and perhaps a strict inquiry might discover some
others.* 11, and lastly. On the other hand, except so far as John
Knox was Calvinist, and a lover of the Forms of Geneva,
for which, perhaps, I shall account hereafter, none of our
historians give so much as one particular instance of a
Scottish Reformer who had his education in any other
foreign Church, except Mr Patrick Hamilton, who, I think,
cannot be proven to have been a Presbyterian ; and though it
could be done,it could amount to no more than the authority of
a very young man, considering he was but twenty-three years
of age when he died. Neither do they mention sltij foreigner
who came here to Scotland to assist us in our Reformation.
Lesly,S indeed, says, that the Scottish Protestants sent letters
and messengers to Germany to call thence Sacramentarian

^ Spottiswoode, 149. ^ Spottiswoode, 76. ' Spottiswoode, 344.
' [We^may add to this Ust David Lindsay, who is said to have been or
dained in England, and who baptized Charles I. in the Palace of Dunferm
line in 1600 ; and Christopher Goodman, a native of Chester, and Student
of Brazennose College, Oxford. This person afterwards returned to
England, and died Archdeacon of Richmond in 1603. — E.J
» Lesly, 492.

THE ARTICLE. 147
ministers, as being very dextrous at fostering sedition
and subverting rehgion ; but no other historian says so, and
he himself says not that ever any such came to Scotland.
Thus, I think, I have accounted competently for the first
thing proposed, viz. — That our Reformation, under God,
was principally cherished and encouraged by English in
fluences. I proceed to the second, which was, that in corre
spondence to these influences, our Reformers were generally
of the same mind with the Church of England in several
momentous instances relating to the constitution and com
munion, the government and polity, of the Church, wherein
our present Presbyterian principles stand in direct opposition
and contradiction to her.
That our Reformers agreed with those of the Church of
England in the common Articles of the Christian faith in
their Creed, was never called in question. But it is not my
present purpose to consider the sentiments of our Reformers
in relation to the Church as it is a sect, but as it is a society ;
neither shall I be curious to amuse! many particulars. I
shall content myself with two or three of considerable weight
and importance.
And, first, our Reformers generally, or rather unanimously,
looked on the Church of England as a Church so well con
stituted, that her communion was a lawful Communion.
For this we have two as good evidences as the nature of
the thing is capable of, viz. the constant and uniform prac
tice of our Reformers joining in the communion of the
Church of England when they had occasion, as those of the
Church of England did with the Church of Scotland ; and
their open profession in their public deeds that they thought
it lawful. 1. I say, it was the constant practice of our Reformers to
join in the communion of the Church of England when they
had occasion, as those of the Church of England did with
the Church of Scotland. Thus we find all such of our Re
formers as in times of persecution fied into England still
joining with the Church of England — e. g. Friar Alexander
Seaton,2 vvhen he was forced to fiee in King James the
Fifth's time, went to England, and became the Duke of
^ [Probably amass. — E.] ^ Spottiswoode, 65.

148 THE ARTICLE.
Suffolk's chaplain, and died in that service. Alexander
Aless was in great favour with King Henry, and called the
King's Scholar.! He was a member of the English Convo
cation, and disputed against Stokesly, Bishop of London,
and maintained there were but two Sacraments, Baptism
and the Eucharist, anno 1536 or 1537 ;^ and he it was that
first turned the English Liturgy into Latin for Bucer's use,
anno 1549, as both Heylin and Burnet in their Histories of
the Enghsh Reformation teU us. 3 John Fife, and one Mac-
do wdal, stayed as long in England as Aless did,* and it is
not to be doubted that they were of the same principles.
John M'Bee, during his abode in England, was liberally en
tertained by Nicholas Saxton, Bishop of Sahsbury, who
made much account of him,5 which is no argument, I think,
that he was a Presbyterian. Sir John Borthwiok^ was
charged with heresy anno 1540, for maintaining " that the
heresies, commonly called the Heresies of England, and
their new Liturgy, were commendable, and to be embraced of
all Christians ;" and " that the Church of Scotland ought
to be governed after the manner of the Church of England,'"''
i. e. under the King, and not the Pope, as supreme governor.
Friar Thomas Guillam,^ the first public preacher of the Re
formed religion in Scotland — he by whose sermons John
Knox got the first lively impressions of the truth ^ — this
Guillam, I say, after Arran the Regent apostatized, withdrew
and went into England,!" and we hear no more of him ; from
which it is reasonable to conclude that he kept the common
course with the other Reformers there.
John Rough!! ^^s the Regent's other chaplain while he
was Protestant. He likewise fled to England, though
^ Spottiswoode, 66. ^ Burnet ad Ann.
^ Burnet ad Ann ; Heylin, p. 79. ^ Spottiswoode, 66.
= Ibid.
^ [Sir John Borthwick of Cenerie, Knight, was a son of WiUiam third
Lord Borthwick, killed at Flodden in 1513. He died somewhere between
the years 1565-70. The charges preferred against him, with the Answers
published after his escape, are inserted by Fox in the second volume of
his Acts and Monuments. — E.]
' Spottiswoode, 70 ; Petrie, 180.
* [See Bishop Keith's History of the Affairs of Church aud State in
Scotland, vol. i. note 2, p. 91, printed for the Spottiswoode Society. — E.j
" Life of Knox. ^^ Spottiswoode, 73.
" [See Keith's History, ibid.— E.]

THE ARTICLE. 149
sometime after Guillam. He preached some years in the
towns of Carlisle, Berwick, and Newcastle, and was after
wards provided to a benefice by the Archbishop of York,
where he lived till the death of King Edward. When
Mary's persecution turned warm, he fled, and lived some
time in Friesland. He came to London about some busi
ness, anno 1557, was apprehended, and brought before
Bonner — questioned, if he had preached any since he came
to England ? Answered, he had preached none, but in some
places where godly people were assembled he had read the
" Prayers of the Communion Book set forth in the Reign of
King Edward VI." Questioned again, what his judgment was
of that Book ? Answered, "he approved it, as agreeing in all
points with the Word of God ;" and so suffered martyrdom.
I think this man was neither for parity, nor against Liturgies.
But to proceed. The excellent Mr Wishart, as he had
spent some time in England, as was told before, so it seems
he returned to Scotland of English, I am confident not of
Presbyterian, principles ; for he was not only for the lawful
ness of Private Communion, as appeared by his practice, but
Knox! gives us fair intimations that he ministered it by a
set form. I know King Edward's Liturgy was not then
composed ; but it is not to be imagined that the Reformers
in England in Wishart's time administered the Sacrament
without a set form. The extemporary spirit was not then in
vogue. And why else could Sir John Borthwick have been
charged with the great heresy of commending the English
Liturgy? However I shall not be peremptory, because I
have not the opportunity of inquiring at present what Forms
the English Reformers had then. All I say is, if they had a
Liturgy, it is very probable Wishart used it ; for as Knox
tells us, when he celebrated the Eucharist before his execu
tion — " After he had blessed the bread and wine, he took
the bread, and brake it, and gave to every one of it, bidding
each of them remember that Christ had died for them, and
feed on it spiritually ; so taking the cup, he bade them re-
Tnember that Christ's blood was shed for them" &c. So Knox,
word for word — which account, I think, seems fairly to inti
mate that Wishart used a form, but if he did, what other
could it be than such as he had learned in England ?
1 Knox's History, 69.

150 THE ARTICLE.
I have accounted already how John Willock and William
Harlaw had served in the English Church before they came
to Scotland.! j might perhaps make a fuller collection, but
what needs more ? Even Knox himself lived in communion
with the Church of England all the time he was in that
kingdom. He went not there to keep conventicles — to erect
altar against altar — to gather churches out of the Church of
England — to set up separate and schismatical churches, as
some of our present parity men have sometimes done. No,
He preached in the public churches, and in subordination to
the Bishops ; and he preached before King Edward himself,
as he himself tells us, in his " Admonition to the Professors
of the Truth in England,"^ which it is very improbable he
would have been allowed to have done if he had condemned
the communion of the Church of England as it was then
established ; for who knows not, that in King Edward's
time all schism and nonconformity were sufficiently dis
couraged ? And through that whole " Admonition" he still
speaks of himself as one of the ministers of the Church of
England. Nay, if it be reasonable to collect men's senti
ments from their reasonings, I am sure in that same " Admo
nition" I have enough for my purpose ; for he reasons upon
suppositions and from principles which clearly condemned
separation from the Church of England as then established-
For when he gives his thoughts of that fatal discord which
happened between the two great men, Somerset and the
Aclmiral,^ as I take it, he discourses thus — " God compelled
my tongue," says he, " openly to declare that the devil, and
his ministers, the Papists, intended only the subversion of
God's true religion, by that mortal hatred amongst those
who ought to have been most assuredly knit together by
Christian charity. — And especially that the wicked and en
vious Papists, by that ungodly breach of charity, diligently
minded the overthrow of him (Somerset), that to his own
destruction procured the death of his innocent friend and
brother. All this trouble was devised by the devil and his
instruments, to stop and lett Christ's disciples and their poor
boat"* — i. e. the Church. What can be more plain, I say,
1 Spottiswoode, 93. =¦ P. 52.
''¦ [The Protector, and his brother Lord Sevmour of Sudley. — E.]
" P. 51.

THE ARTICLE. 151
than that Knox here proceeds on suppositions, and reasons
from principles, which condemned separation from the Church
of England as then established ? Doth he not suppose that
the Church of England, as then established, was Christ's
boat, his Church — and that the Sons of the Church of Eng
land were Christ's disciples ? Doth he not suppose that these
two brothers, as sons of the Church of England, ought to
have been " assuredly knit " together by Christian charity —
that the breach between them was an " ungodly breach of
that charity" by which members of that same Church ought
to have been " assuredly knit together" — and that it was a
contrivance of the wicked and envious Papists thereby to
ruin the Church of England? Doth he not suppose all
these as undoubted truths, I say ; or rather, doth he not
positively or expressly assert them ? And now, if separation
from the Church of England, and condemning her commu
nion as an unlawful communion, can consist with these
principles and suppositions ; or if he who reasons on these
suppositions, and from these principles, can be deemed at
the same time to have been for the unlawfulness of the
communion of the Church of England, I must confess I
know not what it is to collect men's sentiments from their
principles and reasonings.
Whoso pleases may find more of Knox's sentiments to
this purpose in his " Exhortation to England for the speedy
receiving of Christ's Gospel," dated from Geneva, January
12, 1559. For there he calls England " happy" in that
" God, by the power of his verity of late years (i. e. in King
Edward's time), had broken and destroyed the intolerable
yoke of her spiritual captivity, and brought her forth as it
had been from the bottom of hell, and from the thraldom of
Satan, in which she had been holden, blinded by idolatry
and superstition, to the fellowship of his angels, and the
possession of that rich inheritance prepared to his dearest
children with Christ Jesus his Son." And a little after he
says of the Church of England, that in that same King
Edward's days " she was a delectable garden planted by the
Lord's own hand."! And in his letter to Secretary Cecil,
from Dieppe, April 10, 1559, he tells him — " He expects
1 P. 102.

152 THE ARTICLE.
that same favour from him which it becometh one member
of Christ's body to have for another"^ And in his letter
to Queen Ehzabeth from Edinburgh, 28th July 1559, he
" renders thanks unfeignedly to God, that it hath pleased
him in his eternal goodness to exalt her head to the mani
festation of His glory, and the extirpation of idolatry ."2 Is
this like the clamour which has been ordinary with our
Presbyterians about the idolatry of the Church of England ?
And in the conclusion of that letter he prays that " the
Spirit of the Lord Jesus may so rule her in all her actions
and enterprizes, that in her God inay be glorified, his Kirk
edified, and she, as a lively member of the same, may be an
example of virtue and godliness of life to all others." Are these
like the sayings of one who in the meantime judged the com
munion of the Church of England an unla.wful communion ?
It is true, indeed, John Knox was displeased with some
things in the English Liturgy. He thought she had some
modes and ceremonies there which were scandalous, as sym
bolizing too much with the Papists, and it cannot be denied
that he disturbed the peace of the English Church at Frank
fort. ^ But, if I mistake not, he did so, not that he thought
the terms of her communion truly sinful, but that he judged
his oivn, or rather the Genevan model, purer ; for it is
reasonable to think he proceeded on the same principles,
and was of the same sentiments with his master Calvin,
and nothing can be clearer than that Calvin did not con
demn the things scrupled at as impious or unlawful, but as
not agreeable to his standard of purity, as appears from the
citation in the note,* and might easily be made appear
1 Knox's History, 224. 2 jj,;^ 23I.
^ [On account of the great numbers of EngUshmen who had left their
country during the Marian persecution, an English church was opened at
Frankfort, of which John Knox, who was then at Geneva, was chosen to
be minister. An altercation arose among the members of this congrega
tion concerning the Liturgy of the Church of England, and the ceremonies
enjoined by the Rubric. For a time Knox, who was the leading man of
those who opposed the Liturgy, prevailed, and succeeded in gettincr a
garbled service compiled from the Anglican and Genevan Forms. But
when Dr Cox, afterwards Bishop of Ely, came to Frankfort, he would
not submit to such a mutilation ; and after much dispute, during which
Knox exhibited his usual violence, the Doctor triumphed, and the English
service was introduced entire. — E.]
¦•In Auglicana Ecclesia (Liturgiil), qualein describitis, multas video fuisse
tolerabiles ineptias. His duobus verbis c.x primo, non fuisse earn puri-

THE ARTICLE. 153
more fuUy, if one were put to it, but it is needless now,
considering that all I aim at is that it cannot be inferred
from what Knox did at Frankfort that he judged the com
munion of the Church of England an unlawful communion,
though I must confess in making these stirs he proceeded
not according to the true Catholic principles of Christian
communion. But enough of him at present. To proceed: As our Re
formers thus generally looked upon the Church of England
as a true Church, and her communion as a lawful communion,
so after our Reformation was established, those of the
Church of England had the same sentiments of the Church
of Scotland. The ambassadors, who at any time for many
years came from England to the Scottish Court, made no
scruple to live in the communion of the Church of Scotland,
and join in her public worship. Thus, the Earl of Bedford,!
who came to assist at the solemnization^ of the Prince's
(afterwards King James the Sixth) baptism, anno 1566, went
daily to sermon,^ i. e. by a synecdoche very familiar in Scot
land to the public worship. Neither did I ever observe

tatem, quse optanda fuerat. Quae tamen, primo statim die, corrigi non
poterant vitia, cum nulla subesset manieesta impibtas, ferenda ad tempus
fuisse. Calv. Augl. Francoford. inter Epist. Col. 213.
1 Knox's History, 440.
^ [He was baptized on the 17th December in the castle of Stirling, by
HamUton, the last Archbishop of St Andrews, of the ancient Hierarchy,
who was afterwards ignominiously executed by order of the Regent
Moray. — E.]
^ [With the Presbyterians in Scotland the sermon is everything, and
swaUows up all external religion in itself. A man of devout character
and untiring zeal is nothing, unless he be a good preacher. WhUe the
prayer is being offered in the public service, the congregation standing up
and looking about them, appear as if they had no concern in it, the minis
ter being the sole mediator ; but when the sermon is commenced the people
sit down, and every eye is fixed on the preacher, whUe he delivers his tradi
tion. Even the purpose of the celebration of their Eucharist, (which
in Scotland in the towns is administered only timce a year, and in many
country places only once) is forgotten amid the accumulation of " words
of man's wisdom," which are spoken at such times. Such solemnities are
popularly known as the Preachings, from the number of sermons which are
delivered, both before and after the Celebration ; and this custom has a
tendency to cause the minds of people to be more occupied with listening
to these discoursings, than in praying that they may be able to realize those
spiritual benefits which, judging from their formularies, they believe to
accompany the faithful attendance upon the rite. — E.]

154 THE ARTICLE.
the least intimation, in any monument of these times I have
seen, of these two Churches having opposite communions till
many years after the Reformation. But I have insisted
long enough on this consideration, the sum whereof is briefly
this. Our Reformers, so far as can appear from their private
sentiments and practices, looked upon the Church of England
as a true Christian Church. They lived in her communion
when they had occasion to be within her bounds ; not one of
them condemned her communion as an unlawful communion ;
not one of them set up conventicles in England when they
were there, or erected separate churches, &o. From all
which it seems to follow, at least very probably, that they
reformed generally upon the same principles — entirely upon
the same as to Church communion. The reason why I have
insisted so long on this argument is that it smooths the way
for the next, which is, 2. That our Reformers in ^e\r public
deeds openly and solemnly prof essed that they were of one re
ligion, one communion, with the Church of England. This,
as I take it, is a point of considerable importance, and
therefore I shall endeavour to set it at least in a competent
light. 1. Then, wnity of religion, and, by good consequence, I
think, oneness of communion, between the Scottish and the
English Protestants, was the great argument insisted on by
the Scots in their addresses to England for assistance to
turn out the French, and establish the Reformation in Scot
land, anno 1559 ; and it was one of the main grounds on
which all that great revolution was transacted that year and
the next, viz. 1560. Take the account, as I have it, from
that which is commonly called " Knox's History. "
When the Lords of the Congregation found it would be
necessary for them to implore foreign assistance for driving
out the French, then the great obstacles to the Reforma
tion, they resolved, in the first place, to apply to England,
and the reason given for this resolution was, that England
WAS OF THE SAME RELIGION.! Or, if ye please, take it in
^ [The best proof that can be offered of this is the fact that the Book of
Common Prayer of King Edward VI. was read in the parish churches of
Scotland. This is quite clearly stated in a letter from Kirkaldy of
Grange, an eminent leader of the Reformers, to Sir Henry Percy, the MS.
of which is in the State Paper Office. Vide Tytler, vol. vi. p. 117 — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 155
the author's own words!—" We thought good to seek aid
and support of all Christian princes against her (the Queen
Regent's) tyranny, in case we should be more sharply pur
sued ; AND BECAUSE THAT ENGLAND WAS OF THE SAME RE
LIGION, and lay next unto us, it was thought expedient first
to prove them," &c. It was rational enough to try there
first, indeed, considering what I have already observed con
cerning Queen Elizabeth, and tryed it was, and fownd suc
cessful ; for Secretary Cecil no sooner heard of their inten
tion than he sent them word " that their enterprize misliked
not the English Council ."^ Upon the sight of this great
minister's letter, which brought them so comfortable news,
they instantly returned an answer. Knox has it word for
word.3 I shall only take an abstract of what is proper for
my present purpose. In short, then — " They perceive their
messenger. Master Kirkaldy of Grange, hath found Cecil an
unfeigned favourer of Christ's true religion. As touching the
assurance of a perpetual amity to stand betwixt the two
realms, as no earthly thing is more desired by them, so they
crave of God to be made the instruments by which the un
natural debate which hath so long continued between the
nations may be composed, to the praise of God's name, and
the comfort of the faithful in both realms. If the English wis
dom can foresee and devise how the same may be brought to
pass, they may persuade themselves not only of the Scottish
consent and assistance, but of their constancy, as men can pro
mise, to their lives' end ; and of charge and commandment to
be left by them to their posterity, that the amity between the
nations (iN God) contracted and begun may be by them
kept inviolate for ever. Their confederacy, amity, and league,
shall not be like the pactions made by worldly men, for
worldly profit ; but as they require it, for God's cause, so
they will call upon His name for the observation of it. As
this their confederacy requires secrecy, so, they doubt not,
the English wisdom will communicate it only to such as
they know to be favourers of such a GODLY conjunction ;
and, in their opinion, it would much help if the preachers,
both in persuasion and in public prayers (as theirs in Scot
land do), would commend the same unto the people. And
1 Knox, 170. ^ Knox, 228. ^ ^nox, ibid.

156 THE ARTICLE.
thus, after their most humble commendation to the Queen's
Majesty (whose reign they wish may be prosperous and
long, to the glory of God and comfort of His Church),
they heartily commit him to the protection of the Omnipo
tent. Given at Edinburgh, July 17, anno 1559."
Before I proceed further, I must tell my reader that all
our historians are extremely defective as to this great trans
action between Scotland and England I am now account
ing for. None of them, neither Buchanan, nor Lesly, nor
Spottiswoode, hath this letter except Knox, and he calls it the
First Letter to Sir William Cecil from the Lords of the Con
gregation, which imports there were more, as no doubt there
were many, and yet he hath not so much as a second. Be
sides, I find by Knox, Buchanan, and Spottiswoode,! that in
November 1559, Secretary Maitland was sent by the Lords
of the Congregation to treat with the Queen of England. I
find likewise that he managed the matter so, and brought it
to such maturity, that immediately upon his return the
league between the Queen of England and the Scottish
Lords was transacted and finished ; and yet I can nowhere
find what commission he had, nor what instructions ; how he
managed his business, nor upon what terms the Queen of
England and he came to an agreement ; and several other
such lamentable defects I find, so that it is not possible for
me to give so exact a deduction of such an important mat
ter as were to be wished ; though, I doubt not, if it had been
clearly and fully deduced, it might have brought great light
to many things about our Reformation which now, so far as
I know, are buried in obscurity. Any man may readily
imagine how sensible one that would perform my present task
must needs be of so great a disadvantage ; however, when
we cannot have what we would, we must satisfy ourselves the
best way we can. And so I return to my purpose, which,
though I cannot despatch so punctually as might be de
sired, yet I hope to do it sufficiently, and to the satisfaction
of all sober though not nicely critical inquirers.
To go on then. By the afore-mentioned letter, you see,
the Lords of the Congregation referred it to the wisdom of
the English Council to " foresee and devise the means and
1 Knox, 218 ; Spottiswoode, 140 ; Buchanan, 604.

THE ARTICLE. 157
assurances" — (they are the very words of the letter) — how
one effectual confederacy might be made between them for
Godfs cause. Now, let us reason a little upon the common
principles of prudence, where matter of fact is so defective.
What was more natural for the EngUsh Council to re
quire than that — now that the English Reformation was
perfected and legally established, and the Scottish was only
in forming — the Scots should engage to transcribe the Eng
lish copy, and establish their Reformation upon that same
foot, i. e. receive the doctrine, worship, rites, and government
oi the Church of England, so that there might be no diffe
rence between the two Churches, but both might be of the
same constitution, so far as the necessary distinction of the
two States would allow ? The point in agitation was a con
federacy in opposition to Popery, and for the security of the
Reformed Religion in both kingdoms. It was obvious, there
fore, to foresee that it would be the stronger, and every way
the better suited to that great end, if both Churches stood
on one bottom ; for who sees not that different constitutions
are apt to be attended with different customs, which in pro
cess of time may introduce different sentiments and inclina
tions ? Who sees not that the smallest differences are
apt to create jealousies, divisions, cross-interests, and that
there is nothing more necessary than uniformity for preserv
ing unity ? Besides, Queen Elizabeth was peculiarly con
cerned to crave this. There is nothing more necessary to
support a State, especially a monarchy, than unity oi religion.
It was for the support of her State, the security of her mo
narchy, that she was to enter into this confederacy. She
was afraid of the Queen of Scotland's pretensions to the
Crown of England. For this cause she was confederating
with the Queen of Scotland's subjects, that she might have
them of her side. It was her concern, therefore, to have
them as much secured to her interests as possibly she could.
They were then at a great bay without her succour, and had
referred it to her and her Council, to foresee and devise
the terms on which she would grant it. And now, laying
all these things together, what was more natural, I say, than
that she should demand that they should be of the same
religion, and their Church of the same constitution, with the
Church of England ?

158 THE ARTICLE.
This politic was so very obvious, that it is not to be im
agined she and her wise Council could overlook it ; and
though it had been nowhere upon record that she craved it,
yet the common sense of mankind would stand for its credi
bility. What shall we say, then, if we find it recorded by
an historian whose honesty is not to be questioned in this
matter ? And such an one we have — even Buchanan himself —
though he misplaces it, and narrates it a long time after it
was done, and as it were only by the bye.
The occasion on which he records this is when, in the year
1569 — the tenth year after this confederacy between the
Scots and the English was concerted, as I take it, the Earl
of Moray, then Regent, had gone to the northern parts of
the kingdom to settle matters there, accounts were brought
to him of the Duke of Norfolk's conspiracy, which was so
well compacted and so deep laid, that it was judged morally
impossible to disappoint it ; and Moray's friends were ear
nest with him to retreat in time, and disengage himself of
the opposite party with whom he had hitherto sided. And
so, when Buchanan comes to give the history of this juncture,
he, to find a just rise for his narration, returns no less than
ten years backward, discoursing thus — " The state of English
affairs obliges me to look back a little, because in these times
the interests of both kingdoms were so twisted, that the con
cerns of the one cannot be represented without the other.
The Scots, some years before, being delivered from the Gal
ilean slavery by the English assistance, had subscribed to
the religious worship and rites of the Church of England ;
and that surprizing change in affairs seemed to promise to
Britain quietness and rest from all intestine commotions
and factions," &c.!
Here, you see, the thing is plainly and undeniably as
serted, yet so careless, to say no worse, have all our his
torians been that not one of them mentions it but he,
and he does no more than mention it ; and to this minute
^ Status rerum Anglicarum, hie nos pauliim divertere cogit, quod eo
tempore adeo utriusque, regni prospera et adversa, conjnncta erant, ut
altera sme alteris explicari nequirent. Scoti, ante aliquot annos, Anglo-
rum auxiliis, e servitnte Gallica liberati, religionis cultui et kitibus
CUM AHQLis ooMMUNiBus suBSCMPSBRCNT. Ea subita remm mutatio spon-
dere videbatur Britanniam universam ab omni domestico tnmultn cou-
quieturam. E continenti vero, 8i.c. Buchanan, 714.

THE ARTICLE. 159
we are generally in the dark when, how, by whom, and
with what solemnities, it was done. Buchanan's words
would seem to import that it was done after that our deliver
ance, as he calls it, was accomplished, but not one word of it
in the Treaty concluded at Leith, and proclaimed July 8th,
1560, which succeeded immediately upon the back of that
deliverance ; not one word of it, I say, in that Treaty, as it is
either in Buchanan, Knox, or Spottiswoode, or any other his
torian I have had occasion to see ; neither have we any
other public transaction or deed that mentions it.
I find it told by several historians,! that the Earls of
Morton and Glencairn were sent to England, after that our
deliverance, to return thanks to Queen Elizabeth for her
assistance. It is possible it might have been done then, for
as Spottiswoode has it — " After the professors heard of the
cold entertainment that Sir James Sandilands, who went to
France to give an account of the Treaty, had got at that
Court, their minds were greatly troubled, for they were
sensible of their own weakness, and doubtful of support from
England if France should again invade, because of the loss
the English had received in the late expedition ; neither,"
he says, " had the Earls of Morton and Glencairn, who
upon breaking up of the Parliament were sent into England
to render thanks to the Queen, and to entreat the con
tinuance of her favour, given any advertisement of their
acceptance." If upon this occasion, commission was sent to
these two Earls to subscribe, in name of the rest of the
Protestants, to such an union in religion, it exactly answers
Buchanan's account ; but no such thing is so much as in
sinuated to have been done on that occasion. For my part,
I humbly offer it to be considered, whether it is not possible
that Buchanan intended not to lay any such stress upon the
word LIBERATI, as thereby to import that it was after the
accomplishment of our deliverance that the Scots subscribed ;
but bringing in the whole matter occasionally where he
mentions it, and intending to despatch it in as few words as
he could, he did not stand nicely upon the wording of it.
And if this holds, the most rational and natural account will
be that Secretary Maitland and Sir Robert MelvUle, who
^ Buchanan, 614 ; Knox, 284 ; Spottiswoode, 151.

160 THE ARTICLE.
were sent by the Scottish Lords, in the beginning of Novem
ber 1559, to implore the Queen of England's assistance,
were impowered to agree, in name of the whole body, to this
union of religion, if it should be demanded. That the Secre
tary had power to treat, and agree to, and sign Articles, is
certain ; for amongst the Instructions given to the commis
sioners for concluding the Treaty at Berwick, dated at
Glasgow, February 10, 1559-60, 1 find this as one! — " Item,
If it shall be desired of you to confirm for us, and in our
name, the things past and granted by our former commis
sioner, the young Laird of Lethington, ye shall, in all points,
for us, and in our name, confirm the same, so far as it shall
make either for the v^^ELL and conjunction of the two
realms or this PRESENT cause, or yet for the security of
our part for fulfilling of the same."^ This, I say, is one of
the Articles of these Instructions, from which it is evident
that Lethington had signed Articles in England, though we
are no where told what they were. And may it not pass
for a probable conjecture, that that concerning unity in
religious worship and cere-monies was one of them ? But
whensoever or by whomsoever it was done, is not the critical
hinge of the controversy. We have Buchanan's word for
it that it was done ; and I hope my Presbyterian brethren
will not hastily reject his authority, especiaUy consider
ing that his veracity in this matter is so much assisted
and made credible by the strain of the letter directed
to Secretary Cecil, on which we have already insisted.
Neither is this all.
For, 2. The public thanksgiving and prayers made with
great solemnity in St Giles' church in Edinburgh,^ after
the Pacification at Leith in July 1560, amount to no less
than a fair demonstration of an entire union between the
two nations as to Church matters and religion, for on that
occasion it was thus addressed to Almighty God, with the
common consent, and as a public deed of our Scottish Re
formers — " Seeing that nothing is more odious in thy pre
sence, 0 Lord, than is ingratitude, and violation of an oath
and covenant made in thy name, and seeing thou hast made
our confederates in England the instruments by whom we are
1 Knox, 236. ^ Knox, 244. ^ Knox, 259, &c.

THE ARTICLE. 161
now set at this liberty, and to whom in Thy name we have
promised mutual faith again. Let us never fall to that un
kindness, O Lord, that either we declare ourselves unthank
ful unto them, or prophaners of Thy holy name. Confound
thou the counsel of those that go about to break that
MOST GODLY LEAGUE CONTRACTED IN THY NAME, and retain
thou us so flrmly together by the power of thy Holy Spirit,
that Satan have never power to set us again at variance nor
discord. Give us Thy grace to live in that Christian charity
which thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, hath so earnestly
commanded to all the members of His body, that other
nations, provoked by our example, may set aside all ungodly
war, contention, and strife, and study to live in tranquillity
and peace, as it becometh the sheep of thy pasture, and the
people that daily look for our final deliverance by the coming
again of our Lord Jesus," &o. Thus it was prayed, I say,
in great solemnity at that time, and every petition is a
confirmation of Buchanan's _/fc?e^i^y and my assertion.
Further yet, 3. In the old Scottish Liturgy, compUed in
these times, and afterwards used publicly in all the churches,
there is " a thanksgiving unto God, after our deliverance
from the tyranny of the Frenchmen, with prayers made for
the continuance of the peace betwixt the realms of Scotland
and England ;" wherein we have these petitions offered —
" Grant unto us, 0 Lord, that with such reverence we may
remember Thy benefits received, that, after this, in our de
fault, we never enter into hostility against the realm and
nation of England. Suffer us never, 0 Lord, to fall to that
ingratitude and detestable unthankfulness, that we should
seek the destruction and death of those whom Thou hast
made instruments to deliver us from the tyranny of merci
less strangers. Dissipate Thou the counsels of such as de
ceitfully travel to stir the hearts of the inhabitants of either
realm against the other. Let their malicious practices be
their own confusion ; and grant Thou of Thy mercy that
love, concord, and tranquillity, may continue and increase
amongst the inhabitants of this isle, even to the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ, by whose glorious Gospel Thou of
Thy mercy dost CALL US both to unity, peace, and
CHRISTIAN CONCORD, the fuU PERFECTION whereof we shaU
11

162 THE ARTICLE.
possess in the fulness of Thy kingdom,"! &c. Here is a set of
demonstrations to the same purpose also. And now let
any man lay all these things together — the Letter to Cecil,
the Confederacy betwixt Scotland and England, Buchanan's
testimony, and these thanksgivings and prayers, and then
let him judge impartially whether or not there is reason to
believe, that in those days, there was a good agreement be
tween the Scottish and English Protestants, as to religion
and Church matters. ^

1 [Knox's Liturgy. Ed. Lond. 1840, p. 42-3.— E.]
^ [This conclusion of Bishop Sage is contradicted by the learned Mr
Tytler, the historian of Scotland, who gives it as his opinion, that Eliza
beth purposely waived the question of religion, in aU her formal compacts
with the Scottish Reformers— and that " she agreed to support them with
her army, on the sole ground that they had taken up arms to preserve the
liberty of their country, and to expel the French, who, through Scotland,
threatened her own dominions, and questioned her title to the throne,"
Tytler's History of Scotland, vol. ri. p. 173, 174. Certainly there are some
grounds for this opinion in the fact, that neither in the Treaties of Berwick
nor Edinburgh, concluded in 1560, are any express provisions in favour of
the Reformed religion included ; upon which omission Mr Tytler passes
the following severe remarks, which, we must confess, are not altogether
undeserved by the Scottish Reformers. — " This transaction presents us
with a somewhat mortifying view of the early Reformers in this country,
when we find that, after all the solemn warnings denounced against trust
ing too exclusively to an arm of flesh, Knox, who then acted as secretary
to the Congregation in the West, and Balnaves, who fiUed the same situa
tion in the Council established at Glasgow, consented to purchase the co
operation of mere human power, by omitting all allusion to tJie great cause of
religious reformation, which they had so repeatedly represented as the
paramount object for which they had taken up arms, and were ready to
sacrifice their lives." — Ibid. vol. ri. p. 154. It is impossible at this dis
tance of time, to say what were the precise reasons of this omission ; but
in justice to the Reformers it must not be forgotten, that among their
first applications to England for assistance, they put religion forward
as a ground of their appeal, and in all their correspondence on the sub
ject, they dwell particidmly upon it. Thus, in answer to a question to the
Lords of the CongTegation, contained in a letter from Cecil to Sir Henry
Percy, and communicated to them by Kirkaldy of Grange, as to " what
the Protestants of Scotland do purpose ?" their reply was — " Our whole
and only purpose, as God knoweth, is to advance the glory of Christ Jesus,
the true preaching of His Gospel within this realm, to remove superstition and all
sort of external idolatry, to bridle to our powers tJie fury of those that heretofore
ham cruelly shed the blood of our brethren, and to our uttermost to maintain
the liberty of this our country from the tyranny and thraldom of strangers."
First Letter to Sir WiUiam Cecil from the Lords of the Congi-egation,
Knox's History, foi. ed. London, 1644, p. 222. It is plain that at this

THE ARTICLE. 163
Thus, I think, I have sufficiently cleared that our Re
formers generally, if not unanimously, looked upon the
Church of England as so well constituted, that they ac
knowledged her communion to be a lawful communion. But
before I proceed to other things, I must try if I can make
any more advantage of what has been said ; and I reason
thus. Was there not here truly and really a confederacy,
an oath, a solemn league and covenant, betwixt the Scot
tish and the English Protestants ? Were not these English
Protestants then united in that society which, at that time,
was and ever since hath been called the Church of England?
And was not the Church of England of that very same con
stitution then, that it was of in King Charles I.'s time, for
example, anno 1642 ? But if so, then, I ask again, was not
this solemn league and covenant made thus by our Re
formers with their brethren in England, as much designed
for the security, the defence, the maintenance, of the Church
of Englcmd, as then by law established, as for the establish
ment of our Reformation ? Did not our Reformers promise
mutual faith to the English, as well as the English promised
to them ? Would it have been consistent with the mutual
bonds and obligations of this confederacy, this solemn league
and covenant, for the Scottish Reformers to have raised an
army at that time against Queen Elizabeth, to invade her
crisis of their negotiation, they made religion the plea of their appeal, even
before that of French bondage, and as we see from the passage of this same
letter quoted by Bishop Sage, p. 155, 156, the religious nature of the compact
was insisted on as the surest pledge of its being faithfully observed. And
if the Reformed faith was omitted afterwards, the omission very pro
bably arose on the part of Elizabeth and her agents, who looked rather
to the danger which threatened England if France should gain supreme
rule in Scotland, than to the cause of the Scottish Reformation. Whether
Knox and his party ought to have accepted assistance, without expressly
declaring at the time all the reasons why it was required, is quite another
thing, although their not having done so was by no means singular ; for
in cases of emergency people are not in the habit of stopping to explain,
but grasp at relief, and when the danger is past, think it then time enough
to enter into explanations, and give utterance to their joy. This was just
what the Reformers did, see the passages quoted, p. 161. Now, if in addi
tion to these things, Buchanan's positive testimony, and the other probable
arguments adduced by our author in this place, be taken into considera
tion, the reader wiU, we think, be more inclined to adhere to the con
clusion of Bishop Sage, than to the opinion of the learned Historian of
Scotland.— E.]

164 THE ARTICLE.
dominions, in order to ruin the Church of England ? I can
not imagine any sober person can grudge to grant me this
much also. But if this be granted, then I ask, in the third
place, did not that solemn league and covenant made by
our Reformers with those of the Church of England, run in
a direct opposition to the Solemn League and Covenant
made by our Scottish Presbyterians with a factious party
in England, for destroying the Church of England, in King
Charles I.'s time? Nay, did not our Scottish Presbyte
rians in that King's time, by entering into that Solemn
League and Covenant, directly and effrontedly break through
the charge and commandment which our Reformers left to
their posterity — that the amity betwixt the " nations in
God contracted and begun, might by them be kept invio
late for ever ?" Nay, further yet, did not our Reformers so
lemnly pray against those who made the Solemn League and
Covenant in the days of King Charles I. ? Did they not ad
dress to God that he would dissipate their counsels, and let
their malicious practices be their own confusion ? And now
let the world judge what rational pretences these Presbyte
rians, in that holy Martyr's time, and, by consequence, our
present Presbyterians, can make for their being the only
true and genuine successors of our first Reformers ? Ex
pecting solid and serious answers to these questions, I shall
now advance in the prosecution of my main undertak
ing on this head, which was to shew how our Reformers
agreed with the Church of England in several moment
ous matters relative to the Constitution and Communion,
the Government and Polity of the Church, &o. But because
I have insisted so long on this general one, which I have
just now taken leave of, I shall only instance in two or three
more, and despatch them as speedily as I can.
2. Then it is evident and undeniable that our Scottish
Protestants for some years used the Liturgy of the Church
of England! in their public devotions. Indeed, the very first
* [This much disputed fact is now for ever set at rest, by the letter of
Kirkaldy of Grange to Sir Robert Percy above referred to, vide note, p. 81 .
It speaks volumes m confirmation of our author's general argument, for if
the Scottish Reformers could receive Edward VI.'s Liturgy, they could
not have been violently opposed to the doctrine and discipline of the
Church of England, and must have entertained sentiments widely diffe
rent from those who in this day boast of their descent from, and identity

THE ARTICLE. 165
public step towards our Reformation, made by the Lords of
the Congregation, was to appoint this Liturgy to be used.
It was ordered upon the third day of December 1557, as
both Knox and Calderwood have it.! Take the Ordinance
in Knox's words — " The Lords and Barons professing Christ
Jesus, convened frequently in Council, in the which, these
heads were concluded : First, It is thought expedient, ad
vised, and ordained. That in all parishes of this realm the
Common Prayer be read weekly on Sunday and other Fes
tival days, publicly in the parish churches, with the Lessons
of the Old and New Testament, conformable to the Book
of Common Prayers ; and if the curates of the parishes be
qualified, that they read the same, and if they be not, or if
they refuse, that the most qualified in the parish use and
read the same," &c. Spottiswoode and Petrie^ give the
same account ; but such is the genius of Mr Calderwood,
that you are to expect ievf things which may make against
the Presbyterian interests candidly and sincerely represented
by him. For instance, in his overly account of this matter he
quite omits the mention of other Holidays besides Sundays.
These consistent testimonies of all those four historians
are so full and plain a demonstration of the matter of fact,
that I cannot foresee so much as one objection that can be
made, or one evasion that can be thought on, unless it be
that it is not said by any of them that it was the Book of
the Common Prayers of the Church of England. But this
difficulty is soon removed.
For, 1. It was either the Book of the Common Prayers of
the Church of England, or the Genevan Liturgy. For we
no where read of a third ever pretended to have been used
in those times in Scotland. Now, that it was not the Liturgy
of Geneva is plain, for besides that it is utterly incredible that
there could have been so many copies of the Genevan form, in
of doctrine with Knox, Winram, Erskine, and the other overthrowers of
the Ante-Reformation Church. It argues singular blindness in such per
sons to talk at random, as they very often do, about the Popery of the
present EngUsh Liturgy, when those " worthier' whom they deUght to
honour, did not scruple to use the previous Service-Book, wherein the
doctrines to which they ignorantly ascribe the epithet " Popish," are
enunciated with greater plainness and candour. — E.]
' Knox, 112 ; Calderwood, 5.
2 Spottiswoode, 117 ; Petrie, 192.

166 THE ARTICLE.
the vulgar language then in Scotland as might serve so nfiany
parish churches ; nay, that it is highly probable there was not
so much as one; — besides this, I say, in the Genevan Form,
which was afterwards used in Scotland, there is no order
for, no footstep of, the observation of other Holidays besides
Swnday. Neither is there any Order in it for reading of
Lessons of the Old and New Testament, except in the
treatise of fasting, which was not compiled till the year
1565. There, indeed, lessons are appointed, such and such
Psalms, and such and such histories in the Old, but not so
much as one tittle of the New Testament. In all the rest of
the book a deep silence about lessons — than which there can
not be a clearer demonstration, that the book appointed to
be used in December 1557, was not that of Geneva. In
deed, 2. None of our Presbyterian historians, neither Petrie
nor Calderwood, have the confidence to pretend, nay, to in
sinuate, the possibility of its being the Common Order of
Geneva, which, it is very probable, they would have done, if
they had had the smallest hopes of making it feasible. On
the contrary, Calderwood seems fairly to acknowledge that
it was the English Liturgy ; but then this acknowledgment
lies at such a distance from the year 1557, that no doubt he
thought himself pretty secure, that few readers would refiect
upon it as an acknowledgment. He doth not make it till he
comes to the year 1623, when he had occasion to tell how
the use of the English Liturgy was brought into the New
College of St Andrews. Take it in his own words! — " Upon
the 15th of January, Master Robert Howie, Principal of the
New College of St Andrews, Doctor Wedderburn, and Doctor
Melvin, were directed, by a letter from Doctor Young, in
the King's name, to use the English Liturgy morning and
evening in the New College, where all the students were
present at morning and evening prayers, which was presently
put in execution, notwithstanding they wanted the warrant
of any General Assembly, or of any CONTINUED practice
OF THE FORM in time bypast since the Reformation."
Where, you see, he lays the stress of his argument against
it, on its not having a continued practice since the Reforma
tion, which is a clear concession that at the Reformation
it was in practice, though that practice was not continued.
' Calderwood, 800.

THE ARTICLE. 167
But whether he acknowledged this or not is no great mat
ter; we have sufficient evidence for the point in hand without
it. For, 3. Buchanan's testimony, which was adduced before,
about the " Scots subscribing to the worship and rites of
the Church of England," is unexceptionable. And yet it is
not all. For, 4. The Order, as you see it appointed by the
Lords of the Congregation, December 3, 1557, is, that the
book there authorized be used in all churches from that
very date ; but we find by the " First Book of Discipline,"!
that the Order of Geneva was only coming in to be used
then in some of the churches, i. e. 1560, and it had nothing
like a public establishment till the General Assembly holden
at Edinburgh, December 25, 1562. For then, and not till
then, it was " concluded, that an uniform order should be
kept in the ministration of the Sacraments, solemnization
of Marriages, and burial of the Dead, according to the
Kirk of Geneva." So it is in the MSS. and so Petrie hath
it ;2 but nature works again with Calderwood, for he has no
more but this — " It was ordained that an uniform order be
kept in the ministration of the Sacraments, according to
the Book of Geneva,"^ — omitting Marriage and the Burial
of the Tie&d— -Marriage, I believe, to bear the other com
pany, for the Burial of the Dead was the Dead Flea. Why ?
The Book of Geneva allowed of Funeral Sermons, as he him
self acknowledgeth* — a mighty superstition ! in the opinion
of Presbyterians, so that it would have been offensive to the
simcerer sort, as he commonly calls those of his own gang,
and inconsistent with the exigencies of the good cause, to have
let the world know that a General Assembly had ratifled the
Order of that Book about Burials, and thereby had justified
the superstition oi funeral sermons.
Nay, 5, It seems this Act of the General Assembly, De
cember 1562, has not been strong enough for turning out
the English Liturgy and introducing the Form of Geneva.
For if we may believe Calderwood himself,^ the General
Assembly holden at Edinburgh, December 25, 1564, found
themselves concerned to make another Act, ordaining " every
Minister, Exhorter, and Reader, to have one of the Psalm-

1 Spottiswoode, 153. ^ Petrie, 233. ^ Calderwood, 32.
^ Ibid. 24. ¦' Ibid. 39.

168 THE ARTICLE.
Books lately printed at Edinburgh, and use the Order con
tained therein in prayers, marriage, and administration of
the Sacraments ;" — where, observe further, that prayers not
mentioned in the Act 1562 are now put in, from which it
may be probably conjectured, that as much as Knox was
against the English Liturgy, he found many difficulties to
get it laid aside — so many, that it has not only been used by
some, few or many I cannot tell, in the Ministration of the
Sacraments, &c., after the Act 1562. But the clergy have
not found themselves obliged to forbear the use of it in the
public prayers, so that it was needful, in this Assembly
1564, to make a new Act, restricting them both as to
prayers and other ministrations to the Order of Geneva. And
if this holds, we have the English Liturgy at least seven
years in continued practice in Scotland. But it is enough
for my main purpose that it was once universally in use,
which, I think, cannot be denied by any who impartially
considers what hath been said.
And now, 6. May not I adduce one testimony more ? It
is true it is of a later date, but it is very plain and posi
tive, and what I have adduced already is security enough
for its credibility. It is the testimony of the compilers of
our Scottish Liturgy, which made the great stir in the year
1637, and was made one of the main pretences for the first
eruptions of that execrable Rebellion which ensued. The
compilers of that Liturgy, I say, in their Preface to it tell
us, that " it was then known, that divers years after the
Reformation, we had no other Order for Common Prayer but
the English Liturgy." A third principle wherein our Re
formers agreed with the Church of England, and which stands
in direct contradiction to the principles of our Presbyterians,
is, that they owned " the Church had a great dependence on
the State — that it belonged to the civil magistrate to reform
the Church — that people might appeal from the Church to
the civil magistrate," &c.
I am not now to enter into the controversy concerning
the dependence or independence of the Church upon the State.
That falls not within the compass of my present undertaking.
Neither will I say that our Presbyterians are in the wrong,
as to the true substantial matter agitated in that contro
versy. All I am concerned for at present is, that in these

THE ARTICLE. 169
times, those of the Church of England owned a great de
pendence of the Church upon the State, and that our Re
formers agreed with them in that principle ; and I think I may
make short work of it, for that that was the principle of the
Church of England in these times I think no man can
readily deny, who knows any thing about her at, and a good
many years after, her Reformation. All my business is to
shew that our Reformers were of that same principle, and I
think that shall be easily made to appear; for as to the
civil magistrate's power to reform the Church, what can be
more clear than the petition presented to the Queen-Regent
in November 1558? There our Reformers tell her Majesty,!
that " knowing no order placed in this realm but her Ma
jesty and her grave Council, set to amend as well the dis
order ecclesiastical as the defaults in the temporal regiment,
they do most humbly prostrate themselves before her feet,
asking justice and her gracious help against such as falsely
traduced and accused them as heretics and schismatics," &c.
In which address we have these two things very clear and
evident — 1. That they owned that the civil magistrate had
power to amend ecclesiastical disorders as well as temporal :
2. That in consequence of this they applied to the civil
magistrate for protection against the pursuits of the Church.
And in their Protestation given to the Parliament about
that same time, " they most humbly beseech the sacred
authority, to think of them as faithful and obedient subjects,
and take them into its protection, keeping that indifferency
which becometh God's lieutenants to use towards those
who, in his name, do call for defence against cruel oppress
ors," &c. — meaning the then Churchmen. 2 Indeed, none
clearer for this than Knox himself, as is to be seen fully in
his " Appellation from the Cruel and most unjust Sentence
pronounced against him by the false Bishops and Clergy of
Scotland," as he himself names it, for there^ he lays down
and endeavours to prove this assertion — " That it is lawful
to God's prophets, and to preachers of Christ Jesus, to ap
peal from the sentence and judgment of the visible Church,
to the knowledge of the temporal magistrate, who by God's

1 Knox, 130 ; Spottiswoode, 118. " Knox, 136 ; Spottiswoode, 120.
^ Knox, Appendix, 4.

170 THE ARTICLE.
law is bound to hear their causes, and defend them from
tyranny." And in that same " AppeUation"! he largely asserts
and maintains the dependence of the Church upon the State.
" The ordering and reformation of religion, with the instruc
tion of subjects," he says, " doth appertain especially to the
civil magistrate." For why ? — " Moses had great power in
the matters of religion. God revealed nothing particularly
to Aaron, the churchman, but commanded him to depend
from the mouth of Moses, the civil magistrate. Moses was
empowered to separate Aaron and his sons for the priest
hood. Aaron and his sons were subject to Moses. Moses
was so far preferred to Aaron that the one commanded, the
other obeyed. The Kings of Israel were commanded to
read the Book of the Law all the days of their lives, not
only for their own private edification, but for the public pre
servation of religion. So David, Solomon, Asa, Jehosophat,
Hezekiah, Josiah, understood it, and interested themselves
in the matters of the Church accordingly. From which it
is evident, saith he, " that the reformation of religion in all
points, together with the punishment of false teachers, doth
appertain to the power of the civil magistrate ; for what
God required of them, His justice must require of others
having the like charge and authority ; what He did approve
in them. He cannot but approve in all others who, with like
zeal and sincerity, do enterprize to purge the Lord's temple
and sanctuary." Thus Knox, I say, in that " Appellation."
I do not concern myself with the truth or falsehood of his
positions, neither am I to justify or condemn his arguments.
All I am to make of it is, to ask my Presbyterian brethren
whether these principles of Knox's suit well with declining
the civil magistrate as an incompetent judge in ecclesiastical
matters ? — ^with refusing to appear before hhn. prima instantia
for the trial of doctrines preached in the pulpit ? — with the
famous distinction of the King's having power about Church
matters cumulative but not privative ? he. I am afraid it
shall be hard enough to reconcile them.
I shall only instance in one principle more, which seems
to have been common to our and the English Reformers, but
it is one of very weighty consequence and importance to my
1 P. 13, 14, 1.5, 16, &c.

THE ARTICLE. 171
main design. It is, fourthly, that exceUent Rule of reforma
tion, viz. — " That it be done according to the Word of God,
interpreted by the monuments and writings of the Primitive
Church." That ancient, solid, approven Rule — that Rule so
much commended by that excellent writer Vincentius Liri
nensis! — that Rule which the common sense of mankind can
not but justify, when it is considered soberly and seriously,
without partiality or prejudice — a Rule, indeed, which had
the Reformers of the several Churches followed unitedly and
conscientiously, in those times when the Churches in the
western parts of Europe were a reforming, we had not had
so many different faiths, so many different modes of worship,
so many different governments and disciplines, as, alas !
this day divide the Protestant Churches,^ and by consequence
weaken the Protestant interest — a Rule which, had the pre
tenders to Reformed Religion in Scotland still stood by,
we had not possibly had so many horrid rebellions, so many
unchristian divisions, so many unaccountable revolutions, both
in Church and State, as, to our sad experience, have in the
result so unhinged all the principles of natural justice and
honesty, and disabled, nay, eaten out the principles of
Christianity amongst us, that now we are not disposed so

1 Aliter namque iUam (scripturam) Novatianus, alitor SabeUius, alitor
Donatns, &c. exponit. Atqui idcirco multum necesse est, propter tantos
tam varu erroris anfractus, ut Propheticse et Apostolicje interpretationis
linea, secundum Ecclesiastici et Catholici seusus Normam dirigatur. Vin.
Lir. Commonit. cap. 2.
2 [Among those Churches having the Apostolical Succession, which abjure
the " Pope's supremacy," there are not these differences of which our author
speaks ; but, on the contrary, an unity of doctrine has been preserved,
which, aU things considered, is truly wonderful. Under the general title
of " Protestant Churches," evidently used in this place in the popular
sense, our author seems to include many communities professing Chris
tianity, which he would have been the last person to reckon as portions
of the Holy Catholic Church. Churchmen in these days, find them
selves frequently falling into the same way of speaking of the Chris
tian communions, who have discarded " Apostolic Order." But it is a
pity not to be very particular in this matter, for we have too good reason
to believe, that unguarded admissions of this sort are misinterpreted, both
by persons not instructed in the true principles of Episcopacy, and by
Roman Catholics, who make such admissions on our parts a gi'ound for
affirming the alleged sectarian character of our Church, and confounding
her with the schismatical and heretical bodies which have arisen since
the sixteenth century. — E.]

172 THE ARTICLE,
much for any thing as downright atheism. But were our
Reformers indeed for this Rule ? That shall be demonstrated
by and by, when we shall have occasion to bring it in again
as naturally, to which opportunity I now refer it. In the
meantime let us briefly sum up all that hath been hitherto
said, and try to what it amounts.
I have, I think, made it appear, that while our Reforma
tion was a carrying on, and when it was established, anno
1560, there was no such controversy agitated in the Churches
as .that concerning the indispensible necessity of Presbytery,
and the unlawfulness of Prelacy — concerning the Divine right
oi parity, or the unallowableness of imparity, amongst the go
vernors of the Church. I have said enough to make it
credible that our Scottish Reformers had no peculiar occa
sions, opportunities, provocations, abilities, for falling on
that controversy, or determining of it, more than Reformers
of other Churches. In consequence of this I have further
shewed, that from all the monuments of these times I have
seen, not so much as one of our Reformers can be adduced,
as asserting the Presbyterian side of this controversy. Lastly,
I have, I think, made it evident, that our Reformers went
very much upon the same principles on which the English
Reformers went, who still continued Episcopacy ; unques
tionably on many principles of great weight and importance
as to the constitution and communion, the government and
polity of the Church, which staid in direct opposition and
contradiction to the principles of our present Presbyterians.
And now let any judicious and impartial person lay these
things together, and then let him ingenuously determine,
whether it be not highly incredible that our Reformers were
for the Divine institution and indispensible right of parity, and
the unlawfulness of Prelacy, which is the principle, at least the
profession, of our present Presbyterians. Yet, after all this,
I must tell my reader that I have insisted on these things
so much as I have done, principally for smoothing the way
for the evidences I am yet to produce, for the certainty of my
side of the " Second Inquiry." And I am content that these
things I have already discoursed should pass for no more
than rational presumptions, till I have tried if more strength
can be added to them, and they can be rendered m/)re cogent
and concluding by a succession of plain, positive, direct, and

THE ARTICLE. 173
formal proofs of my assertion; and to engage my reader's
attention, I dare adventure to promise him that, to as high
a degree as the nature of the thing is capable of, at least
can reasonably bear ; and so, without further address, I thus
proceed. Before our Reformation was established by law, our Re
formers addressed to the Government by several petitions
that religion and the Church might be reformed. I shall
take notice of three, all pertinent to my purpose. One of
them is no where, that I have seen, set down at length ; the
other two are in Knox's History. That which is no where
set down at length is to be seen abridged in Buchanan,
Lesly, and Spottiswoode,! but with some little variation,
for Buchanan has given that Article, which I am at present
concerned about, according to his way, in general terms,
thus — " Ut ministrorum electio, juxta antiquam Ecclesice
consuetudinem, penes populum esset." Spottiswoode has trans
lated Buchanan's words faithfully enough in this matter, as
he doth in many other things ; but Lesly gives it a little more
distinctly, thus — " Ut episcopi deinceps, et pastores, illi
Dominorum ac Nobilium cujuscunque diocesis, hi parocho-
RUM assensione ac voluntate, ad beneficia cooptentur." That
this Petition, thus abridged by these three historians, was a
Petition different from that which we have published at
length in Knox, seems unquestionable, for that which is in
Knox has not one syllable about the election of ministers ;
and beside, Buchanan fairly insinuates that there was an
other, distinct from that which he had abridged, though not
much different. For thus he discourses^ — " Papani Edin-
burgi, ad eadem fere postulata quce per Nobilitatem ad eam,
Beginam proregem, sunt delata, pene paribus usi sunt Be-
sponsis." Now, if it had been the same Petition, why would
he have said, " ad eadem fere postulata" and " pene pari
bus Besponsis ?" This I take notice of, that my Presbyterian
brethren may not have occasion to cavil at the Article as it
is in Lesly, as if it were not genuine because it is not in
the Petition recorded by Knox, and from him most imper
fectly abridged by Calderwood, their two great and authen
tic historians ; for as for Mr Petrie, he was so wise as not
1 Buchanan, 586 ; Lesly, 504 ; Spottiswoode, 119. ^ Buchanan, 687.

174 THE ARTICLE.
to trouble himself with either of these Petitions, perceiving,
belike, that neither of them was favourable to his beloved
parity. To proceed, now, with the Article as it is in Lesly. If he
has set it down faithfully, I think we have st,fair account of
the sentiments of our Reformers concerning Mother Parity^
— so very fair, that he who runs may read it. The question
then is, whether Lesly has faithfully transmitted this Article
to us ? And for the affirmative, I offer these reasons.
1. There is no reason to doubt of his integrity in this
matter ; he was a zealous Papist, and a Bishop to boot.
And it is evident, as he was either of these, it was not his
interest to make our Reformers such friends to Episcopacy
if they were not such really. For if they had not made
that distinction between Bishops and Presbyters^ — if they had
professed the Divine right oi parity, he had had good ground
for accusing them of receding from the undoubted princi
ples and universal practice of the Catholic Church, in all
times and in all places, in a point of so great weight and
consequence in the government of the Church — an occa
sion which one of his zeal for his party would not probably
have neglected to take hold of ; far less would he have lied
so palpably to save the reputation of his adversaries.
2. As he had no temptation to falsify in this matter,
so he had all other qualifications of a credible witness. He
hved in these times ; he himself was a clergyman then ;
probably, he was a member of that same Convocation to
which the Petition was offered ; and I think no man will
doubt of his abilities to comprehend such a matter.
Indeed, 3. If he forged this Article, he was ridiculously
impudent at forging, for as he did it without any imaginable
necessity, without any shadow of a degree of subserviency
to his cause — so he put himself upon a necessity of forging
more, even a good long answer, which, he says, was returned
to that Article by the Convocation, viz. — " That it was not
reasonable they should alter the method of electing Bishops
and Presbyters prescribed by the Canon Law, especially in
the time of the Queen's non-age. Her prerogative was in
terested in the matter ; she with the Pope's consent had
^ King .lames, Bas. Dor. 160, calls Parit}' the Mother of Confusion, &c.

THE ARTICLE. 175
power to nominate the Prelates ; and to take that power out
of her hands mthout her consent, or before she came to
perfect age, was notoriously as well as undutifuUy to invade
her royalty."! An Answer, indeed, exactly fitted for the
Article, as he hath transmitted it.
4. But the truth is, that he neither forged the Article,
nor the Convocation's answer to it, we have further undoubt
ed evidence ; for I have seen an old manuscript Scottish
History, which I can produce if I am put to it, which ex
actly agrees with Lesly as to the Article ; for thus it hath
it — " The election of the Bishops and Kirkmen to pass by
the temporal Lords, and people of their dioceses and
parishes." And Buchanan, upon the matter, gives that
same account of the Convocation's answer, affirming, that
— " As to the election of ministers they answered, that such
matters were to be regulated by the Canon Law, or the
Decrees of the Council of Trent."^
5. Neither wUl it be found of any force to say, that
Buchanan has not the Article, nor Spottiswoode, whose in
terest it was to have had it, if such a thing had been, con
sidering his principles, and what was one of his principal
designs in writing his History. This is of no force, I say ;
for first, as for Buchanan, it is evident from the whole tract
of his History that he aimed principally at matters of State,
bringing in Church matters only by the by, as we say, so
that it is no wonder if he did not record them accurately,
and with all the preciseness of nicety. And yet, even as
he sums up the Petition, he has something in it which plainly
imports the petitioners had no thought to interrupt the
continuation of imparity, for thus he puts the last Article —
" If, by the negligence of former times, ignorant or wicked
men had been advanced to ecclesiastical dignities, they

^ De Episcopis quoque ac Pastoribus eligendis, sequuni imprimis esse,
ut quaa jure canonico caventnr, ea sarta tecta maneant, neque novi quid,
abrogatis veteribus, uUo mode subrogetur, id quoque prudenter adjece-
runt, cum Prfelatorum electio in Regia potestate, sufiragante sumnio Pon-
tifice, esset, de ea in tenella Reginse Eetate, contra quicquam statui, sine
aperta temeritatis nota, ac Regise potestatis imminutione, nuUo modo
posse. Lesly, 504.
^ Hoc etiam amplius, ad eam partem, quse erat de Ministrorum elec-
tione ; in hoc genere qusestionum, aut juris Canonici, ant Concilii Triden-
tini decretis standum. Buchanan, 587.

176

THE ARTICLE.

might be removed, and others substituted in their offices."!
In which words, it is plain, that as there had been " HONORES"
— " ecclesiastical dignities," and " ministeria " — " different
offices," amongst the clergy before, so now there was no
thing like petitioning for abrogating any of them, but
that these dignities might be better bestowed, and these
offices better provided. The dignities and offices were to
continue ; no change to be made but of the dignitaries and
officers. Second, as for Spottiswoode, as I grant it had
been very proper for his purpose to have taken notice of the
" Article" as it is in Lesly ; so, that he took no notice of it,
is no argument that Lesly was in the wrong ; for, besides
that there is no colour of reason for discrediting one his
torian's accounts, because another is silent about them, the
truth is, whosoever reads Spottiswoode's History, and com
pares it with the rest of our histories, will find a very great
many such defects. And we shall have a very clear as well
as a very considerable instance by and by, when we come
to the next Petition. In the meantime, let me add another
irrefragable evidence, so I think, of Lesly's integrity as to
this Article.
6. It is, that when our Reformers had carried the day,
and so came to establish the government of the Church, they
exactly reduced to practice that which they had petitioned
for in the Article, in the election of Superintendents, as is
clear both from the " First Book of Discipline," and the
" Form of Electing Superintendents," as it is to be seen
both in the old Scottish Liturgy and in Knox's History.
In the " Fifth Head " of the " First Book of Discipline,"
it was appointed^ that " the Council should nominate the
Superintendents, or give commission to men of best know
ledge, and who had the fear of God, to do it — the gentlemen
and burgesses of towns within the Dioceses being always
made privy to the election." And in the " Order" for
" Electing Superintendents," as it is both in the old Liturgy
and Knox's History,^ we are told that " the Council having
given charge and power to the churches of Lothian to choose
1 Si per superiorum temporum negligentiam, indocti flagitiosive ad
honores obrep.sissent, ut iis a Ministeriis Ecclesise remotis, alii sufficeren-
tur. Buchanan, 586.
2 Spottiswoode, 159. ^ Knox, 289.

THE ARTICLE. 177
Master John Spottiswoode, Superintendent, sufficient warn
ing was made by public edict to the churches of Edinburgh,
Linhthgow, Stirling, Tranent, Haddington, and Dunbar, as
also to Earls, Lords, Barons, gentlemen, or others that had,
or might claim to have, voice in the election, to be present,"
&c. This was done in the beginning of the year 1561.
Now, lay these two things together, and what is the result ?
What else than giving power to the Nobility and Gentry of
the Diocese to elect their Bishop according to the Article, as
Lesly hath it in his breviate of the Petition ? Thus we have
found Lesly honest, and his account just and genuine ; and
thereby, as I take it, this proposition fairly demonstrated —
that our Reformers were so far from being Presbyterian — so
far from being for the Divine institution and indispensible right
oiparity, that, on the contrary, they were clear for imparity
— for Episcopacy. But this is not all. The second Petition
which I mentioned, and which is set down in full form in
Knox's History, though it doth not name Bishops, is every
whit as plain and decretory, that the sentiments of our Re
formers were no ways inimicous to Prelacy (if I may make
use of aword made fashionable by a Nobleman of the fashion),
but, on the contrary, that they were plainly for it. This I
take to be so fully and fairly expressed in the fifth and last
Article of that Petition, that I will here transcribe it word
for word : — !
" Lastly, we require most humbly that the wicked, slan
derous, and detestable life of Prelates, and of the State
Ecclesiastical, may be reformed, that the people by them have
not occasion (as of many days they have had) to contemn
their ministry, and the preaching whereof they should be
messengers. And if they suspect that we rather envy their
honours, or covet their riches and possessions, than zealously
desire their amendment and salvation, we are content that
not only the rules and precepts of the New Testament,
but also THE WRITINGS of the ANCIENT FATHERS, and the
GODLY and APPROVED LAWS of JUSTINIAN the EMPEROR,
decide the controversy betwixt us and them. And if it
shall be found, that either malevolently or ignorantly, we ask
more than these forenamed have required, and continually

Knox, 131. 12

178 THE ARTICLE.
do require, of able and true ministers in Christ's Church, we
refuse not correction, as your Majesty, with right judgment,
shall think meet ; but if all the forenamed shall condemn
that which we condemn, and approve that which we require,
then we most earnestly beseech your Majesty, that notwith
standing the long custom which they have had to live at
their lust, they be compelled either to desist from ecclesiasti
cal administration, or to discharge their duties as becometh
true ministers, so that the grave and GODLY face of the
PRIMITIVE CHURCH being REDUCED, ignorance may be ex
pelled, true doctrine and good manners may once again
appear in the Church of this realm."
Here our Reformers lay down a complex Rule, according
to which they crave the Church and the Ecclesiastical State
may be reformed. This complex Rule is made up of the rules
and precepts of the New Testament, the writings of the
ancient Fathers, and the "godly and approved laws" of the
Emperor Justinian. This is that solid, orthodox, proper,
and adequate Rule of Reformation, which I mentioned be
fore, as Vincentius Lirinensis's Rule, and the Rule wherein
our Reformers agreed with the English Reformers. By this
Rule our Reformers are content that all the controversies
betwixt them and the Papists be decided — they refuse not
correction if they ask more than this Rule requires — they
condemn no more than this Rule condemns. This Ride ap
proves all they are asking. In short, they require no more
than that according to this Rule the grave and godly face of
the Primitive Church may be restored as it was in Justinian's
time. Let the Ecclesiastical State be reduced to that frame
and constitution, and the clergy live, and rule, and discharge
their trusts and offices as the clergy did then, and they are
satisfied. And now, if these Reformers who thus petitioned,
and in their Petition thus reasoned and agreed to such a
Rule of Reformation, were for the Divine institution oi parity
and the sacred rights of Presbytery — nay, if they were not
not only for the lawfulness but the continuance of Prelacy — I
must confess my ignorance to be very gross, and so I refuse
not correction.
For this evidence, as I said, we are beholden to Knox,
and to Knox only. It is true, indeed, Calderwood! gives us
' Calderwood, 5.

THE ARTICLE. 179
the abstract of this Petition, but he conceals and suppresses
the whole pith and marrow of this Article, summing it up
in these few ill-complexioned words — " That the slanderous
and detestable life of the Prelates, and the State Ecclesias
tical may be reformed ;" which at first view one would ima
gine looked kindly towards Presbytery, but I am not sur
prized to find him thus at his tricks — it is but according to
his custom. To have set down the full Article, or to have
abridged it so as that '\ts force and purpose might have been
seen, had been to disserve his cause, and do an UI office to
his idol — Parity. And Petrie, as I have said, was so wise as
not to touch it at all, lest it had burnt his fingers ; but that
Archbishop Spottiswoode should have overlooked it both in
his History and in his " Refutatio Libelli," &c. seems very
strange. For my part, I should rather think we have not
his History entire,! and as he designed it for the press (for
which I have heard other very pregnant presumptions) than
that so great a man was guilty of so great an oseitancy. But
whatever be of this, Knox has it, and that is enough, and
Calderwood has abridged it, and that is more than enough
for my Presbyterian brethren.
The third Petition which I promised to adduce, is that
which was presented to the Parliament which established the
Reformation, anno 1560, for which we are obliged to Knox
alone also, at least so far as the present argument is con-
cerned.2 For though both Spottiswoode and Petrie^ make
^ [The following extract from the writings of an avowed enemy, con
firms this opinion — " I have not indeed compared Mr. Bailey's (Principal
Baillie of Glasgow) citations from Spottiswoode with the print, and I
wish you may do it with your copy. I noticed Bishop Burnet, in his three
volumes of the History of the Reformation, observing Spottiswoode's
History castrate in some passages, and I am wonderfuUy pleased to hear
you have a copy coUated with two manuscripts, and the differences in the
margin. I have Gordon of Straloch's remarks on Spottiswoode, and the
late Bishop of Carlisle, now of Derry, told me he had the copy of Spottis
woode's History, as designed for the press — (this is most probably the ma
nuscript now in Trinity College Library, Dublin, which has the Arch
bishop's own imprimatur at the end) — and he had noticed no small altera
tions in it." Wodrow to Dr James Eraser, February 26, 1722. Analecta
Scotica, First Series, p. 308. The desideratum of a correct edition of Spot
tiswoode's History, wiU soon be supplied by the Spottiswoode Society, who
hope to obtain the services of an eminent Prelate of the Church in Scot
land, in presenting a correct and authentic edition of this important work
to their subscribers — E.] ^ Knox, 261. ^ Spottiswoode, 150 ; Petrie, 219.

180

THE ARTICLE.

mention of the Petition or Supplication, yet neither of
them has recorded that which I take notice of ; and Calder
wood is so accurate an historian as to take no notice of
the Petition. That which I take notice of in it, as it is in
Knox, is, that, when our Reformers came to crave the Re
formation of the Ecclesiastical State, they bespoke the Par
liament thus — " And lest that your Honours should doubt
in any of the premises" — (they had affirmed before that the
doctrine of the Roman Church contained many pestiferous
errors — that the Sacraments of Jesus Christ were most
shamefully abused and profaned by the Roman harlot — that
the true discipline of the ancient Church amongst that sect
was utterly extinguished — and that the clergy, of all men
within the realm, were most corrupt in life and manners,
&c.) — " we offer ourselves evidently to prove, that in all the
rabble of the clergy there is not one lawful minister, if
god's WORD, THE PRACTICES OF THE APOSTLES, THE SIN
CERITY OF THE PRIMITIVE CHURCH, AND THEIR OWN AN
CIENT LAWS, SHALL JUDGE OF THE ELECTION." Here, I Say,
our Reformers insist on that same very rule, for finding
if there be corruptions in, and by consequence for reforming
of, the Church, on which they insisted in the aforementioned
Petition, from which it is evident they persisted of the same
sentiments, and it is easy to draw the same inferences.
Such were the sentiments of our Scottish Reformers be
fore the Reformed religion had the countenance of the
Civil Government and Acts of Parliament on its side, and
was made the National religion. Let us try next what
kind of government they did establish when they had got
law for them — whether they established a government
that was to be managed by ministers acting in parity or in
imparity ? And here, I think, the controversy might very
soon be brought to a very fair issue. The " First Book of
Discipline," the Acts of many General Assemblies, the Acts
of many Parliaments, both without interruption, the unani
mous consent of historians, and the uncontroverted practice
of the Church for many years, all concurring to this asser
tion — that the first establishment was of a government,
which was to be managed by Superintendents, and parochial
ministers, elders, and deacons, acting in subordination,
not in a state of parity with, but in a state of inferiority in

THE ARTICLE. 181
power and jurisdiction to, these Superintendents. This esta
blishment, I say, is so clear and undoubted, from all these
fountains, that no more needed be said upon the whole
argument. But because our Presbyterian historians and
antiquaries, though they cannot deny the thing, do yet
endeavour, with all their might and cimning, to intricate it
and obscure it, I shaU further undertake two things.
I. I shall give the world a fair prospect of the power of
Superintendents, as they were then established, and of the
disparities betwixt them and parish ministers.
II. I shall endeavour to dissipate these mists whereby
our Presbj'terian brethren are so very earnest to involve
and darken this matter.
I. As for the First, the world may competently see that
Superintendents, as established in Scotland at the Reforma
tion, had a considerable stock of prerogatives or pre-emi
nences, call them as you will, which raised them far above
other Churchmen — far above the allowances of that parity
our Presbyterian brethren contend for so eagerly, from the
foUowing enumeration.
1. They had Districts or Dioceses of far larger extent
than other Churchmen. Private ministers had only their
private parishes, and might have been as many as there
were churches in the kingdom ; but according to the scheme
laid down by our Reformers in the " First Book of Disci
pline," Head 5,! only ten or twelve Superintendents were
designed to have the chief care, as it is worded in the prayer
at the admission of a Superintendent, of all the churches
within the Kingdom. Indeed, ten are only there designed,
but it was because of the scarcity of qualified men, as we
shall learn hereafter.
2. As they had larger Districts than parish ministers,
so there were correspondent specialities in their election.
Parish ministers were to enter to such churches as had
benefices, by presentation from the patron, and collation
from the Superintendent, as is evident from Act 7, Pari. 1,2
James VI. , and many Acts of Assemblies, as shall be fully
proven afterward. If they were to serve where the benefice
was actually possessed by a Papist, they were to be chose-n
1 Spottiswoode, 158. ^ [Acta Pari. Scot. Foi. Ed. vol. iii. p. 23.— E.]

182 THE ARTICLE.
by the people of the congregation, by the appointment of the
" First Book of Discipline," Head 4.! But the election of
Superintendents was quite different. They were to be nomi
nated by the Council, and elected by the Nobility and gentry,
&c., within their Dioceses, as hath been already considered.
3. There was as great a difference in the matter of
deposition, if they deserved it. Parish ministers, by the
" First Book of Discipline," Head 8,2 were deposable by the
Superintendent oi the Diocese, and the elders of the parishes,
where they were ministers ; but of this more hereafter.^
But by that same " First Book of Discipline " the Superin
tendent was to be " judged by the ministers and elders of
his whole province over which he was appointed; and if
the ministers and elders of the province were negligent in
correcting him, one or two other Superintendents, with
their ministers and elders, were to convene him, providing
it were within his own province or chief town, and inflict
the censure which his offence deserved." Of the reasonable
ness of this afterward.
4. There was as remarkable a difference in point of ordi
nation, which in the then Scottish style was called admission.
Private ministers were to be admitted by their Superinten
dents, as we shall find afterwards. But by the " First
Book of Discipline," Head 5,* Superintendents were to be
admitted by the Superintendents next adjacent, with the
ministers of the province.
5. In the case of translation, the General Assembly,
holden at Edinburgh, December 25, 1562, gives " power to
every Superintendent within his own bounds, in his Synodal
Assembly, with consent of the most part of the elders and
ministers of kirks, to translate ministers from one kirk to
another, as they shall consider the necessity ; charging the
minister so translated to obey the voice and commandment
of the Superintendent.''^ But according to the " First Book
of Discipline," Head 5 6 — " No Superintendent might be
translated at the pleasure or request of any one province
without the councU of the whole Church, and that for grave
causes and considerations."
1 Spottiswoode, 154. = n^j^ ^gg 3 ij,;^ jgO.
' Ibid. 159. 0 MSS. Petrie, 233. « Spottiswoode, 160.

THE ARTICLE. 183
6. A special care was to be taken of his qualifications
and abilities for such an important office, for thus it is ap
pointed by the " First Book of Discipline," Head 5,! that —
" after the Church shall be established, and three years are
past, no man shall be called to the office of a Superintend
ent who hath not two years at least given a proof of his
faithful labours in the ministry" — a caution simply unappli-
cable to parish ministers.
7- He had a living provided for him by the " First Book
of Discipline," Head 5,2 about five times as much yearly as
was aUotted for any private minister ; and it is to be observed
that this was in a time when the Popish Bishops still brooked
their benefices ; but when the resolution was, anno 1567, to
deprive all the Popish clergy, it was agreed to in the General
Assembly by the Churchmen on the one hand, and the
Lords and Barons on the other, that Superintendents
should succeed in their places, as both the MSS. and Spot
tiswoode have it expressly.^
8. Superintendents, by virtue of their office, were constant
members of the General Assemblies ; therefore the General
Assembly holden at Perth, June 25, 1563, statuted —
" That every Superintendent be present the first day of the
Assembly under the pain of forty shillings, to be given to
the poor without remission." So it is in the MSS. ; but
Petrie has it barely — •" That they shall convene on the first
day of every Assembly."* And, it seems, because that
punishment had not sufficient influence on them, it was
again ordained by the General Assembly, at Edinburgh,
March 6, 1573, that " they shall be present in the As
sembly the first day before noon, under the pain of losing
one half of their stipend for a year," &c. So both the MSS.
and Petrie. 5 But, as we shall find afterwards, such presence
oi parish ministers was not allowed, far less necessary.
9. It belonged to them to try those who stood candidates
for the ministry. Thus, " First Book of Discipline," Head 4^ —
" Such as take upon them the office of preachers, who shall
not be found qualified therefore by the Superintendent, are
by him to be placed readers." And again, Head 5 7 — " No

Spottiswoode, 160. ^ ibid. 157. ^ Ibid.210. Art. 11. * Petrie, 237.
5 Ibid. 379. " Spottiswoode, 157. ' Ibid, 158.

184 THE ARTICLE.
child, nor person within the age of twenty-one years, may be
admitted to the office of a reader ; but such must be chosen
and admitted by the Superintendent as for their gravity and
discretion may grace the function that they are called unto."
And the Assembly at Edinburgh, December 25, 1562, or
dains — " That inhibition be made against all such ministers
as have not been presented by the people, or a part thereof,
to the Superintendent, and he, after examination and trial,
has not appointed them to their charges." So the MSS.,
and so Petrie.! And Spottiswoode cites another Act of the
General Assembly at Edinburgh, 1564, to the same purpose.2
10. As appears by that Act of the Assembly, December
25, 1562, just now cited, and the 7th Act, "Parliament 1,
James VI. , cited before, also Superintendents had the power
of granting collations upon presentations ; and the Assembly
at Perth, holden in June 1563, appoints — " That when any
benefice chances to vaik, or is now vacant, that a qualified
person be presented to the Superintendent of that province
where the benefice lieth, and that he being found sufficient,
be admitted, &c." So I find it cited by the author of
" Episcopacy not abjured in Scotland.''^
11. A Superintendent had power to plant ministers in
churches w here the people were negligent to present tinie-
ously, and indeed that power devolved much sooner into his
hands by the " First Book of Disciphne," Head 4,* than it
did afterwards into the hands of either Bishop or Presbytery ;
for there it is ordered — that " if the people be found negli
gent in electing a minister the space of forty days, the
Superintendent with his council may present unto them a
man whom they judge apt to feed the flock," &c.
12. And as he had thus the power of trying and collating
ministers, and planting churches in the case of a jus devolu-
tum, so he had the power of ordination,^ which, as I said, w^as
then called admission, as is evident from the " First Book
^ Petrie, 233. 2 Spottiswoode, 190.
^ [John MaxweU, Bishop of Ross in Scotland, afterwards Bishop of
KUlala, and Archbishop of Tuam, in Ireland. — E.]
* Spottiswoode, 154.
^ [It must not be forgotten that this power was confined merely to a
public declaration that the person was duly admitted to the pastoral charge
of his parish or congxegation, there being no such thing then as the impo
sition of hands. First Book of Discipline, Cap. iv. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 185
of Discipline," cap. 5, and several Acts of Assemblies already
cited. 13. All presbyters or parish ministers, once admitted to
churches, were bound to pay canonical obedience to their
Superintendents. Thus, in the Assembly at Edinburgh,
June 30, 1562 — " It was concluded by the whole ministers
assembled, that all ministers should be subject to the Super
intendents in all lawful admonitions, as is prescribed as well
in the Book of Discipline as in the Election of Superinten
dents." So the MSS. And by that forecited Act of the
Assembly at Edinburgh, December 25, 1562 — " Ministers
translated from one church to another are commanded to
obey the voice and commandment of the Superintendent."
Indeed, it was part of an Article presented by the Church
to the Council, May 27, 1561, that " an Act should be
made, appointing a (civil) punishment for such as disobeyed
or contemned the Superintendents in their function."!
14. He had power to visit all the churches within his
Diocese, " and in that visitation" — they are the words of the
" First Book of Discipline," Head 5 2 — " to try the life,
diligence, and behaviour of the ministers, the order of their
churches, the manners of their people, how the poor are pro
vided, and how the youth are instructed," &c. And further,
in these visitations he had power particularly " to take ac
count of what books every minister had, and how he profited
from time to time by them." By Act of Assembly at Edin
burgh, June 29, 1562. So it is in the MSS.
15. He had power to depose ministers that deserved it,
as appears from the " First Book of Discipline," Head 8,
already cited ; and by the Assembly at Edinburgh, March
6, 1573, it is statuted that — " if any minister reside not at
the church where his charge is, he shall be summoned before
his Superintendent, or commissioner of the province, to
whom the Assembly gives power to depose him," &c. So
the MSS. and Petrie.3
16. He had power to translate ministers from one church
to another, as appears from the Act already cited, number
5 ; and by an Act of the Assembly at Edinburgh, June 25,
1564 — " It is concluded that a minister, being once placed,
may not leave that congregation without the knowledge
1 Knox, 297 ; Petrie, 223. ^ Spottiswoode, 159. ^ Petrie, 378.

186 THE ARTICLE.
of the fiock, and consent of the Superintendent or whole
Church," i. e. a General Assembly. So the MSS., and so
Petrie.! These are all powers, methinks, scarcely reconcile-
able with an opinion of the Divine right of parity, but there
are more, and perhaps more considerable, as yet to follow.
17- For he had power to nominate ministers to be members
of the General Assembly. This is clearly asserted by the
Acts of two General Assemblies ; the first at Edinburgh in
June 1562, where it was ordained — " That no minister leave
his fiock for coming to the Assembly except he have com
plaints to make, or be complained of, or at least be warned
thereto by the Superintendent." So it is in the MSS., and
Spottiswoode cites it in his " Refutatio LibeUi,"2 &c. The
other Act was made by the Assembly holden at Edinburgh,
July 1, 1563, which I find thus worded in the MSS. fairly
agreeing with Spottiswoode^ — " Anent the Order hereafter
to be used in General Assemblies, they all voted and con
cluded as foUoweth, viz. that if the Order already received
pleases not, by reason of the plurality of voices, it be reformed
in this manner. First, That none have place to vote except
Superintendents, commissioners appointed for visiting the
kirks, and ministers brought with them, presented as persons
able to reason, and having knowledge to judge ; with the
aforenamed shall be joined commissioners of burghs and
shires, together with commissioners of Universities. Second
ly, ministers and commissioners shall be chosen at the Syno
dal Convention of the Diocese, by consent of the rest of the
ministers and gentlemen that shall convene at the said Sy
nodal Convention," &c. From which it is plain, that the
Superintendent or Commissioner, who was a temporary Su
perintendent, nominated the ministers they brought with
them to the Assembly, and that the rest of the ministers,
&c. had only a power oi consenting ,• and so it was thereafter
practised unquestionably. And if there were need of
more light, it might be copiously received from the Lord
Glammis' letter to Mr Beza, anno 1 576, wherein he tells him
that it had been the custom, ever since the Reformation,
that the Superintendents or Bishops still nominated the
1 Petrie, 340.
'' [See Spottiswoode Miscellany, vol. i. printed for the Spottiswoode
Society.— E.] ^ Spottiswoode, 219.

THE ARTICLE. 187
ministers who met in the General Assemblies ;! than which
nothing can be more distinct and plain. And this testimony
is the more considerable, that it was not Glammis' own private
deed, but that which was the result of a considerable consult,
as we shall learn hereafter.
This was such a branch of Episcopal power as mightily
offended our Presbyterian historians, it seems, for they have
endeavoured to obscure it as much as they could. Neither
Calderwood nor Petrie mentions the first of these two
Acts. They mention the second, indeed, but how? Calder-
wood2 huddles it up thus — " It was thought meet for
eschewing of confusion that this Order be followed, that
none have place nor power to vote, except Superinten
dents, commissioners appointed for visiting of kirks, minis
ters, commissioners of burghs and shires, together with
the commissioners of Universities. Ministers and commis
sioners of shires shall be chosen at the Synodal Convention
of the Dioceses, with consent of the rest of the ministers
and gentlemen," &c. Leaving out entirely these words,
" brought with them" (i. e. with the Superintendents and
commissioners of kirks,) " presented as persons able to reason,
and having knowledge to judge" — whereby the power of the
Superintendents and commissioners for visiting of kirks is
quite stifled, and the whole sense of the Act perverted ; for
what sense is it, I pray, to say that the ministers were to
be chosen by consent of the rest of the ministers, when you
tell not who was to choose, or who they were, to whose choice
or nomination the rest oi the ministers were to give that con
sent ? But it is no strange thing with this author to let
sense shift for itself, if the good cause cannot be otherwise
served. Neither is Petrie less unfaithful, for he not only
draws the curtain over the whole power of the Superinten
dent, &c., so that you cannot have the least glimpse of it
from his account, but he intermixes lies to boot ; only he
stumbles not on nonsense. He accounts thus ^ — " Because
1 Post Reformatam religionem consuetudine receptum est, ut Epis
copi, et ex ministris pastoribus ac senioribus, tot quot iidem Episcopi
jusserint, unum in locum conveniant, cum prjecipuis Baronibus ac
Nobilibus, religionem veram profitentibus, et de doctrina et de moribus
inquisituri. » Calderwood, 45. » Petrie, 359.

188 THE ARTICLE.
heretofore all ministers that would come were admitted to
vote "—(Not one word of this in the narrative of the Act
as it is in the MSS., or any other historian; and it is di
rectly contrary to the Act 1562, already mentioned, so that
it is plain it is a figment of his own.) — " And now the num
ber is increased, and commissioners of shires were chosen
in the Sheriff Court "¦ — (no other historian or record I have
seen, has one syllable of this either, though it is probable
enough it was so), — " this Assembly makes an Act of three
parts, concerning the admission of members. 1. That none
shall have place to vote but Superintendents, commissioners
for visiting churches, ministers and commissioners of shires
and burghs, chosen as follows, together with commissioners
of Universities. 2. Ministers and commissioners of shires
shall be chosen at the Synod of the bounds by the minis
ters and gentlemen convening there," &c. Not — " wdth the
consent of the rest of the ministers," &c., you see, as Cal
derwood ridiculously had it, but " chosen by the ministers,"
&c., without the least syllable that might import the Super
intendents having any (and far less the principal) power in
that election. This is clean work of it. Thus, I say, these
two historians of the party treat this notable branch of the
power which our Reformers thought reasonable to confer on
Superintendents ; but we shall not want occasions enough
for admiring their ingenuity. Return we now to our task.
18. They had power to hold Diocesan Synods. " Or
dains further" — they are the words of an Act ofthe Assembly
holden in December 1562, as it is both in the MSS. and
Petrie!—" that the Superintendents appoint Synodal Con
ventions twice in the year, viz. in the months of April and
October, on such days of the said months as the Superinten
dents shall think good." Whereby two things appear, 1.
That he had the sole appointment of the day of meeting ;
2. That he alone was proses of the meeting. Indeed, they
are frequently, or rather constantly, called his Synods.
19. Superintendents had pov:er within their own bounds
to appoint Diocesan fasts, granted to them by an Act of the
Assembly holden at Edinburgh, March 5, 1570. For there
it is enacted " that all Superintendents and commissioners
1 Petrie, 233.

THE ARTICLE. 189
to plant kirks in their first Synodal Conventions hereafter
following, with the advice of their ministers, shall reason
and a^T^oint public fasting, if it shaUbe thought necessary."
So the MSS. and Petrie.!
20. Another considerable instance oi the power oi Super
intendents, was that of modifying or assigning to parish
ministers their stipends or livings. This is clear from an
Act of the General Assembly, holden at Edinburgh on the
7th of July 1569, as it is both in the MSS. and Petrie,2
wherein " the Kirk presently convened found it most need
ful and expedient that all Superintendents, ministers,
exhorters, and readers should have their own particular as
signations" — out of the thirds of benefices, as shall be more
fully discoursed hereafter — " appointed them to be received
from the hands of the labourers respective, or others addebted
in payment of the thirds. And, therefore, the Kirk in one
voice, by this their Act, gave their full power and commis
sion to every Superintendent and commissioner within their
own bounds, with advice and consent of their Synodal Con
ventions, to give to every minister, exhorter, and reader,
particular assignations ad vitam, as they should find the
same expedient, under the Superintendent's subscription,
and ministers aforesaid, with all clauses needful and expe
dient thereto, which shall be as sufficient as if the same were
sped by the General Assembly of the Kirk ; and as concern
ing the Superintendents and commissioners of kirks, their
provision and assignation to be made by the General
Assembly." 21. Appeals were to be made to them from inferior judica
tories. Thus, by the Assembly at Perth, in June 1563 ^ —
" Concerning the order of appellation, it is statuted and or
dained, that if any person find himself hurt by any sentence
given by any minister, elders, or deacons" — i. e. by any kirk-
session, as we call them — " it shall be lawful for the person
so hurt to appeal to the Superintendent of the Diocese and
his Synodal Convention within ten days next after ; and the
said Superintendent shall take cognition whether it was well
appealed or not, and give his sentence thereupon." It is
true, indeed, (and it was reasonable), by the same Act, the
1 Petrie, 369. = ibid. 365. ^ MSS. Petrie, 237 ; Calderwood, 33.

190 THE ARTICLE.
person if he thought himself injured by the Superintendent's
sentence might appeal to the General Assembly.
Nay, 22. If the Superintendent found it male appellatum,
he had power oi fining. Thus it is ordered by the same As
sembly — " If the appellant justifies not his appellation be
fore the Superintendent and his convention aforesaid ; then
the Superintendent shaU impute a pain upon the said ap
pellant as he shall think good, beside the expense of the
party." That he had this power is all I am concerned for ;
let others judge whether it was purely ecclesiastical.
23. And as the Superintendent had t"hiB power of receiving
appeals made from inferior courts, so agreeably, he had
the power, with the advice of his Synod, or such of the mi
nisters of his Diocese as he should choose for that purpose —
" to determine intricate cases of conscience or government."
Thus, by the Assembly at Edinburgh, December 25, 1564,!
" It is ordained, that no questions be proponed by any
brother till the affairs of the Kirk, and the order thereof, be
first treated and ended ; and thereafter if any brother have
a question worthy to be proponed, that the same be pre
sented in writ, and if the same requires hasty resolution, it
shall be decided in the present Assembly before the end
thereof; otherwise the decision of the same shall be re
ferred to every one of the Superintendents within whose
bounds the question is proponed ; and they, and every one
of them, with a certain number of ministers, as they shall
think meet to appoint for assisting, shall hear the reason
ings of the aforesaid questions, and thereafter present the
reasons in writ, affirmative or negative, which every one of
them shall report to the next Assembly." Again, by the
Assembly holden at Edinburgh, in July 15682 — " It is sta
tuted and ordained that ministers, exhorters, readers, or other
persons hereafter, trouble not nor molest the General Assembly
with such things as Superintendents may, and ought to decide
in their Synodal Conventions ; and if any chance to do
hereafter in the contrary, their letters shall be rejected."
Which Act, as is obvious, extends both to cases of right
and oifact ; and extending to cases oifact, it clears a little
further the former head of appeals, intimating fairly that
1 MSS. Petrie, 341. ^ jigg. Petrie, 360 ; Spottiswoode, 219.

THE ARTICLE. 191
they were not to be made per saltum, neither yet delations,
but both in their proper gradation were to be brought first
before the Superintendent, and by him only, if he thought it
needful, to be advanced before the General Assembly. But
most home to the present point is the Act of the Assembly,
March 5, 1571,! by which it is statuted — " That all ques
tions be first proponed to Superintendents, or commis
sioners, in their Synodal Conventions, and there receive so
lution, and if they think them too hard, that they bring
them to the General Assembly ; but that no private minis
ters bring questions to the Assembly ^nm» instantia."
24. It belonged to the Superintendents particularly to
judge of divorces,'^ a point of great intricacy as well as impor
tance. Thus, I find the Assembly at Edinburgh, December
25, 1562, as it is in the MSS., ordains — " That no ministers,
nor others bearing office in the Kirk, take in hand to cog
nosce or decide in the actions of divorcement, except the
Superintendents, and they to whom they shall give special
commission." 25. It was a branch of their power also to enjoin penance
to greater criminals. So the General Assembly holden at
Edinburgh, June 25, 1564, as it is in the MSS., where it is
thus — " Touching such as relapse the third time in any kind
of crime, such as fornication or drunkenness, it is statuted
and ordained that no particular minister admit such persons
to repentance, but that they send them to the Superintendent
' MSS. Petrie, 369.
^ [No persons were louder than the Scottish Reformers, in their de
nunciations against the Prelates of the Ante-Reformation Church, for
holding ofiSces unsuitable to their sacred functions. Yet, when the Su
perintendents attempted to occupy their vacant places, we find them as
suming those very powers which they deemed it so sinful for their pre
decessors to hold. Singular inconsistency ! The details of examinations
and proceedings in cases of an immoral nature, which are given in the
" Book of the UniversaU Kirk," are most extraordinary, and one cannot
help wondering that persons of such godly pretensions should have gone
out of their way to come in contact with indecency, and should have dis
cussed questions of the most abandoned rice, with more than necessary
plainness and coarseness. The theological work of Peter Dens has been
most severely reprobated for the indelicacy of some of its questions, but
it is very problematical whether the worst of them approximate to some
of the discussions, which are recorded as having taken place in the
General Assemblies, Synods, and solemn meetings of the Scottish Re
formers. — E.]

192 THE ARTICLE.
of the Diocese where the crimes are committed, with infor
mation, who shall give them such injunctions as they think
may make the offence to be holden in horror ; but chiefly
that they compel the offender to satisfy where the offences
were made more days than one, as the Superintendent shall
think good." And by the General Assembly at Edinburgh,
March 5, 1571^ — ¦" It is ordained that adulterers, and other
such scandalous persons, shall hereafter be called by the
Superintendent, or commissioner of the province, to com
pear before their Synodal Convention, and there receive
their injunctions." And accordingly we find the custom of
the Church in those times, particularly in the case of the
Countess of Argyll, anno 1567. She had been guilty of a
mighty scandal, in being present at the christening oi the
Prince (afterwards James VI.), which was performed after
the Popish manner. She behoved, therefore, to give satisfac
tion to the Church, and was ordered to do it by the Gene
ral Assembly, in such manner and at' such time as the Su
perintendent of Lothian, within whose bounds the scandal
was committed, should appoint. So both Spottiswoode
and Petrie. 2
26. Another branch was to restore criminals to the exer
cises of their offices, if they had any dependance on the
Church, after they had performed their penance and re
ceived absolution. Thus, Thomas Duncanson, reader at
Stirling, had fallen in the sin of fornication ; for this he was
silenced. He had performed his penance, and was absolved.
Then the question was put to the General Assembly, met at
Edinburgh, December 25, 1563 — " Whether, having made
public repentance, he might be restored to his office?" — And
the General Assembly determined — " He might not, till
the church of Stirling should make request to the Superin
tendent for him."3
27. To the Superintendents was reserved the power of ex
communication in cases of contumacy, &c. Thus, it is statuted
by the General Assembly at Edinburgh, July 1, 1562 —
" That in cases of contumacy the minister give notice to the
Superintendent, with whose advice excommunication is to be
pronounced." So the MSS., and both the MSS. and Petrie
1 MSS. Petrie, 369. ^ Spottiswoode, 214 ; Petrie, 369.
3 MSS. Petrie, 242.

THE ARTICLE. 193
have another long Act of the Assembly holden at Edin
burgh, September 25, 1565, to the same purpose.!
28. It belonged also to them to delate atrocious criminals
to the civil magistrate, that condign corporal punishments
might be inflicted on them. To this purpose I find it en
acted by a Convention of the Kirk, as it is called in the MSS.,
met at Edinburgh, December 15, 1567, to wait on the mo
tions of the Parliament — ¦" That ministers, elders, and dea
cons, make search within their bounds if the crimes of incest
or adultery were committed, and to signify the same to the
Superintendent, that he may notify it to the civil magistrate."
Such was the power of Superintendents in the government
of the Church and her discipline. But because several
things may have relation to the Church, though not formally
and directly, yet reductively, and by way of analogical subordi
nation, their power extended even to these things also. I shall
only instance in two.
29. Then, because Universities, Colleges, and Schools,
are the seminaries oi learning, and by consequence nurseries
for the ministry, the power oi Superintendents over them
was very considerable. Thus, by the " First Book of Dis
cipline," Head 5,2 if, e. g. the Principal or Head of any
College within the University of St Andrews died, the
members of the CoUege, being sworn to follow their con
sciences, were to nominate three of the most sufficient
men within the University. This done, the Superintendent
of Fife, by himself, or his special procurators, with the
Rector and the rest oi the Principals, were to choose one of
these three, and constitute him Principal. And when the
Rector was chosen, he was to be confirmed by the Superin-
tendent,^ by that same Book. And again, by that same
Book,* the money collected in every College for upholding
the fabrick was to be counted and employed at the sight of
the Superintendent. Further, the General Assembly con
vened at Edinburgh, January 25, 1565, presented this
Article in a Petition to the Queen — " That none might be
permitted to have charge of Schools, Colleges, and Univer
sities, &c. but such as should be tried by the Superinten
dents." So it is in the MSS. It is true, it was not granted
1 Petrie, 346. ^ Spottiswoode, 162. ^ Ibid. 163. ' Ibid.
13

194 THE ARTICLE.
at that time, but it shews the inclinations of our Reformers
as much as if it had been granted. And because it was
not granted then, it was proposed again in the Assembly in
July 1567, and consented to by the Nobility and gentry,
and ratified by the eleventh Act of the first Parliament! of
James VI. in December that same year. And accordingly
we find the Laird of Dun, Superintendent of Angus and
Mearns in July 1568, holding a visitation of the University
of Aberdeen, and by formal sentence turning out all the
Popish members. The very air and stile of the sentence,
as Petrie hath it,2 is a notable evidence of the paramount
power of Superintendents, for thus it runs — " I, John Erskine,
Superintendent of Angus and Mearns, having commission
of the Church to visit the Sheriffdoms of Aberdeen and
Banff, by the advice, counsel, and consent of the ministers,
elders, and commissioners of the Church present, decern,
conclude, and for final sentence pronounce, that Master
Alexander Anderson," &c.
30. Because bad principles may be disseminated by bad
looks, and thereby both the purity and peace of the Church
may be endangered, the revising and licensing of the books
was committed to the care of the Superintendents," by the
General Assembly holden in June 1563, whereby it is or
dained, that " no work be set forth in print, neither yet
published in writ, touching religion or doctrine, until such
time as each shall be presented to the Superintendent of
the Diocese, and addressed and approven by him, or by such
as he shall call, of the most learned within his bounds," &c.3
Thus I have collected no fevi'er that thirty disparities be
twixt Superintendents, as they were established in Scotland
by our Reformers, and private parish ministers ; each of them
a demonstration of inequality either of power or figure.
Perchance a more nice and accurate inquirer may find out
more, but methinks these may be sufficient for my purpose,
which was to give the world a fair prospect of the pre-emi
nence of Superintendents, and of the differences betwixt
them and other Churchmen. And having thus performed
the first part of my undertaking, it is obvious to all who
can pretend to be of the thinking part of mankind, that the
' [Acta Pari. Scot, foi, ed. vol. iii. p. 24.— E.] ^ Petrie, 362.
3 MSS. Petrie, 237.

THE ARTICLE. 195
second Part is needless. For if these thirty disparities
amount not to an invincible proof that our Church at the
Reformation was not governed by ministers acting in parity,
I may justly despair of ever proving any thing. Yet, be
cause I know many simple and less thinking people are im
posed on by the noise and dust our Presbyterian brethren
have raised about this matter, I shall proceed to the next
thing I undertook, which was
II. To dissipate these mists wherewith our Parity-men are
so very earnest to involve and darken this Prelatical power
of Superintendents. They may be reduced to these three ;
1. The establishment of Superintendents was only tem
porary, and for the then necessities of the Church ; Superin
tendency was not intended to be a perpetual standing office.
2. It was not the sams with Episcopacy.
3. It was never established by Act of Parliament.
I. It is pleaded that Superintendency was only designed
to be a temporary, not a perpetual standing office in the Church.
Thus, Calderwood,! speaking of the " First Book of Dis
ciphne" — " We may safely say," says he, "the whole was
recommended to be perpetually observed, except some few
things, as the office of Superintendents, whereunto they
were forced, as they thought, by necessity," &c. And in his
breviate ofthe " First Book of Discipline,"2 he offers as a rea
son why it was so : — " They make a difference at this time
among ministers, some to be Superintendents, some to be
ordinary ministers ; not because Superintendents were of
Divine institution, as an order to be observed perpetually in
the Kirk, but because they were forced only at THIS time
to make the difference, lest, if all ministers should be ap
pointed to make continual residence in several places, when
there was so great rarity of preachers, the greatest part of
the realm should be destitute of the preaching of the
Word." And G[ilbert] R[ule], in his " First Vindication of
the Church of Scotland," printed at Edinburgh, 1691,
in answer to the First of the Ten Questions, following
Calderwood exactly — (as, indeed, he doth all alongst, and
it seems he has never read another of our historians, so that
1 Calderwood, 25. = Ibid. 26.

196 THE ARTICLE.
he had some reason to call him the historian. Ibid.) — de
livers it thus : — " It is true the Protestant Church of Scot
land did set up Superintendents, but this was truly (and
declared so to be) from the force of necessity, and designed
only for that present exigency of the Church," &c. And
more pointedly in his " True Representation of Presbyterian
Government," printed at Edinburgh, 1690, Proposition 18,
where he lays it down as an undoubted truth — " That Super
intendency was only established through necessity, when a
qualified minister could scarcely be had in a province," &c.
And Petrie seems to aim at the same way of reasoning.!
Now, 1. Supposing all this true, what ground have
they gained by it ? Do they not fairly acknowledge that the
Prelacy of Superintendents was established at the Refor
mation ? And is not that all I am concerned for ? For
the question is not whether Superintendency was designed to
be perpetucd or temporary, but whether it was a Prelacy ?
And if it was a Prelacy, the Church of Scotland was not then
governed by ministers acting in parity. The perpetuity or
temporariness of it doth not affect its nature. If it was a Pre
lacy at all, it was as really a Prelacy, though it had lasted
but for a day, as it had been though it had lasted till the
day of judgment ; just as our Presbyterian brethren were
as really addressers to King James by addressing once, as
they should have been though they had continued addressing
to him till this very minute. This alone, in all conscience,
might be enough for discussing this plea ; yet, that I may
not offend the party, by seeming to think so meanly of this
mighty argument, I shall insist a little longer, and consider,
2. If they have any suihcient fund, in the records of these
times, for this pretence. And, 3. What force or solidity is
in the reason insisted on to make this pretence seem plau
sible. As to the first, viz. Whether there is any sufficient
fund, in the records of these times, for this pretence, all
I have observed insisted on for this, is only one phrase in
the fifth Head of the First Book of Discipline — " at this
TIME." Take the whole period as it is in Petrie, for he
censures Spottiswoode for curtailing it. As Petrie has it,
it runs thus — ¦'¦'- If the ministers whom God hath endued with
» Petrie, 218.

THE ARTICLE. 197
his singular graces among us should be appointed to several
places, there to make their continual residence, the greatest
part of the realm should be destitute of aU doctrine ; which
should not only be the occasion of great murmur, but also
dangerous to the salvation of many ; and therefore we have
thought it a thing expedient, AT THIS time, that from the
whole number of godly and learned men, now presently in
this realm, be selected ten or twelve, for in so many pro
vinces we have divided the whole, to whom charge and com
mandment should be given to plant and erect kirks, to set,
order, and appoint ministers to the countries that shall be
appointed to their care, where none are now."! This is the
whole foundation of the plea for the temporariness of Super
intendency; but, if I mistake not, the true gloss of this
period will amount to no more than this — that because
there were then so few men qualified for the office of Super
intendency, though ten or twelve were by far too small a
number for the whole kingdom, yet at that time they
thought it expedient to establish no more ; and though,
when the Church should be sufficiently provided with minis
ters, it would be highly reasonable that the Superintendents
should have places appointed them for their continual resi
dence, yet, in that juncture it was necessary that they
should be constantly travelling through their districts to
preach, and plant churches, &c. That the Period will bear
this gloss is obvious to any who considers it impartially ;
and that this, and not the Presbyterian, is the true gloss, I
hope may competently appear if these things be considered.
1. It is notorious that the compilers of that " First Book
of Discipline" were generally, to their dying day, of Prelati
cal principles. They were six, as Knox tells us2 : — Mr John
Winram, who died Superintendent of Strathern ; John
Spottiswoode, who was many years a Superintendent, and a
constant enemy to Parity,^ as appears from his son's account

1 Petrie, 218. ^ ^^ois., 283.
^ [This is abundantly proved by his son. Archbishop Spottiswoode, who,
in his " Refutatio LibelU," testifies to his father's opinions in the following
plain terms — " Joannes Spottiswodus, Lothiaua et Mercia Superinteudens,
ad ultimum vita3 annum, qui fuit 1585, dictitasse fertur, se talia utcunque
laturum, ne si aliter faceret, suam dignitatem propugnare rideretur, auda-
culos tamen illos (ministros intelligi volebat) nisi in ordinem cogerentur omnia

198 THE ARTICLE.
of him ;! John Willock, who died Superintendent of the
West; John Douglas, who died Archbishop of St Andrews ;2
John Row, who was one of the three that defended the law
fulness oi Episcopacy at the conference appointed by the
General Assembly, 1575 ; and John Knox, of whom we have
said enough already. Now, I ask, is it credible that these
men, aU so much for Prelacy all their lives, without any
constraint on them, as it is certain there was none, should,
while digesting a model of policy, have been only for a Pre
lacy that was to be laid aside within God knows how short
a time, so soon as the parish churches could be planted with
ministers ? I know nothing can be said here, unless it be,
that Knox was not so prelatical as the rest, and he would
have it so, and the rest have yielded ; but there is no ground
for this.
2. For even Knox himself, if he was the author of the
History which bears his name amongst our Presbyterian
brethren, assigns a quite other reason than the then neces
sities of the Church for the establishment of Superintend
ency. " Superintendents and overseers were nominated," says
he,3 " that all things in the Church might be carried with
order, and well :" — a reason which, as it held since the
Apostles' times, will continue to hold so long as the Church
continues. And is it not told again in that same History,*
that at the admission oi Spottiswoode to the Superintend
ency of Lothian, John Knox in his sermon asserted the
quandoque in Ecclesia turbaturos. Crebro etiam illud commemorabat;
fides nostra est veritati divina consentanea, sed politia veieris Ecclesice est nos
tra potior." He adds — " Ejusdem sententice erant Joannes "Winramus, Fifte
Superinteudens et Fani Andrese Sub-prior, Georgius Haius plagse Sep-
tentrionalis Commissionarius, vir suiumo ingenio et exceUenti doctrina ;
David Lindesius, qui postea Rossite Episcopus designatus est — ut de aUis
multis taceam," &c. This Darid Lindesay, together with the above
named George Hay and John Row, was nominated by the General
Assembly in 1575 to dispute in favour of Episcopacy against the Genevan
notion of Parity, which had then been broached for the first time in Scot
land by Andrew Melrille. T/iey supported the argument for Episcopacy
against Melville himself, and two others selected for the ^^utpose. This fact
.speaks loudly as to the "Prelatical" notions of the compilers of the First
Boole of Discipline, since one of their number, when it began to be im
pugned, was chosen to defend the principles of Imparity, which it so mani
festly established. Spottiswoode's Refutatio LibeUi, p. 44 ; and Spottis
woode's History, p. 276. — E.] i Spottiswoode, 344.
=» [He was merely Titular.— E..^ » Knox, 260. * Ibid. 289.

THE ARTICLE. 199
necessity of Superintendents, or overseers, as well as ministers ?
The necessity, I say, and not the bare expediency in that
juncture. Further, now that I have Knox on the stage, I
shall repeat over again a testimony of his, which I have once
transcribed already, from his " Exhortation to England for
the speedy embracing of Christ's Gospel." " Let no man be
charged in preaching of Christ Jesus," says he,! " above that
which a man may do. I mean that your Bishoprics be so
divided, that of every one, as they are now for the most part,
may be made ten ; and so in every city and great town there
may be placed a godly learned man, with so many joined with
him for preaching and instruction, as shall be thought suffi
cient for the bounds committed to their charge ;" — than
which testimony it is not possible to find a better comment
upon that Period oi the " First Book of Discipline," penned
also by Knox himself, which is the subject of our present
controversy, and it agrees exactly with my gloss. For, from
this testimony, it is clear that he was for a great number
of Bishops and little Dioceses, and that, in a Church suffi
ciently provided with ministers, the Bishop should not be
obliged to travel from place to place for preaching, but
might stay at the chief city or town of his Diocese. What
I have said might be sufficient for preferring mine to the
Presbyterian gloss. But I have more to say.
For, 3. This sense of the Period accords exactly with the
whole tenor of the " First Book of Disciphne," in which
there is not another syllable the most partial reader can say
favours the mistaken conceit about the temporariness of
Superintendency, but much to the contrary.
Thus, in the Head of the Election of Superintendents,'^ the
very first words are — " Such is the present necessity, that
the examination and admission of Superintendents cannot
be so strict as afterwards it must" — clearly importing that
as necessity forced them to establish a small number at first,
so also to take them as they could have them ; but that a
stricter accuracy in their trial would be needful when the
number of qualified men should increase, which runs quite
counter to the whole design of the Presbyterian gloss.
Again — " If so many able men cannot be found at present
J p. 110. ^ Spottiswoode, 159.

200

THE ARTICLE.

as necessity requireth, it is better that these provinces wait
till God provide, than that men unable to edify and govern
the Church be suddenly placed in the charge,!" he. — another
demonstration why at that time they established so few Super
intendents. Again — " If any Superintendent shall depart this
life, or happen to be deposed,"2 rules are laid down for supply
ing the vacancy ; but to what purpose, if Superintendency
was to be of so short continuance ? Farther yet — "After the
Church shall be established, and three years are past, no
man shall be called to the office of a Superintendent who
hath not, two years at least, given a proof of his faithful
labours in the ministry of some church.''^ What could more
plainly import that the office was to be durable ? Once more :
when this " Book of Discipline"* comes to the business of
the Universities, it supposes that Superintendents and Colleges
were to be of equal continuance ; for the Superintendent was
still to be at the choosing and instalment of Principals and
Rectors, and the " moneys collected for upholding the
fabrick" were to be counted yearly upon the 15th day of
November, " in the presence of the Superintendent of the
bounds," and employed with his advice, 8ec.
Neither is this all yet, for, 4. The Form and Order of the
election of the Superintendent, to be found both in Knox's
History^ and the Old Scottish Liturgy, is every way as patt
for the continuance of the office as the First Book of Dis
cipline ; for the first thing we meet with there, as I have
already observed, is — ^" The necessity of ministers, and
Superintendents, or Overseers," without any exception or
speciality about the one more than the other. And as our
Reformers had petitioned the Government for the esta
blishment of a method to be observed in the election of
Bishops and Presbyters, without any intimations of the
temporariness of either office, as we have shewed before, so
here we find it put in practice, as has likewise before been
observed, without so much as one syllable favouring the
Presbyterian side of the present controversy, but, on the
contrary, all alongst for mitie. Thus the people are asked—
" If they will obey and honour him as Christ's minister, and
comfort and assist him in every thing pertaining to his
1 Spottiswoode, 159. ^ Ibid. 159. ^ Ibid. 160. « Ibid. 162, 163.
= Knox, 289, &c.

THE ARTICLE. 201
charge ?" And their answer is — " They will, and they pro
mise him such obedience as becometh sheep to give unto
their pastor" — not so long as the present necessity forceth, or
the present exigence requireth, but — " so long as he remaineth
faithful in his charge." In short, the Order or Form for ad
mitting a Superintendent and a parish minister was all one,
and there was nothing in it importing the one office to be
temporary more than the other. And, however Calderwood
thought fit to affirm, that " Superintendents were not then
established as of Divine institution," yet in all this Form the
Divine institution of their office is as much to be found as
the Divine institution of ordinary ministers. The people,
as we had it just now, were asked if they would obey
him as Christ's minister. And he himself was asked — " If
he knew that the excellency of this office, to the which GoD
CALLED HIM, did require that his conversation should be ir-
reprehensible ?" And, again, it was asked the people — " Will
ye not acknowledge this your brother, for the minister of
Christ Jesus, your overseer and pastor ? Will ye not
maintain and comfort him in his ministry and watching
over you, against all such as wickedly would rebel against
God and his holy ordinance ?" And in the prayer after
his instalment we have this petition — " Send unto this our
brother, whom, in thy name, we have charged with THE
CHIEF CARE of thy Church within the bounds of Lothian,"
&c. Thus our Reformers thought of Superintendency, when
they composed this Form. Now, if they looked upon it as
God's ordinance, &c., with what reason can it be said they de
signed it merely to be temporary, and for the then necessities
of the Church ? I think it will be hard to prove that it was
the divinity of these times, that men might dispense with
Divine institutions. But of this more afterwards. In the
meantime proceed we to a further and indeed an irrefraga
ble topic for confirming my side of the present controversy.
And that is, 5. That as the " First Book of Discipline"
and the "Form of admitting Superintendents" do both fairly
import that our Reformers intended nothing less than the
temporariness of Superintendents, so it is clear from a vast
number of Acts of General Assemblies. Most of these Acts,
I have already adduced for shewing the disparities between
Superintendents and ordinary ministers, when they are

202

THE ARTICLE.

seriously considered wUl be found uncontrovertibly to this
purpose. But there are many more ; for example, consider
these following —
The Assembly, May 27, 1561,1 addressed to the Council—
" That special and certain provision might be made for the
maintenance of the Superintendents, ministers, exhorters,
and readers ; and that Superintendents and ministers
might be planted where none were." The Assembly at
Edinburgh, December 25, 1562, as the MSS. have it, en
acted — " That notwithstanding the proponing and nomi
nating of the Superintendents for Aberdeen, Banff, Jedburgh,
and Dumfries, appointed before in the third Session, and the
days appointed for the election of the same, the further ad
visement and nomination of the persons should be remitted
to the Lords of the Secret Council ; providing always that
the days appointed for their election be not prolonged."
Observe here, that Aberdeen and Banff were now designed
each to have their Superintendent, whereas both were to be
under one by ihe first nomination in the " Book of Disci
pline." One of the Articles ordered by the Assembly at Edin
burgh, December 25, 1564, to be presented to the Queen,
was — " To require that Superintendents might be placed in
the realm where none were, viz. in the Merse, Teviotdale,
Forest of Tweedale, and the rest of the Dales in the South, not
provided ; with Aberdeen, and the other parts of the North
likewise destitute." So it is in the MSS. Petrie2 has it
only in short — " That Superintendents be placed where none
are ;" but, as it is in the MSS., it shows plainly that, now
that the Church was of four years standing, and the number
of qualified men was increasing, the Assembly were for in
creasing proportionably the number of Superintendents,
as is demonstrated thus : — By the establishment in
the " First Book of Discipline," the Superintendent of
Lothian's Diocese comprehended the sheriffdoms of Lothian,
Stirling, Merse, Lauderdale, and Tweedale.^ Spottiswoode
was set over this Diocese in March 1560-1. He was still
alive, and in the exercise of his office ; and yet here, now,
1 Knox, 297 ; Petrie, 223, MSS. '^ Petrie, 341.
' Spottiswoode, 158.

THE ARTICLE. 203
the Assembly craves that Superintendents may be placed in
the Merse and Tweedale, and the rest oi the Dales. From
which it follows, that that which was but one Diocese, anno
1560, when qualified men were few, was designed by the
Assembly, anno 1564, when the number of qualified men
was somewhat increased, to be divided at least into three
or four: — exactly agreeable to what I have all along as
serted. In the Assembly at Edinburgh, July 20, anno 1567 —
that famous Assembly whereof Buchanan was Moderator,
and which tumbled Queen Mary from her throne— it was
agreed by the NobUity and Barons on the one hand, and
the Church on the other — " That all the Popish clergy
should be dispossessed, and that Superintendents, ministers,
and other needful members of the Kirk, should be planted
in their places." So it is in the MSS., and so Spottiswoode
hath it.! But both Calderwood and Petrie, though they
mention the thing, yet labour to obscure it ; for they do not
so much as name Superintendents, far less take notice that
they are reckoned among the necessary members, or were to
succeed the Popish Bishops.2 Farther, by the Assembly at
Edinburgh, July 1, 1568, it is resolved — " To advise with
my Lord Regent's Grace and Council, that in the rooms
and countries where no Superintendents are, they may be
placed." So the MSS. and Petrie.3 Nay, doth not Cal
derwood himself tell us, that the Assembly holden at Edin
burgh, March 1, 1570, when it appointed the Order to be
observed thereafter in handling affairs brought before Ge
neral Assemblies, ordained, in the sixth place, that " the
complaints of countries for want of Superintendents should
be heard and provided for," &c.* Further, doth not the
same Calderwood record, that when in the year 1574 the
Superintendents of Angus, Lothian, and Strathern,^ would
have demitted their office, the Assembly would not admit of
their demission, but ordered them to continue in their func
tion ?6 For what reason they offered to demit, perhaps, we
shall learn hereafter. All I am concerned for at present is,
that the Assembly would needs continue them in their office
1 Spottiswoode, 210. " Petrie, 356 ; Calderwood, 42.
^ Petrie, 360. * Calderwood, 46.
= [Erskine, Spottiswoode, and Winram. — E.] ^ Ibid. 65.

204

THE ARTICLE.

now, fourteen years after the first legal establishment of the
Reformation. The truth is, this Assembly was holden in
March, and Mr Andrew MelviUe, the Protoplast Presbyterian
in Scotland, came not to the kingdom tiU July thereafter.
By this time, I think, I have made it appear that our
Reformers intended nothing less than to make Superinten
dency only temporary, and subservient to the then pretended
necessities of the Church. And hke wise I have sufficiently
made it appear, that it was merely for scarcity of qualified
men, that so few Superintendents were at first designed
by the " First Book of Discipline ;" which was the one half
of my gloss upon the controverted period in that Book.
The other half, which was, that when once the Church
was competently provided with parish ministers the Super
intendents were no longer obliged to their evangelistical way
of travelling constantly through their Dioceses, to preach,
&o., is plain from what both Petrie and Spottiswoode agree
in, as contained in tho Book, viz. That they were to follow
that method no longer than their kirks were provided of
ministers, or at least of readers.!
Thus I have dispatched the first thing which was pro
posed to be inquired into, viz. Whether there was any suffi
cient /«mc?, in the records of these times, for believing that
our Reformers intended that Superintendency should only
be temporary. It remains now that we should consider the
2. viz. What force or solidity is in the reason insisted on by
our Presbyterian brethren to make this pretence seem
plausible. The reason insisted on by them is — "the force of necessity,
there beingso few men then qualifiedfor the ministry; scarcely
one in a province," &c. Now, who sees not that this so often
repeated reason is entirely naught and inconsequential?
For what though in these times there were few qualified
men for the ministry ? How follows it that therefore it was
necessary to raise up Superintendents, and set them above
their brethren ? If the principles of parity had then been
the modish principles, could not these few who were qualified
have governed the Church suitably to these principles ? Sup
pose we twenty, thirty, forty men in the kingdom, qualified
1 Petrie, 219 ; Spottiswoode, 159.

THE ARTICLE. 205
for the office of the ministry, — could notthese twenty, thirty,
or forty, have divided the kingdom into a proportionable
number of large parishes ? And still, as more men turned
qualified, could they not have lessened these greater parishes,
till they had multiplied them to as great a number as they
pleased, or was convenient ? It was easy to have done so ;
so very obvious as well as easy, that it is not be doubted,
they would have done so if they had been of these prin
ciples. Why might not they have done so, as well as our
Presbyterian brethren now a-days, unite Presbyteries where
they have a scarcity of ministers of their persuasion ? Where
lies the impossibility of uniting parishes more than uniting
Presbyteries ? Indeed, this way of reasoning is more dan
gerous than it seems our Presbyterian brethren are aware
of, for it quite cuts the sinews of parity, and demonstrates
irrefragably that it cannot be the model our blessed Lord
instituted for the government of his Church. For who can
believe He would institute a model oi government for his
Church which could not answer the ends of its institution?
And is it not plain that parity cannot answer the ends for
which Church government was instituted, if the Church can
be reduced to that state that the governors thereof, forced
by necessity, must lay it aside, and for a time establish a
Prelacy ? Besides, what strange divinity is it to maintain
that parity is of Divine institution, and yet may be laid aside
in cases of necessity ? It is true, G[ilbert] R[ule], in his
" True Representation of Presbyterian Government," cited
before, is bold to publish to the world such divinity, but let
him talk what he will of the case of necessity, the force of
necessity, the law of necessity — let him put it in as many
languages as he pleases, as well as he hath done in Latin,
telling that necessitas quicquid coegit, defendit — though, I
must confess, I have seen few authors more unhappy at
Latin — and all that shall never persuade me, ought never
persuade any Christian, that any necessity can oblige Chris
tians to forsake, far less to cross, Christ's institutions ; for if
it can oblige to do so in one case, why not in all cases ?
Indeed, to talk of crossing Christ's institutions when forced
to it by the laws of necessity, what is it else than to open a
door to Gnosticism, to infidelity, to apostacy, to all imaginable
kinds of antichristian perfidy and villainy ? But enough of

206

THE ARTICLE.

this at present. That which I am concerned for is only this,
that, being it was so very obvious and easy for our Reform
ers to have cast the very first scheme of the government of
the Church according to the rules and exigencies oi Parity,
if they had believed the Divine and indispensible institution
oi it ; and being that they did it not, we have all the reason
in the world to believe that they believed no such principle.
For my part, I am so far from thinking it reasonable that
Prelacy should be only needful where there is a scarcity of
men qualified to be ministers, that, on the contrary, I do
profess I am of opinion that Prelacy seems to be every
whit as needful and expedient, if not more, supposing we
had it in our power to cut and carve (as we say) on Christ's
institutions, where there are many as where there are few
ministers. Sure I am experience hath taught so, and
teaches so daily ; and as sure I am, it can with great rea
son be accounted for why it should be so ,• but if it is so,
I think, it is only help at a dead life (as we say) to say that
Superintendency was established at our Reformation only
because of the scarcity oi men qualified to be ministers.
And so I proceed to our brethren's next reason, which is —
Secondly, That " Superintendency was not the same with
Episcopacy." Calderwood assigns seven or eight differences
between Superintendents and Bishops ,-! and his faithful dis
ciple Gplbert] R[ule], in his " First Vindication," in an
swer to the First Question, resumes the same plea, and in
sists mostly on the same differences. Calderwood reckons
thus —
" 1. In the election, examination, and admission of minis
ters, the Superintendents were bound to the Order pre
scribed in the fourth Head of the First Book of Discipline,
which is far different from the Order observed by Prelates.
" 2. Superintendents kept not the bounds nor the hmits
of the old Dioceses.
" 3. Superintendents might not remain above twenty days
in any place tiU they had passed through the whole bounds ;
must preach at least thrice in the week ; must stay no
longer in the chief town of their charge than three or four
1 Calderwood, 26, 27.

THE ARTICLE. 207
months at most ; but must re-enter in visitation of the rest
of the kirks in their bounds. Bishops think preaching the
least of their charge.
" 4. The election, examination, and admission of the Su
perintendent is set down far different from the election,
examination, and admission of Bishops now-a-days, &o.
" 5. Superintendents were admitted without other cere
monies than sharp examination, &c. To the inauguration
of a Bishop is required the Metropolitan's consecrations.
" 6. There were no degrees of superior and inferior, pro
vincial and general Superintendents. It is otherwise in the
Hierarchy of the Prelates," &c.
I have set down these six huge differences, without ever
offering to consider them particularly. Are they not huge
differences ? Behold them, examine them carefully ; is not
each of them as essential and specific as another ? Think not,
courteous reader, it was malice or ill-will to Episcopacy
made our author muster up these differences. These make
but a small number. If he had been acted by passion or
vicious Mas — if his malice had been vigorous and earnest to
discharge itself that way, he could have easily reckoned six
hundred, every whit as considerable differences. He might
have told them that Bishops wore black hats, and Superin
tendents blue bonnets ; that Bishops wore silks, and Superin
tendents tartan ; that Bishops wore gowns and cassocks, and
Superintendents trews and slasht doublets ; and, God knows,
how many such differences he might have readily collected.
And if he had adduced such notable differences as these, he
had done every way as philosophically, and as like a good
difference-maker. But, in the mean time, what is all this to
parity or imparity amongst the governors of the Church ?
Do these differences he has adduced distinguish between
Bishops and Superintendents as to pre-eminence of power
and the essentials of Prelacy ? Do they prove that Super
intendents had no prerogative, no authority, no jurisdiction,
over parish ministers? I have treated him thus coarsely,
because I know no other way of treatment authors deserve
who will needs speak nonseiise rather than speak nothing.
It is true, indeed, one difference he has mentioned, which
seems something material, and therefore I shall endeavour

208

THE ARTICLE.

to account for it with some more seriousness. It is, that
by the constitution, as we have it, both in the " First Book
of Discipline," and the " Form and Order of electing Super
intendents," Superintendents were made " obnoxious to the
trial and censures of the ministers within their own Diocese."
This I acknowledge to be true ; and I acknowledge further,
that herein there was a considerable difference between them
and Bishops, as Bishops stood eminenced above Presbyters in
the Primitive times, and as they ought to stand eminenced
above them in all well constituted Churches. But then I
have these things to say —
1. I shall not scruple to acknowledge that herein our Re
formers were in the wrong, and that this was a great error
in the constitution. I do avowedly profess, I do not think
myself bound to justify every thing that was done by our
Reformers. If that falls to any man's share, it faUs to theirs
who established this Article in the " Claim of Right," which
gave occasion to this whole Inquiry. That our Reformers
herein were in the wrong, I say, I make no scruple to ac
knowledge ; and I think it cannot but be obvious to aU who
have spent but a few thoughts about matters of polici/ and
govern-ment. Indeed, to make governors subject to the cen
sures and sentences of their subjects, what is it else than
to subvert government, to confound relations, to sap the
foundations of aU order and politic estabhshment ? " It is" —
as King James VI. has it in his Discourse about the " True
Law of Free Monarchies,"! and I cannot give it better — " to
invert the order of aU law and reason, to make the com
manded command the commander, the judged judge their
judge, and them who are governed to govern, their time
about, their lord and governor." In short, to give a just
account of such a constitution, it is very near of kin to that
bantering question I have sometimes heard proposed to
children or idiots — " If you were afbove me, and I above you,
which of us should be uppermost ?"
2. I add further, that, as I take it, our Reformers put
this in the constitution, that they might appear consequen
tial to a principle then espoused and put in practice by them
about civil governments, which was — that the King was
1 King James' Works, p. 202.

THE ARTICLE. 209
superior to his subjects in their distributive, but inferior to
them in their collective, capacity.! This principle, I say,
in those days was in great credit. Knox had learned it from
the democratians at Geneva ; his authority was great ; and
he was very fond of this principle, and disseminated it with
a singular zeal and confidence. Besides, our Reformers
were then obnoxious to the civil government ; the standing
laws were against them ; and the sovereign's persuasion, in
matters of religion, jumped with the laws. This principle,
therefore (had it been a good one), came to them most sea
sonably ; and coming to them in such a nick, and, withal,
meeting in them with Scotch metal,^ they put it in practice ;
and being put in practice, God suffered it to be successful ;
and the success was a new endearment, and so it came to
be a principle of credit and reputation. Indeed, they had
been very unthankful to it, and inconsequential to boot, if
they had not adopted it into their ecclesiastical as well as
their civil system ; and the Superintendents, having had a
main hand in reducing it to practice against the prince,
could not take it ill if it was made a law to themselves — it
was but their own measure. This, I say, I take to be the
natural history of this part of the constitution.
Nay, 3. So fond, it seems, they were of this principle
that they extended it further — so far as even to make minis
ters accountable to their own elderships. So it is expressly
established by the " First Book of Discipline," Head 8 3 —
" The elders ought also to take heed to the life, manners,
diligence, and study of their minister ; and if he be worthy
of admonition, they must admonish him ; if of correction,
they must correct him ; and if he be worthy of deposition,
they, with the consent of the Church and Superintendent,
may depose him." Here was a pitch oi democracy which, I
think, our Presbyterian brethren themselves, as self-denied
as they are, would not take with so very kindly. And yet
I am apt to believe the compilers of the Book never
thought on putting these elders in a state oi parity -with their
ministers ; though this is a demonstration, that they have
not been the greatest masters at drawing schemes of policy.
4. But to let this pass : though this unpolitical stroke
^ Major singulis, minor imiversis.
^ Prffiferyidum Scotoiiim ingenium. ''' Spottiswoode, 167.
14

210

THE ARTICLE.

(to call it no worse) was made part of the constitution of
that Book, as I have granted, yet I have no where found
that ever it was put in practice. I have no where found
that, de facto, a Superintendent was judged by his own
Synod ; whether it was, that they behaved so exactly, as
that they were never censurable, or that their Synods had
not the insolence to reduce a constitution so very absurd
and unreasonable to practice, I shall not be anxious to de
termine. But it seems probable it has been as much, if not
more, upon the latter account than the former, for I find
Superintendents frequently tried, and sometimes censured,
by General Assemblies ; and there was reason for it, suppos
ing that General Assemblies, as then constituted, were fit
to be the supreme judicatories of the national Church, for
there was no reason that Superintendents should have been
Popes, i. e. absolute and unaccountable. So that, if I am
not mistaken, our brethren raise dust to little purpose, when
they make so much noise about the accountableness of Su
perintendents to General Assemblies, as if that made a
difference between them and Bishops ; for I know no man
that makes Bishops unaccountable, especially when they are
confederated in a National Church. But this by the way.
That which I take notice of is, that seeing we find they were so
frequently tried by General Assemblies, without the least in
timation of their being at any time tried by their own Synods,
it seems reasonable to conclude, that it has been thought fit
to let that unreasonable stretch in the first constitution fall
into desuetude ; but however this was, I have all safe enough.
For 5. Such a constitution infers no such thing as parity
amongst the officers of the Church. Those who maintain
that the King is inferior to his subjects, in their collection,
are not yet so extrava^gant as to say he is not superior to
every one of them in their distribution. They acknowledge
he is major singulis, and there is not a person in the king
dom who will be so unmannerly as to say that he stands
upon the same level with his sovereign. But what needs
more ? These same very Presbyterian authors who use this
argument, even while they use it, confess that Superintend
ents and ordinary ^a>"isA ministers did not act in parity ; and
because they cannot deny it, but must confess it, whether
they will or not, they cannot forbear raising all the dust

THE ARTICLE. 211
they can about it, that unthinking people may not see clearly
that they do confess it. And had it not been for this
reason, I am apt to think the world had never been plagued
with such pitiful jangle as such arguments amount to.
Neither is the next any better, which is, 3 — " That Super
intendency was never established by Act of Parliament."
This is G[ilbert] R[ule]'s argument in his learned answer
to the first of the Ten Questions ; for there he tells us that
" Superintendency was neither brought in, nor cast out,
by Act of Parliament." And what, then ? Doth he love
it the worse that it was established purely by ecclesiastical
authority ? How long since he turned fond of Parliament
ary establishments ? I wonder he was not afraid of the
scandal of Erastianism. But to the point. It is true, in
deed, it was not brought in by Act of Parliament, but then
I think he himself cannot deny that it was countenanced,
aUowed, and approven, by more than half a dozen of Acts of
Parliaments ; which, if our author understands any thing
either of law or logic, he must allow to be at least equivalent to
a Parliamentary inbringing. I have these Acts in readiness to
produce when I shall be put to it, but I think his own Act,
which he cited, though most ridiculously, as shall be made
appear afterwards, in the immediately preceding paragraph,
may be good enough for him. For he concludes it as evi
dent that " Episcopal jurisdiction over the Protestants was
condemned by law in the Parliament 1567, because it is
there statute and ordained that no other jurisdiction eccle
siastical be acknowledged within this realm than that which
is, and shall be, within this same Kirk established presently,
or which floweth therefrom, concerning preaching the Word,
correcting of manners, administration of Sacraments ; and
Prelatical jurisdiction was not then in Scotland." So he
reasons. Now, I dare adventure to refer it to his own
judgment, whether it will not by the same way of reasoning
follow, and be as evident, that the jurisdiction of Superin
tendents was allowed of by this same Act, seeing he himself
cannot have the brow to deny that it was then in its vigour,
and daily exercised ? I think this is argument good enough
ad hominem, but, as I said, we shall have more of this Act of
Parliament hereafter.
Thus I have dispelled some of these clouds our Presbyterian

212 IHE ARTICLE.
brethren use to raise about the Prelacy of Superintend
ents.'^ Perhaps there may be more of them, but considering
^ [Our author was not concemed to prove Superintendency and Epis
copacy the same, but in opposition to the clause in the " Claim of Right,"
which asserted that " superiority of any ofiice in the Church above Pres
byters hath been a great and insupportable grievance to Scotland ever
since the Reformation, it having been reformed from Popery by Presby
ters," to estabUsh the fact that the Reformers of this country had no idea
of panty among ecclesiastics ; and that, therefore, in the reHgious system
which they set np in place of the Church which was overthrown, there
were manifest marks of imparity, and unequivocal symptoms of superiority
of ofiaces above Presbyters. It is not necessary for Episcopal writers to
defend the opmions ofthe Scottish Reformers, with whom theii- Church
has no connexion, or to admh-e the crude substitute for the ApostoUcal
constitution which they erected. But it is very important that they should
correct the false impression which even the writings of historians, in the
main favourable to Catholic order, have tended to create, by the loose
manner in which they speak of the Presbyterianism of Knox, and the
Anti-Episcopal character of the Knoxian system. There never was a
greater error, and by exposing it we deprive Presbyterianism of the
potent charm with which it is invested in the minds of the Scottish people,
from its imaginary association with that wonderful man, and oblige its
advocates to seek some other origin for it, which, when known, is by
no means likely to be palateable to a people, whose chief characteristic is
national pride. It must be obrious to every candid person who peruses
these pages, or who is otherwise famUiar with the actual state of Super
intendency, and the extraordinary restrictions under which it was placed,
that it was almost as remote from Episcopacy in externals (to say nothing of
the want of the valid Succession, which is the life-germ of the ApostoUcal
Order), as it was from Presbyterianism. The Superintendents were subject
to the censures of their own iSynods by the First Book of Discipline ; though
they were placed above, and were authorised to stqKrvise, the individual
members composing those Synods. This regulation, putting aside its ab
surdity, shews that those who framed it had no proper idea of the ecclesi
astical power of Bishops, and of the fitness that, in cases of delinquency,
they should at least be tried by their Peers. It is not surprising, there
fore, that after ten years^ probation it was found impracticable to carry
out a system of such a questionable kind; and that those who devised it
were earnest and foremost in bringing in another, better digested, and
more assimilated to the ancient Hierarchy. That the succeeding regime
established by the Convention of Leith was the cliUd of those who had
devised the previous system, and was favourably received by Knox, is a
tolerably strong proof of their leanings, unless we suppose them to have been
actuated entirely by temporal motives, for which there is uo ground. And
when it is remembered that in the meantime they gladly availed them
selves of the assistance of the few real and titular Prelates who joined the
Reformed cause, there can be no doubt that they were not indisposed to
the existence of " any superiority of ofl[ice in the Church above Presby
ters," and that the assertion that the Reformation was brought about by
Preibyters in the sense in which modern writers use the term — for in reality
being schismatics and laymen, it is of no consequence by what order this land
was reformed — is unsiipportcd by facts. — E.J

THE ARTICLE. 213
the weakness of these, which certainly are the strongest,
it is easy to conjecture what the rest may be, if there are
any more of them. And thus, I think, I have fairly accounted
for the sentiments of our Reformers in relation to parity or
imparity amongst the governors of the Church during the
first scheme into which they cast the government of the
Church. Before I proceed to the next I must go back a little,
and give a brief deduction of some things which may afford
considerable light, both to what I am now to insist on, and
what I have insisted on already. Though I am most un
willing to rake into the mistakes or weaknesses of our
Reformers, yet I cannot but say that our Reformation was
carried on, and at first established, upon some principles very
disadvantageous to the Church both as to her polity and
patrimony. There were mistakes in the ministers on the one
hand, and sinister and worldly designs amongst the laity on
the other ; and both concurred unhappily to produce great
evils in the result.
There was a principle had then got too much footing
amongst some Protestant divines, viz. that the best way to
reform a Church was to recede as far from the Papists as
they could ; to have nothing in common with them but the
essentials — the necessary and indispensable articles and parts
of Christian religion. Whatever was in its nature indifferent,
and not positively and expressly commanded in the Scrip
tures, if it was in fashion in the Popish churches, was there
fore to be laid aside, and avoided as a corruption — as having
been abused, and made subservient to superstition and
idolatry. This principle John Knox was fond of, and maintained
zealously, and the rest of our Reforming preachers were much
acted by his influences. In pursuance of this principle, there
fore, when they compiled the First Book of Discipline they
would not reform the old polity, and purge it of such cor
ruptions as had crept into it, keeping still by the main
draughts and lineaments of it, which undoubtedly had been
the wiser, the safer, and every way the better course, as
they were then admonished even by some of the Popish
clergy ;! but they laid it quite aside, and instead thereof
' Spottiswoode, 174.

214

THE ARTICLE.

hammered out a new scheme, keeping at as great a distance
from the old one as they could, and as the essentials of polity
would allow them, establishing no such thing, however, as
parity, as I have fully proven. And no wonder, for as im
parity has obviously more of order, beauty, and usefulness, in
its aspect, so it had never, so much as by dreaming, entered
their thoughts that it was a limb of Antichrist, or a relic of
Popery. That our Reformers had the aforesaid principle in their
view all alongst, while they digested the " First Book of
Discipline," is plain to every one that reads it. Thus, in
the first Head, they condemn " binding men and women to
a several and disguised apparel — to the superstitious observ
ing of fasting days — keeping of hohdays of certain Saints
commanded by man, such as be all these THE PAPISTS HAVE
INVENTED, as the Feasts of the Apostles, Martyrs, Christmas,"
&c.! In the second Head, the cross in Baptism, and kneeling
at the reception of the symbols in the Eucharist. In the
third head, they require not only " idolatry," but " all its
monuments and places to be suppressed ;" and amongst the
rest, " chapels, cathedral churches, and colleges," i. e., as I
take it, collegiate churches. And many other such instances
might be adduced particularly as to our present purpose.
They would not call those, whom they truly and really stated
in a Prelacy above their brethren. Prelates or Bishops, but
Superintendents. They would not allow oi itnposition of hands
in ordinations ; they made Superintendents subject to the cen-
sures oi their own Synods ; they changed the bounds of the Dio
ceses ; they would not allow the Superintendents the same reve
nues which Prelates had had before ; they would not suffer
ecclesiastical benefices to stand distinguished as they had been
formerly ; but they were for casting them all for once into one
heap, and making a new division of the Church's patrimony,
and parcelling it out in competencies, as they thought it
most expedient. In short, a notable instance of the preva-
lency of this principle we have even in the year 1572, after
the restoration of the old polity was agreed to ; for then, by
many in tho General Assembly, exceptions were taken at the
titles of " Archbishop, Dean, Archdeacon, Chancellor, Chap-
^ Spottiswoode, 153.

THE ARTICLE. 215
ter," &c. as being Popish titles, and offensive to the ears of
good Christians, as all historians agree.! But, then, as they
were for these and the like alterations in pursuance of this
principle, so they were zealous for, and had no mind to part
with, the patrimony of the Church. Whatever had been de
dicated to religious uses — whatever, under the notion of
either spirituality or temporality, had belonged to either
seculars or regulars before, they were positive should still
continue in the Church's hands, and be applied to her main
tenance and advantages, condemning all dilapidations, aliena
tions, impropriations, and laick usurpations and possessions
of church revenues, &c. as is to be seen fully in the sixth
Head of the Book.2 Thus, I say, our Reformers had digested
a new scheme of polity in the " First Book of Discipline,"^
laying aside the old one, because they thought it too much
Popish ; and now that we have this Book under considera
tion, it will not be unuseful, nay, it will be needful, for a full
understanding of what foUows, to fix the time when it was
written. Knox (and Calderwood follows him) says* it was written
after the dissolution of the Parliament which sat in August
1560, and gave the legal establishment to the Reformation.
But Petrie says,5 it is expressly affirmed in the beginning of
the Book itself, that the commission was granted for com
piling it on the 29th of April 1560, and that they brought
it to a conclusion, " as they could for the time," before the
2Qth of May, a short enough time, I think, for a work of
such importance. So Petrie affirms, I say, and it is apparent
he is in the right, for his account agrees exactly with the first
nomination of Superintendents, which both Knox and Spot
tiswoode affirm to have been made in July that year ;6 and,
besides, it falls in naturally with the series of the history, for the
Nobility and gentry having seen the Book, and considered it
before the Parliament sat, according to this account, makes it
1 Spottiswoode, 260 ; Petrie, 376 ; Calderwood, 58.
^ Spottiswoode, 164.
•* [This Book was compUed by the same persons who drew up the Con
fession of Faith, which was presented to and ratified by the Parliament
in 1560, viz. — Winram, Spottiswoode, WUlox, Douglas (afterwards the
first Titulai- Archbishop of St Andrews), Row, and Knox. — E.]
" Knox, 283 ; Calderwood, 24.
5 Petrie, 218. " Knox, 259, 260 ; Spottiswoode, 149.

216 THE ARTICLE.
fairly intelligible how it was entirely neglected, or rather re
jected, not only so far as that it was never allowed of nor
approven by them, as we shall learn by and bye ; but so far
that in that Parliament no provision at all was made for the
maintenance and subsistence of the Reformed ministers.
For understanding this more fully, yet it is to be considered
that there had been disceptations and controversies the year
before, viz. 1559, about the disposal of the patrimony of the
Church. This I learn from a letter of Knox to Calvin,
dated August 28, 1559, to be seen among Calvin's Epistles,
Col. 441, wherein he asks his sentiments about this question
— " Whether the yearly revenues might be paid to such as
had been monks and Popish priests, even though they
should confess their former errors, considering that they
neither served the Church, nor were capable to do it?"
and tells him frankly that he had maintained the negative,
for which he was called too severe, not only by the Papists,
but even by many Protestants.! From which it is plain not
only that there were then controversies about the disposal
of the patrimony of the Church, as I have said, but also
that Knox, (and by very probable consequence the Protest
ant preachers generally), was clear that the ecclesiastical
revenues had been primarily destinated to the Church for
the ends of religion ; and, therefore, whatever person could
not serve these ends could have no just title to these revenues.
By which way of reasoning, not only ignorant priests and
monks, but all laymen whatsoever, were excluded from having
any title to the patrimony of tlie Church.
Now, whUe this controversy was in agitation as to point
of right, the guise was going against Knox's side of it as to
matter of fact : for in the mean time many abbeys and
monasteries were thrown down, and the Nobility and gentry
were daily possessing themselves of the estates that had be
longed to them. And so, before the " First Book of Disci
pline," which was Knox's performance — and so, no doubt,
contained his principle — was compiled, they were finding that
there was something sweet in sacrilege, and were by no means
willing to part with what they had got so fortunately, as
^ Usee, quia nego, plus aequo severus jiidicor, non a solis Papisticis,
vcruin etiam ab iis qui sibi veritatis patroni videntur.

THE ARTICLE. 217
they thought, in their fingers. Besides, they foresaw, if
Knox's project took place, several other, which they judged
considerable, inconvenients would follow. If the monks and
priests, &c. who acknowledged their former errors, should
be so treated, what might they expect who persisted in their
adherence to the Romish faith and interests ? Though they
were blinded with superstition and error, yet they were
men ; they were Scottish men ; nay, they were generally of
their own blood, and their very near kinsmen ; and would it
not be very hard to deprive them entirely of their livings,
and reduce them who had their estates settled upon them
by law, and had lived so plentifully and so hospitably, to
such a hopeless state of misery and arrant beggary ? Fur
ther, by this scheme, as they behoved to part with what
they had already griped, so their hopes of ever having oppor
tunity to profit themselves of the revenues of the Church
thereafter vs'cre more effectually discouraged, than they had
been even in the times of Popery. The Popish clergy, by
their rules, were bound to live single ; they could not marry,
nor, by consequence, have lawful children to provide for.
The Reformed, as the law of God allowed them, and their
inclinations prompted them, indulged themselves the solaces
of wedlock, and begot children, and had families to maintain
and provide for. There were no such expectations, therefore,
of easy leases, and rich gifts, and hidden legacies, &c., from
them as from the Popish clergy. Add to this, the Popish
clergy foresaw the ruin of the Romish interests ; they saw
no likelihood of successors of their own stamp and principles.
They had a mighty spite at the Reformation. It was not
likely, therefore, that they would be anxious what became
of the patrimony of the Church after they were gone. It
was to be hoped they might squander it away, dilapidate,
alienate, &c., without difficulty (as indeed they did) ; and
who but themselves (the laity) should have all this gain ?
Upon these and the like considerations, I say, the Nobi
lity and gentry had no liking to the " First Book of Dis
cipline ;" and being once out of love with it, it was easy to
get arguments enough against it. The novelties, and the
numerous needless recessions from the old polity which were
in it, furnished these both obviously and abundantly. So it
was not only not established, but, it seems, the Nobility and

218

THE ARTICLE.

gentry, who have ever the principal sway in Scottish Par
liaments, to let the ministers find how much they had dis
pleased them by such a draught, resolved to serve them
a trick. Indeed, they served them a monstrous one ; for,
though in the Parliament 1560, they established the Refor
mation as to doctrine and worship, &c., and by a legal de
finition made the Protestant the National Church, yet they
settled not so much as a groat of the Church's revenues upon
its ministers, but continued the Popish clergy, during their
lives, in their possessions.
It is true, indeed, through the importunity of John Knox
and some others of the preachers, some Noblemen and gen
tlemen subscribed the Book! in January 1560-1 ;2 but as
they were not serious, as Knox intimates, so they did it
with this express provision, apparently leveUed against one of
the main designs of the Book — " That the Bishops, Abbots,
Priors, and other Prelates, and beneficed men, who had
already joined themselves to the religion, should enjoy the
rents of their benefices during their lives, they sustaining
the ministers for their parts," &c. But it was never gene
rally received : on the contrary, it was treated in ridicule,
and caUed a devout imagination, which offended Knox
exceedingly .3 Nay, it seems the ministers themselves were
not generally pleased with it after second thoughts, or the
laity have been more numerous in the General Assembly
holden in December 1561. For, as Knox himself tells us,*
when it was moved there that the Book should be offered
to the Queen, and her Majesty should be supplicated to
ratify it, the motion was rejected.
The Reformation thus established, and through the bad
ness, or at least the disagreeableness, of the scheme laid down
in the Book on the one hand, and the selfish and sacrilegious
ends of the laity on the other, no provision made for the
ministers, it was unavoidable that they should be pinched.

1 [The subscribers were " the Duke of Chatelherault, the Earls of Arran,
ArgyU, Glencairn, Marischal, Menteith, Morton, and Rothes, the Lords
Yester, Boyd, Ochiltree, Sanquhar, and Lindsay, the Bishop of GaUo
way, the Dean of Moray (Alexander Campbell), the Lairds of Drum
lanrig, Lochinvar, Garlie.s, Bargeny, and " divers burgesses." — E.]
2 Knox, 282, 283 ; Spottiswoode, 175.
¦* Knox, Ibid. ; Spottiswoode, 1 74. J Knox, 323.

TIIE ARTICLE. 219
And pinched they were, indeed, to purpose ; for, for full
eighteen or nineteen months after the Reformation was esta
blished by law they had nothing to live by but shift or
charity ; and, which heightened the misery all this time of
want, they had little or no prospect of the end of it, for
when a Parliament, so much Protestant as in the Queen's
absence to establish the purity of doctrine, &c., had treated
them so unkindly, what was to be expected now that she
was at home, every incli Popish, and zealously such ? Though
a Parliament should now incline to pity them, yet how could
it meet ? Or what could it do without the sovereign's allow
ance ? And what ground had they to hope that she would
befriend them ? Indeed, nothing was to be attempted that
way. It was not to be expected that the Popish clergy
should be dispossessed of the revenues of the Church, and
the Reformed entitled to them by Act of Parliament.
Another project was to be fallen upon.
The project fallen upon was, that the Council, then entirely
Protestant, should deal with the Queen to oblige the Popish
clergy, possessors of the benefices, to resign the thirds oi
them into her Majesty's hands, that they might be a fund
for the maintenance of Protestant ministers. The nation was
then generally Protestant, and that interest was too strong for
the Queen, so that they were not to be too much provoked.
Besides, one argument was used which prevailed much with
her Majesty. The revenues of the Queen were then very
low, and she loved to spend ; and pains were taken to per
suade her that beside what would be subsistence enough for
the ministers, she would be sure to have what might con
siderably relieve her own necessities. This was a taking
proposition, so the project succeeded. The Popish clergy
were put to it, and resigned the thirds.! Collectors were
appointed to bring them into the Exchequer. The ministers
were thence to receive their allowances. Well ! Were they
well enough provided now ? Alas ! poor men ! it was but
little that was pretended to be provided for them — the
thirds oi these benefices which the laity had not already swal
lowed .'2 and yet far less was their real portion. They found

i Knox, 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, &c.
2 [Even of this the ministers did not get their full .share, for the clergy

220

THE ARTICLE.

by sad experience, that it was not for nothing that the thirds
were ordered to be brought into the Queen's treasury. For
when they came to be divided, how mean were their aUof^
ments ? An hundred merks Scottish, i. e. about five pounds
eleven shiUings English, to an ordinary minister in the
country ! " Three hundred," saith Knox,! " was the highest
that was appointed to any, except the Superintendents and
a few others." AU this the ministers, indeed, resented
highly. John Knox2 said pubhckly in his sermon — " If that
order for maintaining the ministers ended weU his judgment
faUed him, for he saw two parts freely given to the DevU,
the Popish clergy, and the third must be divided betwixt
God and the DevU," i. e. betwixt the Protestant ministers
and the Popish Queen. And no doubt her share was trulv
considerable. But neither did the misery end here, as
poor as these small pittances were, they could not have them
either seasonably, or fully paid. The thirds came in but
slowly, and the Queen's necessities behoved to be first served,
by which means the ministers were forced to wait many times
very long for their money, and sometimes to take I'lttle,
rather than want all. In short, their sense of the treat
ment they met with was so lively, that this turned to a pro
verb amongst them — " The good Laird of Pittaro^ was ane

continued to give in false returns of their existing rentals, which of course
greatly diminished the Thirds. Vide Spottiswoode, p. 183. — E.]
1 P. 329. 2 Ibid.
' Ibid. — [The old mansion of Pitarrow, the patrimonial property of the
Wisharts, was situated in the parish of Fordoim in the shire of Kin
cardine. It was long a ruin, and scarcely a vestige of it now remains. The
proprietor here mentioned was John, the eldest brother of George Wish
art the " Martyi-r He was engaged iu most of the conferences between
the Queen-Dowager and the Lords of the Congregation in 1559, and being
present in the ParUament which met in August 1560 (Acta Pari. Scot.
vol. U. p. 525), he was one of the twenty-four indiriduaJs elected to con
duct the Government, of whom eight were to be chosen by the Queen-
Dowager, and six by the NobUity. In 1561, after the return of Queen
Maiy from France, he was appointed a Privy CouncUlor, and ComptroUer
of Scotland, which ofiice he held untU 1563, when he was succeeded by
Sir WiUiam Murray of TuUibardine, the ancestor of the Ducal FamUy of
AthoU. Beatson's Pohtical Index, 8vo. London, 1806, vol. iii. p. 89. His
attachment to the Earl of Moray drew him into rebeUion, and caused him
the loss of his ofiice of ComptroUer. He afterwards accompanied his
friend and patron into England, and ha^'ing retumed with him after the
murder of Rizzio, he received a pardon for his rebeUion in JIarch 1566. In

THE ARTICLE. 221
earnest professor of Christ, but the great Devil receive the
ControUer." Thus, poor men ! they were hardly treated :
they had great charges, and a weighty task ; and they were
ill provided, and worse paid.
This bred them much work in their Greneral Assembhes,
for scarcely did they ever meet but a great part of then:
time was spent in forming petitions, and importuning the
Government for rehef of their necessities ; but aU in vain,
they were never the bett«r, no, not so much as heard almost,
till July 1567. Then the Xobihty and gentrj- resolved to
lay aside the Queen from the government, and, finding it
necessary to have the ministers of their side, began to be
speak them a httle more kindly. Then, indeed, it was made
the second article of that league into which they entered —
" That the Act already made (Ijy the Queen and Council)
conceming the thirds of the benefices within this realm,
principally for sustaining the ministers, should be duly put
in execution, according to the order of the Book of the ap
pointment of ministers' stipends, as weU of them that are to
be appointed, as of them who are already placed ; and that
the ministers should be first duly answered, and sufficiently
sustained of the same, to the rehef of their present necessity,
aye and while a perfect order might be taken and estabhshed
towards the full distribution of the patrimony of the Kirk,
according to God's word," &c.
So I read in the MSS., and Spottiswoode! has the same
upon the matter. But this wa« not aU — Burnt bairns fire
dread.- The ministers, .sensible, it seems, of the mean and
uncertain wav of li'oing they had had before, resolved now
to make the best advantage they could of that opportunity ;
1567 he joined the association against the liarl of Botliwell, and on the
I9th of Xovember that year was appointed an Extraordinary Lord of
Sesiiou in the room of Dr Edward Henryson, theu superseded. He ac
companied Moray in 156S to York, for the purpose of impeaching his
sovereign before the Commissioners of the English Queen, and he figures
afterwards in the Pacification of Perth, concluded 23d February- 1573.
History of King -James the Sext, 4to. p. 132. He was reappointed an
Extraordinary Lord of Session on the I8th of January 1574, in room of
the Earl Slarisehal, according to the Pitmidden M.SS. ; but as the Books
of .Sederunt ofthe Court of Session of that date are lost, the particulars
of the reappointment of this keen poUtician, and man " of many offices"
are buried in obUvion. — E.]
1 Spottiswoode, 209. ° [An old Scottish proverb.— E.]

222

THE ARTICLE.

and so they obtained this likewise for another article of
that confederacy, and the Nobility promised — " That how
soon a lawful Parliament might be had, or that the occasion
might otherwise justly serve, they should labour at their
uttermost that the faithful Kirk of Jesus Christ, professed
within this realm, might be put in fuU liberty (i. e. posses
sion) of the patrimony of the Kirk, according to the Book
of God, and the order and practice of the Primitive Kirk,
and that nothing should pass in Parliament, till the affairs
of the Kirk were first considered, approved, and established ;
and also that they should reform themselves in the matters
of the Church for their own parts ; ordaining the contra-
veners and refusers of the same to be secluded from the
bosom of the Kirk," kc. So the MSS., and Spottiswoode
also.! Here were fair promises indeed .' Were not the ministers
well enough secured now ? Was not the patrimony of the
Church now to run in its right channel ? Alas ! all pro
mises are not performed. No sooner had these Nobles and
Barons carried their main point, which was the dethroning
of the Queen, to which also the ministers were forward
enough, than they quite forgot their promises. For, though
the Parliament met in December thereafter, and though the
restitution of the patrimony of the Church was promised to
be the first thing that should be done in Parliament, yet
nothing like performance ! Nay, though an Act was made
for putting the Articles about the thirds in execution, yet
the ministers were forced to wait long enough before they
found the effects of it. In short, they continued in the
same straits they had been in before, for full two years
thereafter, that is, till July 1569, at which time I find, by
the MSS. and Mr Petrie,2 the Church was put in possession
of the thirds, for which their necessities made them very
thankful, as appears from the narrative of an Act of their
Assembly at that time, which runs thus, as I find it in the
MS., — " Forasmuch as this long time bygone the ministers
have been universally defrauded and postponed of their sti
pends, and now, at last, it hath pleased God to move the
hearts of the superior power, and the Estates of this realm,"
1 Spottiswoode, 209. " Petrie, 363.

THE ARTICLE. 223
&c. — a narrative which, it is probable, they would not have
used when the thirds were at first projected for their main
tenance ; sure I am, of a quite different strain from Knox's
resentment, which I mentioned before. But by this time
experience had taught them " to thank God for little" and
that it was even good to be getting something. However, all
this while they continued still to have the same sentiments
concerning the patrimony of the Church — that unless God,
by immediate revolution, should dispense with her right, it
belonged to her Ufnalienably— that it was abominable sacri
lege to defraud her of it — and that neither Church nor State
could be happy so long as it was so much in the hands of
laicks. And as they had still these sentiments (and no
wonder, so long as they had any sense of religion), so they
were still using their best endeavours, trying all experiments
and watching all opportunities to bring the Nobility and
gentry to a reasonable temper, and to put the Church in
possession of her undoubted revenues ; but all in vain.
On the contrary, these leeches having once tasted of her blood,
were thirsting still for more, and daily making farther en
croachments. For a Parliament met in August 1571, and
made an " Act, obliging all the subjects, who in former
times had held their land and possessions of Priors, Prior
esses, Convents of Friars and Nuns," &c., thereafter to hold
them of the Crown. This was an awakening, an alarming
Act. These who heretofore had possessed themselves of the
Church's patrimony had done it hy force, or by connivance —
without law, and without title," so there were still hopes of
recovering what was possessed so illegally. But this was to
give them law on their side. As things stood then, it would
be easy to obtain gifts, now that the King was made imme
diate superior ; and then there was no recovering of what
was thus colourably possessed. So, I say, it was an awaken
ing Act of Parliament, and indeed it roused the spirits of
the Clergy, and put them in a quicker motion. Now they
began to see the error of drawing the new scheme of polity
in the " First Book of Discipline," and receding from the
old one. Now they perceived sensibly that that making of a
new one had unhinged all the Church's interests, and exposed
her patrimony, and made it a prey to the ravenous laity ;
and that it was therefore time — high time — for them to

224

THE ARTICLE.

bethink themselves, and try their strength and skill, if possibly
a stop could be put to such notorious robbery.! And so I
am fairly introduced to
The Second Model, into which the government of the
Church was cast, after the public establishment of the Re
formation. For the General Assembly of the Church, meet
ing at Stirling in that same month of August 1571 — " Gave
commission to certain brethren to go to the Lord Regent
his Grace, and to the Parliament, humbly to request and
desire, in name of the Kirk, the granting of such heads and
articles, and redress of such complaints, as should be given
to them by the Kirk," &c. So it is in the MSS. and so
Spottiswoode and Petrie have it.2 Before I proceed, there
is one seeming difficulty which must be removed. It is, that
this General Assembly met before the Parliament. How,
then, could it be that Act of Parliament which so awakened
them ? But the solution is easy. In those times Parlia
ments did not sit so long as they are in use to do now ; but
all things were prepared, and in readiness before the Par
liament met. " Proclamation was made a month or so
before the Parliament was to meet, requiring all Bills to be
given in to the Register,^ which were to be presented in the
succeeding Session of Parliament, that they might be brought
to the King, or Regent, to be perused and considered by
them ; and only such as they allowed were to be put into
the Chancellor's hands to be proponed to the Parliament,
and none other," &c. Whoso pleases may see this account
given by King James VI. of Scotland and I. of England
to his English Parliament, in his speech dated 1607- In
deed, the thing is notorious, and Calderwood himself gives
a remarkable instance of this method,* for he tells how, in
the end of April, or beginning of May 1621 — "A charge
was published by proclamation, commanding all that had
suits, articles, or petitions to propone to the Parliament, to
give them into the Clerk of the Register before the 20th
day of May, that by him they might be presented to so
many of the Council, who were appointed by his Majesty

' Vide Spottiswoode, 258. ^ Spottiswoode, 258 ; Petrie, 371.
^ [The Lord Clerk Register, who collected the votes in the Scottish
Parliament.— E.] « Calderwood, 769.

THE ARTICLE. 225
to meet some days before the Parliament, and to consider
the said bills, petitions, and articles, with certification that
the same should not be received, read, nor voted in Parha
ment, except they were passed under his Highness' hand."
And yet the same Calderwood teUs us,! that the Parliament
was not appointed to meet till the twenty-third of July ; so
that here were two full months between the giving in of the
bUls, &c. and the meeting of the Parliament. This being
the custom in those times, it is easy to consider how the
General Assembly, though it met some days before the Par
liament, might know very well what was to be done in Par
liament, for if this Bill was allowed by the then Regent to
be presented, there was no doubt of its passing. And that
it was very well known what the Parliament was to do in
that matter, may be further evident from John Knox's
letter, directed at that time to the General Assembly, wherein
he is earnest with them that, " with all uprightness and
strength in God, they gainstand the merciless devourers of
the patrimony of the Church, telling them, that if men will
spoil, let them do it to their own peril and damnation ; but
it was their duty to beware of communicating with their
sins, but by public protestation to make it known to the
world that they were innocent of robbery, which would ere
long provoke God's vengeance upon the committers," &c.
From which nothing can be clearer than that he had a
special eye to that which was then in agitation, and to be
done by the Parliament.2 Having thus removed the seem
ing difficulty, I return to my purpose.
The Earl of Lennox was then Regent. He was murdered^
in the time of the Parliament, so at that time things were
in confusion, and these commissioners from the General As
sembly could do nothing in their business. The Earl of Mar
succeeded in the Regency. Application was made to him.
It was agreed to, between his Grace and the clergy who
applied to him, that a meeting should be kept, between so
many for the Church and so many for the State, for adjusting
^ Calderwood, 764.
'^ For this letter see Spottiswoode, 258, and Petrie, 370.
' [Lennox was shot on the High Street of Stirling during a riot by
Captain Calder, at the instigation of the relatives of Archbishop Hamilton,
who had been ignominiously executed by the Regent's authority .^E.]
15

226 THE ARTICLE.
matters. For this end, an Assembly was kept at Leith
on the 12th of January 1571-2. By this Assembly six were
delegated! to meet with as many to be nominated by the
Council, " to treat, reason, and conclude, concerning the
settlement of the polity of the Church." After " divers meet
ings and long deliberation," as Spottiswoode has it,2 they
came to an Agreement, which was in effect — ^that the old
polity should revive, and take place ; only with some little
alterations, which seemed necessary from the change that
had been made in religion. Whoso pleases may see it more
largely in Calderwood,^ who teUs us that the whole scheme
is " registered in the Books of Council ;" more briefly, in
Spottiswoode and Petrie.* In short, it was a constitution
much the same with that which we have ever since had
in the times of Episcopacy. For, by this Agreement, those
who were to have the old prelatical power -were also to have
the old prelatical names and titles oi Archbishops and Bishops
— the old division ofthe Dioceses was to take place — the patri
mony of the Church was to run much in the old channel —
particularly, express provision was made concerning Chap
ters, Abbots, Priors, &c. that they should be continued, and
enjoy their old rights and privileges as Churchmen — and,
generally, things were put in a regular course.
This was the second model (not a new one) of polity esta
blished in the Church of Scotland after the Reformation,
at a pretty good distance, I think, from the rules and exi
gencies of parity. The truth is, both Calderwood and Petrie
acknowledge it was imparity with a witness ! The thing
was so manifest, they had not the brow to deny it. AU
their endeavours are only to impugn the authority of this
constitution, or raise clouds about it, or find weaknesses
1 [The persons delegated were the Earl of Morton, ChanceUor, Lord
Ruthven, Treasurer, the Abbot of DunfermBue, Secretary, Mr James Mac-
gUl, Keeper of the Rolls, Sir James BeUenden, Justice-Clerk, and Camp
beU of Glenorchy, on the part of the Privy CouncU. For the Reformed
Preachers— Erskine of Dun and Winram, Superintendents of Angus and
Fife, Mr Andrew Hay, Commissioner of Clydesdale, Mr David Lindesay,
Commissioner of the West, Mr Robert Pont, Commissioner of Orkney,
and Mr John Craig, Knox's friend, one of the ministers of Edinburgh.
Spottiswoode, p. 260. — E.]
2 Spottiswoode, 260. ' Calderwood, 50, c&c.
« Spottiswoode, 260 ; Petrie, 273.

THE ARTICLE. 227
in it. So far as I can collect, no man ever affirmed that at
this time the government of the Church of Scotland was
Presbyterian, except G[ilbert] R[ule], who is truly singular
for his skill in these matters. But we shall have, some time
or other, occasion to consider him. In the meantime let
us consider Calderwood's and Petrie's pleas against this
Establishment. They may be reduced to these four : —
" 1. The incompetency of the authority of the meeting
at Leith in January 1571-2.
" 2. The force which was at that time put upon the mi
nisters by the Court, which would needs have that Estab
lishment take place.
" 3. The limitedness of the power then granted to Bishops.
" 4. The reluctancies which the subsequent Assemblies
discovered against that Establishment."
These are the most material pleas they insist on, and I
shall consider how far they may hold.
1. The first plea is, the incompetency of the authority of
the meeting at Leith, January 12, 1571-2, which gave com
mission to the six for agreeing with the State to such an
Establishment. " It is not called an Assembly, but a Con
vention, in the Register. The ordinary Assembly was not
appointed to be holden till the Oth of March thereafter.!"
— " As it was only a Convention, so it was in very great haste,
it seems, and took not time to consider things of such im
portance, so deliberately as they ought to have been consi-
dered,2" — " It was a corrupt Convention, for it allowed Mr
Robert Pont, a minister, to be a Lord of the Session.^ These
are the reasons they insist on to prove the authority of that
meeting incompetent. And now to examine them briefly.
When I consider these arguments, and for what end they
are adduced, I must declare I cannot but admire the force
of prejudice and partiality — how much they blind men's eyes,
and distort their reasons, and bias them to the most ridi
culous undertakings. For, what though the next ordinary
Assembly was not appointed to meet till March thereafter ?

Calderwood, 49 ; Petrie, 372. ^ Calderwood, 50 ; Petrie, 373, 374.
3 Calderwood, 50 ; Petrie, 375.

228 THE ARTICLB.
Do not even the Presbyterians themselves maintain the law
fulness, yea, the necessity, oi calling General Assemblies
extraordinarily — upon extraordinary occasions, pro re nata,
as they call it ! How many such have been called since the
Reformation ? How much did they insist on this pretence,
anno 1638 ? And what though the Register calls this meet
ing a Convention ? Was it therefore no ^ssejwS^y .^ Is there
such an opposition between the words convention and assembly,
that both cannot possibly signify the same thing ? Doth not
Calderwood acknowledge that they voted themselves an As
sembly in their second Session ? Doth he not acknowledge
that all the ordinary members were there which used to
constitute Assemblies ? But what if it can be found that
an undoubted, uncontroverted Assembly, owned it as an
Assembly, and its authority as the authority of an Assem
bly ? What is become of this fine argument then ? But can
this be done indeed ? Yes, it can ; and these same very
authors have given it in these same very histories,! Jn which
they use this as an argument, and not very far from the
same very pages. Both of them, I say, tell that the General
Assembly holden at Perth, in August immediately there
after, made an Act which began thus — " Forasmuch as the
Assembly holden in Leith in January last," &c.
But if it was an Assembly, yet it was in too great haste ! It
did not things deliberately ! Why so ? no reason is adduced,
no reason can be adduced, for saying so. The subject they
were to treat of was no new one. It was a subject that had
employed all their heads for several months before. Their
great business, at that time, was to give a commission to
some members to meet with the delegates of the State, to ad
just matters about the polity and patrimony of the Church.
This commission was not given till the third Session, as Cal
derwood himself acknowledges .2 Where, then, was the
great haste ? Lay it in doing a thing in their third Session,
which might have been done in the first?
But were not these commissioners in too great haste to
come to an Agreement when they met with the delegates of
the State ? Yes, if we may believe Petrie, for he says!—
" That the same day (viz. January 16) the commissioners
' C.ilderwood, 57 ; Petrie, 376. = Calderwood, 49. ' Petrie, 353.

THE ARTICLE. 229
convened and concluded," &c. But he may say, with that
same integrity, whatever he pleases. For, not to insist on
Spottiswoode's account,! who says, it was " after divers
meetings and long deliberation " that they came to their
conclusion — not to insist on his authority, I say, because he
may be suspected as partial, doth not Oalderwood2 ex
pressly acknowledge, that they began their conference upon
the sixteenth of January, and that matters were not finally
concluded and ended till the first of February?^
But was it not a corrupt Convention ? Did it not allow
Pont, a minister, to be a Lord of the Session ? A mighty
demonstration, sure, of its corruption ! Well ! Suppose
it was a corruption, was it such a plaguy one as infected all
the other acts of that Convention ? Is one corrupt Act of
an Assembly enough to reprobate all the rest of its Acts ?*
If so, I think it will fare ill with a good many Assemblies.
Whether was it a corruption in an Assembly to oblige men
1 Spottiswoode, 260. ^ Calderwood, 50. ' u,i(j, 55.
* [In these questions our author alludes to the famous Assembly of
1638, which, because the Bishops would not appear before it, unjustly and
absurdly condemned them (among other things) " for receiving consecration
to the office of Episcopacy, and by vu-tue of this usurped power, and power
of High Commission, pressing the Kirk with novations in the worship of
God ;" and " in case they acknowledge not this Assembly, reverence not
the constitution thereof, and obey not their sentence, nor make repentance
according to the order prescribed, ordains them to be excommunicated."
Besides the utter inconsistency of Bishops being judged by a body com
posed of laymen and rebellious Presbyters, it must be remembered that
this self-constituted tribunal was illegal. (See the " Declinature " pre
sented to the Assembly by the Bishops, in which the several grounds of its
illegality are drawn up in a masterly and comprehensive way.) The Mar
quis of Hamilton, the Commissioner, had dissolved it ; but in spite of the
royal authority they protested, — " declaruig for the freedom of uninter
rupted sitting, and that /or his Majesty to countermand was to prejudge the prero
gative of Jesus Christ and tlie liberties of the Kirk .'" It perhaps will not be out
of place to subjoin here a list of the charges brought against the Bishops
by these disaffected persons, who seem to have searched the catalogue of
vice for shafts which they might hurl at the heads of their innocent
victims. But in this instance the very atrocity of the calumnies defeated
the purpose of their malevolent aspersers. An honest Presbyterian
writer, speaking of theii- proceedings, says — " My heart was truly
soiTy to see such despiteful and insulting carriage." The Bishops were
accused of " excessive drinlcing, whoring, playing at cards and dice, sweating,
profane speaking, excessive gambling, profaning of the Sabbath, contempt of the
public ordinances, and private family-exercises, mochimg of the power of preach
ing, prayer, spiritual conference mid sincere professors ; besides bribery, simony,

230

THE ARTICLE.

to do penance for doing their duty — to declare against the
King's negative voice in Parhament, and so unking him, &c. ?
But to go on. Why should this Assembly bear the whole
blame of this corruption, if it was one ? Was it not ratified
by a subsequent Assembly ? And should not it bear its
share ? Both authors knew this very well, for both of them
record it.! It was the Assembly holden at Edinburgh,
March 6, 1573 : — " The Regent craved some learned men of
the ministry" — they are Calderwood's own words — ¦" to be
placed Senators of the CoUege of Justice. The Assembly
after reasoning at length, voted, that none was able to bear
the said two charges, and therefore inhibited any minister
to take upon him to be a Senator of the College of Justice,
Master Robert Pont only excepted, who was already placed
with advice and consent of the Kirk." Petrie gives the

selling of commissar 'les^ places, lies, perjuries, dishonest dealings in civil bargains,
abusing of the vassals, adulteries, incests, with many other offences." We can
scarcely imagine that even the most fiendish maUce, urged on by the
demon of party spirit, and by the noise of political and religions excite
ment, could have believed that aged and reverend prelates were guilty of
such monstrous crimes. Yet the zealous disciples and leaders of the Co
venant, the loud vaunters of themselves as the professors of the purest
religion upon earth and the most loyal subjects of the Prince of peace,
did not scruple to employ such engines to excite the animosity of a turbu
lent and fanatical mob against their ecclesiastical superiors, to blacken
their characters, and destroy then- usefulness. We might, out of delicacy
to human nature, have wished to hide this disgraceful page in the histoiy
of Scottish Presbyterianism ; but the fact, that this rebelUous Assembly
was commemorated in 1838, and speeches of a most offensive nature
were delivered on the occasion by the " shining lights" ofthe Kirk, obliges
us to unfold some of the enormities by which it was characterized, which
ought rather to cause it to be regarded as an object of nationcd shame
than one even of pan'ty approval. The commemoration of 1838, however
it served local purposes, and bore upon existing strifes, completely
identified the then dominant party in the Kirk with the acts and opinions
of the members of the Glasgow Assembly, and made them " witnesses
unto themselves" that they were their genuine descendants ; and " if they
had been in the days of their fathers, they would have been partakers
with them" in their rebellion against their King, and their endeavours
to " destroy the innocent." A recent historian paints this Assembly in
its true colours, when he says that it " tooh no step which was not illegal,
pronounced no sentence which was not unjud, manifested no fediiig that was not
unchristian, and has left even in tlie record of its proceedings by an enthusiastic
member (BaiUie) a beacon to be avoided by every legal cowt and ecclesiastical
community." Life and Times of Montrose by Mai-k Napier, Esq. p. 65. — E.]
' Calderwood, 62 ; Petrie, 379.

THE ARTICLE. 231
same account, only he ends it thus — '¦''By advice," &c. He
thought it expedient, it seems, to conceal the mention made
of the Kirk, and no doubt he did wisely, i. e. suitably
to his purpose ; for Calderwood added it but foolishly,
considering that there could not be a clearer acknowledge
ment of the authority of the Convention at Leith than
giving it thus the name of the Kirk. But what needs
more? If this was a corruption, it was one, even in the
times of Presbytery, after the year 1580 ; for did not Pont
even then continue to be a Lord of the Session ? Or will our
brethren say that it is a fault to introduce a corruption, but
it is none to continue it when it is introduced ? All this is
said upon the supposition that it was a corruption, though
I am not yet convinced that it was one — at least so great a
one as might have given ground for all this stir about it. I
doubt, if the members of this Assembly at Leith had been
thorough-paced Parity men, vigorous for the good cause, it
should no more have been a corruption in them to have
allowed Ponf! to sit as a Lord of Session, than it was in the
^ [Pont was born at Cufross, Perthshire, in 1529, and baring espoused
the cause of the Heformation, occupied a conspicuous situation in all the
events of that extraordinary epoch of Scottish history. In the year 1563
he competed for the ofiice of Superintendent of the Diocese of Gallo
way. But faUing in this attempt, he was soon after appointed Commis
sioner of the Diocese of Moray, which office he held till January 1571,
when he obtained the Provostry of Trinity College, and afterwards the
Vicarage of St Cuthbert's, Edinburgh. In that year, at the command of
the Assembly ofthe Kirk, he excommunicated Bothwell, Bishop of Orkney,
for baring celebrated the marriage between Mary and the Earl of Both-
well. In 1671, Morton, in order to please the Kirk, proposed that some
of its members should be elevated to the vacant judicial dignities foi-merly
held by Churchmen. Accordingly, in January 1572, the General Assembly
allowed Pont to accept the place " of ane of the Senators of the College of
Justice," or Judge in the Scottish Supreme Court, " proriding aUwayes
that he leave not the office of the ministrie, but that he exercise the same
as he sould be appoyntit by the Kirke." It seems, however, that his
judicial appointment caused him to neglect his clerical duties, as in the
General Assembly which met at Edinburgh, August 1573, he was accused
of non-residence, and not visiting the parish churches in the Diocese of
Moray. He admitted the charge, pleading " want of leisure." " No
wonder," says his Presbyterian friend Calderwood sarcastically, " he was
suff'ered to be a Senator of the College of Justice." In 1574, Pont was ap
pointed coUeague to WiUiam Harlaw, minister of St Cuthbert's parish,
Edinburgh, thus modestly uniting three offices in his own person ! In 1582
he was invited to become minister of St Andrews, which call he seems to
have accepted ; but he relinquished that appointment after holding it one

232

THE ARTICLE.

Kirk once upon a day to ^o^ Mr Alexander Hendersori^ to
sit as a member of Committee, you know for what.
j'ear ; for in the General Assembly held in April 1583, he talked of hav
ing served in St Andrews at his " awin charges ane haill year, with losse
of his heritage and warldUe commoditie, and culd not haif any equaU
condition of lering, na, not the least prorision." He in consequence
returned to his old charge of St Cuthbert's ; but it is probable that his
reluctance to resign his appointment in the Court of Session, was tbe real
cause of his complaint, and the loss which'he was afraid of sustaining. In
1584, when James VI. issued a proclamation, renderuig it criminal for
the Presbyterian preachers to decline the jurisdiction of the Privy Coun
cil, and hold General AssembUes without the royal permission, Pont had
the boldness to join the recusants, by protesting against the Acts when
they were published at the Cross of Edinburgh, on the pretence that
they had been passed without the consent of that imperium in imperio, the
General Assembly. This was on the 25th of May, yet two days before
he had been deprived of his seat on the Bench, by an Act prohibiting
persons of his profession from holding such offices. He fled to England
with a number of the preachers, who justly dreaded the resentment of the
King. But his stay there was short, for we find that he returned to Scot
land a few months afterwards with the Earl of Angus and his party, and
was allowed to resume his ministerial functions. He subsequently con
trived to make his peace with the Court, for in 1587, James VI. nomi
nated him to be Titular Bishop of Caithness, which he was prevented
from accepting. In 1596 and 1602, he was chosen Commissioner for
Orkney, and his name was again first on the list of those who were in
tended for the Titular Bishopricks. Pont was the author of several trea
tises on various subjects, and the father of Timothy Pont, the celebrated
Scottish geographer. He died in May 1608, in the 81st year of his age, and
was interred in the church-yard of St Cuthbert's, where a monument was
erected to his memory, baring an inscription, partly in questionable Latin
and doggerel English rhyme, in which he is designated Sir Robert Pont.
For a list of his Works see M'Crie's Life of Andrew Melrille, vol. u. p. 315,
aud Tytler's Life of Sir Thomas Craig of Riccarton, p. 219, 228.— E.]
' [Henderson at the outset of life was an advocate for Episcopacy, and
through the favour of his friend and patron Archbishop Gladstanes be
came minister of Lenchars, a parish in Fife near St Andi'ews ; but having
been neglected by Spottiswoode, the successor of Gladstanes, his proud
and presumptuous spirit was gaUed by disappointment (vide Alton's Life
and Times of Alexander Henderson, p. 92), and this very probably paved
the way for the change of sentiment which he soon after exhibited by
opposing the " Articles of Perth," and finally becoming one of the most
violent enemies of Episcopacy. The quietness of Leuchars was UI fitted to
one of his turbulent disposition, and he soon exchanged his pastoral duties
for more congenial employment. We find him at one period a member
of (what even a candid Presbyterian writer has characterized as) the
" despotic tribunal" of the " Tables ;" then a zealous champion of the
National Assembly ; and in his capacity as an " apostle" of the Covenant
passing through an assigned district of Scotland, for the purpose of pro
curing subscriptions to it. At another time he is sitting in the Moderator's

THE ARTICLE. 233
And so much for the last plea. Proceed we, 2. To the
'¦'¦force the Court at that time put upon the clergy to accept

chair at the Glasgow Assembly ; then a delegate to the Westminster
Assembly ; and a framer and promoter of the Solemn League and Cove
nant which was the result of that singular conference. In short, he was
a constant actor in every scene of those stirring times, and a prime in
stigator to most of the illegal acts which mark the rise and progress of
the grand Rebellion. But it is not easy to determine the event in his
life to which our author here refers. It was eridently one in which he
united both the civ'il and ecclesiastical character in his own person — most
probably that alluded to by Granger, who says — " He was sent into Eng
land in the double capacity of a divine and a plenipotentiary ; he knew how
to rouse the people to war, or negotiate a peace." Granger's Biographical
Histoi-y of England, London, 1824, vol. ii.p. 377, 378. Perhaps the most
extraordinary occupation in which Henderson was ever engaged, was the
duty assigned him by the Westminster Assembly, of persuading Charles I.
to take the Covenant, and to abolish Episcopacy in England, as he had
been compelled to do in Scotland. It need not be added, that after a
long controversy carried on by mutual consent in writing, the arguments
of the Covenanting preacher were unsuccessful, and the Monarch, whose
defence of his principles is highly creditable to his character as a theolo
gian, remained " steadfast in the Faith," and as firmly attached as ever to
the Apostolic order which he was required to renounce and destroy. In
connexion with this, it may be interesting to record a curious testimony,
preserved by Bishop Sage in another place, of the altered sentiments on
various subjects entertained by Henderson just before his death, which
occurred soon after his controversy with the King. This fact, so far
from being a blot on his memory, is highly creditable, as it shews him not
to have been altogether devoid of principle, and blinded by prejudice.
It is this, that on his death-bed, before three friends who had come to
visit him, Henderson expressed his deep regret for the part he had acted
in the public commotions of his day — " taking God to witness that he pro
posed nothing when he began, but the security of religion and the Kirk,
in opposition to Popery, which, he was made to believe, was at the bottom
of the King's designs, but now he was sensible all his fears were ground
less. He had conversed frequently with the King, and was fully satisfied
that he was as sincere a Protestant as was in all his dominions ; for which
reason he gave them his adrice, as from a dying man, that they should
break off in time, for they had all gone too far already, and nothing now
was so proper for them as to retreat, and return to their duty to his Ma
jesty, who was the most learned, the most candid and conscientious, the
most religious, and every way the best King that ever did sit upon a throne
in Britain. One of the brethren present not relishing his discourse, in
sinuated that he was in a high fever and raring, and that therefore no heed
should be taken of what he said. But he, overhearing the remark, repeated
his words, and assured his friends that he was not raving, but had the use
of his reason as much as ever, and therefore desired them in the name of
God to beUeve that what he spake was from his heart, and with all the sin
cerity and seriousness that became a dying person." This is the substance
of " Henderson's Confession," which Bishop Sage declares he got from Mr

234

THE ARTICLE.

of that estabhshment." Calderwood is mighty on this
plea : — " The Superintendent of Angus" — (who had a princi
pal hand in the Agreement at Leith) — " a man too tractable,
might easily be induced by his chief, the Earl of Mar,
Regent for the time, to condescend to the heads and articles
of this book."! And, " It was easy to the Court to obtain
the consent of many ministers to this sort of Episcopacy. —
Some being poor, some being covetous and ambitious, some
Robert Freebairn, minister of Gask and Archdeacon of Dunblane, who had
it from his father, one ofthe persons who visited Henderson on his death-bed,
and heard the confession from his own lips. Of course, different persons, ac
cording to their prejudices, wiU receive this testimony with greater or less
authority, and some wiU reject it entirely ; but there seems to be no rea
son to doubt its accuracy, coming, as it does, from so respectable a source.
One thing is certain, that it was not an invention of Mr Freebairn, for a
similar report was generaUy cun-ent soon after the death of Henderson.
See GiUan's Life of Sage, p. 72-74 ; and the devout and learned Bishop
Hickes, in a book called " RariUac Redirivus," mentions the fact of Hen
derson's repentance, and the suspicion with which his friends the Cove
nanters were wont to regard their faUen saint towards the close of his
Ufe. Some of his ardent admirers, however, would not be persuaded of
anything prejudicial to the character of one wlom they considered so re
nowned, and in order to perpetuate his memory, they erected a monument
to him in the Grey-friars churchyard, Edinburgh, emblazoned with the
Solemn League and Covenant. But the Government, after the Restora
tion, was not so sensible of any particular benefit which either the State
or the Church had received from this person's serrices, and in the day
of " retaliation," an order was issued by the ParUament that the monu
ment should be defaced, which was faithfully executed. — E.]
1 Calderwood, 55.— [Without presuming to determine what degree of
influence the regent possessed over his humbler relative, and how this
was exerted to get him to agi-ee to the Articles of Leith, we may sub
join Erskine's own opinion upon a subject which formed a main topic
in the Leith agreement, and is the point of difference between our
author and his opponents. It wiU at least shew that Calderwood's
hypothesis about the Regent's influence was quite unnecessary. In a
letter from the Superintendent of Angus to his relative and " Chief,"
the Earl of Mar, dated Montrose, November 10, I57I, after citing the
texts I Tim. v. 22, and 2 Tim. ii. 2, as comments upon the Episcopal
office, it is thus written — " To the office of a Bishop pertains examina
tion and admission into spiritual cure and office, and also to oversee
them that are admitted, that they walk uprightly, and exercise their office
faithfnUy and purely. To take this power from the Bischop and Super
intendent is to take away the office of a Bischop, that no Bischop be in
the Kirk, which were to alter and abolish the order that God has appointed in
His Kirk" — Bannatyne's Memorials, p. 198. It is pretty clear that the man
who held such opiinions did not requu-e much external influence to induce
him to assent to that enactment of the Leith Convention which related
to Episcopacy. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 235
not taking up the gross corruption of the office, some having
a carnal respect to some Noblemen their friends.!" And
how often doth he impute it all to the Earl of Morton ?
And Calderwood's faithful foUower G[ilbert] R[ule], in his
" First Vindication," &c. tells us, that " the Convention of
Churchmen met at Leith was too much influenced by the
Court."2 Now, for answer to all this, in the first place,
what if one should allow all that is alleged ? Will it follow
from that allowance that Prelacy was not then agreed to ?
The question is not, how it was done, but if it was done ?
For if it was done, it is an argument that the clergy then
thought little on the indispensibility oi parity ; or that they
were very bad men, who, though they believed that indispen
sibility, did yet agree to Prelacy. It is true, indeed, Calder
wood makes them here every whit as bad as that could
amount to. He makes them a pack of poor, covetous, ambi
tious, ignorant, carnal rogues, who were thus Court-ridden.
But behold the difference between market-days, as we say. The
same author, when he comes afterward to tell who were ap
pointed to compile the Second Book of Discipline, a task
agreeable to his temper, gives the same men who were com
missioners at the Agreement at Leith — for they were gene
rally nominated^ for that work — a far different character —
" Our Kirk hath not had worthier men since, nor of better
gifts."* This might be enough, yet I will proceed further,
because what I have to say may be useful for coming by a
just sense of the state of affairs in these times. I say, there
fore, that all this plea is mere groundless noise and fiction.
The Court had no imaginable reason for pressing this esta
blishment which was not as proper for the clergy to have
insisted on, and the clergy had one reason more than the
Court could pretend to.
The great reasons the Court could then insist on — what
else could they be than that Episcopacy stood still esta
blished by law ? — that according to the fundamental con
stitution, which had obtained time out of mind, the eccle
siastics had made one of the Three Estates of Parliament —
that such an essential alteration in the civil constitution as
1 Calderwood, 56. 2 p 7
' [The only exception was a Mr William Lundie. — E.]
* Calderwood, 73.

^^^ THE ARTICLE.

behoved necessarily to result from the want of that Estate,
being the First of the Three, was infinitely dangerous at anv
time, as tending to turn the whole Constitution loose, and
shake the very foundations of the Government— that it
tended to the subversion of the High Court of Parliament,
and naturally and necessarily inferred essential nullities in
all the meetings the other two Estates could have, and all
the Acts they could make— that it was more dangerous at
that time, during the King's minority, to have the Constitu
tion so disjointed, than on other occasions — that whosoever
was Regent, or whosoever were his counsellors, might be
caUed to an account for it, when the King came to perfect
age— and it was obvious that it might easily be found high
treason in them, that they had suffered such alterations—
that the best way to preserve the rights of the Church, and
put her and keep her in her possession of her patrimony, was
to preserve that Estate— that the best way to preserve that
Estate was to continue it in the old, tried, wisely digested,
and long approven constitution of it. What other argu
ments, I say, than these, or such as were like them, can we
conceive the Court could then make use to persuade the
clergy to agree to the old polity ?¦ Is it to be imagined they
turned theologues, and endeavoured to indoctrinate the clergy,
and convince them from Scripture, and antiquity, and eccle
siastical history, &c., that Episcopacy was of Divine institu
tion, or the best, or a lawful government, of the Church ? If
I mistake not, such topics in these times were not much
thought on by our statesmen. But if they were such argu
ments as I have given a specimen of, which they insisted on,
as no doubt they were, if they insisted on any, then I would
fain know which of them it was that might not have been
as readily insisted on by the clergy as by the statesmen.
Nay, considering that there were no scruples of conscience
then, concerning the lawfulness oi such a Constitution, how
reasonable is it to think that the clergy might be as forward
as the statesmen could be to insist on these arguments,
especially if it be further considered, that besides these and
the like arguments, the clergy had one very considerable
argument to move them for the re- establishment of the old
constitution, which was, that they had found by experience
that the new scheme fallen upon in the " First Book of

THE ARTICLE. 237
Discipline" had done much hurt to the Church, as I have
already observed — that by forsaking the old constitution
the Church had suffered too much already — and that it was
high time for them now to return to their old fond, consider
ing at what losses they had been since they had deserted it ?
And all this will appear more reasonable and credible still,
if two things more be duly considered.
The first is, that the six clergymen who were commis
sioned by the Assembly on this occasion to treat with the
State were all sensible men — men who understood the con
stitution both of Church and State, had heads to compreliend
the consequences of things, and were very far from being
Parity-men. The second is, the oddness (to call it no worse)
of the reason which our authors feign to have been the mo
tive which made the Court at that time so earnest for such
an establishment, namely, that thereby " they might gripe
at the commodity" (as Calderwood! words it) — that is, pos-

1 Calderwood, 55. — [This cause for the institution of Episcopacy by the
Convention of Leith, is much insisted on by Presbyterian writers, but
if it serves to account for the willingness with which the Nobles and other
laymen acceded to the change, how does it explain the conduct of the mi
nisters — of whom Calderwood asserts " that our Kirk had not worthier men,
nor of better gifts" — who proposed such a nefarious plan of alienating the
patrimony of the Chm-ch, and thus injuring their own interests ? Indeed,
with regard to the Nobles, aUowing them to have been as sordid and rapa
cious as possible, it is almost incredible that they should have devised such
a plan for appropriating to themselves the revenues of the Sees. Would
it not have been much easier for them to have compassed their ends while
the Sees were vacant, and the revenues had no lawful owners, than by
creating occupants for them, and giving them a legal title to the posses
sions of the Church ? In the one case, with their powerful influence, the
key of the ecclesiastical coffers was in their own hands, but by resigning
it into the hands even of their relatives and dependents, they ran the risk
of defrauding themselves ; for how could they be assured that, when
these persons felt themselves secure in their situations of emolument,
they would become pUant tools for their purposes, and quietly disgorge
the wealth into their bosoms, by whom they had been selfishly pro
moted ? Was it not to be suspected that those, whom their influence had
advanced, might, when flushed with the tenure of their ill-gotten pros
perity, turn round upon their avaricious patrons, and find excuses for
justifying the non-fulfilment of an unjust compact ? It argues a par
tial acquaintance with human nature either not to foresee that such an
issue was likely to occur, or to beUeve that crafty and sordid statesmen
would have trammeUed themselves with such dangerous uncertainties,
when the way to obtain their desires was preriously open before them.
Besides, even if it be credited that they could have been so foolish

238

THE ARTICLE.

sess themselves of the Church's patrimony. What ? Had
the clergy so suddenly fallen from their daily, their constant,
as to create Bishops for the purpose of getting, through them, at the pro
perty of the Church by means of simoniacal pactions, and that there
was no danger of their creatures playing them false after their elevation,
it is to be remembered that no private compacts between a patron and
incumbent could permanently alienate the ecclesiastical dues. So that
besides the temptation to human honesty, they perilled their hopes of
gain upon the uncertainty of human life also. Thus the hypothesis that
the Leith Agreement was brought about by the influence of the Nobles
^ for unworthy ends, is utterly untenable upon every recognized principle
of action. It is not a little surprising that many Episcopal writers have
unconsciously followed in the wake of the enemy, and allowed this cause
for the then institution of Episcopacy to pass unchaUenged. Besides
being untrue, in admitting it we throw away a proof of the Episcopal
opinions ofthe preachers of that day — (although one would think, that by
their receiving any thing in the form of Bishops as an ecclesiastical sys
tem, if they are to be considered as honest men, then- opinions are suffi
ciently indicated) — and of the lateness of the origin of Parity in Scot
land. In fact, this change in ecclesiastical affairs in 1571-2 arose from
the ministers themselves, who devised it for their own protection, aud it
was promoted by those at the head of the Government in Scotland
for the security of the kingdom. The immediate cause of it was the Act
of the Parliament at Stirling, in August 1571, quoted by our author
page 223, which was assigned to give the sanction of law to the spoli
ation of the Church's possessions by the Nobles, who had hitherto
detained them " by connivance or force." Ibid. This alarmed the
ministers, as calculated to deprive them of the possibility of ever
obtaining their rights. Fortunately the Assembly was sitting at the
same time at StirUng, and having received a letter from Knox, whose
illness prevented him from being present, apprising them of what was
going on, and warning them, "as they would not be thought unfaith
ful to the Lord Jesus, to gainstaud these mercUess devourers of the patri-
monie of the Kirk" — Bannatyne's Memorials, p. 103, they "bethought
themselves if possibly a stop could be put to such notorious robbery"
before it should become law, and delegated certain of their number to go
to the Regent and Estates of Parliament, " humbly to desu-e and request
in the NAME OS the Kirk, the granting of such heads and articles, and
redressing of such complaints, as should be given to them by the Kirk."
The result of this petition and the subsequent deliberations of the Com
mittee upon it, was the Agreement of Leith. It is clear, therefore, from
these incontrovertible facts, that this plan was concerted by the ministers
themselves, and proposed to the Government, with a view of averting the
danger with which the temporalities of the Church were threatened by
the enactment of the Parliament at Stirling. As for the reason which
induced the Regent Mar and his colleagues to accept and carry it out —
that it was the same, which our author so lucidly states, (indeed it is
difficult to assign any other sound one), viz. to preserve the constitu
tion entire, is the opinion of the most candid of Presbyterian historians,
the learned Professor of Moral Philosophy in St Andrews. "At the

THE ARTICLE.

239

their continual claim to the revenues of the Church ? Had
they in an instant altered their sentiments about sacrilege,
and things consecrated to holy uses ? Were they now will
ing to part with the Church's patrimony ? Did that which
moved them to be so earnest for this meeting with the State
miraculously slip out of their minds, so that they inconcern-
edly quitted their pretensions, and betrayed their own in
terests ? Were they all fast asleep when they were at the
Conference — so much asleep, or senseless, that they could
not perceive the Court intended them such a trick ? On the
other hand, if the Court had such a design as is pretended,
I must confess I do not see how it was useful for them, to
fall on such a wild project for accomplishing their purposes.
Why be at all this pains to re-estabhsh the old pohty, if the
Reformation," says Dr Cook, " it was esteemed dangerous to make any great
innovation upon the political constitution then existing ; and although the
Roman Catholic Bishops were prohibited from teaching, and were, in fact,
deprived of their right to exercise their clerical functions, they were per
mitted to retain the privilege of sitting in ParUament, and many of them
regularly attended its deliberations. In progi-ess of time several of them
died, and as there was no possibihty of continuing the Succession, the Sees
remained permanently vacant, and there was a near prospect of the total
extinction of the Spiritual branch of the Legislature. The persons who
successively administered the government of James contemplated with
much anxiety and alarm au event which might be attended with conse
quences fatal to the throne of then- Sovereign. They dreaded that if under
the reign of a minor one of the Estates ceased to exist, their proceedings
might be afterwards declared iUegal, and the whole of those interesting re
gulations by which the liberty and the religion of the great mass of the people
were intended to be secured, might be destroyed." History of the Church
of Scotland, vol. i. p. 167-8. Thus it appears that this famous change was
devised and effected by the joint concurrence of the preachers and heads
of the Government for palpable and substantial purposes. In the whole
matter the Nobles, as a body, seem to have been quiescent. But it is not
denied that, when the constitution was established, and they became
anxious for the security of the wealth which they had plundered from the
Church, the Nobles did use the influence to get their creatures appointed
to the Sees. It was the only expedient which remained to them ; and
the Earl of Morton, who had secretly urged on the inhuman execution of
Archbishop HamUton, in order that he might obtain from the Regent a
grant of the rich temporalities of the See of St Andrews, when he found
that a successor was to be created in his place, strenuously exerted him
self to procure the appointment for a relation of his own, with the view, it
was said, of participating with him in the revenues, which he foresaw would
have to be restored. His example may have been followed by others,
and very probably persons were found wicked enough to enter into such
infamous transactions. Perhaps the occurrence of some such flagrant
cases gave rise to the sobriquet of tulchan, which has been applied to

240 THE ARTICLE.
only purpose was to rob the Church of her patrimony ?
Might not that have been done without as well as with it?
Could they have wished the Church in weaker circumstances
for asserting her own rights than she was in before this
Agreement ? Was it not as easy to have possessed them
selves of a Bishopric, an Abbacy, a Priory, &c., when there
were no Bishops, nor Abbots, nor Priors, as when there
were ? What a pitiful politic, or rather what an insolent
wickedness, was it, as it were, to take a coat which was no
man's, and put on one, and possess him of it, and call it his
coat, that they might rob him of it ? Or, making the un
charitable supposition that they could have ventured on
such a needless — such a mad fetch of iniquity, were all the
clergy so short-sighted that they could not penetrate into
such a palpable, such a gross piece of cheatery ? But what
needs more? It is certain that by that Agreement the
Church's patrimony was fairly secured to her, and she was
put in far better condition than she was ever in before since
the Reformation. Let any man read over Calderwood's
account of the Agreement, and he must confess it. And yet
perhaps the account may be more full and clear in the Books
of Council, if they be extant.
It is true, indeed, the courtiers afterwards played their
tricks, and robbed the Church, and it cannot be denied that
they got some bad clergymen who were subservient to their
purposes. But this was so far from being pretended to be
aimed at by these courtiers while the Agreement was a-mak-
ing — it was so far from these clergymen's minds who adjusted
matters at that time with the laity (these courtiers) to give
them the smallest advantages that way — to allow them the
least scope for such encroachments, that, on the contrary,
when afterwards they found the Nobility were taking such
methods, and plundering the Church, they complained
mightily of it, as a manifest breach of the Agreement, and
those Titulars — tulchan meaning a calf's skin stuffed with straw, in order
to make the cow let down her milk. But however this maybe, such com
pacts were quite opposed to the regulations made at Leith, and the solemn
oaths " against simony and dilapidation of benefices" which the Conven
tion required the Bishops to take at their inauguration, and whenever they
were suspected or discovered, tbe Ecclesiastical anthorities sifted them
closely, and risited with severe and merited punishment those persons
who were found guilty of forming them. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 241
an horrid iniquity. But, whatever truth is in all this rea
soning I have spent on this point, is not much material to
my main purpose. For whether at that time Episcopacy was
imposed upon the Church or not, or, if imposed, whether
it was out of a bad design or not, affects not in the least
the principal controversy. For however it was, it is cer
tain the Church accepted of it at that time, which we are
bound in charity to think a sufficient argument that she was
not then of Anti-Prelatical principles. She had no such
Article in her Creed as the Divine Bight of Parity, which
is the great point I am concerned for in all this tedious
controversy. 3. The third Plea is the " limitedness of the power which
was then granted to Bishops." They had no more power
granted them by this establishment than Superintendents
had enjoyed before ! This all my authors insist upon with
great earnestness,! and I confess it is very true. This was
provided for both by the Agreement at Leith, and by an
Act of the Assembly holden at Edinburgh 1574. But then,
1. If they had the same power which Superintendents had
before, I think they had truly Prelatic power ; they did not
act in parity with other ministers. 2. Though they had no
more power, yet it is certain they had more privilege. They
were not answerable to their own Synods, but only to General
Assemblies, as is clear even from Calderwood's own account
of the Agreement at Leith.2 In that point the absurd con
stitution in the " First Book of Discipline" was altered.
3. One thing more I cannot but observe here concerning
Mr Calderwood. This judicious historian, when he was
concerned to raise dust about the Prelacy of Superintendents,
found easily seven or eight huge differences between Super
intendents and Bishops. And now that he is concerned to
raise dust about the Prelacy of Bishops, he thinks he has
gained a great point if he makes it the same with the Prelacy
of Superintendents. What a mercy was it that ever poor
Prelacy out lived the dint of such doughty onsets ? But it
seems it must be a tough-lived thing, and cannot be easily
chased out of its nature.
1 Calderwood, 51, 55, 56, 66 ; Petrie, 374, 383 ; G[UbertJ R[ule]'s First
Vindication, p. 8. 2 Calderwood, 51.
16

242

THE ARTICLE.

There is another considerable thrust made at it by Calder
wood and his disciple G[ilbert] R[ule],! which may come in
as a succedaneiim to the former argument. What is it ? It
is even that in the General Assembly at Edinburgh, March
6, 1573, David Ferguson was " chosen Moderator, who was
neither Bishop nor Superintendent." And so down faUs
Prelacy ! But so was honest George Buchanan, in the As
sembly holden in July 1567, who was neither Superintendent,
Bishop, nor Presbyter, and so down falls Presbytery ! Nay,
down falls the whole ministry ! Is not this a hard lock
Prelacy is brought to, that it shall not be itself, so long as
one wrong step can be found to have been made by a Scottish
General Assembly ?
I have adduced and discussed all these pleas, not that I
thought my cause in any hazard by them, but to let the
world see what a party one has to deal with in this contro
versy. Whatever it be, sense or nonsense, if their cause
requires it, they must not want an argument. But to
go on.
4. But the fourth and greatest Plea is, that " this Epis
copacy was never owned by the Church, it was never allowed
by the General Assembly ;2 it was only tolerated for three or
four years ;3 it was protested against as a corruption.* As
these Articles were concluded without the knowledge of the
Assembly, so the whole Assembly opposed them earnestly .5
They were obtruded upon the Church against her will.^ The
Church from the beginning of the Reformation opposed that
kind of Bishops.''' The Church did only for a time yield to
civil authority, yet so that she would endeavour to be free
of these Articles.''^ These and many more such things are
boldly and confidently asserted by Calderwood, Petrie, and
the strenuous "Vindicator of the Church of Scotland, who
seldom misses of saying what Calderwood had said before
him, and I shall grant they are all said to purpose if they
are true ; but how far they are from being that, may suffi
ciently appear, I hope, if I can make these things evident : —

1 Calderwood, 61 ; G[ilbert] R[ule]'s First Vindication, 7.
Calderwood, 56 ; Petrie, 389 ; G[ilbert ]R[ule]'s Fu-st Vindication, 7.
'¦> Calderwood, 56. * Calderwood, 58 ; G[ilbert R[ule], 7.
" Petrie, 376. " P. 383. ' P. 387. « P. 376.

THE ARTICLE. 243
1. That the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently
allowed, approven, and insisted on, by many subsequent
Assemblies. 2. That after Episcopacy was questioned, and a party
appeared against it, it cost them much struggling and much
time before they could get it abolished.
1. I say the Agreement at Leith was fairly and frequently
allowed, approven, and insisted on, by many subsequent
Assemblies. This assertion cannot but appear true to any
unbiassed judgment that shall consider but these two things :
1. That in every Assembly for several years after that
Establishment, or Agreement, or Settlement at Leith, Bishops
were present, and sat and voted as such ; and, as such, were
obliged to be present, and sit, and vote, &c. as both Calder
wood and Petrie acknowledge, and shall be made appear by
and by.
2. That these two authors have been at special pains to
let the world know how punctually they were tried, and
sometimes rebuked and censured, for not discharging their
offices, as they ought to have done. Both authors, I say,
have been very intent and careful to represent this in their
accounts of the subsequent Assemblies. I know their pur
pose herein was to expose the Bishops, and cast all the dirt
they could upon Episcopacy. But then, as I take it, their
pains that way have luckily furnished me wfth a plain de
monstration of the falsehood of aU they have said in this
plea I am now considering. For would these Assemblies
have suffered them to be present, and sit, and vote as Bishops ?
Would they have tried and censured them as Bishops —
would they have put them to their duty as Bishops, if they
had not owned them for Bishops ? And was there any other
fond for owning them for Bishops at that time except the
Agreement at Leith ? This alone might be sufficient, I say,
for dispatching this whole plea.
Yet, 3. to put this matter beyond all possibility of ever
being, with the least colour of probability, controverted here
after, I recommend to the reader's consideration the foUow
ing series of Acts made by subsequent Assemblies. The
Agreement at Leith, as was observed before, was concluded
on the first day of February, anno J 571-2. The ordinary
Assembly met at St Andrews on the sixth oi March there-

244 THE ARTICLE.
after. The Archbishop of St Andrews! (newly advanced to
that See by the Leith Agreement) was present, and " the
first person named" — as Calderwood himself hath it2 — " to
be of the Committee that was appointed for revising the
Articles agreed upon at Leith ;" and an Act was made in
that Assembly (as it is both in the MSS. and Petrie^)
" ordaining the Superintendent of Fife to use his own juris
diction as before in the provinces not subject to the Arch
bishop of St Andrews, and requesting him to concur with the
said Archbishop in his visitations, or otherwise, when he
required him, until the next Assembly. — ^ And in like manner
the Superintendents of Angus and Lothian, -mthout prejudice
of the said Archbishop, except by virtue of his commission."
By the Assembly holden at Perth, August 6, 1572, this Act
was made — " Forasmuch as in the Assembly (not the Con
vention) oi the Church holden at Leith in January last,
certain commissioners were appointed to deal with the
Nobility and their commissioners, to reason and conclude
upon diverse Articles and Heads thought good then to be
conferred upon, according to which commission they have
proceeded in sundry Conventions " — (is this consistent with
Petrie's assertion that the same day they met and con
cluded?) — " and have concluded for that time uponthe Heads
and Articles, as the same produced in this Assembly pro-
port. In which, being considered, are found certain names,
as Archbishop, Dean, Archdeacon, Chamcellor, Chapter, which
names are thought slanderous and offensive in the ears of
many of the brethren, appearing to sound towards Papistry.
Therefore the whole Assembly, in one voice, as well they
who were in commission at Leith, as others, solemnly pro
test that they mean not, by using such names, to ratify,
consent, or agree to any kind of Papistry or superstition,
wishing rather the said n.ames to be changed into other
names that are not scandalous and offensive; and in like
manner they protest that the said Heads and Articles agreed
upon be only received as an interim, untU farther and more
perfect order be obtained at the hands of the King's

1 [John Douglas, a cadet of the Earl of Morton's Family, and advanced
by his powerful influence to be a Titular. — E.]
2 Calderwood, 56. " Petrie, 375.

THE ARTICLE.

245

Majesty's Regent and Nobility; for the which they will press,
as occasion shall serve. Unto the which protestation the
whole Assembly, in one voice, adhere." So the MSS., Spot
tiswoode, Calderwood, Petrie.! This is the Act on which
Calderwood, Petrie, and G[ilbert] R[ule], found their asser
tion that Episcopacy, as agreed to at Leith, was protested
against, and earnestly opposed by a General Assembly, but
with what shadow of reason let any man consider. For,
what can be more plain than that they receive the substance
of the Articles, and only protest against the scandalousness of
the names used in them ? What reason they had for that,
besides the over-zealous principle I mentioned before, let
the curious inquire. That is none of my present business.
But " they protest that they receive these Articles only
for an interim." True, but how doth it appear that they
received them only for an interim out of a dislike to Epis
copacy ? Had they believed the Divine right oi parity, how
could they have received them so much as for an interim ?
How could they have received them at all ? The truth is,
there were many things in the Articles which required
amendment, even though the General Assembly had believed
the Divine right of Episcopacy ; and that they did not re
ceive them for an interim, upon the account of any dislike
they had to Episcopacy, shall be made evident by and by.
In the meantime we have gained one point — even that they
were received by this Assembly, unless receiving for an interim
be not receiving ; but if they were received, I hope it is not
true that they were never allowed by a General Assembly ; and
if Episcopacy was not protested against at all, and if there
was no such word or phrase in the Act as had the least
tendency to import that they judged it a corruption, I hope
it may consist well enough with the laws of civility to say
that G[Ubert] R[ule] was talking without book, when he said
— " It was protested against as a corruption" by this General
Assembly. I doubt, if he had found any of the Prelatists
talking with so much confidence where they had so little
ground, he would have been at his beloved lies and calum
nies. But enough of this, proceed we in our series.
" By the universal order"— so it is worded in the MSS.,
' Spottiswoode, 260 ; Calderwood, 57 ; Petrie, 376.

246 THE ARTICLE.
" of the General Assembly holden at Edinburgh, March 6,
1572-3, it was statuted and ordained, that all Bishops, Super
intendents, &c. present themselves in every General Assem
bly that hereafter shall be holden, the first day of the
Assembly before noon," &c.! Again — " It is thought most
reasonable and expedient that Bishops, &o. purchase gene
ral letters without any delay, commanding all men to fre
quent preaching and prayers according to the order received
in the congregations," &c.2 In the Assembly holden at
Edinburgh, August 6, 1573—" The Visitation Books of
Bishops, &c. were produced, and certain ministers appointed
to examine their diligence in visitation."^ In that same
Assembly, Paton, Bishop of Dunkeld, was accused that he
had accepted the name, but had not exercised the office, of a
Bishop, not having proceeded against Papists within his
bounds. He was also suspected of simony and perjury, in
that, contrary to his oath at the receiving of the Bishopriok,
he gave acquittances, and the Earl of Argyll received the
profits.* If these things were true, he was a foolish as well
as a bad Bishop ; but, then, it was evident that this Assem
bly fairly owned Episcopacy. Further, that by the Agree
ment at Leith express provisions were made against simony
and dilapidation of benefices, and that Bishops should
swear to that purpose, &c. — which, I think, is not well con
sistent with the plea insisted on before, viz. that the Agree
ment at Leith was forced on the clergy by the Court, out of
a design it had upon the revenues of the Church.
I find these further Acts made by this Assembly in the
MSS. — ^" Touching them that receive excommunicates, the
whole Kirk, presently assembled, ordains all Bishops, &c.
to proceed to excommunication against all receivers of
excommunicate persons, if after due admonition the re
ceivers rebel and be disobedient." — " The Kirk ordains
all Bishops, &c., in their Synodal conventions, to take
a list of the names of the excommunicates within their
jurisdictions, and bring them to the General Assemblies,
to be published to other Bishops and Superintendents,
&c. That they, by their ministers in their provinces,

JISS. Petrie, 379. s jjgs Petrie, Ibid.
3 MSS. Petrie, Ibid. « Petrie, Ibid.

THE ARTICLE. 247
may divulgate the same in the whole countries where ex
communicates haunt." — " The Kirk, presently assembled,
ordains all Bishops and Superintendents, he. to convene
before them all such persons as shall be found suspected of
consulting with witches, and, finding them guilty, to cause
them public repentance," &c. — " That uniformity may be
observed in processes of excommunication, it is ordained
that Bishops and Superintendents, &c., shaU direct their
letters to ministers, where the persons that are to be
excommunicated dwell, commanding the said ministers
to admonish accordingly, and in case of disobedience to
proceed to excommunication, and pronounce the sentence
thereof upon a Sunday in time of preaching; and there
after the ministers to indorse the said letters, making men
tion of the days of their admonitions and excommunication
for disobedience aforesaid, and to report to the said Bishops,
&c. according to the direction contained in the said letters."
Petrie! has the substance of most of these Acts, but has
been at pains to obscure them. And no wonder : for here
are so many branches oi true Episcopal power established in
the persons of these Bishops, that it could not but have
appeared very strange that a General Assembly should have
conferred them on them, if there was such an aversion
then to the order as he and his fellows are willing to have
the world believe there was. But honest Calderwood was
wiser, for he hath not so much as an intimation of any one
of them. And Calderwood having thus concealed them,
nay, generally all alongst, whatever might make against his
cause as much as he could, what wonder if G[ilbert] R[ule],
who knows nothing in the matter but what Calderwood told
him, stumbled upon such a notable piece of ignorance in his
" First Vindication," as to tell the world that — " Nothing
was restored at Leith but the image of Prelacy ; that these
Tulchan Bishops had only the name of Bishops, while Noble
men and others had the revenue, and the Church all the
power?" Nay, that notwithstanding of all was done at Leith —
" the real exercise of Presbytery, in all its meetings, lesser or
greater, continued and was allowed." But of this more here
after. The Assembly holden at Edinburgh, March 6, 1574,
1 Petrie, 380.

248

THE ARTICLE,

— " concluded concerning the jurisdiction of Bishops in their
ecclesiastical function, that it should not exceed the juris
diction of Superintendents, which heretofore they have had
and presently have ; and that they should be subject to the
discipline of the General Assembly as members thereof, as
Superintendents had been heretofore in aU sorts." And,
again, this Assembly ordains — " That no Bishop give colla
tion of any benefice within the bounds qf Superintendents
within his Diocese without their consent and testimonials,
subscribed with their hands ; and that Bishops within their
Dioceses visit by themselves where no Superintendent is,
and give no collation of benefices without the consent of
three weU qualified ministers."
Here, indeed, both Calderwood andPetriel appear briskly,
and transcribe the MSS. word for word. Here was some
thing like limiting the power of the Bishops, and that was
an opportunity not to be omitted. But, as I take it, there
was no very great reason for this triumph, if the true reason
of these Acts be considered, as it may be collected from
Spottiswoode and Petrie,2 which was this : —
The Earl of Morton, then Regent, and sordidly covetous,
had flattered the Church out of their possession of the thirds
ofthe benefices, the only sure stock they could as yet claim by
any law made since the reformation of religion, promising
instead thereof localled stipends upon the ministers ; but
having once obtained his end, which was to have the thirds
at his disposal, he forgot his promise, and the ministers
found themselves miserably tricked. Three or four churches
were cast together, and committed to the care of one minis
ter, and a farthing to live by could not be got without vast
attendance, trouble, and importunity. Besides, the Super
intendents, who had had a principal hand in the Reforma
tion, and were men of great repute, and had spent liberally
of their own estates in the service of the Church, were as
ill treated as any body ; for when they sought their wonted
allowances, they were told there was no more use for them —
Bishops were now restored — it was their province to govern
the Church — Superintendents were now superfluous and
unnecessary. The Superintendents thus maltreated, what
1 Calderwood, 66 ; Petrie, 383. ^ Spottiswoode, 272 ; Petrie, 383.

THE ARTICLE. 249
wonder was it if they had their own resentments of it ? So,
when the General Assembly met, Erskine, Spottiswoode,
and Winram, three of them (and by that time, it is pro
bable, there were no more of them alive) came to the Assem
bly, offered to demit their offices, and were earnest that the
Kirk would accept of their demission. They were now turned
useless members of the ecclesiastical body ; their office was
evacuated ; they could serve no longer. The whole Assembly
could not but know the matter ; and as they knew for what
reasons these ancient and venerable persons were so much
irritated, so their own concern in the same common inte
rest could not but prompt them to a fellow-feeling. They
knew not how soon the next Mortonian experiment might be
tried upon themselves ; they, therefore, unanimously refuse to
accept ofthe demission, and whether the Superintendents will
or not, they continue them in their offices ; and not only so, but
they thought it expedient to renew that Article of the Agree
ment at Leith, viz.—" that Bishops and Superintendents stood
on the same level, had the same power, the same ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, and were to be regulated by the same Canons" —
importing thereby that both were useful in the Church at
such a juncture, and that the Church had not received
Bishops to the exauctoration of the few surviving Super
intendents, and now in their old age rendering them con
temptible. And who could condemn the Assembly for taking
a course that was both so natural and so obvious ? Nay, it
was even the Bishops' interest, as much as any other Assembly
men's, to agree to this conclusion ; for the great business in
hand was not about extent of power, or point of dignity — had
no incentive to jealousy or emulation in it ; but it was about
the revenues of the Church — to secure these against the
insatiable avarice of a griping Lord Regent — a point the
Bishops were as nearly concerned in as any men. For if
these three Superintendents, who had so long borne the
heat of the day, and done such eminent and extraordi
nary services to the Church, should be once sacrificed to
Morton's covetousness, how easy might it be for him to
make what farther encroachments he pleased ? How easy
to carry on his project against other men, who, perhaps, had
no such merit, no such repute, no such interest in the affec
tions of the people ? This, I say, was the reason for which

250

THE ARTICLE.

these two acts were made in this Assembly, and not that
the Assembly were turning weary of Bishops, or were be
come any way disaffected to them. So that Calderwood
and Petrie had but little reason to be so boastful for these
two Acts.
That it was not out of any dislike to Episcopacy that
these two Acts were made, is clear as light from the next
Assembly, which met in August 1574. For therein the
clergy, manifestly continuing of the same principles, and
proceeding on the same reasons, order a petition, consisting
of Nine Articles, to be drawn and presented to the Regent.
Calderwood, indeed, doth not mention this petition. But
it is in the MSS.; and Petrie! talks of it, but disingenuously,
for he mentions it only overly, telling that " some Articles
were sent unto the Lord Regent ;" and he sets down but
two, whereas, as I said, there are nine in the MSS., and
most of them looking the Regent's sacrilegious inclina
tions even staringly in the face. I shall only transcribe such
of them as cannot, when perpended, but be acknowledged to
have tended that way. They are these —
" 1. That stipends be granted to Superintendents in all
time coming in all countries destitute thereof, whether it
be where there is no Bishop, or where there are Bishops
who cannot discharge their office, as the Bishops of St
Andrews and Glasgow" — who had too large Dioceses. This
Article Petrie hath but minced. Indeed, it is a very consi
derable one ; for here, you see, 1. That in contradiction to
the Regent's purposes the Assembly owns and stands by the
Superintendents. They are so far from being satisfied to
part with the three they had, that, on the contrary, they
crave to have more, and to have provisions for them ; and
that in all countries where Bishops either are not or are, but
have too large Dioceses. 2. They crave these things "-^ for
all times coming" — a clause of such importance to the main
question, that Petrie has unfaithfully left it out. And truly
I must confess, if it were lawful for men to be unfaithful
when it might serve that which they conceived to be a good
end, he had great reason to try it in this instance. For this
clause, when (not concealed but) brought above board, gives
1 Petrie, 384.

THE ARTICLE. 251
a fatal overthrow to all these popular pleas of Episcopacy
being then obtruded on the Church, forced upon her against
her will, tolerated only for a time, &c. For from this
clause it is as clear, as a clause can make it, that this Assem
bly entertained no such imaginations. They supposed Epis
copacy was to continue " for all time coming ;" for, " for
aU time coming," they petition that provision may be made
for Superintendents " where no Bishops are, or where their
Dioceses are too large for them."
2. The Second Article is — " That in all burghs where
the ministers are displaced, and serve at other kirks, these
ministers be restored to wait on their cures, and be not
obliged to serve at other churches," &c. — directly striking
against the Regent's politic of uniting three or four churches
under the care of one minister.
The 4th (which Petrie also hath) is — " That in all churches
destitute of ministers such persons may be planted as the
Bishops, Superintendents, and Commissioners shall name,
and that stipends be assigned to them " — an Article visibly
levelled at the former.
" 5. That Doctors may be placed in Universities, and
stipends granted them, whereby not only they who are pre
sently placed may have occasion to be diligent in their
cure, but other learned men may have occasion to seek
places in Colleges" — still to the same purpose, viz. the
finding reasonable uses for the patrimony of the Church.
" 6. That his Grace would take a general order with the
poor, especially in the Abbeys, such as are Aberbrothock,
&c. conform to the Agreement at Leith." Here not only
the Leith Agreement insisted on, but farther pious use for
the Church's patrimony.
" 9. That his Grace would cause the Books of the Assis-
nation of the Kirk be dehvered to the clerk of the General
Assembly." These Books of Assignation, as they call them,
were the books wherein the names of the ministers and
their several proportions of the Thirds were recorded. It
seems they were earnest to be repossessed of their Thirds,
seeing the Regent had not kept promise to them.
But the eighth Article, which, by a pardonable inversion
I hope, I have reserved to the last place, is of aU the
most considerable. It is — " That his Grace would provide

252

THE ARTICLE.

quahfied persons for vacant Bishoprics." Let the candid
reader judge now if Episcopacy, by the Leith Articles, was
forced upon the Church against her inclinations ? If it was
never approven (when Bishops were thus petitioned for) by
a General Assembly ? If it be likely that the Assembly in
August 1572 protested against it as a corruption ? If the
Acts ofthe last Assembly, declaring Bishops to have no more
power than Superintendents had, and making them account
able to the General Assembly, proceeded from any dislike
of Episcopacy? If this Assembly, petitioning thus for
Bishops, believed the Divine and indispensible institution of
parity? If both Calderwood and Petrie acted not as
became cautious Presbyterian historians — the one by giving
us none, the other by giving us only a minced account of this
Petition ? WeU, by this time, I think, I have not entirely
disappointed my reader. I think I have made it compe
tently appear that the Agreement at Leith was fairly and
frequently aUowed, approven, and insisted on, by not a few
subsequent General Assemblies. I could adduce some Acts
more of the next Assembly, which met at Edinburgh, March
7, 1575, but I think I have already made good my under
taking, and therefore I shall insist no further on this point.
Only one thing I must add further. It is this — After the
most impartial, narrow, and attentive search I could make,
I have not found all this while — viz. from the first public
establishment of the Reformed religion in Scotland, anno
1560 — so much as one indication of either public or private
dislike to Prelacy ; but that it constantly and uninterrupt
edly prevailed, and all persons cheerfully, as well as quietly,
submitted to it, tUl the year 1575, when it was first called
in question. And here I might fairly shut up this long, and
perhaps, nauseous discourse upon the Second Inquiry which
I proposed ; for, whatever men our Reformers were — what
ever their other principles might be — I think I have made
it plain, that they were not for the Divine right of parity^

^ [The best comment that can be offered upon the whole of this
masterly argument is the opinion of the candid Presbyterian, Dr Cook, who,
in treating of this period of Scottish ecclesiastical history, thus writes —
" Although the Church of Scotland must be considered as having adopted
at this time Episcopacy, and although that adoption proceeded upon
grounds so rational, and so conformable to the principles of the Reformers,

THE ARTICLE. 253
or the " unlawfulness of the superiority of any office in
the Church above Presbyters." No such principle was
the zealous Presbyterians of after times looked back with regret to this
part of the ecclesiastical history of their country, and endeavoured very
unnecessarily, and in express opposition to the language and proceedings of
the Church, to represent the resolutions framed at Leith as having been
rashly made, as having been forced upon the ministers, and as having
never received the explicit sanction of the General Assemblies — an effect
of party zeal not uncommon, but weakening the cause which it was de
signed to support." In a note the Doctor adds—" Calderwood, Petrie,
Wodrow, and a controversial writer about the period of the Revolution (no other
than Gilbert Rule himself) adopted this mode of treating with contempt the
first appearance of Episcopacy in the Reformed Church of Scotland, but
they have in my estimation been satisfactorUy answered by the author of
the Fundamental Charter of Presbytery." Cook's History, vol. i. p. 186.
This conclusion, warranted by the facts of the case, and being the delibe
rate conviction of an avowed Presbyterian, is very important to the ar
gument contained in the present treatise, clearly proving that those who
began and carried through the Scottish Reformation, did not hold that the
" superiority of any office in the Church above Presbyters was unlawful ;"
and that there was at least one period since the Reformation when Epis
copacy was not considered " a grievance to the nation," nor " contrary to
the inclinations of the generality of the people." It must not be forgotten
that this form of Episcopacy which was now introduced, was partly de-
rised by Winram, the friend of Knox, and that zealous Reformer him
self Uved to see it in operation, and to confer upon it his dying approval.
Almost the last act of his life was a letter sent to the Assembly at
Perth in 1572, which he was unable to attend personally from extreme
Ulness, together with ten articles on subjects which he considered to be of
rital importance to the welfare of the Kirk. In these articles, which
were transmitted to the Assembly by Mr Robert Pont and his friend
Winram, the bearers also of the letter, he assented to the change of polity,
for he urged the Assembly to obtain the sanction of the Regent — " that all
Bishoprics vacand may be presented, and qualified persons nominat there
unto, within a year after the vaiking thereof, according to the Order taken at
Leith ;" and again he speaks of " the Bishops lawfully elected" according
to the same Order. Book of the UniversaU Kirk, p. 248. It is worthy
of remark, in connection with Knox's approval, that iu the Assembly at St
Andrews in March 1571, to which the Acts of the Leith Convention were
ordered to be reported, the committee appointed for " hearing and ap
proving of" the report adjourned for that purpose to the house of Knox ;
from which it may fairly be inferred that he was neither opposed to
the object, nor displeased with the result of their deliberations. Book
of the UniversaU Kirk, Part I. pp. 208, 238. It has been remarked
by Dr Cook that " the Episcopal polity which issued from the Convention
of Leith appears to have been admirably calculated for securing a useful
and efficient ministry," and to have " established an excellent system of
control." To this unprejudiced admission, by one who himself has had
sad experience of the want of control inherent in the practical operation of
Parity, we cordially assent, and feel warranted in assigning, as the cause
of the excellence of the Tulchan system, its close approximation to the

254

THE ARTICLE.

professed or insisted on, or offered to be reduced to practice
by them, before, at, or full fifteen years after the public
establishment of the Reformation. And if this may not
pass for sufficient proof of the truth of my resolution of the
Inquiry, I know not what may.
However, because the second thing I promised to shew,
though not precisely necessary to my main design, may yet
be so far useful as to bring considerably more of light to it,
and withal give the world a prospect of the rise and progress
of Presbytery in Scotland, I shall endeavour to make good
my undertaking, which was, that after Episcopacy was
questioned, it was not easily overturned ; its adversaries
met with much resistance and opposition in their endeavours
to subvert it. I shall study brevity as much as the weight
of the matter will allow me. In short, then, take it thus.
Master Andrew Melville, after someyears spent at Geneva,
returned to Scotland in July 1574. He had lived in that
city under the influences of Theodore Beza, the true parent
of Presbytery. He was a man by nature fierce and fiery,
confident and peremptory, peevish and ungovernable.
Education in him had not sweetened nature, but nature
had soured education ; and both conspiring together, had
tricked him up into a true original — a piece compounded
of pride and petulance, of jeer and jangle, of satire and
sarcasm, of venom and vehemence. He hated the crown as
much as the mitre, the sceptre as much as the crosier,
and could have made as bold with the purple^ as with the

ancient order of the Church, which had been riolently interrupted in
Scotland. It was, as far as human power could make it, an Episcopacy,
but it wanted the " life divine" which is communicated through the un
broken chain of the Apostolical Succession. It was like the chiselled
marble as compared with the living man ; it bore a strUdng resemblance,
but there was wanting the principle of vitality which fiUs the form with
warmth, and lights up every feature with vivacity. This deficiency de
stroys its beauty in the eyes of the Churchman, who, putting its schisma
tical character out of the question, must estimate it, after aU, as a mere
scheme, derised by the ministers for theii- own personal coiivemence,.and
embraced by the civil power for purposes of political expediency. — E.]
1 Calderwood, 329. — [The allusion here is to a scene which Calderwood
relates, singularly characteristic of what an eminent Non-Intrusion Doctor
calls " the stern democracy'' of Presbyterianism, at least that species of it
of wliich he is such a distinguished ornament. Upon a certain occasion a
deputation from the General Assembly, of whom Andrew Melrille was one,

THE ARTICLE.

255

rochet.'^ His prime talent was lampooning'^ and writing anti-
tami-cami-categorias. In a word, he was the very arche
typal bitter beard of the party.
This man, thus accoutred, was scarcely warm at home
when he began to disseminate his sentiments, insinuate
them into others, and make a party against Prelacy and
for the Genevan model. For this I need not depend on

waited on James VI. for the redress of some grievance, and being admitted
into the royal closet, found the King in an irritable humour, and disposed
to treat them with contempt. But the stern democrat Andrew, determined
to show his Majesty that he was not to be trifled with, called him " God's
sillie vassal," and catching him by the sleeve, said — " Sir, we will humbly
reverence your Majesty always in public, but we have this occasion to be
with you in private ; and therefore. Sir, as divers times before, so now I
must tell you that there are two Kings and two kingdoms. There is
Christ and His kingdom the Kirk, whose subject King James is, and of
whose kingdom he is not a King, nor a Head, nor a Lord, but a member ;
and they whom Christ hath called and commanded to watch over His
Kirk, and govern His spiritual kingdom, have sufficient power and autho-
ritie from Him so to do, which no Christian King nor Prince should con-
troul uor discharge, but fortifie and assist, otherwise they are not faithfiil
subjects to Christ. Sir, when you were in your swaddUng-clothes Christ
reigned freely in this land, in spite of all His enemies," &c. In this mode
of address from subjects to their sovereign we behold the germs of that
unlicensed freedom of speech which in after years was used to the unfor
tunate Charles I., and which, in more recent times, in pamphlets and
platform exhibitions, has been adopted towards Queen Victoria ! It may
be justifiable, but we do not feel ourselves called upon to adduce argu
ments in its defence. — E.]
^ Calderwood, 548. — [This refers to a sample of MelvUle's unbecomin»
behaviour, when summoned to London with seven others of his brethren
in 1606. On one occasion, after insulting Archbishop Bancroft with
abusive language, he took hold of the " white sleeve of his rochet,"
and shaking it, " called them Popish rags." — E.]
^ [He was the author of six vulgar Latin verses upon the English Serr
rice, which he ignorantly compared with that of Bome. It appears that
he had attended serrice in the Chapel-Royal on St Michael's Day, and had
been severely shocked by some ornaments which were on the Altar
(and which are still to be seen in Cathedrals and many parish churches of
England, being enjoined by the Rubric), viz. two copies of the Liturgy,
the chalices used at the celebration of the Eucharist, and two candlesticks.
The verses were —
" Cur stant clausi Anglis libri duo, regiS in arS
Lumina coeca duo, poUubra sicca duo ?
Num sensum, cultumque Dei tenet Anglia clausum,
Lumine coeca suo, sorde sepulta suS ?
Romano et ritu dum regalem instruit aram,
Purpuream piugit religiosa lupani." — E.]

256

THE ARTICLE.

Spottiswoode's authority, though he asserts it plainly.! Ihave
a more autlientic author for it, if more authentic can be. I
have Melville himself for it, in a letter to Beza, dated Novem
ber 13, 1579, to be found both in Petrie,2 and in the pamph
let called " Vindicise PhUadelphi," from which Petrie had
it, of which letter the very first words are — " We have not
ceased these five years to fight against Pseudo-Episcopacy,"
&c. Now, rec\ion five yeaz-s backward from November 1579,
and you stand at November 1574, whereby we find that
within three or four months after his arrival the plot was
begun, though it was near to a year thereafter before it
came above board.
Having thus projected his work, and formed his party,
the next care was to get one to table it fairly. He himself
was but lately come home ; he was much a stranger in the
country having been ten j'ears abroad; he had been but at
very few General Assemblies, if at any ; his influence was but
green and budding, his authority but young and tender. It
was not fit for him, amongst his first appearances, to pro
pose so great an innovation. And, it seems, the thinking
men of his party, however resolutely they might promise to
back the motion, when once fairly tabled, were yet a little shy
to be the first proposers. So it fell to the share of one who
at that time was none of the greatest statesmen.
John Durie, one of the ministers of Edinburgh, was the
person, as Spottiswoode describes him^ — " A sound heart
ed man, far from all dissimulation, open, professing what he
thought, earnest and zealous in his cause, whatever it was ;
but too credulous, and easily to be imposed on." How
ever, that I may do him as much justice as Spottiswoode
has done him before me, a man he was who thought no
shame to acknowledge his error when he was convinced of
it ; for so it was, that when, after many years' experience,
he had satisfied himself that Parity had truly proved the
parent of confusion, and disappointed all his expectations,
and when through age and sickness he was not able in per
son to attend the General Assembly, anno 1600, he gave
commission to some brethren to teU them, as from him
— " That there was a necessity of restoring the ancient
1 Spottiswoode, 275. = Petrie, 401. => Spottiswoode, 458.

THE ARTICLE. 257
government of the Church," &o. Such was the man, I say,
to whose share it fell to be the first who publicly questioned
the lawfulness of Prelacy in Scotland, which was not done
tiU the sixth day of August 1575 — as I said before, no less
than fuU fifteen years after the first legal establishment of
our Scottish Reformation. And so I come to my purpose.
On this sixth of August 1575, the General Assembly met at
Edinburgh. According to the Order then observed in General
Assemblies, the first thing done after the Assembly was con
stituted, was the trial of the doctrine, diligence, lives, &c. of
the Bishops and other constant members. So, while this
was a-doing, John Durie stood up, and protested — " That
the trial of the Bishops might not prejudge the opinions and
reasons which he and other brethren of his mind had to
propose against the office and name of a Bishop."! Thus
was the fatal controversy set on foot, which since hath
brought such miseries and calamities on the Church and
Kingdom oi Scotland.
The hare thus started, Melville, the original huntsman, strait
pursued her. He presently began a long and no doubt
premeditated harangue — commended Durie's zeal, enlarged
upon the flourishing state of the Church of Geneva, insisted
on the sentiments of Calvin and Beza concerning church
government, and at last affirmed — " That none ought to be
office-bearers in the Church whose titles were not found in
the Book of God — that though the title of Bishops was found
in Scripture, yet it was not to be understood in the sense then
current — that Jesus Christ, the only Lord of his Church,
allowed no superiority amongst the ministers, but had insti
tuted them aU in the same degree, and had endued them with
equal power." Concluding — " That the Corruptions which
had crept into the estate of Bishops were so great as, unless
the same were removed, it could not go well with the Church,
nor could religion be long preserved in purity ."2 The con
troversy thus plainly stated, Mr David Lindesay, Mr George
Hay, and Mr John Row, three Episcopalians, were appointed
to confer and reason upon the questioh proponed with Mr
Andrew MelviUe, Mr James Lawson, and Mr John Craig,
1 MSS. Petrie, 385 ; Spottiswoode, 273 ; Calderwood, 68.
" Spottiswoode, 275 ; Petrie, 387. 17

258

THE ARTICLE.

two Presbyterians, and one much indifferent for both sides.
" After divers meetings and long disceptation," saith Spot
tiswoode! — " after two days," saith Petrie2 — they presented
these conclusions to the Assembly, which at that time they
had agreed upon.
1. They think it not expedient presently to answer
directly to the First Question. But if any Bishop shaU be
chosen who hath not such qualities as the Word of God
requires, let him be tried by the General Assembly de novo,
and so deposed.
" 2. The name Bishop is common to aU them who have
particular flocks, over which they have particular charges,
to preach the Word, administer the Sacraments, &o.
" 3. Out of this number may be chosen some to have
power to oversee and visit such reasonable bounds, beside
his own fiock, as the general Kirk shall appoint ; and in
these bounds to appoint ministers, with consent of the
ministers of that province, and of the flock to whom they
shall be appointed ; also, to appoint elders and deacons in
every principal congregation where there are none, with
consent of the people thereof, and to suspend ministers for
reasonable causes, with consent of the ministers aforesaid."
So, the MSS., Spottiswoode, Petrie, Calderwood.^
It is true, here are some things which, perhaps, when
thoroughly examined, will not be found so exactly agreeable
to the sentiments and practice of the Primitive Church.
However, it is evident for this bout the Imparity men carried
the day ; and it seems the Parity men have not yet been so
well fixed for the Divine and indispensible right of it, as our
modern Parity men would think needful, otherwise how came
they to consent to such conclusions ? How came they to
yield that it was not expedient at that time to answer
directly to the first question, which was concerning the law
fulness of Episcopacy ? Were they of the modern principles
— G[ilbert] R[ule]'s principles ? Did they think that Divine
institutions might be dispensed with, crossed, according to the
exigencies of expediency or inexpediency ? What an honour
is it to the party if their first heroes were such casuists ?

' Spottiswoode, 275.
= Petrie, 386. ' Spottiswoode, 275 ; Petrie, 386 ; Calderwood, 69.

THE ARTICLE. 259
Besides, is not the lawfulness of Imparity clearly imported
in the Third Conclusion ? Indeed, both Calderwood and
Petrie acknowledge so much.
Calderwood! saith — " It seemeth that by reason of the
Regent's authority, who was bent upon the course (i. e.
Episcopacy) whereof he was the chief instrument, that they
answered not directly at this time to the Question." Here,
you see, he owns that nothing at this time was concluded
against the course, as he calls it ; whether he had reason to
say. It seemed to be upon such an account, shall be considered
afterward. Petrie^ acknowledges it too; but in such a
passion, it seems, as quite mastered his prudence when he
did it ; for these are his words — " Howbeit in these con
clusions they express not the negative, because they would
not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council,
seeking security of the possessions by the title of Bishops ;
yet these affirmatives take away the pretended office."
Now, let the world consider the wisdom of this author in
advancing this fine period. They did not express the nega
tive (they did not condemn Episcopacy), because they would
not plainly oppose the particular interest of the Council
seeking security of the possessions, &c. Now, let us inquire
who were these — they — who would not for this reason con
demn Episcopacy at that time ? It must either belong to
the six Collocutors who drew the conclusions, or to the whole
Assembly. If to the Collocutors, it is plain three of them, viz.
Row, Hay, and Lindesay, were innocent ; they were per
suaded in their minds of the expediency (to say no further)
as well as the lawfulness of Episcopacy, and I think that
was reason enough for them not to condemn it. The Pres
byterian brethren then, if any, were the persons who were
moved not to condemn it, " because they would not plainly
oppose the particular interest of the Council," &c. But if
so, hath not Mr Petrie made them very brave fellows ?
Hath he not fairly made then such friends to sacrilege, that
they would rather baulk a Divine institution than interrupt
its course, and offend its votaries ? If by the word they he
meant the General Assembly — if the whole Assembly were
who would not express the negative, " because they
^ Calderwood, GS. = Petrie, 387.

260 THE ARTICLE.
would not oppose ?" &c. I think Mr Petrie, were he alive,
would have enough to do to prove that that was the reason
they were determined by. What ? Had the whole Church
quit all their pretensions they insisted on so much on every
occasion I Had they now given over their claim to the re
venues of the Church ? Shall I declare my poor opinion in
this matter ? I am apt to believe that it was one of the
great arguments insisted on by the three Episcopalian Col
locutors at that time — " That if Episcopacy should be con
cluded unlawful, and by consequence overturned, the patri
mony of the Church would undoubtedly go to wreck — the
hungry courtiers would presently possess themselves of the
revenues belonging to the Bishops." Sure I am, as things
then stood, there was all the reason in the world for insist
ing on this argument. But to pass this. Petrie, it seems,
was not content with giving the quite contrary of that, which
in all probability was the true reason — at least one of the
true reasons for not overturning Episcopacy at that time ;
but he behoved to add something more extravagant. He
behoved to add that the affirmatives in the aforesaid conclu
sions took away the pretended office of Episcopacy. What
might he not have said after this ? It seems that in this
author's opinion all is one thing to assert the lawfulness of
an office, and thereupon to continue it, and to take it away,
But perhaps I may be blamed for taking so much notice of
an angry man's excesses, for no doubt it was anger that such
conclusions should have been made, that hurried him upon
such extravagances ; and therefore I shall leave him, and
return to my thread.
By what I have told, it may be easy to judge how cold
the first entertainment was, which Parity got when it was
proposed to the General Assembly ; and so much the more,
if it be further considered that by this same Assembly some
eight or nine Articles were ordered to be presented to my
Lord Regent's Grace, whereof the first — as I find it in the
MSS. and in Petrie himself,! though neither so fully nor so
fairly — was this —
" Imprimis, For planting and preaching the Word through
the whole Realm, it is desired, that so many ministers as
1 Petrie, 385.

THE ARTICLE. 261
may be had, who are yet unplaced, may be received as well
in the country, to relieve the charge of them who have many
kirks, as otherwise, throughout the whole Realm, with Super
intendents or Commissioners within these bounds where
Bishops are not, and to help such Bishops as have too great
charges. And that livings be appointed to the aforesaid
persons; and also payment to them who have traveUed
before as Commissioners in the years of God 1573 and 1574,
and so forth in time coming, without which the travels of
such men will cease."
This, I say, is the first of many Articles ordered by this
Assembly for the Regent, from which it is evident not only
that Mr MelviUe's project made little or no progress at this
time, but also that the Assembly continued firm and sted-
fast in the same very intentions, and of the same very prin
ciples which had prevailed in former Assemblies, viz. to
stop the uniting of churches, to multiply the number of
persons cloathed with Prelatic power, to continue that
power in the Church, and by all means to secure her patri
mony, and guard against and exclude all alienations of it.
Melville and his partisans, thus successless in their first
attempt, but withal once engaged, and resolved not to give
over, began, it seems, against the next Assembly, to refiect
on what they had done, and perceive that they had mis
taken their measures. And, indeed, it was a little precipi-
tantly done at the very first, to state the question simply
and absolutely upon the lawfulness or unlawfulness of Epis
copacy in the general, as they had stated it. It was a new
question, which had never been stated in the Church of Scot
land before, and it could not but be surprising to the
greatest part of the Assembly. Thus to call in question
the lawfulness of an office which had been so early, so univer
sally, so usefully, so incontestedly received by the CatlioUc
Church — this was a point of great importance. For to
declare that office wnlawful, what was it else than to con
demn all these Churches in the Primitive times which had
owned it, and flourished under it ? What else than to con
demn the Scottish Reformation, and Reformers who had
never questioned it ; but, on the contrary, had proceeded all
alongst on principles which clearly supposed its lawfulness, if
not its necessity ? Nay, was it not to condemn particularly

262

THE ARTICLE.

all these General Assemblies which, immediately before,
had so much authorized and confirmed it ? Besides,
as hath been already observed, to declare Episcopacy un
lawful was unavoidably to stifle aU these projects they had
been so industriously forming for recovering the Church's
patrimony ; and not only so, but to expose it more and
more to be devoured by the voracious laity. It was plain
it could no sooner be declared umlawful than it behoved to
be parted with ; and turn out the Bishops once, and what
would become of the Bishopricks ? Nay, to turn them out, what
was it else than to undo the whole Agreement at Leith,
which was the greatest security the Church then had for
her patrimony? For these and the like reasons, I say,
laying aside the impiety, and insisting only on the imprudence
of the Melvillian project, it was no doubt precipitantly done
at the very first to make that the state of the question. And
it was no wonder if the Assembly was unanimous in agree
ing to the conclusions which had been laid before them by
the six Collocutors. Nay, it was no wonder if Melville and
his party, sensible of their error, and willing to cover it the
best way they could, yielded for that time to the other three,
who had so visibly the advantage of them, at least in the point
of the Church's interest. And, therefore, at the next Assem
bly, which was holden at Edinburgh, April 24, 1576, they
altered the state of the question, as Spottiswood observes,!
and made it this — " Whether Bishops, as they were then in
Scotland, had their function warranted by the Word of God ?"
But even thus stated at that time, it availed them nothing.
for — as it is in the MSS. — " The whole Assembly, for the
most part, after reasoning and long disputation upon every
Article ofthe brethren's" — viz. the six Collocutors'! — " opin
ion and advice, resolutely approved and affirmed the same,
and every Article thereof, as the same was given in by them."
And then the Articles are repeated.
Calderwood and Petrie do both shuffle over the state of
the question,2 but upon the matter they give the same
account of the Assembly's resolution. However, I thought fit
to take it in the words of the MSS., the very stile importing
that they are the most authentic. And in this resolution we
may observe these three things : —
1 Spottiswoode, 276. 2 Calderwood, 72 ; Petrie, 387.

THE ARTICLE.

263

1. That whatever the Melvillian party might then be, they
were but the smaller party. The whole Assembly for the most
part, that is, as I take it, the far greater part of the Assem
bly, was against them.
2. That the whole Assembly for the most part seem to have
been seriously persuaded thtey were in the right, and did not
approve and affirm these Articles either indeliberately or
faintly ; for it was after reasoning and long disputation that
they approved and affirmed them, and they were sufficiently
keen in the matter, for they did it resolutely.
3. The Melvillian party were over-voted, even as the ques
tion was then stated. The whole Assembly for the most part
stood for Episcopacy as it was then established in Scotland,
and would not declare it unlawful. From aU which I leave
to the world to judge if Presbyterian parity did not meet
with opposition — with very great opposition — at its first
appearances in Scotland. Neither was this all.
As this General Assembly did thus stand its ground, and
appeared for Imparity, so it continued of the same senti
ments and resolutions with former Assemblies in the mat
ter of the Church's patrimony ; for, by it, it was resolved
also — " That they might proceed against unjust possessors
of the patrimony of the Church, in respect of the notorious
scandal, not only by doctrine and admonition, but with the
censures of the Church, and that the patrimony ofthe Church,
whereupon the Church, the poor, and the schools, should be
maintained, was ex jure divino." So it is in the MSS., and
so Petrie hath it.! Well ! Did the Parity-men gain no
ground in this Assembly ? Yes, they did ; two things they
obtained, which were very useful for them afterwards. 1.
They obtained an Act to be made, that " the Bishops should
be obliged to take the charge of particular congregations."
It is true, the Assembly could not get this refused after they
had approved and affirmed the above mentioned Articles,
for it was fairly deducible both from the second and third.
But, then, it is plain this Act did militate nothing against
the essentials of Episcopacy ; it was highly consistent with
Imparity amongst the governors of the Church, and the
Articles evidently import as much. However, as I said,
1 Petrie, 387.

264

THE ARTICLE.

this proved very serviceable to the Melvillian party after
wards, as we shaU hear. But this was not the worst of it ;
for —
2. The Earl of Morton, then Regent, whatever the Pres
byterian historians talk of his being so much for Episcopacy,
made a very ill-favoured as well as a very fatal step in the
time of this Assembly. Take it in Spottiswoode's words! —
" The Regent, hearing how the Church had proceeded, and
taking ill the deposition of Master James Paton, Bishop of
Dunkeld, who was in the former Assembly deprived for dila
pidation of his benefice, sent to require of them (this As
sembly met in April 1576,) whether they would stand to the
policy agreed unto at Leith ? And if not, to desire them to
settle upon some form of government at which they would
abide." The champions for Parity had fairly met with a second
repulse from this Assembly, as I have discoursed ; and if all
concerned had acted their parts as they might and ought to
have done, and as the cause required, it is highly credible that
Mother of Confusion might have been quite crushed and stified
for ever. But that was not done. The Prelates themselves
were negligent and unactive, as Spottiswoode intimates,2 and
here the Regent made this proposition — a proposition than
which none could be made more surprizingly obliging and
acceptable to the Presbyterian party. All things considered,
it was the very thing the common principles of conduct might
have taught them to have asked next, if they had had things
for the asking. For what can fall out more luckily for those
who have a mind to innovate than to have the old founda
tions shaken, and leave allowed to erect new models ? So ill-
favoured, I say, was this step, which at this time was made
by Morton, who, by the exigencies of his station, was bound
to have guarded against all innovations, especially such as
had so natural a tendency to disturb the pubhc peace ; and,
therefore, I must ask my reader's allowance to make a little
digression, if it may be called a digression, and discourse this
question — Whetherit may not bethoughtprobable that Mor
ton made this proposition deliberately, and from an intention
to cherish the Presbyterian party, and encourage their humour
for innovating, and confounding the peace of the Church ?
1 Spottiswoode, 276. ^ Spottiswoode, 276.

THE ARTICLE.

265

This, perhaps, at first sight may seem a bold question,
as not only being new, but apparently crossing the received
accounts of our Presbyterian historians ; but if I can make
the affirmative very probable, if not evident, I am apt to
think it may bring no smaU accessions of light to the present
subject I am insisting on, viz. how Presbyterianism was first
introduced into Scotland ? I will, therefore, lay down my
reasons for it, that the world may judge of them.
And, 1. That which I have already discoursed seems to be
a very fair argument, that Morton made this proposition in
tentionally, to give scope and slackened reins to the Presbyte
rian party ; for if he had not made it — if he had resolved to
stand by the Agreement at Leith — if he had been serious for
the estabhshed government and peace of the Church, it had
been easy for him to have suppressed all Melville's projects
for innovation. He had visibly the major part of this As
sembly of his side, if that had been his aim. No appearance
that the body of the people was then infected with the prin
ciples of Parity. The Nobility were generally for the old
constitution, as is evident from no less authority than
MelvUle's own, in his letter to Beza cited before, in which
he tells him, he and his party had many of the Peers against
them.^ Where, then, was there the least difficulty of crushing
the cockatrice in the egg, if he had had a mind for it ? Besides,
how inconsistent was the making of this proposition with
the integrity and honesty of a Regent ? The King was then
a minor, the nation had but just then emerged out of a vast
ocean of civil broils and troubles, which had long harassed
it, and kept it in confusion; nothing more improper for it than
to be involved again instantly in jars and discords ; so that
if he had no such plot, as I am endeavouring to make pro
bable he had, he was certainly very unfortunate in granting
such a liberty. For, considering all things, it looks so very like
a plot, that it cannot but be very hard to persuade a think
ing man that there was none, especially if it be considered,
2. That he was a man who had latitude enough to do ill
things, if he thought them subservient to his interest. He
was wretchedly covetous, as aU historians agree, and that
vice alone disposes a man for the worst things. He hath
1 Petrie, 401.

266 THE ARTICLE.
observed little of the affairs of the world, and the extrava
gances of mankind, who has not observed avarice and a
sordid temper to have put men on the most abominable
courses — who hath not observed, who hath not seen, that men
have sold religion, honour, conscience, loyalty, faith, friend
ship, every thing that is sacred, for money. Now by
making this proposition, he projected a very fair opportunity
for gratifying this his predominant appetite. He had so
anxiously coveted the emoluments of the Archbishoprick of
St Andrews in the year 1571, as Sir James Melville tells us
in his Memoirs,! that meeting with a repulse, he forsook the
Court, and was so much discontented that he would not re
turn to it till Randolph, the English ambassador, persuaded
Lennox, then Regent, to give it to him ; promising that the
Queen of England should recompense it to him with greater
advantage. How much of that Bishopriok he had continued
still to possess after the Agreement of Leith, and Douglas's
advancement to that Archbishoprick, I cannot tell ; but it is
not to be doubted, whatever it was, it sharpened his stomach
for more of the Church's revenues. And now the juncture
made wonderfully for him ; for as he had found by expe
rience, and many Acts of Assemblies, &c., that the Church,
careful of her interests, and watchful over her patrimony,
was no ways inclined to sit stUl, and suffer herself to be
cheated and plundered according to his hungry inchnations,
but was making, and like to continue to make, vigorous oppo
sition to all such sacrilegious purposes, so long as she con
tinued united, and settled on the foot on which she then
stood ; so he found that now contention was arising within
her own bowels, and a party was appearing zealous for in
novations, and her peace and unanimity were like to be
broken and divided. And what more proper for him, in these
circumstances, than to lay the reins on their necks, and cast
a further bone of contention amongst them ? He knew fuU
well what it was to fish in troubled waters, as Sir James Mel
ville observes of him,2 and so it is more than probable he
would not neglect such an opportunity ; still so much the
more, if it be considered,
3. That whatever professions he might have made in
1 Melville's Memoirs, 110. ^ Melville's Memoirs, Ibid.

THE ARTICLE. 267
former times of good affection to Episcopal government, yet
there is little reason to think that his conscience was inte
rested in the matter ; for besides that covetous, selfish,
subtle men, such as he was, use not to allow themselves to
stand too precisely upon all the dictates of a nice and tender
conscience, the Divine right of Episcopacy — the true fund
for making it matter of conscience — in these times was not
much asserted or thought on. That was not till several
years afterwards, when the controversies about the govern
ment of the Church came to be sifted more narrowly. It is
commonly acknowledged, that the main argument which pre
vailed with him to appear for Episcopacy, was its aptitude
for being part of a fund for a good correspondence with Eng
land. Spottiswoode tells us! f^at one of the injunctions
which he got when he was made Regent was — " That he
should be careful to entertain the amity contracted with the
Queen of England." And Calderwood saith thus expressly
of him2 — " His great intention was to bring in conformity
with England in the Church government, without which he
thought he could not govern the country to his phantasie,
or that agreement could not stand long between the two
countries." And again^ — " He pressed his own injunctions
and conformity with England." Now, this being the great
motive that made him so much inclined at any time for
Episcopal government —
4. It is to be considered that, however prevalent this
might be with him when first he was advanced to the Re
gency, civil dissensions raging then, and the party of which
he was the head being unable to subsist unless supported
by England ; yet, now that all these dissensions were ended,
and the country quieted, and things brought to some appear
ance of a durable settlement, his dependence on England
might prompt him to alter his scheme, and inchne him to
give scope to the Presbyterian wild-fire in Scotland. To
set this presumption in its due light, two things are to be
a little further inquired into.
1. If it is probable that Queen Elizabeth was willing that
the Presbyterian humour should be encouraged in Scotland.
2. If Morton depended so much on her as to make it
1 Spottiswoode, 267. ^ Calderwood, 66. ' Ibid. 80.

268 THE ARTICLE.
feasible that he might be subservient to her designs, in this
politic. As for the first, this is certain, it was still one of Queen
Elizabeth's great cares to encourage confusions in Scotland.
She knew her own title was questionable,^ as I have observed
before, and though that had not been, yet without question
the Scottish blood had the next best title2 to the English crown.
And as it is natural to most people to worship the rising sun,
especially when he looks bright and glorious — when he has
no clouds about him, I mean, the apparent heir of a throne,
when he is in a prosperous and flourishing condition, so it
is as natural for the regnant Prince to be jealous of him.
Therefore, I say. Queen Elizabeth for her own security, did
still what she could to kindle wild-fire in Scotland, and keep
it burning when it was kindled. Thus, in the year 1560
she assisted the Scottish subjects against their native sove
reign (her jealoused competitrix) both with men and money,
as I have told before ; and, anno 1565, she countenanced the
Scottish Lords who began to raise tumults about the Scot
tish Queen's marriage with the Lord Darnley. She fur
nished them with money, and harboured them when they
were forced to flee for it. And how long did she foment
our civil wars, after they broke out, anno 1567 ? What
dubious responses did she give all the time she umpired it be
tween the Queen of Scotland and those who appeared for her
son ? And is it not very well known that she had an hand
in the Raid of Ruthven,^ 1582, and in all our Scottish seditions

1 [She was the daughter of Henry VIII. by Anne Boleyn, whom he
married after haring divorced Catharine of Arragon without the consent
of the Pope, and, as was thought by some, upon an insufficient pretence.
-E.] 2 [Mary Queen of Scots was daughter of James V., whose mother was
sister of Henry VIII. — E.j
^ [The popular name applied to a conspiracy of the Scottish NobUity for
getting possession of the person of James VI., who, after a fatiguing day
of hunting, was inrited by the Earl of Gowrie to pass the night at Ruth
ven Castle, in the parish of Tippermuir, Perthshire ; but iu the morning,
when the Monarch wished to depart, he found himself a prisoner in the
hands of his rebeUious subjects, who otherwise treated him with no
great personal respect. The King did not escape from this restraint
for nearly nine months. For a very minute account of this curious
affair see " Historical Tales of the Wars of Scotland," Edin. 1839, vol. i.
p. 126-140, a publication full of interesting and useful matter. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 269
generally ? Sir James Melville, in his Memoirs, gives us
enough of her practices that way. He lived in these times,
and was acquainted with intrigues ; and he tells us! — " That
Randolph came with Lennox (when he came to Scotland
to be Regent after Moray's death) to stay here as English
resident" — that this Randolph's great employment was to
foster discords and increase divisions among the Scots, par
ticularly — " that he used craft with the ministers,'^ offering
gold to such of them as he thought could be prevailed with to
accept his offer." It is true, he adds-^" But such as were
honest refused his gifts ;" but this says not that none took
them, and who knows but the most fiery might have been
foremost at receiving ? It hath been so since, even when it
was the price of the best blood in Britain. But to go on. Sir
James tells further,^ that — " Morton and Randolph con
trived the plot of keeping the Parliament at Stirling, 1571,
to forfault all the Queen's Lords, thereby to crush all hopes
of agreement, — that he was so much hated in Scotland for
being such an incendiary, that he was forced to return to
England, Mr Henry Killegrew succeeding in his stead in
Scotland* — that this Killegrew at a private meeting told
himself plainly^ that he was come to Scotland with a com
mission contrary to his inclinations, which was to encourage
faction," &c. Thus practiced Queen Elizabeth, and such
were her arts and infiuences in Scotland, before she had the
opportunity of improving the Presbyterian humour to her
purposes ; and can it be imagined she would not encourage
it when once it got footing ? Certainly she understood it
better than so. The Sect had set up a Presbytery at Wands
worth in Surrey in the year 1572, four years before Morton
made this proposition— -se-v en years before a Presbytery was
so much as heard of in Scotland. No doubt she knew the
spirit well enough, and how apt and well suited it was for
keeping a State in disorder and trouble. Nay, I have heard
from knowing persons that to this very day the Treasury
Books of England (if I remember right, sure I am some
English Record or other) bear the names of such Scottish
Noblemen and ministers as were that Queen's pensioners, and

MelviUe's Memoirs, 135. ^ ii,y. 109. ^ lyd. 113.
4 Ibid. 115. 5 Ibid. 116.

270 THE ARTICLE.
what allowances they got for their services, in fostering and
cherishing seditions and confusions in their native country.
From this sample, I think, it is easy to collect, at least,
that it is highly probable that Queen Ehzabeth was very
wiUing that the Presbyterian humour should be encouraged
in Scotland.
2. Let us try if Morton! depended so much on her, as may
make it credible that ho was subservient to her designs
in this politic. And here the work is easy ; for he was
her very creature, he stood by her and he stood for her ;
Randolph and he were still in one bottom.2 " The whole
country was abused by Randolph and Morton. Morton and
Randolph contrived the Parliament 1571," mentioned before.
When Lennox the Regent was killed, " Randolph was ear
nest to have Morton succeed him,"3 " Randolph had no credit
but with Morton."* Killegrew told Sir James MelviUe at the
private meeting mentioned before^ — " That the Queen of
England and her Council buUt their course neither on the
late Regent Lennox nor the present Mar, but entirely on
the Earl of Morton,as onlytrueto their interests." " Morton,
after Mar's death, was made Regent, England helping it
with all their might. 6" And again, in that same page. Sir
James tells that those who were in the Castle of Edinburgh,
and stood for Queen Mary's title, were so sensible of all
this, that when Morton sent the same Sir James to propose
an accommodation to them, he found it very hard to bring
on an agreement between them and Morton — " for the evil
opinion that was then conceived of him, and the hurtful
marks they supposed, by proofs and appearances, that he
would shoot at ; being by nature covetous, and too great
with England." And to make all this plainer yet. Sir James

' [The opinion of our author as to Morton's dependence upon Ehza
beth, and his desire to create faction, is thus confirmed by the learned His
torian of Scotland, Mr Tytler, upon the authority of unpublished letters
in the State Paper Office — " Elizabeth appears to have secured the ser
vices of Morton by a pension, and these serrices were wholly directed to
oppose every effort made by the Regent to restore peace to the country." — ¦
" This ambitions man ruled the Council at his wUl. He successfuUy
thwarted every effort to assemble the Estates, or deliberate upon a general
pacification." Tytler's History, vol. vii. p. 305-307.— E.]
^Melrille'sMemoii-s, 110. ' Ibid. 115. 'Ibid.
= P. 116. 8 Ibid. 118.

THE ARTICLE. 271
tells US that Morton entertained a secret grudge against his
pupil, the young King. — " He was ever jealous that the
King would be his ruin."! And, England " gave greater
assistances to Morton than to any former Regents, for they
believed he aimed at the same mark with themselves," viz.
to intricate the King's affairs — " out of old jealousies
between the Stuarts and the Douglasses."2
Now, let all these things be laid together, and then let
the judicious consider if it is not more than probable that,
as England had a main hand in the advancement of our
Reformation, so it was not wanting to contribute for the
encouragement of Presbytery also ; and that Morton, playing
England's game, which was so much interwoven with his
own, made this ill-favoured proposition to this General As
sembly. But however this was, whether he had such a plot
or not, it is clear that his making this proposition, had all
the effects he could have projected by being on such a plot.
For no sooner had he made this proposition than it was
greedily entertained. It answered the Melvillian wishes,
and it was easy for them to find colourable topicks for ob
taining the consent of the rest of the Assembly ; for most
part of them were ready to acknowledge that there were
defects, and things to be mended, in the Agreement at Leith;
and it had been received by the General Assembly in
August 1572 for an interim only. The revising of that
Agreement might end some controversies ; and the Regent,
having made this proposition, it was not to be doubted but
he would ratify what they should unanimously agree to, &c.
These and the like arguments, I say, might — it is clear
some arguments did — prevail with the Assembly to enter
tain the proposition. For a commission was forthwith drawn
to nineteen or twenty persons to compose a " Second Book
of Discipline"^ — a step by which at that time the Presby
terian got a wonderful advantage over the other party ; for
not only were Melville and Lawson, the two first-rate
Presbyterians, nominated amongst these Commissioners, but
they had their business much premeditated. They had
spent much thinking about it; and it is not to be doubted

1 MelviUe's Memoirs, 118.
2 Ibid. 123. ' MSS. Calderwood, 73 ; Petrie, 387.

272 THE ARTICLE.
they had Mr Beza bespoken to provide them with all the
assistance he and his colleagues at Geneva could afford them.
Whereas the rest were generally very ignorant in contro
versies of that nature. They had all alongst before that
employed themselves mainly in the Popish controversies,
and had not troubled their heads much about the niceties of
government. They had taken the ancient government, so
far at least as it subsisted by Imparity, upon trust, as they
found it had been practised in all ages of the Church ; per
ceiving a great deal of order and beauty in it, and nothing
that naturally tended to have a bad influence on either the
principles or the life of serious Christianity ; and with that
they were satisfied. Indeed, even the best of them seem to
have had very little skill in the true fountains whence the
sohd subsistence of the Episcopal order was to be derived —
the Scriptures, I mean, not as glossed by the private spirit
of every modern novelist, but as interpreted and understood
by the first ages — as sensed by the constant and universal
practice of genuine. Primitive, and Catholic antiquity.
This charge of ignorance in the controversies about the
government of the Ohureh, which I have brought against
the Scottish clergy in these times, will certainly leave a
blot upon myself if I cannot prove it ; but if I can prove it,
it is clear it is of considerable importance in the present dis
quisition, and helps much for coming, by a just comprehen
sion, to understand how Presbytery was introduced into Scot
land. And, therefore, I must again beg my reader's patience
till I adduce some evidences for it.
And, first, the truth of this charge may be obviously col
lected from the whole train of their proceedings and ma
nagement about the government of the Church, from the very
first estabhshment of the Reformation. For, however they
established a government which clearly subsisted by Im
parity, as I have fully proven, and which was all I still
aimed at, yet it is easy to discover they were very far from
keeping closely by the principles and measures of the Primi
tive constitution of Church government. This 'is so very
apparent to any who reads the histories of these times, and
is so visible in the deduction I have made, that I shaU insist
no longer on it.
Secondly, The truth of my charge may further appear

THE ARTICLE. 273
from the instance of Adamson, advanced this year 1576 to
the Archbishoprick of St Andrews. That nature had fur
nished him with a good stock, and he was a smart man, and
cultivated beyond the ordinary size by many parts of good
literature, is not denied by the Presbyterian historians them
selves. They never attempt to represent him as a fool or a
dunce, though they are very eager to have him a man of
tricks and latitude. Now, this Prelate's ignorance in true
antiquity is remarkably visible in his subscribing to these
Propositions, anno 1580, if we may believe Calderwood! —
" The power and authority of all pastors is equal, and alike
great amongst themselves. The name Bishop is relative to
the fiock, and not to the eldership ; for he is Bishop of his
flock, and not of other pastors or fellow elders. As for the
pre-eminence that one beareth over the rest, it is the inven
tion of man, and not the institution of Holy Writ. That the
ordaining and appointing of pastors, which is also called
the laying on of hands, appertaineth not to one Bishop
only, so being lawful election pass before ; but to those of
the same province or Presbytery, and with the like jurisdic
tion and authority minister at their kirks. That in the
Council of Nice, for eschewing of private ordaining of
ministers, it was statuted, that no pastor should be ap
pointed without the consent of him who dwelt or remained
in the chief and principal city of the province, which they
called the metropolitan city. That after, in the latter
Councils, it was statuted (that things might proceed more
solemnly and with greater authority), that the laying on of
hands upon pastors, after lawful election, should be by the
Metropolitan or .Bishop of the chief and principal town,
the rest of the Bishops of the province voting thereto ; in
which thing there was no other prerogative but only that
of the town, which, for that cause, was thought most
meet both for the convening of the Council, and or
daining of pastors with common consent and authority.
That the estate of the Church was corrupt when the name
Bishop, which before was common to the rest of the
pastors of the province, began, without the authority of
God's Word and ancient custom of the Kirk, to be attributed
1 Calderwood, 93, 94. 18

274 THE ARTICLE.
to one. That the power of appointing and ordaining mi
nisters and ruling of kirks, with the whole procuration of
ecclesiastical discipline, was now only devolved to one Metro
politan ; the other pastors no ways challenging their right
and privUege therein of very slothfulness, on the one part,
and the devil, on the other, going about craftily to lay the
ground of the Papistical supremacy."
From these and such other Propositions, signed by him
at that time, it may be judged, I say, if this Prelate did not
betray a very profound ignorance in true ecclesiastical anti
quity. An arrant Presbyterian could not have said — could
not have wished more. Indeed, it is more than probable
(as perchance may appear by and bye) that these Proposi
tions were taken out (either formally or by collection) of
Mr Beza's book — " De Triphci Episeopatu." Now, if Adam
son was so little seen in such matters, what may we judge
of the rest ?
But this is not all. For, thirdly, there cannot be a
greater evidence of the deplorable imskilfulness of the
clergy, in these times, in the ancient records of the Church,
than their suffering Melville and his party to obtrude upon
them the " Second Book of Discipline " — a split new de
mocratical system — a very farce of novelties never heard of
before in the Christian Church. For instance, what else is
" the confounding of the offices of Bishops and Presby
ters ?"! — the " making Doctors or Professors of Divinity in
Colleges and Universities a distinct office," and " of divine
institution ?"2 — the " setting up of lay-elders, as governors
of the Church, jure divino ?" — making them " judges of
men's qualifications to be admitted to the Sacrament, visi
tors of the sick ?" &c.3 — making the " colleges of Presby
ters in cities in the Primitive times lay-eldership ?"* — pro
hibiting " appeals from Scottish General Assemblies to any
judge civil or ecclesiastic ?"5 — and, by consequence, to CEcu-
menick Councils ? Are not these ancient and Catholic as
sertions ? What footsteps of these things in true antiquity ?
How easy had it been for men skilled in the constitution,
government, and discipline of the Primitive Church, to have
1 Cap. 2, sec. 9. ^ Ibid., and cap. 5, per tot. ° Cap. 8, per tot.
* Cap. 7, sec. 16. = Cap. 12, sec. 8.

THE ARTICLE. 275
laid open to the conviction of all sober men the novelty,
the vanity, the inexpediency, the impoliticalness, the un-
catholicalness, of most, if not all, of these propositions ? If
any further doubt could remain concerning the little skill
the clergy of Scotland in these times had in these matters,
it might be further demonstrated.
Fourthly, From this plain matter of fact, viz. that that
Second Book of Discipline, in many points, is taken word
for word from Mr Beza's answers to the Questions proposed
to him by the Lord Glammis, then Chancellor of Scotland —
a fair evidence that our clergy at that time have not been
very well seen in ecclesiastical politics ; otherwise it is not
to be thought they would have been so imposed on by a
single stranger divine, who visibly aimed at the propagation
of the scheme, which by chance had got footing in the Church
where he lived. His tractate " De Triplici Episeopatu,"!
written of purpose for the advancement of Presbyterianism in
Scotland, carries visibly in its whole train that its design was
to draw our clergy from off the ancient polity of the Church ;
and his Answers to the six Questions proposed to him, as
I said, by Glammis,2 contained the new scheme he advised

^ [This tract declared that three sorts of Episcopacy had existed iu the
world. The first, that to be seen in the Word of God, was Divine, and of
com-se unobjectionable, and worthy of being perpetuated. The second,
to which Clement, Polycarp, Irenseus, and afterwards St Cyprian, Atha
nasius, &c. submitted, was a human invention, and therefore not neces
sarily either of perpetual or universal obligation. The third, as it existed
under the Papal power, was a derice of the enemy of souls, " devilish,"
and to be avoided by all who valued their eternal interests. Such was
this celebrated treatise, which attracted the attention of the learned
Sararia, who, having carefuUy examined it, has written a refutation of
its objectionable parts. See " Diversi Tractatus Theologici," editi ab
Had. Sararia, foUo, London, 1611. — E.]
^ [John eighth Lord Glammis, whose grandmother was condemned to
be burnt for witchcraft, and suffered on the Castle Hill of Edinburgh in
July 1537, was promoted to the office of High Chancellor of Scotland iu
1575, and killed at Stirling, March 17, 1578, in an accidental affray be
tween his followers and those of the Earl of Crawford. As Chancellor of
Scotland, and feeUng the difficulties which beset the Government at every
step in the Scottish Reformation, on account of the irregularity with
which it was conducted, Lord Glammis wrote to the famous Theodore
Beza, the great Genevan Reformer, in order to obtain his opinion upon
several very knotty points of law and equivocal moraUty. These Ques
tions, as they relate intimately to the stirring events of those times, and
display the doubts which passed through the minds of persons of station,

276 THE ARTICLE.
them to. Now, let us taste a little of his skill in the con
stitution and government of the ancient Church, or, if you

and all conscientious people, concerning the gi-eat and important changes
which were being eflfected both in Church aud State, we think will not
be without interest to many persons, and therefore we subjoin them.
They are quoted from Sararia's Works ; for, strange to say, the very
reason which probably obliged Bishop Sage to quote them second-hand,
obliges us. There is not a complete edition of Beza's Works in any
of the public Libraries in Edinburgh, and we have not been able to obtain
any detached volume containing these Questions.
" Qucestio Prima. — Quum in singulis Ecclesiis singuli Pastores ac minis-
tri constituti fuerint, quumque par et sequalis omnium in Ecclesia Christi
ministrorum potestas rideatur ; queritur, sit-ne Episcoporum munus in
Ecclesia necessarium, qui mmistros, quum res postulabit, ad comitia vocari
ad ministerium admitti, et istis de causis ab officio removeri, curabuut ? au
potius omnes ministri sequali potestate fungentes, nulUusque superioris
Episcopi imperio obnoxii, riros idoneos in doctrina, cum consensu patroni
jus patroiiatus habentis, et ipsius populi, eligere, coiTigere, et ab officio
removere debeant ? Ut autem retineantur ejusmodi Episcopi, movere nos
duo possunt. Unum populi ipsius mores et contumacia, qui rix et ne vix
quidem in officio contineri potest, nisi ejusmodi Episcoporum qui imiver-
sas Ecclesias percurrant et inrisant, auctoritate coerceatur ; alterum, leges
regni longo usu, et inveterata consuetudine receptee, ut quoties de rebus
ad reipublica3 salutem pertinentibus in publicis regni comitiis agitur, nihil
sine Episcopis constitui potest, quum ipsi tertium ordinem, et regni statum
efficiaut ; quem aut mutare aut prorsus toUere, reipublicEe admodum esset
periculosum." This question is quoted below by our author. See Index,
" Glammis" or " Beza."
" Secunda. — Post reformatam rehgionem, consuetudine receptum est,
ut Episcopi et ex ministris, pastoribus et senioribus, tot quot iidem
Episcopi jusserint, unum in locum conveniant, cum prsecipuis Baronibus,
et Nobilibus religionem veram profitentibus ; et de doctrina et moribus
inquisituri. Nunc verb cum Princeps veras religionis studiosus sit ; quae-
ritur, an ejusmodi conventus cogi possit sine jussu vel consensu Principis 2
an denique Nobilibus, aliisque pietatis studiosis, et senioribus, qui apud
nos quotannis ex populo, atque adeo ex ipsa NobiUtate, eUguntur, sine
mandate Regis ad ejusmodi comitia venire liceat, vel expediat. Quando-
quidem Nobilium et laicorum conventus, aliis ridetur sub principe pio
non necessariiis, quum sola consuetudine, nulla verb certa lege sub Prin
cipe religionem impug-nante, paucos ante annos receptus fuerit, quo plus
authoritatis ejusmodi comitia haberent. Quum prseterea periculum vide-
atur, lie si Nobiles tam frequentes, et frequenter sine consensu Regis con
veniant, aliis de rebus, quam ad religionem pertinentibus aliquando deli-
bereut. Alii vero iiuUo modo rejiciendos arbitrantur, quin potius valde
nec&ssarius videtur hie conventus, ut nimirum Nobiles reUgionem omni
studio et conatu promoventes, in comitiis tanquam a-ajairTarai et adjutores
ministris adsint, ac de ipsorum vita, moribus populi, et id genus aliis,
testimonium perhibeant. Alioquin futurum, si Princeps parum pins
postea regnaverit, ut neque ministri tuto couvenire, neque decreta sua
exccuHoni mandare, sine nobilium consensu et auxilio possint ?

THE ARTICLE. 277
please, of his accounts of her policy. I take this Book as I
find it amongst Saravia's Works.!
He is positive for the " Divine right of ruling elders."2
He affirms that " Bishops arrogated to themselves the
power of ordination, without God's allowance,"^ — " that
the chief foundation of all ecclesiastical functions is popular
election" — " that this election, and not ordination, or
" Tertia. — A quo hoc est, an a Rege an ab Episcopis comitia Ecclesias-
tica cogi, quum coguntur, quibus de rebus leges ferre possunt ?
" Quarta. — Debeant ne excommunicari papistse eodem modo, quo apos-
tatse, an vero leviori poena puniendi sunt ?
" Quinta. — Quibus de causis aliquem excommunicare liceat ? verbi
gratia : si quis homicidium patraret, asserens se id vel necessitate, vel
vim -vi repeUendo fecisse (ea de re paratus est judicium subire, neque
adhuc a Rege, aut occisi proximo quoris accusatur) licet ne EcclesisB de
homicidio inquirere, sit ne dole male, an casu, vel necessitate factum ; et
homicidam cogere ut secundum delicti quaUtatem, pubUcam in Ecclesia
poenitentiam iu sacco et cinere agat, aut recusantem excommunicatione
feriat, eique aqua et igui interdicat ?
" Sexta. — Quum superiori seculo magnae facnltates, eleemosynse nomine
a Principibus aliis que multis concessEe sint Episcopis, monasteriis et hnjus-
modi ; quumque tantse opes rideantur potius obesse quam prodesse Epis
copis, et monasteria in Reipublica et Ecclesia sint inutUia; Quseritur, quid
de ejusmodi bonis, quse semel Ecclesite consecrata fuerunt, fieri debeat 1
Nam quum Episcopi et ministri ex decimis satis habeant, unde commode et
honeste vivere possint, an Princeps potest cum consensu statuum Regni
reUquam partem auferre ; ut vel in sues vel in pubUcos usus convertere
jUi Uberum sit ; prsesertim cum ejusmodi bona non tam in decimis, quam
in prsediis rusticis aut urbanis consistant ? Quse quidem qusestio quum
potius civUis, quam Ecclesiastica esse rideatur, constitueram tibi hae in
re non esse molestus. Sed quia complures pii, ac eruditi apud nos ex-
istimant, has res quse semel piis usibus destinate fuerunt, non posse in
prophanos usus, etiam publicos conferri ; non potui hoc quoque argumen-
tum silentio apud te prseterire ?" Diversi Tractatus Theologici, p. 67-102.
-E.J 1 [This eminent person was of Spanish descent, and born at Artois in
1531. After haring been Professor of Divinity at Leyden, he came over
to England in 1587, where he was patronised by Archbishop Whitgift for
his eminent piety and great learning. Having been admitted into holy
orders, he obtained large preferment in the Church of England, haring
successively been promoted to a Prebend in the Cathedrals of Gloucester
aud Canterbury, and in the Abbey Church of Westminster. The best
proof of his learning is that we find his name in the first class of the
Translators of the Bible under James VI. ; and the surest pledge of his
piety and orthodoxy is that he was the intimate friend of the excellent
and "judicious" Hooker. " These two persons," says a venerable biogra
pher, " began a holy friendship, increasing daUy to so high and mutual
affections, that their two wills seemed to be but one and the same." — E.J
2 P. 8. '> P. 29.

278

THE ARTICLE.

imposition of hands, makes pastors or Bishops — that imposi
tion of hands does no more than put them in possession of
their ministry" — (in the exercise of it, as I take it), — " the
power whereof they have from that election" — "that by
consequence, it is more proper to say that the Fathers of the
Church are created by the Holy Ghost, and the suffrages of
their chUdren, than by the Bishops"! — that St Paul, " in
his first Epistle to the Corinthians, in which he expressly
writes against and condemns the schism which then pre
vailed there, as foreseeing that Episcopacy might readily be
deemed a remedy against so great an evil, joined Sosthenes
with himself in the inscription of the Epistle, that by his
own example he might teach how much that princeliness
was to be avoided in ecclesiastical conventions, seeing the
Apostles themselves, who are owned to have been, next
to Christ, first in order, and supreme in degree, did yet
exercise their power by the rules of parity ."2 Who wiU
not, at first sight, think this a pretty odd fetch? But
to go on. He further affirms^ that " Episcopacy, so far
from being a proper remedy against schism, has produced
many grievous schisms, which had never been but for
that human invention — that the Papacy was the fruit of
Episcopacy* — that the Council of Nice by making the
Canon about the A.^')(puct, sSfj, that the ancient customs should
continue, &c. cleared the way for the Roman Papacy, which
was then advancing apace and founded a throne for that
whore that sits upon the seven mountains''^ — that the Pri
mitive Churches were in a flourishing condition so long as
their governors continued to act in parity, and had not
yielded to Prelacy."^ And yet he had granted before^
that human Episcopacy, as he calls it, was in vogue in Igna
tius' time, &c. So that I think they could not flourish
much, having so short a time to flourish in.
These few, of many such learned Propositions, I have col
lected out of that Book which was so successful at that time
in furthering and advancing the Presbyterian principles in
Scotland ; and couldthey be a learned clergy ? Could they
be great masters at antiquity and ecclesiastical history who

1 P. 30. " P. 41. ¦> P. 43.
1 p. 46. 5 P. 58. « P. 71. ' P. 45.

THE ARTICLE. 279
swaUowed down these Propositions, or were imposed on by
the Book that contained them ? It is true, this Book came
not to Scotland till the end of the year 1577, or the begin
ning of 1578. But I thought it pardonable to anticipate so
far, as now to give this account of it, considering how pro
per it was for my present purpose. We shall have occasion
to take further notice of it afterward.
Thus, I think I have made it appear how advantageous
Morton's proposition was to the Presbyterian party. They
had occasion by it to fall upon forming a new scheme of
church government and polity. They were as well pre
pared as they could be for such a nick, and they had a set
of people to deal with, who might easily be worsted in these
controversies. However, it seems the common principles of
politics which God and nature have made, if not inseparable
parts, at least, ordinary concomitants of sound and solid
reason, did sometimes make their appearances amongst them.
For that there have been disputations and contests, and that
some, at least of the many Propositions contained in the
" Second Book of Discipline," have been debated and tossed,
is evident from the many conferences that were about it, and
the long time that was spent before it was perfected and got
its finishing stroke from a General Assembly, as we shall
find in our progress. Proceed we now in our deduction.
Though the Presbyterian faction had gained this advan
tage in the Assembly, 1576, that they had allowance to draw
a new scheme of polity, to which they could not but apply
themselves very cheerfully, yet, it seems, they were so much
humbled by the repulses they had got as to the main ques
tion, viz. the lawfulness of Episcopacy, that they thought it
not expedient to try the next Assembly with it directly, as
they had done, unsuccessfully, twice before ; but to wait a
little, till their party should be stronger, and, in the mean
time, to content themselves with such indirect blows as they
could conveniently give it. Such, I say, their deliberations
seem to have been at the next Assembly, which was holden
at Edinburgh, October 24, 1576. For not so much as one
word in that Assembly concerning the lawfulness or unlaw
fulness of Prelacy, either simply and in itself, or complexly,
as then in use in Scotland. It is true — " certain brethren,"
says the MS. — " some brethren," says Calderwood — " some,"

280 THE ARTICLE.
says Petrie! (without question, the Melvillians) — proposed
that, now that Mr Patrick Adamson was nominated for the
Archbishoprick of St Andrews, he might be tried as to his
sufficiency for such a station, according to an Act made in
March 1575 ; but it seems the major part of the Assembly
have not been for it, for it was not done, as we shall find after
ward. Nay, another Act was fairly dispensed with by this
Assembly in favour of Boyd, Archbishop of Glasgow ; for,
being required to give his answer. If he would take the charge
of a particular fiock, according to the Act made in April
before? He answered "That he had entered to his Bishopriok
according to the Agreement at Leith, which was to stand in
force during the King's minority, or till a Parliament should
determine otherwise — that he had given his oath to the
King's Majesty in things appertaining to his Highness — that
he was afraid he might incur the guilt of perjury, and be
called in question by the King, for changing a member of
State, if he should change any thing belonging to the order,
manner, privileges, or power of his Bishopriok — that, there
fore, he could not bind himself to a particular fiock, nor pre
judge the power of jurisdiction which he had received with
his Bishopriok," &c. Thus he answered, I say, and the Assem
bly at that time satisfied themselves so far with this answer
that they pressed him no farther, but referred the matter
to the next Assembly, as even both Calderwood and Petrie
acknowledge2 — a fair evidence that in this Assembly the
Presbyterian party was the weaker. However, one indirect
step they gained in this Assembly also. By the " First
Book of Discipline," Head 9,3 " it was appointed that the
country ministers and readers should meet upon a certain
day of the week in such towns, within six miles distance,
as had schools, and to which there was repair of learned
men, to exercise themselves in the interpretation of Scrip
ture, in imitation of the practice in use among the Corin
thians, mentioned 1 Cor. xiv. 29." These meetings, it seems,
had been much neglected, and disfrequented in most places.
It was, therefore, enacted by this Assembly — " That aU mi
nisters within eight miles, &c. should resort to the place of

' Calderwood, 74. Petrie, 388,
s Calderwood, 74. Petrie, 389. ^ Spottiswoode, 170.

THE ARTICLE. 281
exercise each day of exercise," &c.! This, I say, was use
ful for the Presbyterian designs, for these meetings were
afterwards turned into Presbyteries, as we shall find when
we come to the year 1579. And so it is very like the mo
tion for reviving them was made by those of the faction ;
for no man can deny that they have still had enough of
draught in their politics.
The next Assembly was holden April 1, anno 1577.
No direct progress made now, neither, as to the main ques
tion, and only these indirect ones : — " 1. The Archbishop of
Glasgow was obliged to take the charge of a particular flock,"
if we may believe Calderwood ;2 but neither the MSS.3 nor
Petrie have it. 2. " The Archbishop of St Andrews being
absent, full power was given to Mr Robert Pont, Mr James
Lawson, David Ferguson, and the Superintendent of Lothian,
conjunctly, to cite him before them, against such day or days
as they should think good ; to try and examine his entry
and proceeding, &o., with power also to summon the Chapter
of St Andrews, or so many of that Chapter as they should
judge expedient, and the ordainers or inaugurers of the said
Archbishop — (observe here, the Bishops in these times were
ordained or inaugurated)-*— as they should find good, for the
better trial ofthe premises: and in the meantime to discharge
him of further visitation till he should be admitted by the
Church."* Here, indeed, the MelviUians obtained in both
instances that which was refused them by the last Assembly.
However, nothing done directly, as I said, against the Epis
copal office ; on the contrary, Adamson, it seems, might
exerce it when admitted by the Assembly.
May I not reckon the Fast appointed by this Assembly as
a third step gained by our Parity-men PA" successful
establishment of perfect order and polity in the Kirk" was
one of the reasons for it.^ And ever since it hath been one
of the politics of the sect to be mighty ior fasts, when they had
extraordinary projects in their heads ; and then, if these

1 MS. Calderwood, 76. Petrie, 388. ^ Calderwood, 76.
' [In this there is a difference between the MS. which Sage had before
him, and the compUation entitled " The Booke of the UniversaU Kirk,"
published for the Banuatyne Club. The latter contains this clause, which
has been probably taken from Calderwood. — E.]
" MS. Calderwood, 76 ; Petrie, 390. ^ MS. Calderwood, 79 ; Petrie, 391.

282

THE ARTICLE.

projects, however wicked, nay, though the very wickedness
which the Scripture makes as bad as witchcraft, succeeded,
to entitle them to God's grace, and make the success the
comfortable return of their pious humiliations and sincere
devotions. I find also that Commissioners were sent by this Assem
bly to the Earl of Morton, to acquaint him that they were
busy about the matter and argument of the polity, and that
his Grace should receive advertisement of their further pro
ceedings ; and that these Commissioners, having returned
from him to the Assembly, reported — " That his Grace liked
well of their travels and labours in that matter, and required
expedition and haste, promising, that when the particulars
should be given in to him they should receive a good an
swer.! So Calderwood and the MSS. From which two
things may be observed : — the first is, a further confirma
tion of the suspicion I insisted on before, viz. that Morton
was truly a friend to the innovators. The second, that the
" Second Book of Discipline" had hitherto gone on but very
slowly. Why else would his Grace have so earnestly required
expedition and hasty outred (as the MS. words it, i. e. despatch)
and promised them a good answer when the particulars should
be given in to him ? The truth is, there was one good rea
son for their proceeding so leisurely in the matter of the
Book. Beza's answer to Glammis' letter was not yet
returned. Thus two General Assemblies passed without so much as
offering at a plain, a direct, trust [thrust ?] against Imparity;
nay, it seems matters were not come to a sufficient maturity
for that even against the next Assembly. It was holden at
Edinburgh, October 25, 1577 ; and not so much as one
word in the MSS., Calderwood, or Petrie, relating either
directly or indirectly to the main question. But two things
happened a little after this Assembly which animated
Melville and his party to purpose.
One was, Morton's quitting the Regency ; for, whatever
services he had done them, he was so obscure and fetching in
his measures, and so little to be trusted, that they could not
rely much upon him, and now that he had demitted, they
1 Calderwood, 77.

THE ARTICLE. 283
had a fair prospect of playing their game to better purpose
than ever. They were in possessions of the allowance he had
granted them to draw a new scheme of policy — they had a
young King, who had not yet arrived at the twelfth year of
his age, to deal with — by consequence they were like to
have a divided Court and a factious Nobility ; and they
needed not doubt, if there were two factions in the kingdom,
that one of them would be sure to court them, and undertake
to promote their interests.
The other encouragement, which did them every whit as
good service, was Beza's Book — " De Triplici Episeopatu,
Divino, Humane, et Satanico," with his answers to the Lord
Glammis' Questions, which about this time was brought to
Scotland, as is clear from Calderwood.! Beza, it seems,
put to it to defend the constitution of the Church of Ge
neva, had employed his wit and parts (which certainly were
not contemptible) in patching together such a scheme of
principles as he thought might be defended. That is a
method most men take too frequently, first, to resolve upon
a conclusion, and then to stretch their inventions, and spend
their pains for finding colours and plausibilities to set it off
with. Beza, therefore, I say, having been thus at pains to
digest his thoughts the best way he could on this subject,
and withal being possibly not a little elevated that the
Lord High Chancellor of a foreign kingdom should consult
him, and ask his advice concerning a point of so great im
portance as the constitution of the government of a na
tional Church, thought it not enough, it seems, to return
an answer to his Lordship's Questions, and therein give him
a scheme, which was very easy for him to do, considering
he needed be at little more pains than to transcribe the
Genevan establishment ; but he applied himself to the
main controversy which had been started by his dis
ciple MelvUle in Scotland — and it is scarcely to be doubted
that it was done at his instigation — and wrote this his
Book, wherein, though he asserted not the absolute unlaw
fulness of that which he caUed human Episcopacy — he had
not brow enough for that, as we have seen already2 — yet he
made it wonderously dangerous, as being so naturally apt
1 Calderwood, 79. ^ In the page of these papers.

284

THE ARTICLE.

to degenerate into the devilish — the Satanical Episcopacy.
This Book, I say, came to Scotland about this time, viz.
either in the end of 1577, or the beginning of 1578, and
— though I have already given a specimen of it — who now
could hold up his head to plead for Prelacy ? Here was a
Book written by the famous Mr Beza, the successor of the
great Mr Calvin, the present great luminary of the Church
of Geneva, our elder sister Church, the best reformed Church
in Christendom ! Who would not be convinced now that
Parity ought to be established, and Popish Prelacy abo
lished ? And, indeed, it seems this Book came seasonably
to help the good new cause — for it behoved to take some
time before it could merit the name of the good old one —
for we have already seen how slowly and weakly it ad
vanced before the Book came. But now we shall find it
gathering strength apace, and advancing with a witness !
Nay, at the very next Assembly it was in a pretty flourish
ing condition.
This next Assembly met, April 24 anno 1578, and Mr
Andrew Melville was chosen Moderator. The Prince of the
Sect had the happiness to be the Preses of the Assembly,
and presently the work was set a-going. Amongst the first
things done in this Assembly it was enacted — " That
Bishops, and all others bearing ecclesiastical function, should
be called by their own names, or brethren, in all time
coming."! j^q more Lord Bishops! and it was but consequen
tial to the great argument which was then, and ever since,
hath been in the mouths of all the party — " the Lords of
the Gentiles," &c. Matt. xx. 25. Luke xxii. 25. This was
a step worthy of Mr Andrew's humility, which was not like
other men's humility, consisting in humbling themselves, but
of a new species of its own, consisting in humbling of his su
periors. Indeed, after this he still treated his own Ordinary,
the Archbishop of Glasgow, in public according to this
canon ; though when he was at his Grace's table, where he
got better entertainment than his own commons (for he was
then in the College of Glasgow), he could give him all
his titles of dignity and honour.2 But another more im
portant Act was made by this Assembly. Take it, word for
1 MS. Calderwood, 81. Petrie, 394. ^ Spottiswoode, 303.

THE ARTICLE. 285
word, from Calderwood, who agrees exactly with both the
MSS. and Petrie ;! — " Forasmuch as there is great corrup
tion in the state of Bishops, as they are presently set up in
this realm, whereunto the Assembly would provide some
stay in time coming, so far as they may, to the effect that
farther corruption may be bridled ; the Assembly hath con
cluded, that no Bishop shall be elected or admitted before
the next General Assembly ; discharging all ministers and
chapters to proceed anyways to the election of the said
Bishops in the meantime, under the pain of perpetual de
privation ; and that this matter be proponed first in the
next Assembly, to be consulted what farther order shall be
taken therein."
Here was ground gained, indeed ; however, this was but
preparatory still — nothing yet concluded concerning the
unlawfulness of the office. It was consistent with this Act,
that Episcopacy should have continued, its corruptions be
ing removed. Neither are we as yet told what these cor
ruptions were. It seems even the Presbyterians themselves,
though in a fair condition now to be the prevailing party,
had not yet agreed about them. Indeed, another Assembly
must be over before we can come by them. Leaving them,
therefore, till we come at them, proceed we with this present
Assembly. Another fast was appointed by it. The nation, it seems,
was not yet sufficiently disposed for Presbytery, rubs and
difficulties were still cast in the way, and the good cause
was deplorably retarded. So it is fairly imported in the
Act for this fast — " The corruption of all estates, coldness
in a great part of the professors — that God would put it in
the King's heart, and the hearts of the Estates of Parlia
ment, to establish such a policy and discipline in the Kirk
as is craved in the Word of God," &c. These are amongst
the prime reasons in the narrative of this Act for fasting.2
Indeed, all this time the Book of Disciphne was only in
forming ; it had not yet got the Assembly's approbation.
The next General Assembly met at Stirling, June 11, this
same year, about six weeks or so after the dissolution of
the former ; but the Parliament was to sit, and it was
1 Calderwood, 81 ; Petrie, 394. ^ MS. Petrie, 394 ; Calderwood, 81.

286 THE ARTICLE.
needful the Assembly should sit before, to order ecclesiastic
business for it. And now, it seems, there was little strug
gling ; for the Assembly, all in one voice (as it is in MSS.,
Calderwood, and Petrie),! concluded — " That the Act of
the last Assembly, discharging the election of Bishops, &c.,
should be extended to all time coming." And here Petrie
stops ; but the MSS. and Calderwood add — " Ay, and while
the corruptions of the estate of Bishops be all utterly
taken away." And they ordained — " That all Bishops
already elected should submit themselves to the General
Assembly concerning the reformation of the corruptions of
that estate of Bishops in their persons, which, if they re
fused to do, after admonition, that they should be proceeded
against to excommunication." This Assembly met, as I
said, on the Wth oiJune, and, indeed, it seems the weather has
been warm enough; yet neither now did they adventure
again upon the main question, nor enumerate the corruptions
of the estate of Bishops. By this Assembly a commission
was also granted to certain persons to attend the Parlia
ment, and petition that the " Book of Discipline" might be
ratified, though all the Articles were not as yet agreed to.
A pretty odd overture — to desire the Parliament to ratify
what they themselves had not perfectly concerted !
The next Assembly met at Edinburgh, October 24th of
that same year, 1578, and it was but reasonable to have
tJiree Assemblies in six months, when the Church was so big
with Presbytery ! And now the corruptions so frequently
talked of before were enumerated, and the Bishops were
required to reform them in their persons. They were re
quired — " 1. To be ministers or pastors of one flock. 2.
To usurp no criminal jurisdiction. 3. Not to vote in Par
liament in name of the Kirk, without commission from the
General Assembly. 4. Not to take up, for maintaining
their ambition and riotousness, the emoluments of the Kirk,
which ought to sustain many pastors, the schools, and the
poor ; but to be content with reasonable livings, according
to their office. 5. Not to claim the titles of temporal
Lords, nor usurp civil jurisdiction, whereby they might be
abstracted from their office. 6. Not to empire it over
1 MS. Calderwood, 82 ; Petrie, 395.

THE ARTICLE. 287
particular elderships, but be subject to the same." So the
MSS.! Calderwood, and Petrie have it, though Spottiswoode
has the word Presbyteries,'^ which I take notice of, because
the unwary reader, when he reads Presbyteries in Spottis
woode, may take them for these ecclesiastical judicatories
which now are so denominated, whereas there were none
such as yet in the nation. " 7. Not to usurp the power of the
pastors" — (says the MSS.) — " nor take upon them to visit
any bounds not committed to them by the Church. 8. And
lastly. If any more corruptions should afterward be found
in the estate of Bishops, to consent to have them reformed."
These were the corruptions, and, particularly, at that same
very time the two Archbishops were required to reform them
in their persons.
What Adamson, Archbishop of St Andrews, did or said
on this occasion, I know not, but it seems he submitted
not : for I find him again required to do it by the next
Assembly, and that it was particularly laid to his charge
that he had opposed the " ratification" of the " Book" in
Parliament. But Boyd, Archbishop of Glasgow, did certainly
behave at this Assembly like a person of great worth, and a
man of courage suitable to his character, giving a brave and
resolute answer.^ You may see it in Spottiswoode, Calder-

' MS. Calderwood, 85 ; Petrie, 397 ; Spottiswoode, 303.
^ [The word " Presbyteries" is found in the " Book of the UniversaU
Ku-k," and was probably inserted by the compiler by mistake, as accord
ing more with modern phraseology and existing institutions. It is impor
tant, however, to mark the difference, that the tribunal of a " Presbytery"
may not be ante-dated. — E.]
^ ["I understand the name, office, and modest reverence borne to a
Bishop to be lawful, and aUowable by the Scriptures of God ; aud being
elected by the Kirk and King to be Bishop of Glasgow, I esteem my caU-
ing and office lawful. As it respects my execution of that chai-ge commit
ted to me, I am content to endeavour, at my utmost ability, to perform
the same and every point thereof, and to abide the honourable judgment
of the Kirk from time to come of my offending by my duty, craving
always a brotherly desire at their hands, seeing that the responsibUity is
weighty, and in the laying (anything) to my charge to be examined by the
canon left by the Apostle to Timothy (1 Timothy iU.), because that por
tion (of Scripture) was appointed to me at my receipt (induction), to
understand therefrom the duties of a Bishop. As towards my Uving,
rents, and other things granted by the Prince to me and my successors,
for the securing of that charge, I reckon the same lawfiil. As to my
duty to the supreme magistrate in assisting his Grace in CouncU or

288 THE ARTICLE.
wood, and Petrie.! I have not leasure to transcribe it.
But it pleased not the " novf' too much Presbyterian As
sembly ; and no wonder, for he spake truely like a Bishop.
The next Assembly was holden at Edinburgh in July,
anno 1579. " The King sent a letter to them, whereby he
signified his dislike of their former proceedings, and fairly
advised them to show more temper, and proceed more deli
berately." Calderwood calls it an harsh letter ; it is to be
seen, word for word, both in him and Petrie.2 But what
had they to do with the kings of this world, especially such
babie kings as King James then was — they, I say, who had
now the government of Christ's kingdom to settle ? However,
no more was done against Prelacy at this time than had
been ordered formerly. Indeed, there was little more to be
done, but to declare the office abolished, but that it seems
they were not yet ripe for. Perchance the corruptions men
tioned before had proved a little choaking, and people's sto
machs could not be so soon disposed for another dish of
such strong meat in an instant ; so that was reserved till the
next Assembly. Nevertheless, in the mean time we take
notice of one thing which we never heard of before, whicli
started up in this Assembly, and which must not be for
gotten. It was proposed by the Synod of Lothian (saith
Calderwood)^ — " That a general order might be taken for
erecting of Presbyteries in places where public exercise was
used, until the polity of the Church might be established
by law." And it was answered by the Assembly — " That
the Exercise was a Presbytery."^
A Presbytery turned afterwards, and now is, one of the
most specific, essential, and indispensible parts of the Pres-
Parliament, being summoned thereto, I consider my position as a subject
compels me to obey the same, and (that it is) no hurt, but beneficial to
the Ku'k that some of our number are at the making of good laws and
ordinances. In the doing whereof, I protest before God I intend never to
do anything but what I believe shaU stand with the purity of the Scrip
tures aud a well reformed country ; for a good part of the revenue which
I enjoy has been given me for that cause." There are somesUght verbal
variations in the accounts of this reply as given by Calderwood, Petrie,
and Spottiswoode, but the above is quoted from the " Booke of the
UniversaU Kirk," Part Second, p. 423.— E.]
1 Spottiswoode, 303 ; Calderwood, 84 ; Petrie, 396.
2 Calderwood, 86. Petrie, 398.
3 Calderwood, 88. '' MS. Calderwood, 88. Petrie, 400.

THE ARTICLE. 289
byterian constitution. Provincial Synods can sit only twice
in the year, General Assemblies only once, according to the
constitution. It is true, it is allowed to the King to convo-
cate one extraordinarily, and^ro re nata, as they call it ; and
the Kirk claims to have such a power too, as she sees occa
sion. But, then, it is as true that Kings have been so dis
gusted at such meetings, that they have hindered General
Assemblies! to meet for many years ; so that their meetings
are uncertain, and in innumerable cases there should be too
long a surcease of ecclesiastical justice, if causes should wait
either onthem, or Provincial Synods. The Commission ofthe
General Assembly, as they call it, is but an accidental thing ;
the sudden dissolution of a General Assembly can disappoint
its very being, as just now there is none, nor has been, since
thelast Assembly,2 which was so surprisingly dissolved^ in Fe-
bruaryl692. When there is such a court, it commonly sits but
once in three months, and it meddles not with every matter.
* [James VI. would not allow Assemblies to be convoked without
his, or his CouncU's, special license ; and during a certain period of his
contentions with the Presbyterians — from 1584 to 1586 — i. e. for two
years, he neither summoned nor would suffer them, though frequently
entreated, to meet. His iU-fated son was obliged to dissolve the Assembly
of 1638, and while Cromwell ruled Scotland with a rod of iron this Court
was prevented from being held. When the Assembly met at Edinburgh
in 1653, the Moderator had no sooner ended his opening prayer, than
the place of meeting was surrounded by a body of troops under the com
mand of one of Monk's field-officers, who pronounced their sitting iUegal,
and drove them out of the city. An attempt was made in the succeeding
year to get up another Assembly, but as soon as it was discovered, it was
suppressed by military interference. From this period, until after the
Revolution, there were no General Assemblies in Scotland. — E.]
" [In 1693, when our author wrot«. — E.]
' [It appears that WiUiam wished to conciliate the disestablished clergy,
aud a scheme had been formed between him and a favourite Nobleman
for receiving them upon certain terms within the Kirk. An Assembly
was caUed in 1692, and a royal letter read recommending the scheme.
One hundred and eighty Episcopal clergymen came forward, prepared to
subscribe the terms, but were refused admission, upon which they ap
pealed to the King, who, by his Commissioner, dissolved the Assembly,
which was not convoked for more than two years afterwards. This whole
affair seems to have been a piece of state policy, conducted upon the prin
ciple of expediency, and without scrutinizing too strictly the motives which
induced so large a body of clergy to concur in it, we cannot blame the
Presbyterian party for their exclusiveness in wishing to keep out of their
system persons, who might have proved very dangerous members, and had
been found tampering with their beloved Parity. — E.] 19

290 THE ARTICLE.
Besides, many of themselves do not love it, and look upon it
as an error in the custom of the Kirk, for it was never made
part of the constitution by any canon of the Kirk nor Act of
Parliament. But a Presbytery is a constant current court.
They may meet when they will, sit while they will, adjourn
whither, when, how long, how short time, soever they will.
They have all the substantial power of government and dis
cipline — they have really a legislative power — they can make
acts to bind themselves, and all those who live within their
jurisdiction ; and they have a very large dose of executive
power ; they can examine, ordain, admit, suspend, depose, mi
nisters ; they can cite, judge, absolve, condemn, excommunicate
whatsoever criminals. The supreme power oi the Church,
under Christ, is radically and originally in them ; it is in
General Assemblies themselves derivatively only, and as they
represent all the Presbyteries in the nation. And, if I mistake
not, if a General Assembly should enact any thing, and the
greater part of the Presbyteries oi the nation should reprobate
it, it would not be binding ; and yet how necessary, how
useful, how powerful soever, these Courts are — though they
are essential parts of the constitution — though they may be
really said to be that which specifies Presbyterian government,
this time, this seventh, or eighth, or tenth of July 1579, was
the first time they were heard of in Scotland.
That which was called the Exercise before was nothing
like a court — had no imaginable jurisdiction — could neither
enjoin penance to the smallest offender, nor absolve him from
it. It could exert no acts of authority — it had not so much
power as the meanest kirk-session — it was nothing like a Pres
bytery ; and, however it was said in this Assembly, " that the
Exercise was a Presbytery," yet that saying (as omnipotent
as a Presbyterian Assembly is) did not make it one. That
was not a factive proposition. There were no Presbyteries
erected at this time. The first that was erected was the
Presbytery oi Edinburgh ; and, if we may believe Calderwood
himself,! that Presbytery was not erected till the thirtieth
day of May 1581. More time was run before the rest were
erected. They were not agreed to by the King till the year
1586. They were not ratified by Parliament tiU the year
1 Calderwood, 116.

THE ARTICLE. 291
1592. And now let the impartial reader judge if it is pro
bable that our Reformers, who never thought on Presbyteries,
were of the present Presbyterian principles ? Were they
Presbyterians, who never understood — never thought of —
never dreamed of that which is so essential to the constitution
of a Church, by Divine institution, according to the present
Presbyterian principles .''
But doth not G[ilbert] R[ule] in his " First Vindication
of the Church of Scotland," in answer to the First Question,
§. 8, tell us that " the real exercise of Presbytery in all its
meetings, lesser and greater, continued, and was allowed, in
the year 1572," &c. True, he saith so ; but no man but
himself ever said so. But I know the natural history of this
ignorant blunder. His historian Calderwood had said that
" the Kirk of Scotland, ever since the beginning, had four
sorts of Assemblies,"! and this was enough for G[ilbert]
R[ule]. For what other could these four sorts of Assem
blies be than Kirk- Sessions, Presbyteries, Provincial Synods,
and General Assemblies ? But if he had, with the least
degree of any thing like attention, read four or five lines
further, he might have seen that Calderwood himself was
far from having the brow to assert that Presbyteries were
then in being. For having said there were four sorts of
Assemblies from the beginning, he goes on to particularize
them thus — " National, which were commonly called General
Assemblies ; Provincial, which were commonly called by the
general name of Synods ; loeekly meetings of ministers and
readers for interpretation of the Scripture, whereunto suc
ceeded Presbyteries, that is, meetings of many ministers and
elders for the exercise of discipline, and the eldership of every
parish, which others calls a Presbytery" In which account
it is evident that he doth not call these weekly meetings for
interpretation of the Scriptures Presbyteries, but says that
Presbyteries succeeded to these weekly meetings ; and he gives
quite different descriptions of these weekly meetings and
Presbyteries, making the weekly meetings to have been " of
ministers and elders for the interpretation of Scripture,"
and Presbyteries to have been — as they still are — " meetings
of many ministers and elders for the exercise of discipline."
1 Calderwood, 29.

292 THE ARTICLE.
It is true, he might have as well said that Presbyteries suc
ceeded to the meeting of the four kings against the five, or
of the five against the four, mentioned in the 14th chapter
of the Book of Genesis, for the meetings of these kings were
before our Presbyteries, I think, in order of time ; and these
meetings of these kings M'ere as much like our present Pres
byteries, as those meetings were which were appointed at the
Reformation for the interpretation of Scripture. So that
even Calderwood himself was but trifiing when he said so.
But trifling is one thing, and impudent founding of false
history upon another man's trifling is another. But enough
of this author at present ; we shaU have further occasions
of meeting with him.
This Assembly was also earnest with the King that the
" Book of Policy" might be farther considered, and that
farther conference might be had about it, that the Heads
not agreed about might be compromised some way or other.!
But the King, it seems, listened not, for they were at it
again in their next Assembly. And now that I have so
frequently mentioned this " Second Book of Discipline,"
and shall not have occasion to proceed much further in this
wearisome deduction, before I leave it I shaU only say this
much more about it. As much stress as the Presbyterian
party laid on it afterwards, and continue stUl to lay on it, as
if it were so very exact a system of ecclesiastical polity,
yet at the beginning the compilers of it had no such confi
dent sentiments about it ; for, if we may believe Spottis-
woode2 — and herein he is not contradicted by any Presbyte
rian historian, when Mr David Lindesay, Mr James Law-
son, and Mr Robert Pont, were sent by the Assembly to
present it to the Regent Morton in the end of the year
1577 — " They intreated his Grace to receive the Articles
presented to him, and if any of them did seem not agreeable
to reason, to vouchsafe audience to the brethren whom the
Assembly had named to attend. Not that they thought it
a work complete, to which nothing might be added, or from
which nothing might be diminished ; for, as God should
reveal further unto them, they should be willing to help and
renew the same." Now, upon this testimony I found this
1 MS. Petrie, 399 ; Calderwood, 87, 88. » Spottiswoode, 277.

THE ARTICLE. 293
question — whether the compilers of the " Second Book of
Discipline" could in reason have been in earnest that this
Book, which they acknowledged not to be a work so com
plete as that nothing could be added to it or taken from it,
should have been confirmed by an oath and sworn to as an un
alterable rule of policy ? Are they not injurious to them who
make them capable of such a barer-faced absurdity ? Indeed,
whatever our present Presbyterians say, and with how great
assurance soever they talk to this purpose, this is a demon
stration that the compilers of it never intended, nay, could
not intend, that it should be sworn to in the " Negative Con
fession."! That it was not sworn to in that " Confession,"
I think I could prove with as much evidence as the nature of
the thing is capable of, if it were needful to my present pur
pose; but not being that, I shall only give this further
demonstration, which comes in here naturally enough, now
that we have mentioned this Book so often. The " Negative
Confession" was sworn to and subscribed by the King and
his Council upon the 28th of January 1580-1.2 Upon the
second of March thereafter the King gave out a proclama
tion, ordering aU the subjects to subscribe '\t? But the King

^ [This was composed by John Craig at the request of the King, and
the object of it was to free himself and his household from a charge of
" Popery" which had been " got up" against them. The suspicion of Roman
izing tendencies arose from the fact of his Majesty having promoted, and
admitted to his particular favour, his relative Esme Stuart, Lord Aubigny,
who had recently arrived in Scotland from France. This Nobleman,
either from conviction, or some other less laudable motive, had, soon after
his arrival, publicly embraced the Protestant religion, participated in the
Lord's Supper, and subscribed the Confession of Faith of 1560 ; but this
did not satisfy the jealous Reformers, who suspected that the principles of
the King were being perverted by his intimacy with the obnoxious Noble
man, and therefore they raised a riolent outcry against him. James,
foreseeing the eril Ukely to arise from such suspicions, determined to put
the orthodoxy of himself and his friend beyond question, and accordingly
ordered his chaplain to draw up a Confession of Faith on the suspected
points. This functionary certainly executed his task with much fidelity,
for the document which he compiled, while it assailed the Pope, and all
the " corruptions of Romanism," was couched in coarse and bitter language,
for the obvious purpose of rendering the Royal subscription more marked
and undoubted. James and his household signed it, January 28, 1580, and
he afterwards recommended it to the consideration of his subjects. It is
in the « Book of the UniversaU Kirk," Part II. p. 515-18, printed for the
Banhattne Club. — E.]
2 Calderwood, 96. ^ Calderwood, 97.

294

THE ARTICLE.

had never approven, never owned, but, on the contrary, had
constantly rejected, the " Second Book of Discipline." Naj-,
it was not ratified — got not 'its finishing stroke from the Gene
ral Assembly — itself till towards the end of April in that year
1581. By necessary consequence, I think, it was not sworn
to in the " Negative Confession." And thus I leave it.
Proceed we now to the next Assembly.
It met at Dundee upon the twelfth of July 1580, full
twenty years after the Reformation, for the Parhament
which established the Reformation — as the Presbyterian
historians are earnest to have it — had its first meeting on the
tenth of July 1560. This — this was the Assembly which, after
so many fencings and strugglings, gaye the deadly thrust to
Episcopacy. I shall transcribe its Act word for word from
Calderwood, who has exactly enough taken it from the MSS.,
and both Spottiswoode and Petrie agree.! It is this : —
" Forasmuch as the office of a Bishop, as it is now used
and commonly taken within this Realm, hath no sure war
rant, authority, nor good ground out of the Book and Scrip
tures of God, but is brought in by the folly and corruptions
of men's invention, to the great overthrow of the true Kirk
of God ; the whole Assembly in one voice, after liberty given
to all men to reason in the matter, none opponing them
selves in defence of the said pretended office, findeth and
declareth the same pretended office, used and termed as is
above said, unlawful in the self, as having neither funda
ment, ground, nor warrant in the Word of God. And or-
daineth that all such persons as brook, or hereafter shall
brook the said office, be charged simpliciter to dimit, quit,
and leave off the samine, as an office whereunto they are not
called by God ; and sicklike to desist and cease from preach
ing, ministration of the Sacraments, or using any way the
office of pastors, whne2 they receive, de novo, admission from
the General Assembly, under the pain of excommunication
to be used against them ; wherein, if they be found disobe
dient, or contravene this Act in any point, the sentence of
excommunication, after due admonition, to be execute against
them." 1 Calderwood, 90 ; Spottiswoode, 311 ; Petrie, 402. ^ [UntU.— E.]

THE ARTICLE. 295
This is the Act. Perhaps it were no very great difficulty
to impugn the infallibility of this true blue Assembly, and to
expose the boldness, the folly, the iniquity, the preposterous
zeal, which are conspicuous in this Act ; nay, yet after all
this, to shew that the zealots for Parity had not arrived at
that height of effrontery, as to condemn Prelacy as simply and
in itself unlawful.! But by this time, I think, I have per
formed my promise, and made it appear that it was no easy
task to abolish Episcopacy, and introduce Presbytery — to
turn down Prelacy, and set up Parity in the government of
the Church, when it was first attempted in Scotland. And,
therefore, I shall stop here, and bring this long disquisition
upon the Second Inquiry to a conclusion, after I have re
capitulated, and represented in one entire view, what I have
at so great length deduced.
I have made it appear, I think, that no such Article was
believed, professed, or maintained by the body of any Re
formed or Reforming Church, or by any eminent and famous
divine in any Reformed or Reforming Church, while our
Church was a-reforming ; no such Article, I say, as that of
the Divine and indispensible institution of Parity, and the
unlawfulness of Prelacy or imparity amongst the governors
of the Church. I have made it appear that there is no reason

1 [The author hints at the restricting clause, (" as it is now used and
commonly taken") with regard to Episcopacy. That this restriction had
a meaning is erident from the fact that, in the next Assembly held at
Glasgow, several brethren expressed their scruples at the sweeping con
demnation of Episcopacy as having " no warrant in the Word of God"
when the Assembly explained that " that their meaning was to condemn the
estate of Bishops as they were tlien in Scotland." A venerable historian
observes upon this Act — " It was not, therefore. Episcopacy in general,
as such, but that particular form and fashion of it, now for political ends
erected in Scotland, which even this seemingly Presbyterian Assembly of
Dundee condemned, as flowing from the folly and corruption of man's in
vention, and having no warrant in the Word of God ; and, indeed, it will
not be easy to prove from Scripture that the office of a Bishop, as there
described, could properly and warrantably be exercised by any one at his
own hand, without such prerious aud preparatory solemnity as the canons
of Scripture had appointed, and the first ages, in conformity to and inter
pretation of these canons, had universaUy and constantly practised. And
could the Episcopacy which was at that time used in Scotland, either in
the entrance to, or exercise of the office, claim the Apostolic character, or
pretend to any Scripture warrant ?" Skinner's Ecclesiastical History,
vol. ii. pp.210, 211.— E.]

296

THE ARTICLE.

to believe that our Reformers were more prying in such
matters than the Reformers of other Churches. I have made
it appear that there is not so much as a syllable, a shew, a
shadow of an indication, that any of those who merited the
name of our Reformers entertained any such principle, or
maintained any such Article. I have made it appear that
our Reformation was carried on, much, very much, by the
infiuences and upon the principles of the English Reformers,
amongst whom that principle of Parity had no imaginable
footing. These are, at least, great presumptions oi the credi
bility of this, that our Reformers maintained no such principle.
Agreeably to these presumptions, I have made it appear
that our Reformers proceeded de facto upon the principles of
Imparity. They formed their petitions for the reformation
of our Church according to these principles. The first schema
of church government they erected was established upon
these principles. Our Superintendents were notoriously and
undeniably Prelates ; the next establishment, in which the
Prelates resumed the old names and titles of Archbishops and
Bishops, was the same for substance with the first, at least
they did not differ as to the point of Imparity. I have made
it appear that this second establishment was agreed to by
the Church unanimously, and submitted to calmly and
peaceably, and that it was received as an establishment
which was intended to continue in the Church ; at least no
objections made against it, no appearances in opposition to it,
no indications of its being accepted only for an interim, upon
the account of Imparity being in its constitution. I have
made it appear that Imparity was received, practised, owned,
and submitted to, and that Prelates were suitably honoured
and dutifully obeyed, without reluctancy, and without inter
ruption, for full fifteen years after the Reformation. And I
have made it appear that after it was called in question, its
adversaries found many repulses, and mighty difficulties,
and spent much travel, and much time, no less than iu&five
years, before they could get it abolished. And if the deduc
tion I have made puts not this beyond all doubt, it may be
further confirmed by the testimonies of two very intelligent
authors. The first is that ingenious and judicious author
who wrote the accurate piece called " Episcopacy not
Abjured in Scotland, pubhshed anno 1640," who affirms

THE ARTICLE. 297
positively! — " that it was by reason of opposition made to the
Presbyterians, by many wise, learned, and godly brethren,
who stood firmly for the ancient discipline of the Church,
that Episcopacy was so long a condemning." It appears
from his elaborate work, that he was an ingenuous as well as
an ingenious person, and living then, and having been at so
much pains to inform himself concerning not only the trans
actions but the intrigues of former times, it is to be pre
sumed, he did not affirm such a proposition without suffi
cient ground. But whatever dust may be raised about his
credit and authority, sure I am my other witness is unex
ceptionable. He is King James the Sixth of Scotland and
the First of England. This great and wise Prince lived in
these times in which Presbytery was first introduced, and I
think it is scarcely to be questioned that he understood and
could give a just account of what passed then, as well as any
man then living ; and he, in his " Basilicon Doron,"2 affirms
plainly that " the learned, grave, and honest men of the
ministry, were ever ashamed of, and offended with, the
temerity and presumption" of the democratical and Presby
terian party. All these things, I say, I think I have made
appear sufficiently ; and so I am not afraid to leave it to the
world to judge whether our Reformers were of the present
Presbyterian principles ?
Only one thing more, before I proceed to the next In
quiry. Our Presbyterian brethren, Calderwood, Petrie, and
G[ilbert] R[ule], as I have already observed, are very ear
nest and carefid to have their readers advert, that when
Episcopacy was established by the Agreement at Leith,
anno 1572, the Bishops were to have no more power than
the Superintendents had before ; and, indeed, it is true, they
had no more, as I have already acknowledged, but I would
advise our brethren to be more cautious in insisting on such
a dangerous point, or glorying in such a discovery hereafter.
For thus I argue : —
The " Episcopacy agreed to at Leith," anno 1572, as to
its essentials, its power, and authority, was the same with the
Superintendency established at the Reformation, anno 1560.
But the General Assembly holden at Dundee, anno 1580,
1 P. 97. — [John MaxweU, Bishop of Ross. — E.]
" P. 160 of his Works, printed at London, 1616.

298 THE ARTICLE.
condemned the power and authority of the Episcopacy agreed
to at Leith, anno 1572. Ergo, they condemmed the power
and authority of the Superintendency established by our Re
formers, anno 1560. Ergo, the Assembly, 1580, not only
forsook but condemned the principles of our Reformers. But
if this reasoning holds, I think our present Presbyterian
brethren have no reason to claim the title of successors to our
Reformers. They must not ascend so high as the year
1560 — they must stand at the year 1580 ; for, if I mistake
not, the laws of heraldry will not allow them to call them
selves the true posterity of those whom they condemn, and
whose principles they declare erroneous. In such moral cog
nations I take oneness oi principle to be the foundation ofthe
relation, as oneness of blood is in physical cognations. 'Let
them not, therefore, go farther up than the year 1580 — let
them date the Reformation from this Assembly at Dundee,
and own Mr Andrew Melville and John Durie,'^ &c. for their
first parents. When they have fixed there, I shall, per
chance, allow them to affirm that the Church of Scotland
was reformed (in their sense of reformation) by Presbyters,
that is, Presbyterians. Proceed we now to

THE THIRD INQUIRY  WHETHER PRELACY, AND THE SUPE
RIORITY OF ANY OFFICE IN THE CHURCH ABOVE PRESBYTERS,
WAS A GREAT AND INSUPPORTABLE GRIEVANCE AND TROUBLE
TO THIS NATION, AND CONTRARY TO THE INCLINATIONS OF
THE GENERALITY OF THE PEOPLE, EVER SINCE THE REFOR
MATION ?
Considering what hath been discoursed so fully on the for
mer Inquiry, this may be very soon dispatched ; for, if " Pre
lacy, and the superiority of other officers in the Church
1 [These were the indiriduals who first attacked Episcopacy in 1575.
Diu-ie was the tool of MelviUe, who had imbibed his notions of Parity
during his residence at Geneva, where he had associated with Calvin and
Beza, and having borrowed from them the Presbyterian polity, he intro
duced it into his native land. It is, therefore, oi foreign origin, and people
greatly mistake when they allow the advocates of Presbyterianism to
delude themselves and others by ascribing to it gi-eater antiquity than it
deserves, and investing it with a national character. It was gekebated in
Geneva, and tkansplanted into Scotland bt Melville in 1580. — E.]

TIIE ARTICLE. 299
above Presbyters," was so unanimously consented to and
established at the Reformation — if it continued to be owned,
revered, and submitted to by pastors and people without
interruption — without being ever called in question for full
fifteen years after the Reformation — if after it was called in
question its adversaries found it so hard a task to subvert
it, that they spent five years more, before they could get
it subverted and declared unlawful, even as it was then in
Scotland — if these things are true, I say I think it is not
very credible that it was " a great and insupportable
grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the
inclinations of the generality of the people ever since the Re
formation." This collection I take to be as clear a demon
stration as the subject is capable of. But beside this, we
have the clear and consentient testimonies of historians to
this purpose.
Petrie! delivers it thus — " Mercy and truth, righteousness
and peace, had never, since Christ's coming in the flesh, a
more glorious meeting and amiable embracing on earth ;
even so, that the Church of Scotland justly obtained a name
amongst the chief churches and kingdoms of the world — the
hottest persecutions had not greater purity — the most
halcyon times had not more prosperity and peace — the best
Reformed Churches in other places scarcely paralleled their
liberty and unity." Spottiswoode2 thus — " The Superin
tendents were in such respect with all men, as, notwith
standing the dissensions that were in the country, no excep
tion was taken at their proceedings by any of the parties,
but all concurred in the maintenance of religion, and in the
treaties of peace made, that was ever one of the Articles; such
a reverence was in those times carried to the Church, the
very form of government purchasing them respect." I
might also cite Beza himself to this purpose, in his letter
to John Knox, dated Geneva, April 12, 1572, wherein he
congratulates heartily the happy and united state of the
Church of Scotland. Perhaps it might be no difficult task
to adduce more testimonies ; but the truth is, no man can
read the histories and monuments of these times, without
being convinced that this is true, and that there cannot be
^ Petrie, ad anno 1676, page 352.
^ Spottiswoode, ad anno 1571, page 258.

300 THE ARTICLE.
a falser proposition, than " that Prelacy was such a griev
ance then, or so contrary to the inclinations of the gene
rality of the people."
Further, even in succeeding times — even after it was con
demned by that Assembly, 1580 — it cannot be proven that
it was such a " grievance" to the " nation." It is true, in
deed, some hot-headed Presbyterian preachers endeavoured
all they could to possess the people with an opinion of its
Antichristianism, forsooth, and that it was a brat of the
whore, a limb of Popery, and what not ? But all this time
no account of the " inclinations of the generality of the
people" against it. On the contrary, nothing more evident
in history, even Calderwood's History, than that there was
no such thing. Is it not obviously observable, even in that
History, that after the civil government took some twelve
or fourteen of the most forward of these brethren, who
kept the pretended Assembly at Aberdeen,! anno 1605, a
little roundly to task, and some six or eight more were called
by the King to attend his will at London, all things went
very peaceably in Scotland ? Was not Episcopacy restored
by the General Assembly at Glasgow, anno 1610, with very
great unanimity ? Of more than one hundred and seventy
voices, there were only five negative, and seven non liquet.
Nay, Calderwood himself hath recorded, that even these
ministers who went to London, after their return submitted
peaceably to the then established Prelacy. And there are
few things more observable in his Book than his grudge
that there should have been such a general defection from
the good cause. Indeed, I have not observed, no, not in his
History, that there were six in all the kingdom who, from
the establishment of Episcopacy, anno 1610, did not attend
at Synods, and submit to their Ordinaries. I do not remem
ber any except two — Calderwood himself, and one Johnstone
at Ancrum, and even these two pretended other reasons
than scruple of conscience for their withdrawing.
1 [This Assembly consisted of nineteen ministers, who sat in direct
opposition to the Royal authority, by which their meeting had been dis
solved. Some of them were afterwards tried for high treason, and being
conricted, were committed to prison, and finally banished. Others, among
whom were Andrew MelvUle and his nephew James Melville, were sum
moned a few months after to London to the Hampton Court Con
ference. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 301
It is further observable, that the stirs which were made
after the Assembly at Perth, anno 1618, were not pretended
to be upon the account of Episcopacy. Those of the gang
could not prevail, it seems, with the " generality of the
people" to tumultuate on that account. All that was pro
tended were the " Perth Articles."! Neither did the humour
against these " Articles" prevail much, or far, all the time
King James lived, nor for the first twelve years of King
Charles, his son and successor. It fell asleep, as it were, till the

' [These injunctions were five in number : — " I. KneeUng at the re
ception of the Eucharist. II. The administration of the Holy Commun
ion to the sick, dying, or infirm persons, in their houses, in cases of
urgent necessity. III. The administration of Baptism in private,
under similar circumstances. IV. Confirmation by the Bishop. V.
The observance of the Festivals relating to our blessed Sariour, aud
the great events in the fulfilment of our redemption — the Birth, Pas
sion, Resurrection, and Ascension of our Lord, and the effusion of the
Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. These Articles made much noise
at the time, and encountered a strong opposition, as tilings absolutely
"Popish" and wicked. But the prejudice against the practices which
they enjoin is rapidly passing away from the minds of Scottish Presby
terians. Their ministers now perform Baptisms privately without any
reluctance ; they regret that it is not permitted them to set before the
sick aud dying the visible symbols of " Christ crucified," and to admini
ster to their fainting souls the blessed " medicine of immortaUty." In
deed, it is related by Mr Scott, in his MS. Extracts from the Kirk-Session
Records of Perth — " I have heard of its being given by a minister of our
Church in the South of Scotland. The Presbytery to which he belongs
have not inflicted any censure upon him, nor does it seem to be the re
solution of the church judicatories generaUy, to take any notice of it ;"
and it has been stated to the present Editor, that within the last six years a
Presbyterian divine in Glasgow did, in this particnlar, charitably overstep
the restrictions of his Kirk. With respect to the observation of Festivals,
it is generally admitted by the best informed among them, that in this
their system is extremely defective, and they endeavour to supply the
defect by regulating their sermons according to the subjects suggested by
the several seasons and institutions of the Catholic ritual. One of the
most eminent of the present ministers of Edinburgh is famed for his
singular care in adapting his discourses at the several commemorative
seasons to the subjects suggested by the English Book of Common
Prayer — a praise-worthy attempt on his part to rectify the isolation of
Presbyterianism, and to realize the " Communion of Saints." The case
of this talented metropolitan preacher is by no means singular. There
are others within the Scottish EstabUshment of the same s^os, who are re
garded with suspicion by their more rigid brethren, and whose fondness
for hturgical institutions and language has caused them to be viewed as
leaning towards the " Church of England." — E.]

302 THE ARTICLE.
clamours against the Liturgy and Book of Canons awakened
it, anno 1637, and all that time — I mean from the year 1610,
that Episcopacy was restored, till the yearl637,that the Cove
nanting work was set on foot, Prelacy was so far from being "a
great and insupportable grievance and trouble to this nation,
and contraryto the inclinations of the generality of the people,"
that, on the contrary, it was not only generally submitted to,
but in very good esteem. Indeed, it is certain the nation
had never more peace, more concord, more plenty, more pro
found quiet and prosperity, than in that interval. Let no
man reckon of these things as naked assertions — I can
prove them ; and hereby I undertake (with God's allowance
and assistance) to prove all I have said, and more if I shall
be put to it. But I think my cause requires not that it
should be done at present. Nay, further yet, I do not think
it were an insuperable task if I should undertake to main
tain, that when the Covenanting politic was set on foot, anno
1637, Prelacy was no " such grievance" to the nation.
This I am sure of, it was not the contrariety of the gene
rality of the people's inclinations to Prelacy that first gave
life and motion to that monstrous confederation. Sure I am,
it was pretty far advanced before the leading confederates
offered to fix on Prelacy, as one of their reasons for it — so
very sure, that it is easy to make it appear that they were
afraid of nothing more than that " the generality of the
people" should s-mell it out — that they had designs to over
turn Episcopacy. How often did they protest to the Mar
quis of Hamilton, then the King's Commissioner, that their
meaning was not to abolish Episcopal government ?! How
frank were they to tell those whom they were earnest to
cajole into their Covenant, that they might very well swear
it without prejudice to Episcopacy ?2 Nay, how forward
^ See Large Declaration, 114, 115.
^ Ibid. 69 and 173.^ — [" As to the National Covenant itself, although its
object could not be misunderstood, it contains no direct denial of the Royal
authority and the Episcopal government of the Church. This obtained for
it signatures from many who were opposed to violent measures, and who
never contemplated the overthrow of Episcopacy. In a letter to Principal
Strang of Glasgow, who had signed it — ' so far as that it was not prejudicial
to the King's authority, the office of Episcopal government itself, and that
power which is given to Bishops by lawful Assemblies and Parliaments,'
BaUlie sayis — ' If ye saw any thing into this Covenant which, either in

THE ARTICLE. 303
were the Presbyterian ministers themselves to propagate
this pretence ? When the Doctors of Aberdeen told the
three^ who were sent to that city to procure subscriptions,
that they could not swear the Covenant because Episcopacy
was abjured in it, are not these Henderson's and Dickson's
very words in their " Answer" to the " Fourth Reply." —
" You will have all the Covenanters, against their intention,
and whether they will or not, to disallow and condemn the
Articles of Perth and Episcopal government ; but it is
known to many hundreds that the words were purposely
conceived, for satisfaction of such as were of your judgment,
that we might all join in one heart and covenant ?" Many
more things might be readily adduced to prove this more
fully, but it is needless ; for what can be more fairly coUi-
gible from any thing than it is from this specimen, that it was
therr fear that they might miss of their mark, and not get
the people to join with them in their Covenant, if it should
be so soon discovered that they aimed at the overthrow of
Episcopacy. It is true, indeed, after they had by such disingenuous and
Jesuitish fetches gained numbers to their party, and got
many well meaning ministers and people engaged in their
rebelUous and schismatical confederacy, they took off the mask,
and condemned Episcopacy in their packed Assembly, anno
1638, declaring, with more than Jesuitish impudence, that,
notwithstanding of their protestations so frequently and
publicly made to the contrary, it was abjured in their Cove
nant. And yet I dare advance this paradox, that even then
it was not an " insupportable grievance" to the Presbyterians
themselves, far less to the whole nation. I own this to be a
paradox, and, therefore, I must ask my reader's allowance to
give my reason for which I have dared to advance it. It
is this.
express terms, or by any good consequence, could infer the contradiction
of any of those things ye name, ye might not in any terms, on any expo
sition or limitation, offer to subscribe it.' He declares that he could see
no word in it against the King's ' full authority,' or ' against the office of
Bishops,' and that he had often publicly professed this his belief ' without
the least appearance of contradiction.' " Lawson's Episcopal Church
of Scotland from the Reformation to the Revolution, p. 545-6. — E.]
1 [Dickson, HEenderson, and Cant, who were in consequence called " the
three Apostles of the Covenant !" — E.]

304 THE ARTICLE.
Considering how much Prelacy a-ffects the Church as a
society — of how great consequence it is in the concerns of the
Church, whatever it is in itself, it cannot in reason be called
an " insupportable grievance" to such as are satisfied they
can live safely and without sin in the communion bf that
Church where it prevails. If such can call it a " grievance"
at all, I think they cannot justly call it more than a " sup
portable grievance ;" I think it cannot be justly called an
" insupportable grievance," till it can justify, and by conse
quence necessitate a separation from that Church which has it
in its constitution. How can that be called an " insupport
able grievance," especially in Church matters, where griev
ance and corruption (if I take them right, must be terms
very much equivalent), to those who can safely support it,
i. e. live under it without sin, and with a safe conscience, con
tinue in the Church's communion while it is in the Church's
government ? How can that be called " insupportable" which
is not of such malignity in a Church as to make her com
munion sinful ? How can that be called " insupportable," in
ecclesiastical concerns or religious matters, to those who are
persuaded they may bear it, or with it, without disturbing
their inward peace, or endangering their eternal interests ?
Now, such in these times were all the Presbyterians, at
least generally in the nation. They did not think upon break
ing the communion of the Church, upon separating from the
solemn assemblies under Prelacy, and setting up Presbyterian
altars in opposition to the Episcopal altars. They still kept
up one communion in the nation ; they did not refuse to join
in the public ordinances, the solemn worship of God, and the
Sacraments, with their Prelatic brethren. All this is so well
known, that none I think will call it in question. Indeed that
height of antipathy to Prelacy had not prevailed amongst the
party, no, not when Episcopacy had its fetters struck off,
anno 1662, for then, and for some years after, the Presby
terians generally, both pastors and people, kept the unity of
the Church, and joined with the conformists in the public
ordinances ; and I believe there are hundreds of thousands
in Scotland who remember very well how short a time it is
since they betook themselves to conventicles, and turned
avowed schismatics. I confess the reasoning I have just
now insisted on cannot militate so patly against such, for if

THE ARTICLE. 305
they had reason to separate, they had the same reason to
call Prelacy an " insupportable grievance " — no more and no
other. But I cannot see how the force of it can be well avoided
by them in respect of their predecessors, who had not the
boldness to separate upon the account of Prelacy.
But it may be said, that those Presbyterians who lived
anno 1637, and downward, shook off Prelacy, and would bear
it no longer ; and was it not then an " insupportable griev
ance" to them ? True, indeed, for removing the pretended
corruptions of Prelacy, they then ventured upon the really
horrid sin of rebellion against their Prince — they embroiled
three famous and flourishing kingdoms — they broke down
the beautiful and ancient structures of government both in
Church and State — they shed oceans of Christian blood and
made the nations welter in gore — ^they gave up themselves
to all the wildnesses of rage and fury — ^they gloried in trea
son and treachery, in oppression and murder, in fierceness
and unbridled tyranny — they drenched innumerable misled
souls in the crimson guilt of schism and sedition, of rebellion
and faction, of perfidy and perjury. In short, they opened
the way to such an inundation of hypocrisy and irreligion,
of confusions and calamities, as cannot easily be paralleled
in history. And for aU these things they pretended their
antipathies to Prelacy ! And yet, after all this, I am where I
was. Considering their aforesaid principles and practices
as to the unity of the Church, they could not call it an " in
supportable grievance." They did not truly find it such.
Had they really and sincerely, in true Christian simplicity
and sobriety, found or felt it such, they would no doubt have
looked on it as a forcible ground for separating from the
communion in which it prevailed, as the Protestants in
Germany found their centum gravamina for separating from
the Church of Rome. To have made it that, indeed, and
then to have " suffered patiently," if they had been perse
cuted for it, without turning to the antichristian course of
armed resistance, had had some colour of an argument that
they deemed it an " insupportable grievance." But the
fiercest fighting against it, so long as they could allow them
selves to live in the communion which owned it, can never
infer that it was to them an " insupportable grievance." At
most, if it was, it was to wanton humour and wildfire only,
20

306 THE ARTICLE.
and not to conscience and real Christian conviction. And so
I leave this argument.
I could easily insist more largely on this Inquiry, but to
avoid tediousness I shall advance only one thing more. It
is a challenge to my Presbyterian brethren to produce but
one public deed — one solemn or considerable appearance of
the nation, taken either collectively or representatively, which
by any tolerable construction or interpretation can import
that " Prelacy, or the superiority of any office in the Church
above Presbyters, was a great and insupportable grievance
and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the inclinations
of the generality of the people" for full thirty years after the
Reformation. The learned G[ilbert] R[ule] thought he had found one
indeed, it seems, for he introduced it very briskly in his "First
Vindication of the Church of Scotland," in answer to the
First Question, § 9. Hear him : — " It is evident" (says he)
" that Episcopal jurisdiction over the Protestants was con
demned by law in that same Parliament, 1567, wherein the
Protestant religion was established." What ? No less than
evident ! Let us try this parliamentary condemnation. — " It
is there statute and ordained, that no other jurisdiction
ecclesiastical be acknowledged within this Realm than that
which is, and shall be, within this same Kirk established pre
sently, or which fioweth therefrom, concerning preaching
the Word, correcting of manners, administration of Sacra
ments." So he. No man who knows this author, and his
way of writing, wUl readily think it was ill manners to examine
whether he cited right. I turned over, therefore, all the Acts
of that Parliament which are in print — and I think his cita
tion shaU scarcely be found amongst the unprinted ones —
but could not find this citation of our author's. What was
next to be done ? I knew that fuU weU. I turned to the
43d page of his historian Calderwood, and there I found it
word for word. WeU ! But is there no such period to be
found in the Acts of that Parliament ? Not one, indeed.
It is true there is an Act, the sixth in number, intituled —
" Anent the true and holy Kirk, and of them that are
declared to be of the same ;" which Act I find insisted on
by the Covenanters, anno 1638, in their Answer to the Mar
quis of Hamilton's Declaration at Edinburgh, in December

THE ARTICLE. 307
that year — as is to be seen in the Large Declaration! — as
condemning Episcopacy. It is very probable this might be
the Act Calderwood thought he abridged in these words
borrowed from him by G[ilbert] R[ule]. I shall set it down,
word for word, that the world may judge if Episcopacy is
condemned by it.2
" Forasmuch as the ministers of the blessed Evangel of
Jesus Christ, whom God of His mercy hath now raised up
amongst us, or hereafter shall raise, agreeing with them who
now live in doctrine and administration of the Sacraments
(as in the Reformed Kirks of this Realm they are publicly
administrate) according to the Confession of Faith ; our
Sovereign Lord, with advice of my Lord Regent and the
three Estates of this present Parliament, has declared, and
declares, the aforesaid persons to be the only true and holy
Kirk of Jesus Christ within this Realm ; and decerns and
declares, that all and sundry, who either gainsay the Word
of the Evangel, received and approved, as the heads of the
Confession of Faith professed in Parliament before in the
year of God 1560 years, as also specified in the Acts of this
Parliament more particularly doth express, and now ratified
and approved in this present Parliament, or that refuses the
participation of the holy Sacraments, as they are now
ministrate, to be no members of the said Kirk within this
Realm presently professed, so long as they keep themselves
so divided from the society of Christ's body."
This is the Act. Now here not one word of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction either foreign or domestic — not one word of any
jurisdiction within this realm, or in the Kirk within this

^ P. 352. — [" Large Declaration concerning the late Tumults in Scotland,
together with aParticularDeduction ofthe Seditious Practices ofthe prime
Leaders of the Covenant," by Dr Walter Balcanqual, Dean of Rochester,
afterwards of York. He was one of the executors appointed by the
excellent George Heriot for carrying out his designs with regard to
the Hospital which bears his name, and his main object in risiting Edin
burgh at this time was to lay the foundation stone of that noble Insti
tution. — E.]
2 [The "Acta Pari. Scot." which are before the Editor, differ slightly from
this printed excerpt. After the clause " agreeing with them who now live in
doctrine," follows — [" and the pepU of this Realm that profess Jesus Christ
as he is now offered in his Evangel, and do communicate with the Haly
Sacraments"] " as in the Reformed Kirks." The words within brackets
are not in this excerpt. — E.]

308 THE ARTICLE.
realm, or that should ever flow from the said Kirk — not one
word of correcting of manners. From which it is evident that
if this was the Act Calderwood aimed at, he gave the world
a very odd abridgement of it. And G[ilbert] R[ule] should
consider things a little better, and not take them upon trust,
to found arguments on them so ridiculously.
But doth not this Act condemn Episcopacy? Let the
world judge if it doth. What can be more plain than that
all this Act aims at is only to define that Church which then
was to have the legal establishment, and the countenance of
the civil authority ? This Church it defines to be that
society of pastors and people which professed the doctrine
of the Evangel, &c. according to the Confession of Faith
then established. It is plain, I say, this is all that Act
aims at. Not one word of jurisdiction or discipline, of
government or polity, of Episcopacy or Presbytery, of Prelacy
or Parity, of equality or inequality, amongst the governors
of the Church. Whatever the form oi government was then
in the Church, or whatever it might be afterwards, was all
one to this Act, so long as pastors — whether acting in Parity
or Imparity — and people kept by the same Rule of faith, and
the same manner of administering the Sacraments. What
is there here like a condemnation of Episcopal jurisdiction ?
Is this the way of parliamentary condemnations, to condemn
an office, or an order, or a jurisdiction — call it as you will —
without either naming it, or describing it in terms so circum
stantiated, as the world might understand by them that it was
meant ? To condemn a thing, especially a thing of so great im
portance, without so much as repealing any one of many Acts
which established or ratified it before ? Surely if this Act
condemned Episcopacy, this Parliament happened upon a new
stile, a singular stile, a stile never used before, never used since.
Besides, if this was the Act G[ilbert] R[ule] intended, I would
earnestly desire him to name but any one man who lived in
these times, and understood Episcopacy to have been con
demned by this Act. How blind was Master Andrew Mel
ville ? How blind was all the Presbyterian /raform'^y, that, all
the five years they were fighting against Prelacy, could never
hit on this Act, and prove that it ought to be no longer
tolerated, seeing it was against an Act of Parliament ? Were
they so little careful of Acts of Parliament, that they would

THE ARTICLE.

309

not have been at pains to cite them for their purpose ? Mr
Andrew Melville, in his so often mentioned letter to Beza,
dated November 13,1579, writes thus — "We have not ceased
these five years to fight against pseudo-Episcopacy (many
of the NobUity resisting us), and to press the severity of
Discipline. — We have many of the Peers against us, for they
allege, if pseudo-Episcopacy be taken away, one of the
Estates is pulled down," &c. Now, how easy had it been
for him to have stopt the mouths of these Peers, by telling
them that it was taken away already by this Act of Parlia
ment ? What a dunce was the Lord Glammis, Chancellor
of Scotland (by consequence one obliged by his station to
understand something, I think, of the laws of the nation),
and all those whom he consulted about the letter he wrote
to the same Beza, that neither he nor they knew any thing
of this Act of Parliament, but told the gentleman bluntly,
that " Episcopacy! subsisted by law ; that the Prelates made
one of the three Estates ; that nothing could be done in
Parliament without them ; and that the legal establishment
of the Order, and its lying so very near the foundation of
the civil constitution, made it extremely dangerous to alter
it, far more to abolish it ?" But what needs more ? Let the
reader cast back his eyes on the Articles agreed on betwixt
the Church, and the Nobility and Barons, in July 1567 that
same year, by which it was provided that all the Popish
Bishops should be deprived, and that Superintendents should
succeed in their places. And then let him consider if it be
probable that Episcopacy was condemned by this Act of
Parliament. But G[ilbert] R[ule] continues : — " I hope," says he,
" none will affirm that Prelatical jurisdiction then was, or
was soon after, established in the Protestant Church of
Scotland." Was not our author pretty forward at hoping ?
Will none affirm it ? I do affirm it. And I do affirm that if
our author had but looked to the very next Act of that Par
liament — the seventh in number, nay, if he had but cast his

^ Leges Regni longo usu et inveterata consuetudine receptse, ut quoties
de rebus ad reipublica3 salutem pertinentibus in publicis Regni Comitiis
agitur, nihil sine Episcopis constitui potest, quum ipsi tertium Ordinem et
Regni Statum officiant, quem aut mutai-e, aut prorsus toUere, reipublicas
admodum esset periculosum.

310 THE ARTICLE.
eye some ten lines upward in that same 43d page of Calder
wood's History, he would have seen the Prelacy oi Superin
tendents expressly owned, and supposed in being, by an Act
of that same Parliament, in the matter of granting collations
upon presentations. And now I leave it to the world to judge
if G[ilbert] R[ule] has not been very happy at citing Acts
of Parliaments against Prelacy ! But being thus engaged
with him about Acts of Parliament, I hope it will be a par
donable digression though I give the world another instance
of his skill and confidence that way.
The author of the " Ten Questions" had said (in his dis
cussion ofthe First Question), that " the Popish Bishops sat
in the Parliament which settled the Reformation" — a matter
of fact so distinctly delivered by Knox, Spottiswoode, and
Petrie (but passed over by Calderwood), that nothing could
be more unquestionable. Nay, even Leslie himself has it, for
he tells us that the three Estates convened,'^ and I think in
those days the Ecclesiastical Estate was one — the first of the
three ; I think also that Estate was generally Popish. Yet,
however plain and indisputable this matter of fact was, our
learned author could contradict it. Take his answer in his
own words — " To what he saith ofthe Popish Bishops sitting
in a reforming Parliament,2 I oppose what Leslie, Bishop of
Ross, a Papist hath, De Gestis Scotorum, Lib. 10, page 536,
that — Concilium a sectse Nobilibus cum Regina habitum nuUo
Ecclesiastico admisso, ubi Sancitum, ne quis quod ad Reli
gionem attinet, quicquam novi moliretur ; ex hae lege (in-
quit) omne sive hsereseos, sive inimicitiarum, sive seditionis
malum, tanquam ex fonte fluxit." Now, in the first place, I
think it might be made a question for what reason our
author changed Leslie's words. Might he not have given us
the citation just as it was ? Leslie has it thus — " Conveni-

1 Ineunte Augusto, Edinburgum convocati sunt tres Regni Ordines.
Lesly, 529.
^ [There can be no question about this. The names of Bishops are on
the roll of the Parliament of 1560 which overthrew the Church. In that
of 1567 the Archbishop of St Andrews, the Bishops of Dunkeld, GaUoway,
Dunblane, Brechin, Orkney, Aberdeen, and Ross, were present ; and
even in 1568, after Protestantism was established, they had not been
ejected, for we find the Bishop of Moray (Hepburn) in his place, and
chosen to be one of the Lords ofthe Articles on the Spiritual side, together
with the apostate Bishop of Orkney. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 311
entibus interim undique sectse Nobilibus Concihum, nuUo
Ecclesiastico viro admisso, Edinburgi, initur. In eo Con-
cilio in primis sancitum est, ne quis, quod ad religionem
attineret, quicquam novi moliretur. Sed res in eo duntaxat
statu quo erant, cum Regina ipsa in Scotiam primum ap-
pulisset, integrse manerent. Ex hae lege, tanquam fonte,
omne sive hareseos, sive inimicitiarum, sive seditionis malum
in Scotia nostra fluxit." Because Leslie was a Papist, must
his very Latin be reformed ? If this was it, if I mistake
not, a further reformation may be needful ; for if Leslie was
wrong in saying in eo concilio, I think our author has
mended it but sorrily by putting ubi in its stead, i. e. by
making an adverb of place the relative to concilium ; and
let the critics judge whether G[ilbert] R[ule's] attinet or
Leslie's attineret was most proper. But perhaps the true
reason was that there was something dark in these words —
" Sed res in eo duntaxat statu quo erant, cum Regina ipsa
in Scotiam primum appulisset, integrae manerent." It is
true, indeed, this sentence quite subverts our author's pur
pose, for it imports that there had been some certain sort of
establishment of religion before the Queen came to Scotland,
which was not judged fit then to be altered. Now, that this
learned man may be no more puzzled with such an obscure
piece of history, I will endeavour to help him with a clu^.
Be it known to all men, therefore, and particularly to Gfil
bert] Rfule], the learned and renowned "Vindicator" ofthe
Church of Scotland, that the Parliament which established
the Reformation, and in which the Popish Bishops sat, was
holden in August 1560 — that Queen Mary returned not to
Scotland till August 1561 — that this Council, which Leslie
speaks of, met after the Queen's return, as is evident from
Leslie's words — and that it was at most but a Privy Council,
and nothing like a Parliament. Have we not Gfilbert]
Rfule] now a very accurate historian ? And so I leave him
for a little, and proceed to the

FOURTH INQUIRY  WHETHER PRELACY, AND THE SUPERIORITY
OF ANY OFFICE IN THE CHURCH, ABOVE PRESBYTERS, WAS
A GREAT AND INSUPPORTABLE GRIEVANCE AND TROUBLE TO

312 THE ARTICLB.
GENERALITY OF THE PEOPLE, WHEN THIS ARTICLE WAS
ESTABLISHED IN THE CLAIM OF RIGHT ?
This Inquiry is about a very recent matter of fact. The
subject will not allow of metaphysical arguments. It is not
old enough to be determined by the testimonies of historians.
It cannot be decided by the public records or deeds of the
nation ; for, if I mistake not, there was never public deed
before, founded mainly, and in express terms, upon the " in
clinations of the generality of the people;" and I do not think
it necessary, by the laws of disputation, that I should be
bound by the authority of a public deed, which I make the
main thing in question. The method, therefore, which I
shall take for discussing this Inquiry, shall be to give a plain
historical narration of the rise and progress of this contro
versy, and consider the arguments made use of on both
sides, leaving it to the reader to judge whither side can pre
tend to the greater proba,bility. The controversy as I take
it had its rise thus : — •
The Scottish Presbyterians, seasonably forewarned of the
then Pfrince] of Ofrange]'s designs to possess himself of the
crowns of Great Britain and Ireland, against his coming
had adjusted their methods for advancing their interests in
such a juncture, and getting their beloved Parity established
in the Church. They were no sooner assured that he was in
successful circumstances, than they resolved on putting their
projects in execution. The first step was in a hurry to raise
the rabble in the JVestern counties against the Episcopal
clergy, thereby to confound and put all things in disorder.
The next, it seems, amidst such confusion, to endeavour
by all means to have themselves elected members for the
Meeting of Estates, which was to be at Edinburgh upon
the 14th of March 1688-9.! In both steps the success an
swered their wishes, and it happened that they got, in
deed, the prevaUing sway in the meeting ; and in gratitude
to the rabble which had done them so surprising service,
they resolved not only to set up Presbytery, but to set it
up on this foot— " That Prelacy was a great and insupport-

1 [The famous Convention of Estates, from which the Viscount Dundee-
retired on account of the plot formed against his life. — E.]

THE ARTICLB. 313
able grievance and trouble to the nation, and contrary to
the inclinations of the generality of the people."
If this was not it that determined them to set up their
government on this foot, I protest I cannot conjecture what
it might be that did it. Sure I am, there was no other
thing done then that, with the least show of probability,
could be called an indication of the " inclinations of the
people." They could not collect it from any clamours made
at that time against Prelacy by the " generahty of the
people." There were no such clamours in the mouths of
the twentieth part of the people. They could not collect it
from the people's separation from the Episcopal clergy during
the time of King James's Toleration. The tenth part of
the nation had not separated. They could not collect it
from any covetous disposition they could reasonably imagine
was in " the generality of the people," to make themselves
rich by possessing themselves of the revenues oi Bishopricks.
They could not but know that L.6000 or L.7000 sterling
was a sorry morsel for so many appetites ; and they could
not but know, that when Prelacy should be abolished, few,
and but a very few, could find advantage that way. They
could not collect it from any suspicions the people could pos
sibly entertain, that the Bishops or the Episcopal clergy were
inclining to turn Papists. They could not but know that
such had very far outdone the Presbyterian preacliers^ in their
appearances against Popery. The members of that Meeting
of Estates had received no instructions from their respective

^ It is weU known that in the famous address of the Presbyterians to
King James, although the Act of Toleration granted by it was an infringe
ment of the law, for obvious reasons they were sUent about the threatened
increase of " Popery," and cautiously waived the delicate point in order
to avoid giving offence. In this respect they imitated the " wisdom of
the serpent," but whether their sUence is reconcUeable with the principles
of common honesty is quite another thing. They were gainers by the
Indulgence, and for the moment forgot to raise their (at other times)
loud testimony against the "corruptions of Rome." Their temporizing
behaviour is singularly contrasted with the dignified opposition which the
Scottish Prelates evinced towards the royal endeavours to have the Penal
Laws repealed, which brought upon them the exercise of the King's seve
rity, and caused Bruce, Bishop of Dunkeld, to be deprived for a time of
his See — is singularly contrasted with the noble stand which Sancroft and
his illustrious brethren made in England against the arbitrary enactments
of James, and for which they were committed to the Tower. — E.]

314 THE ARTICLE.
electors, either in counties or burghs, to turn down Prelacy,
and set up Presbytery. I could name more than one or two,
who, if they did not break their trust, did at least very much
disappoint their electors by doing so. There were no peti
tions — no addresses presented to the Meeting by the people,
craving the eversion of Prelacy, or the erection of Presbytery.
They never so much as once offered at polling the people
about it. Shall I add further? After it was done, they
never received thanks from the "generality of the people"
for doing it. There was never yet any thing like an universal
rejoicing amongst the people that it was done. They durst
never yet adventure to require from the " generality of the
people" their approbation of it. And now, if the Article
was thus established at first, entirely upon the foot of rab
bling the Episcopal clergy in the West, I think I might rea
sonably supersede all further labour about this controversy ;
for, not to mention that they were but the rascally scum
of these counties where the rabbling was, who performed
it, and that even in these counties there are great numbers
of people who never reckoned Prelacy " a great and insup
portable grievance and trouble," but lived, and could have
still lived, peaceably and contentedly under it, particularly
the most part of the gentry : — not to insist on these things,
I say, but granting that all the people in these counties had
been inclined, as is affirmed in the Article, yet what were
they to the whole nation ? Is it reasonable to judge of a
whole kingdom by a corner of it ? To call these the sentiments
of all the kingdom, which were only the sentiments oifour
or five counties ? But lest I have mistaken, in fixing on the
performances of the Western rabble as the true foot of this
part of the Article, I shall proceed further, as I promised.
The Article, however founded, thus framed and published,
surprised the " generality of the people." It was thought
very odd, not only that Prelacy should have been abolished
upon such weak reasons, but that the inclinations of the
" generality of the people" should have been pretended at
all against it, considering how sensible all people were that
they had never been so much as once asked how they stood
inclined in the matter. It came, therefore, to be very much
the subject of common discourse if it really was so ; and
many, who pretended to know the nation pretty well, were

THE ARTICLE. 315
very confident it was not so, and began to admire the wisdom
of the Meeting of Estates, that they should have asserted a
proposition so very positively which was so very questionable.
In short, the noise turned so great about it that it could
not be confined within the kingdom, but it passed the Bor
ders and spread itself in England, particularly at London.
This being perceived, one of the Presbyterian agents there,
(I know not who he was) fell presently on writing a book,
which he entituled — " Plain-Dealing, or, a Moderate General
Review of the Scottish Prelatical Clergy's Proceedings in
the latter Reigns,"! which was published in August, I think,
or September, 1689, wherein, having said what he pleased,
sense or nonsense, truth or falsehood, as he found it most
expedient for coming at his conclusion, toward the end he
gave his arguments for his side of our present controversy.
They were these two : take them in his own words.
" 1. There being thirty-two shires or counties, and two
stewartries (comprehending the whole body of the nation),
that send their commissioners or representatives to Parlia
ment, and all general meetings of the Estates or Conven
tions ; of these thirty-four districts, or divisions of the king
dom, there are seventeen entirely Presbyterians ; so that,
where you will find one there episcopally inclined, you will
find one hundred and fifty Presbyterians ; and the other
seventeen divisions, where there is one episcopally inclined,
there are two Presbyterians.
" 2. Make but a calculation of the valued rent of Scot
land, computing it to be less or more, or computed argu-
mentandi gratia to be three millions, and you will find the
Presbyterian heritors, whether of the Nobility or Gentry, to
be proprietors and possessors of two millions and more, so
that those that are episcopally inclined cannot have a third
of that kingdom ; and as for the citizens, or burgesses, and
commonalty of Scotland, they are all generally inclined to
the Presbyterian government, except Papists, and some re
mote, wild, and barbarous Highlanders, &c. And all this
(he saith) is so true, that it can be made appear to a de
monstration." I am not at leisure to take so much impudent trash to task ;
1 [By George Ridpath.— E.]

316 THE ARTICLE.
only he himself, if he knew any thing of Scotland, could not
but know that, with the same moderation, he might have as
serted that all Scottish men were monsters, and all Scottish
women at every birth produced soutrikins ! And, indeed, as
he had the hap to stumble on two such demonstrations, so I
believe, to this minute, he may have the happiness to claim
them as his property ; for I have never heard that any other
of his party (no, not Gfilbert] Rfule] himself) had the hardi
ness to use them after him. However, so far as I have
learned, he was the first author who published any thing about
this controversy.
The Presbyterian party having thus adventured to exercise
the press with it, one,^ who intended to undeceive the world
concerning some controversies between the Episcopalians
and the Presbyterians in Scotland, digested his book into
Ten Questions, and made the tenth concerning our present
subject, viz. — " Whether Scottish Presbytery was agreeable
to the general inclinations of the people ?" — arguing to this
purpose for the negative : — ¦" That the Nobility of the king
dom (a very few, not above a dozen excepted) had all
sworn the Oath commonly called the Test,'^ wherein all fana
tical principles and Covenant obligations were renounced and
abjured : that not one oi forty of the Gentry but had sworn
it also ; and not fifty in all Scotland, out of the "West, did,
upon the Indulgence granted by King James, anno 1687,
forsake their parish churches to frequent meeting-houses :
that the generality of the commons live in cities and market
towns : that all who could be of the common council in such
corporations, or were able to follow any ingenious trade,
were obliged to take the Test, and had generally done it :
that the clergy stood all for Episcopacy, there being, of
about a thousand, scarcely twenty trimmers betwixt the
Bishop and the Presbyterian Moderator, which twenty, to
gether with all the Presbyterian preachers, could not make
up the fifth part of such a number as the other side amounted
to : that in all the Universities there were not four Masters,
Heads or Fellows, inclined to Presbytery : that the Colleges
¦^ [Bishop Sage himself. — E.]
^ [This oath was enacted by the ParUament of 1681, and was required
to be taken " by all persons in public trust in the State, Church, or Army."
Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 485, 486. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 317
of Justice and Physic at Edinburgh were so averse from it,
that the generality of them were ready last summer, viz.
1689, to take arms in defence of their Episcopal ministers,"
&c. This Book was published, I think, in the beginning of
the year 1690.
What greater demonstration could any man desire of the
truth of the negative, if all here alleged was true ? And
what greater argument of the truth of every one of the alle
gations, than the confession of a right uncourteous adver
sary — Gfilbert] Rfule] I mean, who in answer to this Book,
wrote his " First Vindication of the Church of Scotland,
as it is now by law established," as he calls it, published at
London about the end of the year 1690, and reprinted at
Edinburgh in the beginning of 1691 ? But did he, indeed,
acknowledge the truth of all the allegations ? Yes, he did
it notoriously. He yielded to his adversary — " all the gang
of the clergy, except a few, the Universities and the College
of Justice at least, as lately stated." He was not so frank
to part with the Physicians, indeed, because, if we may take
his word for it — " there are not a few worthy men of that
Faculty who are far from inclinations towards Prelacy."
But he durst not say, it seems, that either the major part,
or any thing near the half, was for him. He also yielded
the generality of the burgesses. All the dust he raised was
about the Nobility and Gentry, but what nasty dust it was
let any sensible man consider. As for the Nobility, he
granted there were only " a few who took not the Test."
But then he had three things to say for them who took it —
" 1 . They who took the Oaths did not, by that, shew their
inclination so much, as what they thought fit to comply with
rather than suffer." But what were they to suffer if they
took not the Oaths ? The loss of their vote in Parliament,
and a small fine, which was seldom, if at any time, exacted ;
but if they were to suffer no more, could their fears of such
sufferings force them to take Oaths so contrary to their incli
nations ? Abstracting from the impiety of mocking God,
and the wretchedness of crossing one's light, which are con
spicuous in swearing against men's persuasions, could such
sufferings as these incline any man to swear to support an
interest which he looked on as " so great and insupportable
a grievance and trouble to the nation ?" But this is not all ;

318 THE ARTICLE.
for he added — " 2. How many of these now, when there is
no force on them, shew that it was not choice but necessity
that led them that way ?" I know he meant that many of
these Nobles have now broken through these Oaths. Let them
answer for that, but what had he to do in this case with
his old friend necessity ? What necessity can force a man to
do an ill thing ? Besides, can he prove that it was choice,
and not that same kind of necessity, that led them in the
way they have lately followed ? That men can be for this
thing to-day, and the contrary to-morrow, is a great pre
sumption that they do not much regard either ; but I
think it will be a little hard to draw from it, that they
look upon the one as a " great and insupportable grievance"
more than the other. But the best follows : — " 3. Many,
who seem to make conscience of these bonds, yet show no
inclination to the thing they are bound to, except by the
constraint that they brought themselves under." After
this, what may not our author make an argument, that
Prelacy is such an ill-liked thing, as he would have it, see
ing he has got even them to hate it who are conscientiously
for it?
Neither is he less pleasant about the Gentry. He acknow
ledges they as generally took the Test, which was enough for
his adversary, as hath appeared. But how treats he the
other topic, about their not going to the Presbyterian
meetings, when they had King James' Toleration for it ?
Why ? A silly argument ! Why so ? Many did go ; but
did his adversary lie grossly or calumniate, when he said,
that not fifty gentlemen in all the kingdom (out of the West)
forsook their parish churches, and went to conventicles ?
Our " 'Vindicator" durst not say he did, and has he not
made it evident that it was a silly argument ? But " most
other clave to the former way " — (he means the Episcopal
Communion) — " because the law stood for it, and the meeting
houses seemed to be of uncertain continuance" But would
they have cleaved to the former way if they had thought it
" a great and insupportable grievance and trouble ?" Would
they have so crossed their inclinations as to have adhered
to the communion of the Episcopal Church, when it was
evident the sting was taken out of the law, and it was not
to be put in execution ? Were they so fond or so afraid of

THE ARTICLE. 319
a lifeless law, if I may so call it, that they would needs con
form to it, though they had no inclination for such confor
mity — though what they conformed with, in obedience to
that law, was a " great and insupportable grievance" to
them? Did our author and his party reckon upon these
gentlemen, then, as Presbyterians ? And what though " the
meetings seemed to be of uncertain continuance ?" How
many of the Presbyterian party said in those days, that they
thought themselves bound to take the benefit of the Toleration,
though it should be but of short continuance, and that
they could return to the Church when it should be re
tracted ? Might not aU men have said and done so, if they
had been as much Presbyterians ? It is true, our author
has some other things on this subject in that First Vindica
tion, but I shaU consider them afterwards. This was
Gfilbert] Rfule]'s first essay in this controversy.
Another Parity-man, finding, belike, that neither the
" Plain-Dealer" nor the " Vindicator" had gained much
credit by their performances, thought it not inconvenient
for the service of his sect, to publish a book, intituled — " A
Further Vindication of the present Government of the
Church of Scotland," and therein to produce his argu
ments for determining this controversy. It was printed in
September, I think, in the year 1691. It is true, he wrote
something like a gentleman, and spake discreetly of the Epis
copal clergy. He had no scolding in his Book, and was infi
nitely far from Gfilbert] Rfule]'s flat railwifery ; and I
think myself obliged to thank him for his civility. But
after all this, when he came to his arguments for proving
the point about the " inclinations of the people," I did not
think that he much helped the matter. They were these
two ;! —
1. " Though the Bishops were introduced in the year
1662, and did continue till the year 1689, during which
time the far greatest part of all the ministry in Scotla/nd
was brought in by themselves, and though they had ob
tained a National Synod formed for their own interest, yet
they durst never adventure to call it together, so diffident
were they even of these ministers. And can there be a greater
1 P. 32.

320 THE ARTICLE.
demonstration" — says he—" of the general inclination of
this nation against Prelacy ?" But who sees not how many
things are wanting here to make a probable argument, much
more a demonstration ? For who knows not that it was not
in the power of the Bishops, but of the King, to convocate
a National Synod ? And who knows not that Presbyterian
National Synods had committed such extravagances, as might
have tempted any King almost to have little kindness for
National Synods ? Again, supposing the Bishops might have
obtained one, if they had been for it, but would not ask it,
was there no other imaginable reason for their forbearing
to ask one but their diffidence of the ministers ? One living
twenty-four or twenty-eight years agone might possibly have
slipt into such a mistake ; but for one who wrote only in the
year 1691, after it was visible, nay, signally remarkable that,
of near to a thousand Presbyters, not above twenty had fallen
from the Episcopal principles ; but all had so generally con
tinued to profess them, and not only so, but to profess them
amidst so many discouragements — to profess them and suffer for
them :— and after this, I say, for any man to found a demon
stration for proving that " Prelacy is contrary to the inclina
tions of the people," on the Bishop's averseness to a National
Synod, and to found that averseness on the diffidence they had
of the Presbyters, as if they had dreaded, or had ground to
dread, that the Presbyters would have subverted their Order
if they had got a National Synod, seems to me a very singu
lar undertaking. Sure I am, if there is any demonstration
here at all, it is that there was no great store of demonstra
tions to be had for our author's main conclusion. Neither
was his other argument any stronger, which was this : —
2. " This national aversion is yet further demonstrated from
this, that albeit Prelacy had all the statutes that the Bishops
could desire on their behalf, and had them put in execution
with the utmost severity, yet there was ever found a neces
sity to keep up a standing army to uphold them, and to sup
press the aversion of the people ; and notwithstanding there
of there were frequent insurrections and rebellions." Now,
who sees not the weakness of this demonstration ? For who
knows not that a small part of a nation, by their notorious
ungovernableness, and their hahitual propensities to rebel, may
oblige the Government to keep up a little standing army

THE ARTICLE. 321
such as ours in Scotland was for suppressing them, if at any
time they should break out into a rebellion ? The party, I
think, can have but little credit from such demonstrations, for
this demonstration must either suppose that none in the nation
are apt to rebel except Presbyterians, and they, too, only
upon the head of church-government ; or it can conclude
nothing, for if Presbyterians can rebel upon other reasons,
though they make this the main, the specious, the clamour
ous pretext, as I doubt not their democratical principles may
incline them to do upon occasion ; or, if others than sincere
Presbyterians can venture on the horrid sin of rebellion,
there is still reason for the standing army. Besides, what
gained they by these their frequent insurrections and rebel
lions ? Were they not easily and readily crushed by the rest
of the nation ? But if so, I think, if there is any argument
here at all, it concludes another way than our author de
signed it. But it is not worth the while to insist longer on
this argument ; only, if it is a good one, the Bishops and their
adherents have reason to thank our author for shewing them
the way how they may have their government restored. For
by this way of reasoning they have no more to do but fall
upon the knack of raising frequent insurrections and rebel
lions against the present Government, and then their work
is done. For thus a demonstration shall befriend them ; this,
when there is a necessity of keeping up a standing army to
support Presbytery, because of frequent insurrections and
rebellions raised on its account — it is a demonstration that
it is " a great and insupportable grievance and trouble to
the nation, and contrary to the inclinations of the generality
of the people, and therefore it ought to be abolished." The
truth is, such reasonings are not only sophistical, but danger
ous. They are founded upon the principles of rebellion, and
they tend directly and naturally towards rebellion, and they
ought to be noticed by every wise Government ; and so I
leave this author.
The next paper combat I shall take notice of was between
the author of the " Third Letter"! in the pamphlet called —
" An Account of the Present Persecution of the Church in
Scotland," &o. published anno 1 90 ; and Gfilbert] Rfule],
1 [Bishop Sage himself. — E.] 21

322 THE ARTICLE.
in his " Second Vindication," published towards the end of
the year 1691.
The " Epistler," as Gfilbert] Rfule] is sometimes pleased
to call him, had craved a poll, deeming it, it seems, the only
proper method for coming at a sure account of the " inclina
tions of the generality of the people ;" and I think he had
reason, for if matters must go by the " inclinations of the
people," it is just to ask the people about their inclinations.
But would Gfilbert] Rfule] allow him this demand, which
had so much of plain equity in it ? No. " His talk" says he,
" of putting the matter to the poll I neglect as an impracti
cable fancy."! jj^t ^ho sees not that this was plain _/%«?¦ to
put it upon such an issue? What imaginable impossibility, or
absurdity, or difficulty, or inconveniency, could make polling
upon this account impracticable ? Was it not found practi
cable enough in the days ofthe Covenant, when the veriest child,
if he could write his own name, was put to it to subscribe it ?
What should make it more impracticable to poll the king
dom for finding the "people's inclinations" about Episcopacy
and Presbytery, than it was to levy hearth-money from the
whole kingdom ? Is it not as practicable to ^o^^ the kingdom
about church-government, as to poll it for raising the pre
sent subsidy, which is imposed by poll ? I am apt to believe,
the inclinations of the " generality of the people" would have
been as much satisfied if polling had been reduced to prac
tice on the one account, as the other.
That same " Epistler," in that same Epistle, adduced
another argument v/hich was to this purpose — " That in the
years 1687 and 1688, when the schism was in its elevation,
there were but some three or four Presbyterian meeting
houses erected on the north side of the Tay, i. e. in the
greater half of the kingdom, and these, too, very little
frequented or encouraged; and that on the south side of that
river — (except in the five associated shires in the West)^ —

' Second Vindication, ad Letter iii. Sec. 5.
2 [Lanark, Renfrew, Ayi-, Dumfries, aud Kirkcudbright. It is singular
that in this once fanatical part of Scotland, now included in the Diocese
of Glasgow, there is a great reaction taking place in the public mind in
favour of Episcopacy, which is making rapid strides in these districts, as
may be seen from the number of churches, which have been erected within
the last few years, and the projected ones which are soon to be commenced.

THE ARTICLE. 323
the third man was never engaged in the schism." This was
matter of fact ; and, if true, a solid demonstration that
" Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the Church
above Presbyters, was not then a great and insupportable
grievance and trouble to the nation, and contrary to the
inclinations of the generality of the people." For had it
been such, how is it imaginable, when there was such an
ample Toleration — such an absolute and unperplexed liberty ,
— nay, so much notorious encouragement given by the then
G-overnment to separate from the Episcopal Communion, that
so few should have done it ? Whoso pleased might then
have safely, and without the least prospect of worldly hazard,
joined the Presbyterians ; yet scarcely a fifth or a sixth
part of the nation did it. I am not sure that the nature of
the thing was capable of a clearer evidence, unless it had
been put to the " impracticable fancy." Let us next consider
Gfilbert] Rf ule's] Answers, and judge by them if the Epistler
was wrong as to the matter of fact. He hath some two or
three. We shall try them severally.
Hhe first to the purpose is, if there be many in the north
ern parts who are not for Presbytery, there are as few for
the present settlement of the State. To what purpose is
the present settlement of the State forced in here ? Was the
controversy between him and his adversary concerned in it
in the least ? What impertinent answering is this ? Is
there so much as one syllable here that contradicts^ the
Epistler' s position ?
But, 2. "We affirm," says Gfilbert] Efule], "and can
make it appear, not only that there are many in the North
who appeared zealously for Presbytery, as was evident by the
members of Parliament who came from these parts. Very
few of them were otherwise inclined, and they made a great
figure in the Parliament for settling both the State and the

It is to this portion of Scotland that the Churchman dii-ects his eyes for
encouragement, and certainly he is not disappointed, while he has most
solid grounds for hoping that the present increase of the Church in those
parts is but the earnest of what is likely to occur under the active'super-
intendence of the Right Rev. Dr RusseU, Bishop of Glasgow, and through
the readiness with which he embraces every opportunity of getting edifices
reared for the pure worship of God, the right administration of the
Sacraments, and the preaching of true religion. — E.]

324 THE ARTICLE.
Church." If one were put to it to examine this Answer par
ticularly and minutely, I think he might easily make even
Gfilbert] Rfule] himself wish that he had never meddled
with it. It were no hard task to give a just account how it
only happened that there was so much as one Northern mem
ber (who was not such by birth) oi the Presbyterian per
suasion in the Meeting of Estates. It were as easy to repre-
. sent what figures some of them made, or can readily make —
uncouth figures, truly. All this were very easy, I say, if one
were put to it, but as it is not seasonable, so it is not need
ful, for it is plain nothing here contradicts the " Epistler's"
position, though the Northern members of the Presbyterian
persuasion had been twice as many as they were, and though
they had made greater figures than can be pretended. Yet it
may be very true, that there were so few separatists in the
Northern counties as the ^'Epistler" affirmed there were ; and
for the respect Gfilbert] Rfule] o-wes to his NortJiern friends
and figure-makers, I would advise him never again to insist
on such a tender point, and so I leave it and proceed to
what follows.
3. " There are very many ministers in the North (and
people that own them), who, though they served under Epis
copacy, are willing to join with the Presbyterians, and whom
the Presbyterians are ready to receive when occasion shall
be given, and those of the best qualified among them." How
such ministers as have joined, or are ready to join, with the
Presbyterians, can be called the best qualified amongst the
Episcopal clergy, so long as integrity oi life, constancy in ad-
hering to true Catholic principles, an hearty abhorrence of
schism, conscience of the religion of oaths, self-denial, taking
up the Cross patiently and cheerfully, and preferring Chris
tian honour and innocence to worldly conveniences, can be
said to be amongst the best qualifications of a Christian
minister, I cannot understand. I understand as little what
ground our author had for talking so confidently about these
Northern ministers. Sure I am, he had no sure ground to
say so ; and I think the transactions of the last General
Assembly, and the unsuccessfulness of Mr Meldrum's expedi
tion to the North this summer, are demonstrations that he had
no ground at all to say so. But whatever be of these things, I
desire the reader to consider impartially, whether — supposing

THE ARTICLE. 325
all were uncontroverted truth our author asserts so confi
dently here — this Answer conveUs the matter of fact asserted
by the author of the " Letter ?" What is there here that
looks like proving that the schism was greater in the North
than was asserted by the " Epistler ?" Or what is there
here that can by any colour of consequence infer, that Pre
lacy in these Nortliern parts was a " great and insupport
able trouble and grievance, and contrary to the inclinations
of the generality of the people?" Doth not our author
acknowledge that these ministers served under Episcopacy,
and that their people owned them, without any reluctancies
of conscience ?
But the ^'¦Epistler" had said — "There were not above three
or four Presbyterian meeting-houses on the north side of the
Tay ;" and the Vindicator says — " They far exceeded that
number." How easy had it been for the " Vindicator" to
have given us the definite number of Presbyterian meeting
houses in these parts during the time of the above-mentioned
Toleration ? He, who was so very exact to have his informa
tions from aU corners, might, one would think, have readily
satisfied himself in this instance, and fairly fixed one lie on
the " Epistler ;" and is it not a great presumption that the
" Epistler" was in the right, and that the " Vindicator," who
was so anxious to have all his adversaries liars, was hardly
put to it in this matter, when he could do no more than
oppose an indefinite number to the " Epistler's" definite one?
For my part, I think it not worth the while to be positive
about the precise number ; but I can say this without hesi
tation, that all who separated from their parish churches on
that side the river would not have &dedfour ordinary meet
ing-houses. From what hath been said, I think it is clear, the
" Epistler" was honest enough in his reckoning for the
north side of the Tay. Can all be made as safe on the south
side? The ^•Epistler" had said, that (except in the West)
" the third man was never engaged in the schism." Gfilbert]
Rfule] answers — " We know no schism but what was made
by his party ; but that the plurality did not suffer under
the horrid persecution raised by the Bishops, doth not prove
that they were not inclined to Presbytery, but either that
many Presbyterians had freedom to hear Episcopal ministers,

326 THE ARTICLE.
or that all were not resolute enough to suffer for their
principle ; so that this is no rational way of judging of the
people's inclinations." I will neither engage at present with
him in the question, who is the Scottish schismatic, nor
digress to the point of the horrid persecution raised by the
Bishops. Another occasion may be as proper for them ; but
I desire the reader again to consider this Answer, and judge
if it keeps not a pretty good distance from the " Epistler's"
position ? Is any thing said here that contradicts — that looks
like contradicting, the matter of fact ? What new fashion
of answering is this, to talk whatever comes in one's head,
without ever offering to attack the strength of the reason
ing he undertakes to discuss ?
By this taste, the judicious reader may competently judge
which is the right side of the present controversy ; and
withal, if I mistake not, he may guess if the Presbyterian
Kirk in Scotland was not well provided when it got Gfilbert]
Rfule] for its " Vindicator." Shall he furnish thee, 0 pa
tient reader ! with any more divertisement ? If thou canst
promise for thy patience, I can promise for Gfilbert Rfule].
This learned gentleman found himself so puzzled, it seems,
about this part of the Article, that he was forced to put on
the fool's cap, and turn ridiculous to mankind. However, it
was even better to be that, than to yield in so weighty a con
troversy — than to part with the "inclinations of the people" —
that articulus stantis et cadentis ecclesice. But is there a play
to succeed worthy of all this prologue ? Consider, and judge.
He has so limited and restricted the " generality of the
people," to make his cause some way defensible, that, for
any thing I know, he has confined them all within his own
doublet ; at least he may do it before he shall need to yield
any more in his argument. He is at this trade of limiting in
both his " Vindications."! I shall cast them together, that
the world may consider the product.
"1. There are many ten thousands who are unconcerned
about religion, both in the greater and the lesser truths of
it ; and it is most irrational to consider them in this ques
tion. 2. There are not a few who are of opinion, that

1 First Vindication, ad Question 10. Second Vindication, Answer to
Letter III. Sec. 4.

THE ARTICLE. 327
church-government, as to the species of it, is indifferent ;
these ought not to be brought into the reckoning. 3. There
are not a few whose light and conscience do not incline them
to Episcopacy, who are yet zealous for it, and against Pres
bytery, because under the one they are not censured for
their immoralities, as under the other ; these ought to be
excluded also. So ought all, 4. Who had a dependence on
the Court ; and, 5. All who had a dependence on the Pre
lates. 6. All Popishly affected, and who are but Protestants
in masquerade. 7. AU enemies to King William, and the
present Government."
I am just to him — ^all these exclusions out of the reckon
ing he has, if he has not more. And give him these, and he
dares affirm that " they who are conscientiously for Prelacy
are so few in Scotland, that not one of many hundreds or
thousands is to be found" — First Vindication. " They who
are for Episcopacy are not one of a thousand in Scotland" —
Second Vindication. Now, not to fall on examining his
singly, because that were to be sick of his own

In the first place, one would think, if he had been allowed
his limitations, he might in all conscience have satisfied him
self, without begging the question to boot ; yet even that he
has most covetously done. For I think the question was not —
Who were conscientiously for Prelacy, or inclined for Episco
pacy ? but — " Whether Prelacy, and the superiority of any
office in the Church above Presbyters, was a great and insup
portable grievance and trouble to the nation, and contrary
to the inclinations of the generality of the people ?" And
there is some difference, as I take it, between these questions.
But let him take the state of the question. If he must needs
have it, I can spare it to him ; nay, if it can do him service, I
can grant him yet more. When the matter comes to be tried
by this his standard, I shall be satisfied that it fall to his
share to be judge. He should understand his own Rule best,
and so may be fittest for such nice decisions as a point so
tender must needs require, though, I think, he may take the
short cut, as we say, and give his own judgment without
more ado, for thither it must recur at last, only I cannot
guess why he excluded all " Popishly affected," &c. Was
it to let a friend go with a foe ? I think he might have

328 THE ARTICLE.
learned from history, if not from experience,! that Papists
have been amongst the best friends to his interests, and
very ready to do his party service upon occasion, which it is
not to be thought they would have done for nothing. But
however this is, having granted him so much, I think he is
bound to grant me one little thing. I ask it of him only for
peace ; I can force it from him if I please. It is — that all his
limitations, restrictions, exclusions, castings-out, settings-aside,
or whatever he pleases to call them, were adduced by him
for setting the Article in its native and proper light, and as
it ought to be understood. But if so, I cannot think he him
self can repute it unfair dealing to give the world a fair
view of the Article as thus explained and enlightened ; and
so digested, it must run to this purpose, as I take it : —
" That Prelacy, and the superiority of any office in the
Church above Presbyters, is and hath been a great and in
supportable grievance and trouble to this nation, and con
trary to the inclinations of the generality of the people ;
excluding from this generality of the people, 1. All these
many ten thousands of the people who are unconcerned
about religion, both in the greater and lesser truths of it.
2. All these many of the people who are of opinion that
church-government, as to the species of it, is indifferent.
3. All these other many of the people whose light and con
science do not incline them to Episcopacy, who are yet
zealous for it, and against Presbytery, because under the
one they are not censured for their immoralities, as under
the other. 4. All such of the people as had any dependence
on the Court : 5. Or on the Prelates : 6. Or are Popishly
affected, and Protestants only in masquerade. And, 7. All
such as are enemies to Kfing] Wfilliam] and the present
civil government, ever since the Reformation (they, i. e. such
¦" [This was true of King James II., an avowed Roman Catholic, who
to serve liis own purposes, befriended the Covenanting Presbyterians by
repealing the Penal Laws. It is a well known historical fact, that, by
means of his emissaries, the celebrated Cardinal RicheUeu, in order to
foment strife, and thus weaken the Reformed interest in Britain, held
negotiations with the Covenanting party about the year 1638 ; and, when
the RebeUion regularly broke out, arms, ammunition, and money, were
supplied to these Protestant champions by Romish France. Probably
this was the circumstance to which our author mainly alludes iu this
]>lace. — ^E.]

THE ARTICLE,

329

of the people as are not excluded from the generality of the
people by any of the aforesaid exceptions, having reformed
from Popery by Presbyters), and therefore it ought to be
abolished." So the Article must run, I say, when duly enlightened by
our author's glosses ; and, when a new Meeting of Estates
shall settle another new government, and put such an Article
in another new Claim of Right, I do hereby give my word, I
shall not be the first that shall move controversies about it.
But tiU that is done, Gfilbert] Rfule] must allow me the
use of a certain sort of liberty I have, of thinking, at least,
that his wits were a wool-gathering (to use him as mannerly
as can be done by one of his own compliments) when he
spent so many of his sweet words (another of his phrases) so
very pleasantly. Thus did Gfilbert] Rfule] defend this part
of the Article against the arguments of his adversaries ; but
did he produce none for his own side of the controversy ?
Yes, one, and only one, so far as I can remember. It is in
his Answer to the First of the " Four Letters," Sect. 7 — the
letter written by the Military Chaplain, as he was pleased to
call him.
This Military Chaplain^ had said — " That the Church
party was predominant in this nation both for number and
quality. " That it is not so," saysGfilbert] Rfule], " is evident
from the constitution of our Parliament." This is the ar
gument. Now, not to enter upon dangerous or undutiful
questions about Parliaments, I shall say no more at present
but this — when Gfilbert] Rfule] shall make it appear that
all the Acts and Deeds of the present Parliament have been,
all alongst, agreeable to the " inclinations of the generality
of the people," or when he shall secure the other part of the
Article against the dint of this his own good argument — I
mean, when he shall make it appear that such reasoning is
firm and solid, in the present case, and withal, shall make it
appear that the Deeds and Acts of twenty-seven Parliaments —
he knows well enough who numbered them to him — ratifying
and confirming Episcopacy, cannot, or ought not, to amount
to as good an argument for the " inclinations of the gene
rality of the people" in former times. When he shall make
^ [The Rev. Thomas Morer, Vide note, supra Preface. — E.]

330 THE ARTICLE.
these things appear, I say, I shall then think a little more
about his argument. This, I think, is enough for him. At
present I shall consider it no more ; only, now that he hath
brought the present Parliament upon the stage, I will take
occasion to propose some few questions, which the minding
of it suggests to me, and I seriously desire, not Gfilbert]
Rfule], but some truly sensible, ingenious, and sober person
of the Presbyterian persuasion — some person who had op
portunity to know how matters went, and a head to compre
hend them, and who has candour and conscience to relate
things as they truly were, or are, to give plain, frank, direct
and pertinent answers to them, speaking the sense of his
heart openly and distinctly, without mincing, and without
tergiversation. My question shall not in the least touch the
dignity or authority of the Parliament. All I design them for
is to bring light to the present controversy.
And I ask — 1. Whether the Presbyterian party did not
exert and concentre all their wit and force, all their counsel
and cunning, and their art and application — all their skill
and conduct in politics, both before and in the beginning of
the late Revolution, for getting a Meeting of Estates formed
for their purposes ?
2. Whether the universal unhinging of all things then,
and the general surprise, confusion, and irresolution of the
rest of the nation occasioned thereby, did not contribute
extraordinarily for furthering the Presbyterian designs and
projects ?
3. Whether, notwithstanding all this, when the Estates
first met, they had not both great and well grounded fears
that their projects might miscarry, and they might be' out
voted in the Meeting ?
4. Whether very many, very considerable, members had
not deserted the House before it was thought seasonable to
offer at putting the Article about church-government in the
Claim of Right ?
5. Whether, though they got this Article thrust into the
Claim of Right, and made part of the original contract
between King and people, in the month of April 1689, they
were not, to their great grief, disappointed of the estabhsh
ment of their /oDB of church-government in ^e first Session
of Parliament holden in June, &o., that same year ?

THE ARTICLE. 331
6. Whether in the beginning of the next session (which
was in April 1690), they were not under very dreadful
apprehensions of another disappointment ; and whether they
would not have been very near to, if not in, a state of
despair, if all the anti-Presbyterian members had unani
mously convened, and sat in Parliament ?
7. After they had recovered from these fears, and when
they had the courage to propose the establishment of their
Government, and it came to be voted in the House, I ask if
it was any thing like a full House ?^ Plainly, if a third part
of those who might have sat as members were present ?
8. Whether all those members who voted for it at that time
can be said to have done it from a principle of conscience,
or a firm persuasion they had that " Prelacy was a great
and insupportable grievance and trouble to the nation, and
contrary to the inclinations of the generality ofthe people ?"
Or whether it may be said, without breach of charity, that
not a few (of the few) voted so mainly from other principles,
such as compliance with some leading statesmen, &c. ?
9. Whether those of the Presbyterian persuasion, after
they found that they had prevailed in the Parliament, did
not proceed to make the Act, obliging all persons in public
stations to sign the Declaration, called the Assurance, as
much, if not more, for securing the government in their
own hands, and keeping out Anti-Presbyterians, than for
strengthening Kfing] Wfilliam]'s interests ?
10. Whether they had not in their prospect the great
difficulty of getting Presbyterian ministers planted in
churches, if patronages should continue, when they made
the Act depriving patrons of these their rights ? And
whether they had not in their prospect the as great difficul
ties of getting such ministers planted, if (according to the
true Presbyterian principles, at least pretensions) the call
ing of a minister should have depended upon the pluraUt-tf
of voices in the parish, when they consented to such a model
1 [The Dukes of Hamilton and Queensberry, the Earls of Linlithgow
and Balcarras, with many others of the Nobility and Gentry, had retired
in disgust. The Bishops were in concealment ; or, as Lord Dundee had
wittily observed, the " Oliurch was invisible" and none but those of the
party remained. Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, vol. ii. p. 530. Law-
son's History of the Scottish Episcopal Church from the Revolution to
the Present Time, p. 107.— E.J

3.32 THE ARTICLE.
for calling of ministers as was established in that same
session of Parliament ?
11. Notwithstanding that Act of Parliament, which abo-
lishedpatronages,! did notoriously encroach upon the people's
power legated to them by Christ in his Testament, according
to the genuine Presbyterian principles, by putting the real
power of calling ministers in the hands of the Presbytery, for
the greater expedition and security of getting Presbyterian
ministers planted in churches — notwithstanding all this, I
say, I ask, whether they did not meet with many difficulties,
and much impediment and opposition in the plantation^ of
such ministers in very many parishes ? In consequence of
this, I ask —
12. Whether it was not the sense of these difficulties and
oppositions, which so frequently encumbered them, that
made the Presbyterian ministers so notoriously betray their
trust which they pretend to have, as conservators of the
liberties and privileges of Christ's kingdom and people, when
1 [This Act was to the effect — " that in the vacancy of any particnlar
church, and for supplying the same with a minister, the Protestant lieritors
and elders are to name and propose the person to the whole congregation,
to be either approven or disapproven by them ; and if they disapprove,
they are to give in their reasons, to the effect the affair may be cognosced
upon by the Presbytery of the bounds, at whose judgment, and by whose ^
determination, the calling and entry of every particular minister is to be
ordered and concluded, reserring to the Presbyteries the right of jure
devoluto, and to royal burghs the calling of their ministers, as in use before
the year 1600. In recompence of which right of presentation the heritors
of every parish are to pay the patron six hundred merks against a certain
time, and under certain proportions." It will be seen that by this Act
the heritors and elders were substituted for the patron — " a number of
men, more or fewer, as it might happen, and the divine right of the people,
that great idol of Presbyterian venei-ation, was bought ond sold lilce any common
bargain'' This Act was rescinded about twenty years afterwards, aud
ereer since there has been a perpetual agitation within the Scottish Esta
blishment for the abolition of patronage, and a return to the favourite
decree of 1649, which conferred upon the Ku'k what they please to call
" the gospel privilege of popular elections." The result of this agitation,
which has been resisted by the successive Governments of the country,
has been the late Non-Intmsion Schism. — E.]
^ [For instances of this, see Lawson's History of the Scottish Episcopal
Cliurch from the Revolution to the Present Time, Chap. viii. which is
devoted to setting forth, from the admission of Presbyterian miters, the
opposition of the people in various districts to the settlement of Presby
terian ministers, and their attachment to, and determination to uphold,
the Episcopal incumbents in the possession of their cures. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 333
they consented that, in the last Session of Parliament,
Christ's legacy should be so clogged and limited, as that none
shall have power of giving voice in the calling of ministers
tiU they shall first swear the Oath of Allegiance, and sign the
Assurance.! 13. And lastly, I ask, whether our Presbyterian brethren
would be content that all that has been done in reference to
Church matters, since the beginning of the late Revolution,
should be looked upon as undone ; and that the settlement
of the Church should again depend upon a new, free,
wnclogged, unprelimited, unover-awed Meeting of Estates ?
I am very much persuaded that a plain, candid, impartial,
and ingenuous resolution of these few questions might go
very far in the decision of this present controversy. And
yet, after all this labour spent about it, I must confess I do
not reckon it was, in true value, worth thirteen sentences,
as perchance may appear in part within a little. And so I
proceed to

THE FIFTH INQUIRY  WHETHER, SUPPOSING THE AFFIRMATIVES
IN THE PRECEDING INQUIRIES HAD BEEN TRUE, THEY WOULD
HAVE BEEN OF SUFFICIENT FORCE TO INFER THE CONCLUSION
ADVANCED IN THE ARTICLES, VIZ. THAT PRELACY, ETC.
OUGHT TO BE ABOLISHED ?
The Affirmatives are these two : — " 1. That Prelacy was a
great and insupportable grievance, &c. 2. That this Church
was reformed by Presbyters." The purpose of this Inquiry
is to try if these were good reasons for the abolition of
Prelacy. Without further address I think they were not ;
not the first, viz. " Prelacy being a great and insupportable
grievance and trouble to this nation, and contrary to the
inclinations of the generahty of the people."

1 [This, of course, would greatly curtail the number of electors among
the heritors, most of whom were opposed to the new Government, were
staunch Churchmen, and could not, therefore, either swear allegiance to
WUliam and Mary, or subscribe the " Assurance," which was an acknow
ledgment that William and Mary were as well dejure as de facto, King and
Queen of Scotland, and a promise to defend their Title and Government
against the late King James, and all other enemies. — E.]

334 THE ARTICLE.
1. Sure I am, our Presbyterian brethren had not this way
of reasoning from our Reformers, for I remember John Knox,
in his letter to the Queen-Regent of Scotland,! rejected it
with sufficient appearances of keenness and contempt. He
called it a fetch oi the devil to blind -people's eyes with such a
sophism — to make them look on " that religion as most per
fect which the multitude, by wrong custom, have embraced,"
or to insinuate " that it is impossible that that religion should
be false which so long time, so many Councils, and so great
a multitude of men have authorised and confirmed, &c. for,"
says he, " if the opinion of the multitude ought always to be
preferred, then did God injury to the original world, for
they were all of one mind, to-wit, conjured against God,
except Noah and his family." And I have shewed already
that the body oi our Reformers, in all their petitions for
reformation, made the Word of God, the practices of the
Apostles, the Catholic sentiments and principles of the
Primitive Church, &c., and not " the inclinations of the
people," the Rule of Reformation.
Nay, 2. Gfilbert] Rfule] himself is not pleased with this
standard. He not only tells the world that " Presbyterians
wished and endeavoured that that phrase might not have
been used as it was ;"2 but he ridicules it in his First Vin
dication, in answer to the Tenth Question, though he made
himself ridiculous by doing it as he did it. The matter is
this. The author of the Ten Questions, finding that this topic
of " the inclinations of the people" was insisted on in the
Article as an argument for abolishing Prelacy, undertook
to demonstrate that though it were a good argument, it
would not be found to conclude as the formers of the Article
intended — aiming, unquestionably, at no more than that it
was not true that " Prelacy was such a great and insupport
able grievance," &c. ; and to make good his undertaking,
he formed his demonstration, as I have already accounted.
Now, hear Gfilbert] Rfule] — "It is a new topic," says he, "not
often used before, that such a way of religion is best, because,"
&o. " that his discourse will equally prove that Popery is
preferable to Protestantism ; for in France, Italy, Spain, &c.

1 Knox, Appendix, 90.
Second Vindication, in Answer to Letter III. Sec. 3.

THE ARTICLE. 335
not the multitude only, but all the Churchmen, &c., are of
that way." Thus, I say, Gfilbert] Rfule] ridiculed the
argument, though he most ridiculously fancied he was ridi
culing his adversary, who never dreamed that it was a good
argument, but could have been as ready to ridicule it as
another. However, I must confess Gfilbert] Rfule] did
indeed treat the argument justly, for—
3. Supposing the argument good, I cannot see how any
Church could ever have reformed from Popery ; for, I think,
when Luther began in Germany, or Mr Patrick Hamilton
in Scotland, or Zuinglius, or Oecolompadius, or Calvin, &c.,
in their respective countries and churches, they had the
" inclinations of the people generally" against them. Nay, if I
mistake not, our Saviour and Apostles found it so too, when
they at first undertook to propagate our holy religion ; and
perchance, though the Christian religion is now generally
professed in most nations in Europe, some of them might be
soon rid of it, if this standard were allowed to take place.
I have heard of some who have not been well pleased with
St Paul for having the word Bishop so frequently in his
language, and I remember to have been told that one (not
an unlearned one), in a conference being pressed with a testi
mony of Irenseus's (in his Lib.III.cap.3. AdversusHereticos),
for an uninterrupted succession of Bishops in the Church of
Rome from the Apostles' times at first, denied confidently
that any such thing was to be found in Irenseus ; and when
the book was produced, and he was convinced by an ocular
demonstration that Irenseus had the testimony which was
alleged, he delivered himself to this purpose— "/see it is there,
brother, but would to God it had not been there .'" Now, had
these people who were thus offended with St Paul and
Irenseus, been at the writing of their books, is it probable
we should have had them (with their imprimatur) as we have
them ? Indeed, for my part I shall never consent that the
Bible, especially the New Testament, be reformed according
to some "people's inclinations ;" for if that should be allowed,
I should be very much afraid there would be strange
cutting and carving. I should be very much afraid that the
" doctrine of self-preservation" should justle out the doctrine
of the Cross — that might should find more favour than right,
— that the force and power should possess themselves of

336 THE ARTICLE.
the places of the faith and patience oi the saints — and that
(beside many other places) we might soon see our last of
(at least) the first seven verses of the thirteenth chapter to
the Romans.'^
I shall only add one thing more, which Gfilbert] Rfule]'s
naming of France gave me occasion to think on. It is, that
the French King and his ministers, as much as some people
talk of their abilities, must for all that be but of the ordinary
size of mankind. For if they had been as wise and thinking men
as some of their neighbours, they might have easily stopped
all the mouths that were opened against them some years ago
for their persecuting the Protestants in that kingdom ; for if
they had but narrated in an edict, that " the religion of the
Hugonots was and had stiU been a great and insupportable
grievance and trouble to their nation, and contrary to the
inclinations of the generality of the people, ever since it was
professed among them," their work was done. I believe
Gfilbert] Rfule] himself would not have caUed the truth oi
the proposition in question.
How easy were it to dwell longer on this subject ? But
I am afraid I have noticed it too much already. To con
clude, then — What is this standard else than the fundamental
principle of Hobbism'^ — that holy scheme for brutalizing man
kind, and making religion, reason, revelation — every thing
that aims at making men manly, to yield unto, at least, to
depend on, the frisks oi fiesh and blood, or, which is all one,
arrant sense and ungovernable passion ? And so I leave it.
1 [These verses relate to the doctrine of passive obedience to consti
tuted authorities, which has at no period been the creed of Presby
terianism. Indeed, it can scarcely be said that it practically recognises
obedience of any kind, when its own riews are thwarted or contradicted.
Its aim seems rather to be the subjugation of every opposing power to its
own arbitrary sway, and the history of Scottish Covenanting Protestantism
furnishes a remarkable instance of the old proverb that " extremes often
meet," in the fact, that at particular periods it has asserted the claim for
the complete supremacy of ecclesiastical over civil authority ; thus assimi
lating itself by this grasping dogma to what is generaUy considered the
worst feature in the system of " Popery." — E.]
^ [So called from Thomas Hobbes, who was born at Malmesbury in
WUtshh-e, April 5, 1588, and died December 4, 1679, in his ninety-second
year. He was the author of several works on politics and reUgion, aud
perhaps there has been no one whose writings have had a more pernicious
infiuence in spreading irreligion and infidelity in the world. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 337
But is the second reason any better ? If this Church had
been reformed by Presbyters, would that have been a good
argument for abolishing Prelacy ? Who sees not that
it is much about the same size with the former ? Indeed,
I am apt to think, had the several Churches in the world
erected their governments by this Rule, we should have
had some pretty odd constitutions. Thus, the Church
collected of old amongst the Indians by Frumentius and
Edesius,! should have been governed still by laicks ; for
Frumentius and Edesius were no more than laicks when
they first converted them. Thus all Xaverius's2 converts
and their successors should have been always governed by
Jesuits ; for it is past controversy Xaverius was a Jesuit.^-
' [Two brothers who, when chUdren, were taken by their uncle on a mer-
cantUe voyage ; but on their return, the vessel in which they saUed was
wrecked on the coast of Africa, and all the crew drowned except the two
boys. They were taken to the Palace of the King of Ethiopia, who dwelt at
the city of Axuma, were brought up by him, and exalted to honour. Being
intent upon the conversion ofthe country to Christianity, in which they had
been instructed before learing Tyre, their native city, they speedily resigned
their situations at the Ethiopian Court, in order that they might devote
themselves to the holy work. But feeling their want of orders and
mission, they sought earnestly to have it supplied. Edesius returned to
Tyre, and was admitted to the priesthood. Frumentius went to Alex
andria, in order to supplicate the Patriarch, the iUustrious St Athanasius,
to send a pastor, to complete the pious work of conversion which he had
begun. St Athanasius having caUed a Synod of Bishops, determined to
invest this zealous layman with the sacred office of a Bishop. Accord
ingly Frumentius was consecrated, and retumed into Ethiopia, where his
labours continued to be crowned with the utmost success. Haring sided
with Athanasius during the Arian controversy, he incurred the anger of
the heretical Constantius, who endeavoured to injure him as much as he
possibly could. See Butler's Lives of the Saints, vol. x. p. 646 ; Socrates
et Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. cap. 19. Lib. ii. cap. 24. — E.]
^ [The famous St Francis, born at Xarier in Navarre, in 1506, was
educated at Paris, where he formed an intimacy with the celebrated
Ignatius Loyola, and resolved to devote his Ufe to missionary exertions
among the heathen. In 1541 he embarked at Lisbon for the Portuguese
settlement of Goa, on the Indian coast, and entered with surprizing zeal
on his arduous labours in the Eastern World. After some years, during
which he brought many thousands of the heathen to the knowledge of the
true God, and instructed them in the principles of the Christian Faith, he
turned his eyes towards the Chinese Empii-e, and ardently longed to
carry the lamp of celestial truth into those benighted regions. In 1551
this devoted missionary proceeded towards China, but died within sight
of its shores, in a deserted hut on the island of Sanciau. — E.]
•* [The well known and learned Society founded by Ignatius Loyola, and
22

338 THE ARTICLE.
Thus, the Churches of Iberia and Moravia should have been
governed by women ,-! for, if we may believe historians, the
Gospel got first footing in these parts by the ministry of
females. Indeed, if the argument has any strength at aU,
it seems stronger for these constitutions than for Presbytery
in Scotland, inasmuch as it is more to convert infidels than
only to reform a Church which, though corrupt, is allowed
to be Christian — nay, which is more and worse, more con
trary to the inclinations of Scotch Presbyterians, and worse
for Scotch Presbytery. By this way of reasoning. Episcopacy
ought stiU hitherto to have continued, and hereafter to con
tinue, the government of the Church of England, because
that Church was reformed by her Bishops. But if so, what
can be said for the " Solemn League and Covenant ?" How
shall we defend our forty-three men and all the Covenanting
work of Reformation in that glorious period ? And if it must
continue there, what constant perils must our Kirk needs be
in, especially so long as both kingdoms are under one monarch ?
What I have said, I think might be enough in all con
science for this Fifth Inquiry, but because it is obvious to
the most overly observation that the framers of the Article
have not been so much concerned for the strength and solidity
of the reasons they chose for supporting their conclusion, as
for their colour and aptitude to catch the vulgar, and influ
ence the populace ; and because our Presbyterian brethren
have of a long time been, and still are, in use to make zealous
declamations and huge noises about succession to our
Reformers — because the clamour, on all occasions, that those
who stand for Episcopacy have so much forsaken the prin
ciples and maxims of the Reformation — that they pay our
Reformers so little respect and deference — that they have
secret grudges at the Reformation — that they would willingly
return to Popery, and what not; whereas they themselves
confirmed, after some difficulty, by the papal sanction of Paul IIL, in
1540.— E.]
^ [Our author is wrong here with regard to the conversion of the
Morarians, who, according to Mosheim, were brought to the Christian
Faith about the middle of the ninth century by two Greek monks,
Methodius aud Cyril, whom the Empress Theodosia had sent to dispel
the darkness of this idolatrous nation. The Poles and Muscorites,
however, were converted through the instrumentality of women. See
Mosheim, London edition, 183.3, p. 193, 219. — E.]

THE ARTICLE.

339

have a mighty veneration for those who reformed the Church
of Scotland — they are their only, true, and genuine succes
sors — they are the only men who stand on the foot oi the
Reformation — the only sincere and heart Protestants — the
only real enemies to Antichrist, &c. ! For these reasons, I say,
I shall beg the reader's patience till I have discoursed this
point a little farther.
And to deal frankly and plainly, in the first place, I own
those of the Episcopal persuasion in Scotland do not think
themselves bound to maintain all the principles, or embrace
all the sentiments, or justify all the practices, of our Reform
ers. It is true, I speak only from myself ; I have no com
mission from other men to tell their sentiments. Yet I think
the generality of my fathers and brethren will not be offended,!
though I speak in the plural number, and take them into
the reckoning; and, therefore, I think I may safely say,
though we think our Reformers, considering their education,
and all their disadvantages, were very considerable men,
and made very considerable progress in reforming the
Church, yet we do not believe they had an immediate allow
ance from Heaven for all they said or did. We believe they
were not endued with the gifts of infallibility, inerrability, or
impeccability. We believe, and they believed so themselves,
that they had no commission — no authority, to establish new
articles of faith, or make new conditions of salvation. We
believe they had no power — pretended to none — for receding
from the original and immovable standard oi the Christian
religion. In consequence of this, we believe, and are confi
dent, that where they missed (and, being fallible, it was very
possible for them to do it) of conformity to that standard,
we are at liberty to think otherwise than they thought — to
profess otherwise than they professed — we are not bound to
follow them. To instance in a few of many things : —
We own we cannot allow of the principle of popular
' [Every genuine Scottish Churchman will heartily agree with what is
here stated by the venerable Bishop. The Reformed Catholic Church of
Scotland is in no way connected with John Knox, and those by whose
influenpe the Church, then owning the Pope's supremacy, was overthrown
in the sixteenth century, and her members are not concerned in defending
either their opinions or practices. It is sufficient for our purpose to con
vince men, by undoubted facts, that John Knox, &c. were not Parity-men,
and to drive modern Presbyterians to seek some other founders for their
isolated system. — E.]

340 THE ARTICLE.
reformations, as it was asserted and practised by our Reform
ers. We own, indeed, it is not only lawful, but necessary, for
every man to reform himself both as to principles and practice,
when there is corruption in either, and that not only without,
but against public authority, whether civil or ecclesiastical.
Farther, we own it is not only lawful, but plain and indispen
sible duty, in the governors of the Church to reform her,
acting in their own sphere even against human laws, in direct
opposition to a thousand Acts of a thousand Parliaments — I
say, acting and keeping within their own sphere, i. e. so far as
their spiritual power can go, but no iar^ex— keeping within
these their own bounds, they may and should condemn here
sies, purge the public worship of corruptions, continue a suc
cession of orthodox pastors, &c. — in a word, do every thing
which is needful to be done for putting and preserving the
Church committed to their care in that state of orthodoxy,
purity, and unity, which Jesus Christ, from whom they have
their commission, and to whom they must be answerable, has
required by his holy institution. But we cannot allow them
to move eccentrically, to turn exorbitant, to stir without their
own vortex. We cannot allow them to use any other than
spiritual means, or to make any other than spiritual defences.
We think they should still perform all dutiful snbmission to
the civil powers — never resisthy material arms — never aJsofee
subjects from their allegiance to their civil sovereign — never
preach the damnable doctrine of deposing Kings for heresy —
never attempt to make those whom they should make good
Christians bad subjects ; but to teach them the great and
fundamental doctrine of the Cross, and exemplify it to them
in their practice when they are called to it — this we profess,
and we do not think it Popery. But our Reformers taught
a quite different doctrine. Their doctrine was, that it be
longed to the rabble to reform religion publicly — to reform it
by force — to reform the State, if it would not reform the
Church — to extirpate a^ false religion by th&ir authority — to
assume to themselves a power to overturn the powers that
are ordained of God — to depose them, and set up new powers
in their stead — powers that would protect that which they
judged to be the best religion. Whoso pleases may see this
doctrine fully taught by Knox in his " Appellation,"! and
1 P. 22, 23, 24, &c.

THE ARTICLE.

341

he may see the same principle insisted on by Mr Henderson
in his debates with Kfing] Cfharles] I. And who knows not
that our Reformation was but too much founded on this prin
ciple? Herein, I say, we own we hayeforsaken our Reformers,
and let our Presbyterian brethren, if they can, convict us in
this of heresy. In short, our Reformers maintained that the
doctrine of defensive arms was necessary — that passive obe
dience, or non-resistance, was sinful when people had means
for resistance! — that Daniel and his fellows did not resist by
the sword " because God had not given them the power and
the means"2 — that the Primitive Christians assisted their
preachers even against the rulers and magistrates, and sup
pressed idolatry wheresoever God gave them force? They
maintainedthat the judicial laws of Moses (though not adopted
into the Christian system) in many considerable instances
continued still obligatory, particularly that the laws punish
ing adultery, murder, idolatry with death, were binding — that
in obedience to these laws that sentence was to be executed
not only on subjects, but on sovereigns'^ — that whosoever
executes God's law on such criminals is not only innocent,
but in his duty, though he have no commission from man for
it — that Samuel's slaying " Agag, the fat and delicate King
of Amalek," and Elias' kUling " Baal's priests," and " Jeze
bel's false prophets," and " Phineas's striking Zimri and
Oosbi in the very act of filthy fornication, were allowable
patterns for private men to imitate.''^
That all these and more such strange doctrines were
common and current amongst them, I am able to prove at
full length if I shall be put to it ; besides, they had many
other principles relating to other purposes, which I am per
suaded were not founded on Scripture, had no countenance
from Cathdlic antiquity, were not agreeable to sound and solid
reason, which, we own, we are so far from maintaining, that
we think ourselves bound both to profess and practice the
contrary. And how easy were it to confute as well as repre
sent some of Mr Knox's principles, which, perhaps, were
peculiar to him ? He fairly and plainly condemned St Paul
and St James,^ the first Bishop of Jerusalem, for their prac-
^ Knox's History, 389, 396 ; Appellation, 25, passim. ^ Knox, 317.
" Ibid. 393. * Ibid. 391, 392, 393, passim. = Ibid. 356, 357.
* [It appears that Knox, at the outset of his preaching, was particularly

342 THE ARTICLE.
tice. Acts xxi. 18, 19, &c.! He esteemed every thing that
was done in God's service, without the express command of
his Word, 2 vain religion and idolatry. ^ He affirmed that all
Papists were infidels, both in public and private.* I cannot
think he was right in these things. He had sometimes
prayers which do not seem to me to savour any thing of a
Christian spirit. Thus, in his " Admonition to the Professors
of the Truth in England," after he had insisted on the perse
cutions in Queen Mary's time, he had this prayer^ — ¦'-'- God,
for His great mercies' sake stir up some Phinehas, Elias, or
Jehu, that the blood of abominable idolaters may pacify God's
wrath, that it consume not the whole multitude. Amen."
I must confess it was not without some horror that I put his
own Amen to such a petition. In that same " Exhortation"
he prays also thus — " Repress the pride of these blood-thirsty
tyrants ; consume them in Thine anger, according to the
reproach which they have laid against Thy Holy Name ; pour
forth Thy vengeance upon them, and let our eyes behold
the blood of the saints required of their hands. Delay not
Thy vengeance, 0 Lord, but let death devour them in haste,
let the earth swallow them up, and let them go down quick
to the hells, for there is no hope of their amendment, the
fear and reverence of Thy Holy Name is quite banished from
their hearts, and, therefore, yet again, 0 Lord, consume them;
riolent in his denunciations against those who had embraced the Reformed
opinions, but still went to Mass. Maitland of Lethington defended the
practice, by adducing the case of St Paul, who, by the adrice of St James,
Bishop of Jerusalem, went into the Temple, and purified himself with
four others, who had a vow upon them, in order to conciUate the Jews ;
from which he fairly enough inferred, that for the sake of peace, or self-
preservation, and to avoid giving offence, it is expedient and lawful to
conform to estabhshed usages and ceremonies, if innocent, though not
essential to religion. Knox objected to his inference on two grounds —
Ist, Because the case of performing vows, and attending an " idolatrous
serrice," as he styled the Mass, were not analagous ; and, 2dly, Because
the practice of St Paul, and the advice of St James at that time, had no
scriptural warrant, " seeing tlie event proved not such as they did promise to
tJiemselves." — E.]
^ Knox's History, 100 ; Spottiswoode, 93.
^ [By this rule it would be difficult to save the worship of the third
Person in the blessed Trinity, the Baptism of Infants, and the observance
of the first day of the week, from this imputation. Happily the practice
of the Scottish Reformers, and of ultra-protestants in general, is better
than their principles ! — E.]
^ Appellation 2. •* Knox's History. 363. ^ Knox's Appellation, 68.

THE ARTICLB. 343
consume them in thine anger."! Let the world judge if such
prayers savour of a gospel spirit. Was this " loving our
enemies, or blessing them that curse us, or praying for them
who despitefuUy use us or persecute us ?" Was this like
" forgiving others their trespasses, as we would wish our own
trespasses to be forgiven ?" Was this like — " Father, forgive
them for they know notwhat they do?" or — " Lord, laynot this
sin to their charge?" Did Master Knox consider or know what
manner of spirit he was of when he offered up such petitions ?
I shall only give one other specimen of Master Knox's
divinity, and because it is about a point which of late has
been so much agitated, I shall not grudge to give his senti
ments somewhat fully, because, perchance, he may come to
have some credit by it — he may chance to be honoured as a
Father by the Providentialists. The story is this : —
He wrote a book against the " Regiment of Women," as
he called it. His aim was principally against Mary Queen
of England. When Queen Elizabeth was raised to the
throne, somebody having told her that he had written such
a book, she resented it so that she would not allow him to
set his foot on English ground, when he was returning from
Geneva to Scotland, anno 1559. This grated him not a
little. However, he could not endure to think upon retract
ing the positions in his book. Having once asserted them,
he deemed it point of honour, it seems, to adhere to them ;
for thus he told Secretary Cecil, in a letter from Dieppe,
April 10, 1559.2 He " doubted no more of the truth of
his proposition, than he did — that it was the voice of God
which first did pronounce this penalty against women — In
dolour shalt thou bear thy children." And in a conference
with Mary Queen of Scotland, anno 1561, he told her,
that " to that hour he thought himself alone more able to
sustain the things affirmed in that book, than any ten men
in Europe could be to confute them.3 But for all this
Queen Elizabeth, as I said, was raised to the throne of
England, and it was needful her Majesty should not continue
to have quarrels with him. Her kindness and countenance
at that time to him and his projects were worth little less
than a Deanery. Some knack was, therefore, to be devised for
making a reconcilement between his book and her regiment.
1 Appellation, 78. ^ Knox's History, 226. ¦* Ibid. 315.

344 THE ARTICLE.
WeU! what was it he fixed on? Why? The providential right
served him to a miracle. For thus he wrote in his afore
mentioned letter to Cecil — " If any man think me either
enemy to the person, or yet to the regiment, of her whom
God hath now promoted, they are utterly deceived in me.
For the miraculous work of God, comforting His afflicted
by an infirm vessel, I do acknowledge ; and I will obey the
power of His most potent hand, raising up whom best
pleaseth His Majesty to suppress such as fight against His
glory, albeit that both NATURE and God's MOST PERFECT
ORDINANCE REPUGN to such regiment. More plainly to
speak — If Queen Elizabeth shaU confess that the extra
ordinary DISPENSATION of God's great mercy makes that
lawful unto her, which both nature and God's law do
DENY unto all women, then shall none in England be more
willing to maintain her lawful authority than I shall be ;
but if (God's wondrous work set aside) she ground, as
God forbid, the justness of her title upon consuetude, laws,
and ordinances oi men, then I am assured, that as such foolish
presumption doth highly offend God's supreme Majesty, so
I greatly fear that her ingratitude shall not long lack punish
ment." This was pretty fair, but it was not enough.
He thought it proper to write to that Queen herself, and
give her a dish of that same doctrine. His letter is dated
at Edinburgh, July 29, 1559,! in which, having told her
he never intended by his book to assert anything that might
be prejudicial to her just regiment, providing she were not
found unfaithful to God, he bespeaks her thus — " Ingrate
you will be found in the presence of His throne, if you
transfer the glory of that honour in which you now stand
to any other thing than the dispensation of His mercy,
which only maketh that lawful to your Majesty which
nature and law denieth to all women, to command and
bear rule over men. In conscience I am compelled to say,
that neither the consent of people, the process of time, nor
multitude of men, can establish a law which God shaU
approve, but whatsoever He approveth by His eternal word,
that shall be approved, and stay constantly firm. And
whatsoever He condemneth shall be condemned, though all
' Knox's History, 231, 232.

THE ARTICLE.

345

men on earth should travel for the justification of the same.
And therefore, madam, the only way to retain and keep the
benefits of God, abundantly of late days poured upon you
and your realm, is unfeignedly to render unto God, to His
mercy and undeserved grace, the whole glory of all this your
exaltation. Forget your birth, and aU title which there
upon doth hang. It pertaineth to you to ground the JUSTICE
of your authority not on that LAW which from year to year
doth change, but upon the ETERNAL providence of Him,
who, CONTRARY to the ORDINARY course of NATURE, and
without your deserving, hath exalted your head. If thus in
God's presence you humble yourself, I wiU with tongue and
pen justify your authority and regiment, as the Holy Ghost
hath justified the same in Deborah, that blessed mother in
Israel ; but if you neglect, as God forbid, these things, and
shaU begin to brag of your birth, and to build your authority
and your regiment upon your own law, fiatter you whoso
hsteth, your fehcity shaU be short," &c. Let contentious
people put what glosses they please on Bishop Overall's
Convocation Book,! g^re I am, here is the providential right,
1 [Overall was a learned Anglican Divine, bom 1559. After occupying
various stations in the Church, he was chosen, in the beginning of the
reign of James I., Prolocutor of the Lower House of Convocation — was
made Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, I6I4 — and afterwards translated
to Norwich, in which See he died. May 1619. He is chiefiy famous as
as having drawn up the book to which Bishop Sage aUudes in this
place, and of which Burnet gives the following account : — It treated of
Government — " the Divine institution of which was positively asserted.
It was read in Convocation, and passed by that body, in order to the
publishing it, in opposition to the principles laid down in the famous
book of Parsons the Jesuit, pubhshed under the name of DoUman. But
King James did not lUce a Convocation entering into such a theory of
poUtics," so he wrote a long letter to Abbot, Archbishop of Canter
bury, in which he discouraged the printing of it, and " requested that it
might not be offered to him for his assent," because, in order to justify
the owning of the United Provinces to be a lawful government, " it was
there laid down, that when a change of government was brought to a
thorough settlement, it was then to be owned and submitted to as a work
of the prorideuce of God." Here the book slept, tUl Archbishop Sancroft,
who had got hold of it, and not observing the objectionable passage about
the Spanish rebels, resolved to publish it in the beginning of the reign of
WiUiam and Mary, as the authentic Declaration of the English Church
on the point of non-resistance. Accordingly, it was pubUshed in quarto,
and licenced by the venerable metropoUtan, a very few days before he was
suspended for refusing to take the oaths to the Post-Revolution Govern
ment. See Burnet's History of his Own Times, vol. ii. 212, foi. 1734.

346 THE ARTICLE.
so plainly taught that no glosses can obscure it. Here it
is maintained in plain terms, and resolutely, in opposition to
all the laws, not only of men, but of God and nature.
Thus I have given a taste of such principles as the Pre
latists in Scotland profess they disown, though maintained by
our Reformers. It had been easy to have instanced in many
more, but these may be sufficient for my purpose, which is not
in the least to throw dirt on our Reformers (to whom I am
as willing as any man to pay a due reverence), but to stop
the mouth of impertinent clamour ; and let the world have
occasion to consider if it is such a scandalous thing to think
otherwise than our Reformers thought, as our brethren
endeavour on all occasions to persuade the populace. For
these principles of our Reformers, which I have mentioned
in relation to civil governments, are the principles in which
we have most forsaken them. And let the world judge
which set of principles has most of scandal in it. Let the
world judge, I say, whether their principles or ours partici
pate most of the faith, the patience, the self-denial, &c. of
Christians — whether principles have least of the love of the
world and most of the image of Christ in them — whether
principles have greatest affinity with the principles and
practices of the Apostles and their immediate successors in
the most affiicted, and, by consequence, the most incorrupted,
times of Christianity — whether principles have a more natural
tendency towards the security of governments and the peace
of societies, and seem most effectual for advancing the power
of godliness, and propagating the profession and the life of
Christianity. I further subjoin these two things —
1. I challenge our Presbyterian brethren to convict us of
the scandal of receding from our Reformers in any one
principle which they maintained in common with the Primi
tive Church, the universal Church of Christ before she was
tainted with the corruptions of Popery. And if we have
not done it, as I am confident our brethren shall never be
able to prove we have, our receding from our Reformers, as
It is republished in the " Library of Anglo-CathoUc Theology," 1844,
and to the Preface of the new edition we refer the reader for much
interesting matter relating to the book itself, and for the letter of
Kmg James to " good Doctor Abbot," which wiU well repay the trouble
of perusal. — E.]

THE ARTICLE.

347

I take it, ought to be no prejudice against us. I think
the authority of the Catholic Church, in the days of her
undisputed purity and orthodoxy, ought in all reason to
be deemed preferable to the authority of our Reformers ;
especially considering that they themselves professed to
own the sentiments of the Primitive Church as a part,
at least, of the complex Rule of Reformation, as I have
already proved.
2. I challenge our Presbyterian brethren to instance
in so much as one principle, in which we have deserted our
Reformers, wherein our deserting them can by any reason
able — ^by any colourable — construction be interpreted an
approach towards Popery. I think no man, who understands
any thing of the Popish controversies, can readily aUow
himself the impudence to say, that to " dislike tumultuary
reformations, and deposing sovereign princes," and " sub
verting civil governments," &c. upon the score of religion,
is to be for Popery ; or that the doctrine of submission to
civil authority, the doctrine oi passive obedience, or non-resist
ance, or — which I take to be much about one in the present
case — the doctrine of the Cross, are Popish doctrines : — or
that to condemn the traitorous distinction between the person
and the authority of the civil magistrate, as it is commonly
made use of by some people, and as it is condemned by the
laws of both kingdoms, is to turn either Papistical or Jesuit
ical. Let our brethren, if they can, purge their own doctrines
in these matters of all consanguinity with Popery.
3. And now after all this I would desire my readers to
remember, that this artifice of prejudicating against prin
ciples, because different from, or inconsistent with, the prin
ciples of our Reformers, is none of our contrivance. Our
Presbyterian brethren, not we, were the first who set on
foot this popular, though very pitiful, -way oi arguing. By
all the analogies, then, of equitable and just reasoning, they
ought to endure the trial of their own test. And this brings
me to inquire whether they have stuck so precisely by the
principles of our Reformers, that they are in bona fide, to
insist on such a topic. And, I think, they will not be found
to be so, if I can make it appear that they have notoriously
deserted the principles of our Reformers —

348 THE ARTICLE.
I. In the Faith : II. In the Worship : III. In the Dis
cipline : And, IV. In the Government oi the Church.
I. I say they have forsaken our Reformers as to the Faith
of the Church. Our Reformers digested a " Confession of
Faith," anno 1560. They got it ratified in Parliament that
same year. It was again ratifled, anno 1567, and in many
subsequent Parliaments. It continued still to be the public
authorized standard oi the Faith oi this national Church for
more than eighty years. Our Reformers designed it to be
a perpetual and unalterable standard of the Faith of this
national Church for ever. When the Barons and ministers
gave in their petition to the Parliament for an establish
ment of the Reformation, anno 1560 ; they were " called
upon, and commandment given unto them, to draw into
plain and several heads the sum of that doctrine which
they would maintain, and would desire the Parliament to
establish, as wholesome, true, and only necessary to be be
lieved, and to be received within the Realm ;" and " they
wiUingly accepted the command, and within four days pre
sented the Confession," which was ratified;! and, that its
establishment might pass with the greater solemnity and
formality of law, the Earl Marischal protested that it might
never be altered.2 Yet now our Presbyterian brethren have
set up a quite different standard of Faith, namely the West
minster Confession, and have got it now ratified by this cur
rent Parliament, anno 1690. It was never before ratified
by Act of Parliament. I call it a quite different standard of
Faith. Indeed, whosoever diligently compares both " Confes
sions," shall readily find it such — he shall not only find many
things kept out of the " Westminster Confession," which are
in the Confession of our Reformers, and many things put in
the Westminster Confession which were not in the Confession
of our Reformers ; and many things nicely, minutely, pre
cisely, and peremptorily determined, and that in the most
mysterious matters^ in the " Westminster Confession" which

1 Knox, 262 ; Petrie, 220. ^ Knox, 279.
¦* [It is unnecessary here to compare these two Formularies, which are
accessible to any one disposed to study them. But as instances of our
author's assertion, it may be mentioned that eyeiy point of the Calvinistic

THE ARTICLE.

349

our Reformers thought fit (as was indeed proper) to express
in yery general and accommodable forms, but he shall meet with
not a few plain, evident, and irreconcileable contradictions.
And now by this present Parliament, in its last Session
particularly, upon the twelfth day of June, anno 1693, it
is statuted and ordained " that no person be admitted,
or continued for hereafter, to be a minister or preacher
within this Church, unless he subscribe the Westminster
Confession, declaring it to be the confession of his Faith, and
that he owns the doctrine therein contained to be the true
doctrine, to which he wiU constantly adhere ;" and by un
avoidable consequence, he is bound to subscribe to, and own,
God knows how many propositions, not only not required nor
professed by our Reformers, but directly contrary to their
faith and principles. And now, let the world judge if our
Presbyterian brethren are the successors oi our Reformers
in point oi faith.
II. They have forsaken them yet more in the point of
worship, and here a vast field opens; for to this head I
reduce — artificially or inartificially is no great matter, if I
adduce nothing but wherein our brethren have deserted
our Reformers — the public prayers, the public praises, the
public preaching of the Word, the administration of the
Sacraments, &c., with all their ceremonies, solemnities, and
circumstances, &c. — generally, whatever uses to be compre
hended in Liturgies.
1. In the general, our Reformers were far from condemn
ing i«VMr^«es, or set forms, in the public offices ofthe Church.
There is nothing more plain than that they preferred public
composures to these that were private — composures digested
by the public spirit of the Church, to composures digested
by the private spirit of particular ministers — and premedi
tated and well digested composures, though performed by pri
vate persons, to the too frequently rash, indigested, incom-
posed performances of the extemporary gift. They preferred
doctrine — the Eternal Decrees of God — His Providence — the Free Will
of Man- — what is called Effectual CalUng — the Assurance of Faith and
other abstract subjects of theology — are arbitrarily defined by the West
minster Confession, aU of which were either omitted, or slightly touched
by the prerious Confession. On other subjects they greatly vary, and are
often directly opposed to each other. — E.]

350 THE ARTICLE.
offices which were the productions of grave, sedate, well
pondered thoughts, to offices which were mostly the produc
tions of animal heat and warmth oi fancy.
John Knox himself (one who had as much fire in his
temper, and was as much inclined to have given scope to the
extemporary spirit, I am apt to think, as any of our Reformers)
had even a set form oi grace, or thanksgiving, after meat ;!
he had a set form of prayer for the public after sermon ;2 and
he had set forms oi prayers read every day in his family.^ In
conformity to this principle our Reformers, for seven years
together, used the Liturgy ofthe Church of England, as I have
fully proven. When — by the importunity and persuasions of
John Knox principally, I am sure, if not only — they resolved
to part with the English Liturgy, they continued still as far as
ever from condemning Liturgies. They did not lay it aside to
take up none. They chose another to succeed it. They
chose that which went then generally under the name of
the " Order of Geneva," or the " Book of Common Order,"
since under the name of Knox's Liturgy,^ or the Old Scot
tish Liturgy. This Liturgy continued in use not only all the
time the government of the Church subsisted by Imparity
after the Reformation, but even for many decades of years
after the Presbyterian spirit and party turned prevalent.
It was so universally received and used, and in so good
esteem, that when it was moved by some in the Assembly
holden at Burntisland in March, anno 1601 , that " there
were sundry prayers in it which were not convenient for
these times," and a change was desirable, the Assembly
rejected the motion, and thought good that the prayers
already contained in the Book should neither be altered nor
deleted. But if any brother would have any other prayers
added, as more proper for the times, they should first
present them to be tried and allowed by the General

1 Knox, 366. = Ibid. 384. ^ Spottiswoode, 266.
* [A new edition of this work, rerised by the Rev. J. Gumming,
Presbyterian minister in London, has been lately published by J. LesUe,
London, and Grant aud Son, Edinburgh. On the title-page are the
foUowing extracts — " Our Book of Common Order" — First Book of
Discipline ; " Every minister shaU use the Order contained therem, in
prayers, marriage, and ministration ofthe Sacrament."— Acts of Assembly,
December 26, 1564.— E.]

THE ARTICLE.

351

Assembly."! Here, indeed, were caution and concern about
the public worship worthy of a General Assembly ! Nay, the
fi/rst-rate Presbyterians themselves used the Book as punctu
ally as any other people. When Mr Robert Bruce2 — of
whose zeal for the good cause no man, I think, can doubt —
was relegated to Inverness, anno 1605, he " remained there
four years, teaching every Sabbath before noon, and every
Wednesday, and exercised at the reading of the prayers
every other night."^ And Master John Scrimgeour,*
another prime champion for the cause, when he appeared
before the High Commission, March 1, anno 1620, and was
challenged for not putting in practice the Five Articles of
Perth, particularly for not ministering the Eucharist to the
people on their knees, answered — ¦" There is no warrantable
form directed or approven by the Kirk, besides that which
is extant in print before the Psalm Book, i. e. the Old
Liturgy, according to which, as I have always done, so now
I minister that Sacrament.^ In short, it continued to be in
use even after the beginning of the horrid revolution in the
days of King Charles I., and many old people yet alive
remember well to have seen it used indifferently both by
Presbyterians and Prelatists. But it is not so now.
Our modern Presbyterians do not only condemn the Liturgy
of the Church of England, used, as I say, by our Reformers,
' MS. Calderwood, 456 ; Petrie, 558.
^ [This gentleman was " ordained" as one of the ministers of Edinburgh
in 1598. A curious discussion arose at his " ordination," as to whether the
imposition of hands was necessary to the validity of the pastoral office,
or merely a useful ceremony. Mr Bruce maintained the latter, and would
not accept "ordination" untU his protest to that effect was received. Calder
wood, 423-5. He was a very turbulent character, and, with some others
of the brethren, refused to retum pubhc thanks for the King's escape
from the danger of the Gowrie Conspiracy in August 1600. The others
repented of their obstinacy, and were pardoned, but Bruce, with the
genuine spu-it of Covenantmg perverseness, adhered firmly to his reso
lution, and was banished from the kingdom. Skinner's Ecclesiastical
History, vol. u. p. 239. He seems, however, to have returned to the
former sphere of his mmistry, and to have commenced anew his seditious
practices. Calderwood, 496. He was arraigned at Edinburgh before the
Commissioners of the General Assembly upon the "matter of Gowrie"
and several other charges, and was ordered to « enter m ward at Inver
ness," August 1605. — E.]
3 Caldei-wood, 496. * [He was minister of Kinghorn in Fife -E I
' Ibid. 748. ¦

352 THE ARTICLE.
calling it a " dry lifeless service, a spiritless, powerless
service," an " unwarrantable service," an " ill-mumbled Mass,"
a '¦'¦farce of Popish dregs and relics," a "rag of Romish
superstition and idolatry," and God knows how many ill
things ; but they generally condemn all Liturgies — all set
forms of public worship and devotion. They will admit of
none — all to them are alike odious and intolerable. Herein,
I think, there is a palpable recession from the principles of
our Reformers about the public and solemn worship of the
Church, and that in a most weighty and material instance.
But this is not all. They have not only deserted our Reform
ers and condemned them as to forms, but they have made very
considerable and important recessions from them as to the
matter, both in the substance and circumstances of Liturgical
Offices, and here I must descend to particulars.
1. Then, our present Presbyterians observe no forms in
their public prayers either before or after sermon. For the
most part they observe no Rules — they pray by no standard ;
nay, they do not stick by their own " Directory." All must
be extemporary work,! ai^i \\^q newer the odder — the more
surprizing, both as to matter and manner, the better. If any
brother has not that fire in his temper, that heat in his blood,
that warmth in his animal spirits, that sprightliness and
fervour in his fancy, or that readiness of elocution, &c. — if he
wants any one or two of these many graces which must con
cur for accomplishing one with the ready gift, and shall
^ [It is quite true that at the present day this is preferred by the
people in Scotland ; and he is not a popular minister who does not vary
his prayers, and intersperse them with fiights of fancy and mysticism.
Still it is confessed by many of the most respectable ministers of the
Scottish Establishment that their prayers are premeditated ; aud those
who are in the habit of attending upon their ministrations for any length
of time can teU beforehand almost the entire substance of the " minister's
prayer." This is specially the case at funerals. For the Presbyterians,
although they have no Office for the burial of dead, go through a form of
invoking a blessing upon refreshments of cake and wine, which are usually
distributed to the persons inrited to the funeral. In these prayers they
manage to have some allusions to the afflicting circumstances which have
brought them together ; but such a sameness pervades these performances,
that it is manifest ministers do not greatly aim at novelty, and are guided
more by memory than extemporary impulse. This, perhaps, is as it should
be, but one is tempted to ask, why not at once honestly have a set form ?
There would be less inconsistency in it, than professing to pray extempore,
and yet almost always uttering the identical words in such prayers. — E.]

THE ARTICLE, 353
adventure to digest his thought, and provide himself with
a PREMEDITATED FORM of his own making. He shall be
concerned likewise to be so zcise and wary, as to provide
himself either with a variety of such forms, or many disguises
for his one form, or he shall run the hazard of the success
of his ministry, and his reputation to boot. He is a
gone man if the zealots of the gang smell it out — that he
prayed by premeditation ! Fore-thought prayers are little less
criminal than fore-thought felony I He wants the Spirit,
and deserves to be ranked amongst the anti-christian crew
oi formalists. Nay, so much are they against set forms, that
it is Popery, for anything I know, to say the Lord's Prayer.
Our Reformers never met for public worship but they used
it once or oftener ; and they used it as in obedience to our
Saviour's commandment. Take, for a taste, these instances,
which I have collected from the Old Liturgy, The " Prayer
for the whole estate of Christ's Church," appointed to be
said after sermon, is concluded thus — " In whose name we
make our humble petitions unto thee, even as He hath
taught us, saying, Our Father," &o.! Another prayer, to
be said after sermon, has the Lord's Prayer in the very
bosom oi it.2 The prayer to be used " when God threatens
His judgments," concludes thus — " Praying unto Thee with
all humUity and submission of minds, as we are taught
and commanded to pray, saying. Our Father," &c.3 The
" prayer to be used in time of affliction" thus — •" Our only
Saviour and Mediator, in whose name we pray unto Thee
as we are taught, saying. Our Father," &c.4 The " prayer
at the admission" of a " Superintendent," or a minister, thus
— " Of whom the perpetual increase of Thy grace we crave,
as by Thee, our Lord, King, and only Bishop, we are taught
to pray. Our Father," &c.5 The " prayer for the obstinate"
(in the " Order for Excommunication") thus — " These Thy
graces, 0 heavenly Father, and farther, as Thou knowest to
be expedient for us, and for Thy Church universal, we call for,
unto Thee, even as we are taught by our Lord and Master,
Christ Jesus, saying. Our Father," &c.6 The last " prayer
before excommunication," thus — " This we ask of Thee, 0

1 Scottish Liturgy, p. 27. ^ P. 39. ^ P. 53. ' P. 56,
= P. 74. « P. 104. 23

354 THE ARTICLE,
heavenly Father, in the boldness of our Head and Mediator
Jesus Christ, praying, as he hath taught us, Our Father,"
&c.! The " confession of sins," &c., in time of " public
fasts," thus — " We fiee to the obedience and perfect justice
of Jesus Christ, our only Mediator, praying, as He hath
taught us, saying, Our Father," &c.2 The prayer of " con
secration in baptism," thus — " May be brought as a lively
member of His body, unto the full fruition of Thy joys in the
heavens, where Thy Son, our Saviour Christ, reigneth world
without end ; in whose name we pray, as He hath taught
us, saying, Our Father," &c.3
So many of the prayers used by our Reformers were con
cluded with the Lord's Prayer ; and it is obvious to any
body that sometimes three or four of them were to be said
at one assembly. And still when the Lord's Prayer is
brought in, you see it is plainly in obedience to our Saviour's
command,^ from which it is clear our Reformers looked on

1 Scottish Liturgy, p. 109. " P. 170. « p. i89.
* [The best proof which can be adduced in support of Bishop Sage's
assertion, that the present Presbyterians have receded from the principles
of the Reformers (at least) in the matter of the Lord's Prayer, is furnished
by the following extract from the printed Sermons of the late Dr Andrew
Thomson, Minister of St George's, Edinburgh, the authority of whose
name is still of great weight in the estimation of Scottish Presbyterians.
He says — " With the exception of that part of the petition respecting
forgiveness, which says, ' As we forgive them that trespass against us,' the
whole of it is extracted from the Liturgies that were in use among the
Jews. Now, the sentiments and language of these Liturgies were of course
accommodated to the dispensation under which the Jews lived. But that
dispensation was different from the one under which we are placed — so
different, that the former was only a preparation for the latter. It cannot,
therefore, be supposed that the petitions which were suitable to the one
should be altogether suitable to the other ; or that Christ, acting as the
Head ofthe Church which bears His name, and which shall continue tUl
the end of all things, should prescribe a form of worship borrowed from a
Church, all whose peculiarities were to cease whenever His own was
established in the world. Had He designed this Prayer for us who live
in the sunshine of the Gospel, we have every reason to believe that He
would have introduced into it petitions most directly and distinctly applicable
to the characteristic doctrines of Cliristianity, and not limited Himself to a
phraseology adapted to the darker amd more imperfect state of Judaisun" &c. —
" We cannot suppose that our Sariour would prescribe to us, as a set
form, a prayer so radically defective, as not to acknowledge tlie necessity of
dependence upon His atonement and righteousness. A prayer destitute of
this explicit acknowledgement might be suitable enough to the imperfect
dispensation under which the immediate disciples of our Lord were

THE ARTICLE.

355

the using of it as not only lawful, but necessary. Our pre
sent Presbyterians wiU not only not use it, but they condemn
and write against the using of it. Indeed, they have not
retained so much as one form, except that of blessed, used by
St Paul, 2 Corinthians xiii. 14. This, indeed, they commonly
say (though I am not sure they say it in the form of a bless
ing) before the dissolution of the assembly, but why they
have kept this and rejected aU other forms, or how they can ¦
reconcile the retaining of this with the rejection of all other
forms, I confess I am not able to teU. Let themselves answer
for that, as weU as for retaining set forms of praise, whUe
they condemn set forms of prayer.
2. Our Reformers, in their public assemblies, never
omitted to make a solemn and public confession of their
faith, by rehearsing that which is commonly called the
" Apostles' Creed." It was said after the " Prayer for the
whole estate of Christ's Church," and it was introduced
thus — " Almighty and overliving God, vouchsafe, we be
seech Thee, to grant us perfect continuance in Thy lively
faith, augmenting the same in us daily, till we grow to the
full measure of our perfection in Christ, whereof we make
our confession, saying, / believe in God the Father," &c.
Herein they are entirely deserted by our present Presby
terians also.
3. The preaching of the Word may be performed two ways
— by the public reading oi the Scriptures, and by sermons,
&c. founded on the Scriptures. Our present Presbyterians
in both these have receded from our Reformers.
1. As for the reading oi the Scriptures, our Reformers
delivered themselves thus in the "First Book of Discipline"
Head 9! — " We think necessary that every church have a
placed previously to His exaltation, but it is not all becoming the dis
pensation of the Gospel, &c. ; and, therefore, we cannot reasonably suppose
that He would intend the Form of Prayer which He gave to His twelve
disciples to be binding upon the practice of His Church in all ages."
See Thomson's Lectures on Select Portions of Scripture, 12mo. Edinburgh,
1828, p. 397, 398. This quotation requires no comment beyond the remark,
that the person who used this fearful language about that sacred form of
devotion which our dirine Redeemer uttered, was not only not caUed to
account for it by the judicatories of the Kirk, but continues to be regarded
by the members of the Scottish Establishment as a high authority ou
points of Christian doctrine. — E.]
^ Spottiswoode, 170.

356 THE ARTICLE.
Bible in English, and that the people convene to hear the
Scriptures read and interpreted, that by frequent reading
and hearing, the gross ignorance of the people may be
removed ; and we judge it most expedient that the Scrip
tures be read in order, that is, that some one Book of the
Old and New Testament be begun and followed forth to the
end." For a good many years after the Reformation, there
was an order of men called Readers, who supplied the want
of ministers in many parishes. Their office was to read the
Scriptures and the Common Prayers. The Scriptures con
tinued to be read in churches for more than eighty years
after the Reformation. In many parishes the old Bibles are
still extant from which the Scriptures were read. Even the
" Directory" itself, introduced not before the year 1645,
appointed the Scriptures to be read publicly in churches,
one chapter out of each Testament at least, every Sunday
before sermon, as being part of the public worship of God,
and one means sanctified by him for the edifying of his
people." Yet, now, what a scandal would it be to have
the Scriptures read in the Presbyterian churches? The
last day's sermons taken from the mouth of the power
ful preacher, by the inspired fingers of godly George or
gracious Barbara, in some churches of no mean note, have
been deemed more edifying than the Divine Oracles ! The
Scriptures must not be touched but by the man of God who
can interpret them, and he must read no more than he is
just then to interpret ! What shall I say ? Let Protestant
divines cant as they please about the perspicuity of the
Scriptures, it is a dangerous thing to have them read
publicly without orthodox glosses, to keep them close and true
to the principles of the godly ! And who knows but it
might be expedient to wrap them up again in the unknown
tongue ? But enough of this.
2. As for sermons, &c., the " First Book of Discipline"
gives us the sentiment of our Reformers thus — " The Sunday
in all towns must precisely be observed before and after
noon ; before noon the Word must be preached, Sacraments
administered, &c. ; after noon the Catechism must be taught,
and the young children examined thereupon in audience of
all the people."! Thig continued the manner of the Church of
' Spottiswoode, IGS.

THE ARTICLE.

357

Scotland for full twenty years after the Reformation, for I
find no mention of afternoons' sermons till the year 1580, that
it was enacted (by that same General Assembly which con
demned Episcopacy) that — " All pastors or ministers should
diligently travel with their flocks to convene unto sermon
afternoon, on Sunday, both they that are in landward and
in burgh, as they wiU answer unto God."! The whole king
dom knows lectures before the forenoons sermon were not
introduced tiU the days of the "Covenant" and "Directory."
Yet now a mighty stress is laid upon them, and I myself
have been told, that they were one good reason for forsaking
the Episcopal communion, where they were not used, and
going over to the Presbyterians, where they were to be had.
I am not to condemn a diligent instruction of the people ;
but to speak freely, I am very much persuaded the method
of our Reformers, in having but one sermon, and catechising
after noon, was every way as effectual for instructing the
people in the substantial knowledge of our holy religion, and
pressing the practice of it, as any method has been in use
since. Much more might be said on this subject, but from
what I have said, it is plain there is a great dissimilitude
between our madern Presbyterian and our 'Reformers even
in this point, and that is enough for my purpose.
4. They have as little stuck by the pattern of our Reformers
in the office oi praise. Our Reformers, beside the " Psalms
of David," had and used several other hymns in metre. They
had the Ten Commandments, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed,
Yeni Creator, the Humble Suit of a Sinner, the Lamentation
of a Sinner, the Complaint of a Sinner, the Magnificat, the
Nunc Dimittis, &c. They never used to conclude their
psalms without some Christian Doxology. The Gloria Patri
was most generally used. In the old Psalm Book it is
turned into all the different kinds of measures into which
the Psalms of David are put, that it might still succeed, in
the conclusion, without changing the tune. It was so
generally used, that (as Dr Burnet, in his " Second Con-
ference,"2 tells us), even a Presbyterian General took it in
very ill part when it began to be disused. Yet now nothing
in use with our present Presbyterians but the Psalms of
' MS. Petrie, 404. ^ Edition, Glasgow, p. 182.

358 THE ARTICLE.
David,! and these, too, for the most part, without discrimina
tion. The Gloria Patri, recovered from desuetude at the
last restitution of Episcopacy, and generally used in the
Episcopal assemblies these thirty years past, was a mighty
scandal to them — so great, that even such as came to
church hanged their heads, and sat silent generally when
it came to that part of the office.
Having mentioned Doctor Burnet's " Conferences,"2 I -^{W
transcribe his whole period, because some other things than
the Gloria Patri are concerned in it. " When some design
ers" (says he) " for popularity in the western parts of that
Kirk did begin to disuse the Lords Prayer in worship, and
the singing the conclusion, or Doxology, after the psalm, and
the minister's kneeling for private devotion when he entered
the pulpit, the General Assembly took this in very ill part,
and in the letter they wrote to the Presbyteries, complained
sadly that a spirit of innovation was beginning to get into the
Kirk, and to throw these laudable practices out of it ; men
tioning the three I named, which are commanded still to be
practised, and such as refused obedience are appointed to be
conferred with, in order to the giving of them satisfaction,
and if they continued untractable, the Presbyteries were to
proceed against them as they should be answerable to the
next General Assembly." Thus he — and this letter he said
he could produce authentically attested. I doubt not he found
it amongst his uncle Warriston's^ papers, who was scribe to

^ [The version now in use, and which was sanctioned by the West
minster Assembly, is the production of an Englishman, Francis Rous,
Warden of Merton College, Oxford. — E.]
^ [These contained " A Vindication of the Church and State of Scot
land," in Four Conferences, in the form of Dialogues between persons of
various opinions and sentiments, and were pubUshed in 1673. — E.]
^ [The noted Alexander Johnston, whose sister was married to Burnet
of Crimond, the father of the famous Bishop of Salisbury. Johnston was
educated for the legal profession, but being a person of fanatical temper,
he soon became involved in the polemical disorders of his day, and was a
ringleader in almost aU the iUegal and disgraceful proceedings which
occurred between 1638 and the Restoration. He was a riolent opponent
to the introduction of the Liturgy, and was elected Clerk of the rebellious
Assembly at Glasgow in 1638. But still, such was his influence among
the deluded adherents to the Covenant, that the Government considered
it necessary to propitiate him by favours. Accordingly he was " knighted
by Charles I. in 1641, and appointed an Ordinary Lord of Session for Ufe,

THE ARTICLE.

359

the rampant Assemblies from the year 1638 and downward.
I wish the Doctor had been at pains to have pubUshed more
of them. If he had employed himself that way, I am apt to
think he had done his native country better service than he
has done her sister kingdom by publishing " Pastoral Let
ters," to be used he knows how ; but even from what he has
given us, we may see how much the disusing of the Lord's
Prayer and the Doxology is a late innovation, as well as a
recession from the pattern of our Reformers.
with a Uberal pension." But these honours, and the lucrative emolument
which accompanied them, did not satisfy the cravings of Sir Alexander's
avaricious and aspiring mind. He knew his power, and suspected that it
was the weakness of the Government which prompted them to be liberal
to him, and this only rendered him more arbitrary and determined iu
opposition than before. When his sovereign was in the hands of the
EngUsh rebels, he would not enter into the " Engagement " formed for
his rescue. He was one of the Scottish Commissioners to the Westminster
Assembly, and after the battle of PhUliphaugh, in which the Covenanters
were victorious, he was among the fondest of the misguided zealots in
demanding the hves of the defenceless prisoners, whose only crime was
their having engaged in loyally defending their rightfiil sovereign against
his enemies. In the Parliament which met at St Andrews in November
1645, he made a most sanguinary speech, and iu the genuine spirit of in
tolerance recommended, by way of securing " unity among themselves,"
a severe scrutiny of the conduct of the members of ParUament, " that
the several Estates might consider what corrupted " (i. e. loyal and Epis
copal) " members were among them, who had complied with the public
enemy" (i. e. the King and his adherents), " either by themselves, or their
agents and friends." It is needless to say that this ferocious harangue
was too successful, and was foUowed by the execution of the unfortu
nate victims, many of whom belonged to the best families in Scotland,
who had faUen into the hands of the Covenanters. See Lawson's His
tory of the Episcopal Church of Scotland from the Reformation to the
Revolution, p. 647-664, where the reader will find some interesting
detaUs of the indignities and cruelties which the vanquished Royalists
had to endure. During the Covenanting reign Johnston was a prime
mover of every thing, and subsequently sat in CromweU's House
of Lords as Lord Warriston. After the Restoration, it was not to
be expected that he would be suffered to escape the arm of the law,
which he had so long violated and defied. One of the first acts of the
restored Government was to issue a summons of high treason against
him. He fied, as a matter of course, hoping to escape from punishment.
But the legal formalities with respect to absconding criminals having
been complied with, sentence of forfeiture was pronounced against him
for treason, his estate confiscated, his escutcheon solemnly disgraced, and
an order issued to apprehend him wherever he could be found, and to
bring him to execution at the Cross of Edinburgh. For some time he
evaded justice, but being at length discovered, he was brought to Edin
burgh, and suffered death for high treason on the 22d .July 1663.— E.]

360 THE ARTICLE.
5. And as for the decent and laudable custom of kneeling
for private devotion, used by the minister when ho entered
the pulpit, it may be reckoned another Presbyterian late
recession. It is certain it was used by our Reformers ; it is
as certain it continued in use till after both " Covenants"
were sworn — the " National," I mean, and the " Solemn
League and Covenant." It was not turned authoritatively
(I intend no more than the equivocal authority which
schismatical Assemblies pretend to) into disuse till the
General Assembly, 1645. Even then it was not condemned
as either superstitious or indecent ; it was laid aside only in
compliance with the English Presbyterians. By that As
sembly a Committee was appointed, to give their opinion
about " keeping a greater uniformity in this Kirk in the
practice and observation of the Directory, in some points of
public worship." And the fourth Article to which they
agreed was this, word for word — " It is also the judgment
of the Committee, that the ministers bowing in the pulpit,
though a lawful custom in this Kirk, be hereafter laid
aside for satisfaction of the desires of the reverend Divines
in the Synod of England, and uniformity with that Kirk
so much endeared to us." And then foUoweth the Assem
bly's approbation of all the Articles digested by the
Committee. Here, it is evident, this Assembly owned it to
be a lawful custom — a former Assembly called it laudable ;
and yet it is scandalous, if not superstitious, to our present
Presbyterians. Let me add as an appendage to this —
6. Another (in my opinion) very decent and commendable
custom which obtained in Scotland generally till the latter
times of Presbytery. This — when people entered the church,
they commonly uncovered their heads, as entering into the
house of God, and generally they put up a short prayer to
God (some kneeling, some standing, as their conveniency
allowed them), deeming it very becoming to do so, when they
came thus into the place of God's special presence and his
public worship. This custom was so universal, that the vestiges
of it may be even yet observed amongst old people educated
before the Donatism of the Covenant, who continue to retain
it. Now-a-days it is plain superstition to a Presbyterian, not
to enter the church with his head covered. Mass Jolin^ him-
^ [The origin of this sobriquet for Presbyterian ministers is not well

THE ARTICLE.

361

self doth it as mannerly as the coarsest cobbler in the parish.
In he steps — uncovers not tiU in the pulpit!— claps straight
on his breech — and within a little falls to work as the Spirit
moves him ! All the congregation must sit close in the time
of prayer — clap on their bonnets in the time of sermon, &c.
This is the way, and it brings me in mind of an observe an
old gentleman has frequently repeated to me, which was,
that he found it " impossible to perform divine worship with
out ceremonies, for" (said he) " the Presbyterians them
selves, who pretend to be against all ceremonies, seem even
to superstition, precise in observing the ceremonies of the
breech" Sec. But thus I have represented in some instances
how our Presbyterian brethren have deserted our Reformers

known. Jamieson is wi'ong in saying that it was conferred on them as
being the successors of the "Mass Priests." Why on them more than on
Episcopal ministers ? It is more likely that they obtained it from their
constantly raiUng against the Mass, for at one time this corruption of the
Catholic doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice was the theme of all their
discourses, which were full of the most unmeasured denunciations against
it. Or, again, it may be that " Mas or Mess John " stands for Master or
Messrs John, for it is remarkable that the Presbyterian teachers were not
called reverend at first ; and even yet in official documents we believe that
title is not appUed to them, they being styled simple Mr or Messrs. But
however this may be, as they used to call Episcopal ministers Curates,
they themselves have always passed by the names of " Mass John" or
'¦ Mess Johns." In writing this note upon the text, which requires ex
planation, we cannot sufficiently deprecate the system of applying nick
names in controversy. WhUe error and schism exist there will be
" disputings," but the advocates of true religion and Catholic order
should be careful to evince to their opponents " of what spirit they are,"
and not return " raUing for railing " — should be careful to draw a broad
line of distinction between principles, and the persons of those who profess
them. Even to the fonmr, when they are conscientiously held, there is a
delicacy due ; and controversialists greatly err when they make even tlie
most erroneous principles the subjects of riolent vituperation and abusive
language. In days when party spirit runs high there is the greatest
danger, and if we have occasion to fimd fault with those who have gone
before on this account, let us profit by their example, and endeavour to
avoid theii- mistake. — E.j
^ [As an instance of such irreverent behariour, the present Editor has
been informed by a person who has frequently witnessed it, that the late
Sir Henry Moncrieff, Bart., minister of the West Kirk, Edinburgh, was
in the constant habit of coming into that buUding, aud walking into the pul
pit, his head covered with his hat, which he hung on a peg behind him,
and then, without any private devotion, commenced the service ; and as
soon as it was finished, he used to put on his hat again, and was generally
among the first who left the church. — E.]

362 THE ARTICLE.
in the ordinary stated parts of public worship. I proceed
now to the Sacraments.
7. Then, our Reformers had not only a set form- for ad
ministering the Sacrament of Baptism, but, beside the father
of the child, they allowed of sureties or sponsors. This is
plain from the conclusion of the discourse concerning the
nature and necessity of Baptism in the Old Liturgy ; for the
minister there addressed to the father and the sponsors thus
— " Finally, to the intent that we maybe assured that you the
father and the sureties consent to the performance hereof" —
of the conditions mentioned before — " declare here, before
the face of this congregation, the sum of that faith wherein
you believe and wiU instruct this child." After this there is
this rubrick — " Then the father, or, in his absence, the god
father, shall rehearse the articles of his faith, which done,
the minister expoundeth the same as foUoweth." That
which foUoweth is a large explanation ofthe Apostles' Creed,
&c. Thus it was appointed in the Old Liturgy, and thus
it was practised universally for some scores of years. But
our modern Presbyterians do not only abhor all set forms,
as I have said, but to name sponsors, or godfathers, to them is
to incur the scandal of Popery. The Apostles' Creed is no
agreeable standard of the Christian Faith, into which one is
initiated by Baptism. They cannot endure to hear of it in
this Office. Whoso presents a child to them to be baptized,
must promise to bring up the child in the faith as it is
contained in the " Westminster Confession" and " the
Larger and Shorter Catechisms." This they require gene
rally. Not a few require that the child be educated in the
faith of the " Solemn League and Covenant .'"
8. About the Sacrament of the Lords Supper I find many
considerable alterations. Take these for a taste.
1. It was administered by our Reformers by a set form
contained in the Old Liturgy. It continued to be so ad
ministered for more than sixty years by Presbyterians
themselves, as I have observed already in the instance of
Scrimgeour. 2. As for the frequency of this most Christian office, the
" First Book of Discipline," Hea,d 9,! determined thus —
1 Spottiswoode, 169, 170.

THE ARTICLE.

363

" Four times in the year we think sufficient for administra
tion of the Lord's Table ; albeit, we deny not but every
church, for reasonable causes, may change the time, and mi
nister the same oftener." The General Assembly holden at
Edinburgh, December 25, 1562, ordained the " communion
to be ministered four times in the year in burghs, and twice
in landward."! The first Rubrick in the Office for tho Lord's
Supper in the Old Liturgy intimates it was oftener adminis
tered, for thus it runs — " Upon the day that the Lord's
Supper is ministered, which commonly is used once a month,
or as often as the congregation shall think expedient," &c.
3. Our Reformers had no preparation sermons on the
Saturdays immediately before the administration of the
Sacrament. No vestige of any such sermons in the Old
Liturgy, nor in the Acts of the old Assemblies, nor in any of
our histories. It is plain such sermons were not required by
the authority of any — even Presbyterian — Assembly, till the
year 1645. Then, indeed, amongst the Articles prepared
by the Committee mentioned before, I find this the seventh
branch of the third Article, which was about the Lord's
Supper — " That there be one sermon of preparation de
livered in the ordinary place of public worship upon the day
immediately preceding." And it is clear from the stile of
these Articles that this was new, and had not been practised,
at least generally, before.
4. Our Reformers thought as httle on thanksgiving ser
mons on the immediately succeeding Mondays. Indeed, such
were not required, no, not by that innovating Assembly,
1645. AU it has about " thanksgiving sermons" is in the
eighth branch of the aforesaid Article, which is this — " That
before the serving of the Tables there be only one sermon
delivered to those who are to communicate, and that in the
kirk where the service is to be performed. And that in the
same kirk there be one sermon of thanksgiving after the
Communion is ended."
5. No vestige of assistant ministers at the administration of
this Sacrament in the practice of our Reformers. So far as
I can learn, it was that same Assembly, 1645, which first
allowed this also in the sixth branch of the aforesaid
I MS. Petrie, 233.

364 THE ARTICLE.
Article, which is this — " That when the Communion is to be
celebrated in a parish, one minister may be employed for
assisting the minister of the parish, or at the most two."
Indeed, as our Reformers digested the matter, there was no
use for any. The minister of the parish was sufficient, alone,
for all the work ; for they were careful that it might be no
insupportable task, as sure it ought not to be. They
neither made it such as might exhaust a man's spirits, nor
over burden his memory, &c. Particularly,
6. In the time of celebration they had no exhortations at
all, neither extemporary nor premeditated ; but the "First
Book of Discipline" appointed thus — " During the action, we
think it necessary that some comfortable places of Scripture
be read, which may bring in mind the death of the Lord
Jesus, and the benefits of the same ; for seeing in that action
we ought chiefiy to remember the Lord's death, we judge
the Scriptures, making mention of the same, most apt to
stir up our dull minds then, and at all times. The ministers
at their discretion may appoint the places to be read as they
think good." And in the Old Liturgy the Rubrick appoints
thus — " During which time" — the time the communicants
are at the table, and participating of the elements — " some
place of Scripture is read which doth lively set forth the
death of Christ," &c. This continued the custom of the
whole Church for more than eighty years after the Reforma
tion, without any attempts to innovate, till the often men
tioned Assembly, 1645. Then, and not till then, it was
enacted — " That there should be no reading in the time of
communicating, but that the minister, making a short exhor
tation at every table, thereafter, there should be silence
during the time of the communicants receiving, except only
when the minister should express some few short sentences,
suitable to the present condition of the communicants in the
receiving, that they might be incited and (j[uickened in their
meditations in the action."
7- Our Reformers never so much as once dreamed of
keeping congregational fasts some day of the week before the
celebration of the Sacrament ; nor of shutting the doors of
all the neighbouring churches that day it was to be cele
brated in any parish church ; nor of having so many sermons
in the churchyard where the office was performed. Indeed,

THE ARTICLE. 365
no such customs entered the thoughts of the very Assembly,
1645. At least, if they thought on them, it was rather to
condemn than approve them. Nothing at all, indeed, about
the preparatory fast. But the other two are expressly dis
charged, or at least guarded against ; for the ninth branch
of the Committee's Article is this — " When the parishioners
are so numerous that their parish kirk cannot contain them,
so that there is a necessity to keep out such of the parish as
cannot conveniently have place ; in that case the brother who
assists the minister of the parish may be ready, if need be,
to give a word of exhortation, in some convenient place ap
pointed for that purpose, to those of that parish who that
day are not to communicate, which must not be begun till
the sermon delivered in the kirk be concluded." And the
eleventh this — " That the minister who cometh to assist have
a special care to provide his own parish, lest otherwise, while
he is about to minister comfort to others, his own flock be
left destitute of preaching."
Thus the Eucharist was celebrated by our Reformers,
and thus it was innovated by the Presbyterian General
Assembly, anno 1645. Well ! What is the method of our
present Presbyterians? Whether do they keep by the
measures of our Reformers, or their own Assembly, 1645 ?
Or have they receded from both ? I shall give an account
of their method, as just and faithful as I can, and let the
world judge.
The practice of our present Presbyterians is this. In
many places, particularly in the West, a fast is kept on some
day of the week before the Sacrament is celebrated. The
congregation meets — a lecture and two long sermons are
preached — long enough, good enough ; but if they are not
long, they are good for nothing. In aU parishes, on Satur
day afternoon another long sermon in the church, and in
most places a long one, too, in the churcJi-yard preached by
some' neighbour-brother. On Sunday (the day on which
the Communion is given), six, seven, eight, ten, or twelve
ministers, leaving their own churches empty that day, and
vyithout Divine service, convene at the church where the
Sacrament is to be administered. The people of their
parishes, deprived of the public worship at home, resort
thither frequently also. If the minister who gives the

366 THE ARTICLE.
Sacrament is a gracious man — a man of renowned zeal for
the good cause, most of the first-rate zealots, both masculine
and feminine, especially the females oi the first magnitude —
the ladies, who live within six, ten, sixteen, twenty, thirty
miles distance, must be there also. In the morning, pretty
early, some two or three hours sooner than ordinary they
fall to work. The minister of the parish himself commonly
preaches a long long sermon in the church. After some two
hours and an half, sometimes three full hours, spent in hard
labour (too hard for sides that are not very substantial), he
descends from the pulpit to the communion table. There he
has another long discourse before he consecrates the elements.
That done, he consecrates not by a form — that were highly
scandalous and unspiritual — ^but as the ready gift serves him ;
after that an exhortation, which wants nothing but the for
mality of having a text read to make it a pretty long sermon.
Then the elements are distributed to those who are set
about the table, and that is called the First Table. These
having participated, arise and remove — others plant them
selves about the table — sometimes the parish minister serves
this Second Table also ; but if he does not, a fresh brother
succeeds with another long exhortation, and so onward, so
long as there are people who have not sat down. At every
table (and sometimes there may be ten, twelve, fourteen
tables, more or fewer as it happens) there is a new long
exhortation before the distribution of the elements, and shorter
ones in the time the communicants (who receive not from
the minister, but from one another sitting, fifty, sixty,
seventy, eighty, &c. about the table) are eating and drink
ing. After all the tables are served, the minister of the
parish ascends the pulpit, again declaims another long
harangue, then prays, &c., and all this without papers,
from the magazine of his memory, unles it be sometimes
supplied from the stores of the extemporary spirit.
But this is not all. AU this time the sermons are thun
dering in the church-yard, sometimes by pairs together, if
the confiuence is great. Brother succeeds after brother, and
there is sermon upon sermon — indeficient sermoning — tiU the
congregation within the church is dissolved, which is not,
for the most part, tUl much of the day is spent ; indeed,
cannot readily be, considering what work there is of it.

THE ARTICLE.

367

The congregation dissolved, there is a little breathing time ;
then the beUs ring again, and the work is renewed. Sonie
other brother than the parish minister mounts the pulpit in
the churph in the afternoon, and preaches a thanksgiving
sermon, and the rest are as busy in the churcli-yard as ever ;
and then on Monday morning the preaching work is fallen
to afresh, and pursued vigorously, one preaching in the church,
another in the church-yard, as formerly. I am sure I am
just in all this account. I could prove it by many instances,
if it were needful, but I shaU only name two. Thus,
last year when this Sacrament was celebrated at St
Cuthberts, where the renowned Mr David WiUiamson!
exercises, on the three days, viz. — Saturday, Sunday, and
Monday, in the church and church-yard there were no fewer
than twelve or thirteen formal sermons, besides all the inci
dental harangues, and all the exhortations at the tables, &c.
And when the Sacrament was given in the new church2 in
the Canongate in September, or the beginning of October,
1692, there was much about the same number. I myself
overheard parts of some three or four which were preached
in the church-yard ; and that which made me have the
deeper impressions of the unaccountableness of this their
method was, that all who were in the church-yard, on Sun
day at least, and four times as many, might that day have
had room enough in the churches of Edinburgh, which were
at no great distance ; but it seems the solemnity of church
yard sermons^ is now become necessary on such occasions.

' [This person was minister of the West Kirk of Edinburgh, and the
author of fbur sermons preached on pubUc occasions, one of which was
severely criticized by Bishop Sage. But he is better known as the
original " Daintie Davie " of the old baUad, and as one whose practice
was quite inconsistent with the sacred character which he assumed. He
died August 6, 1706. For a more enlarged account of him, we refer our
readers to the note, page 349 of " Kirkton's Memoirs," edited by Charles
Kirkpatrick Sharpe, Esq., and to the " Spirit of Calumny and Slander
Examined," &c. 1693, in which he is accused of borrowing the greater
part of one of his famous pubUc sermons from Bishop Brownrigg.^ — E.]
^ [The present parish church of the Canongate in Edinburgh, then
newly erected. — E.]
^ [The statements of Bishop Sage, respecting the " solemnity of church
yards," refer to the tent-preachings, as they were caUed, or sermons deli
vered from a portable wooden erection, not unlike a military sentry-box in
the church-yard, whUe the Sacrament was in the course of administration

368 THE ARTICLE.
I have narrated nothing in this strange account, I say,
but what is notorious matter of fact. AU this parade they have
ordinarily even in the country; and though there are but
some scores, or at most but some hundreds, to communicate,
yet the communion is not solemn enough — there is a cloud
upon the minister's reputation — something or other is wrong,
if there are not some thousands of spectators.
in the neighbouring parish church. It is almost impossible to describe
these annual scenes, which occurred in almost every rural parish in Scot
land for upwards of a century at the " Occasion," as the Presbyterians call
their Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and which were the resort of
thousands, who often travelled many mUes to be present. On the parti
cular days, the tent was erected in the church-yard for the edifying of that
portion of the assembled multitude who could not be accommodated in the
densely crowded church. The tent-preachings continued from the Thursday,
or whatever day was the fast-day — for in some parishes it is Wednesday,
and in others Friday, though generaUy Thursday, to the foUowing Mon
day, including Saturday and Sunday. While preacher succeeded preacher
on all the appointed days in the parish church, and delivered extempore
sermons and discourses — the excellence and value of which were only
reUshed if the individuals could hold out for hours — the same process
was carrying on at the tent by other preachers to the congregated mass
outside. To accommodate the pilgrims from different parishes, booths
covered with blankets or other materials were erected near the church
yard wall for the sale of refreshments, and copious Ubations of spmtuous
liquors were quaffed by those pious Presbyterian votaries. The preachers
relieved each other by singing Psalms, dm-ing which the booths were fiUed
by the thirsty auditors, who returned again to hear the next harangue.
Those tent-preachings were absolute nuisances, and were the cause of
much licentiousness, debauchery, and drunkenness, in Scotland. They
are now abandoned, and numbered among the obsolete customs of fanar
ticism, having been completely discouraged by the more recent and better
educated ministers of the Presbyterian Establishment ; but probably none
did more to bring them mto justly deserved ridicule and contempt than
Robert Burns, in his exquisite satire which he entitled the Holy Faik —
one of his prominent poems. The tent-preachings, however, were long
attempted to be kept up by those Presbyterian Dissenters from the Esta
bUshment known as Cameronians, or, as they call themselves. Reformed
Presbyterians, and that class of the Seceders formerly designated by the
sobriquet of Anti-Biirghers. So fond were the peasantry of resorting to
those " Occasions," that female servants during the eighteenth centm-y very
generally bargained with the persons who employed them, that they were
to be allowed to attend a certain number of fairs and Occasions, or Sacra
ments, during the year in the surrounding parishes. A singular record
of the pilgnmages to such celebrations is preserved in the " Memoirs of
Mrs Elizabeth West," a fanatical female who lived at, and a number of
years after, the Revolution, and who, though only a common domestic
servant, was greatly caressed by such men as Mr Darid Williamson, Mr
Gilbert Rule, and other savoury preachers, as she calls them. This little
book has been often printed in Scotland. — E.]

THE ARTICLE.

369

I doubt not, when strangers read this account, they will
think it a very surprising one.! And no wonder, for, not to
' [Bishop Sage's delineation of the Presbyterian administration ofthe
Sacrament of the Lord's Supper in Scotland is remai-kably correct, and,
though now in some degree modified, it is still the same, so far as the
preaching is concerned, the only difference being that the sermons are not
of such length as formerly. The foUowing is the manner at present ob
served, premismg to the reader that even in a small parish five " ministers"
at least take part in the ceremonial. The first day of preaching is caUed
the Fast-Day, when aU business is suspended, the shops in the towns are
closed, and the EstabUshed and Dissenting Presbyterian communities
resort to their several places of worship to hear sermons. In the large
cities and towns, such as Edinburgh, Glasgow, Paisley, Dundee, Perth,
and Aberdeen, two Fast-Days are held annually, as the Sacrament is
administered twice a^year, but in the small towns and rural parishes
only once. The Fast-Day is generaUy a Thursday, but in those towns
where the weekly market is held on that da;y it is either Wednesday
or Friday. The reader is to observe, however, that, though called a Fast-
Day, it is the reverse of such as it respects the practice ofthe Presbyterians
themselves, who do not literaMy fast, according to the Primitive discipline,
whUe many thousands make it a day of pleasure and indulgence. The
tmth is, the Presbyterian Fast Days in Scotland have long become, what
the tent-preachings formerly were, great nuisances, and are the annual
causes of much immoraUty and dissipation, to say nothing of the pecuniary
loss they oecasiou to the community by the suspension of trade and labour
— facts which are admitted by many Presbyterians themselves, and, indeed,
are too glaring to be denied. This is farther aggravated by the circum
stance that the Fast-Day is never held on the same day throughout the
district, and even in the neighbouring towns and rural parishes it is always
held on a difi'erent week, for the purpose, it is presumed, of procuring the
assistance of the incumbents, as only " ordained ministers " can officiate,
but which, it is obrious, causes the influx of the idle and disorderly from
the town or parish, in which it happens to be the Fast-Day, into the towns
and parishes iu which it is not held. But to return to the Presbyterian
celebration : — On the Fast-Day the minister of the parish commences in
the forenoon by causing a Psalm to be sung. He then utters a long
extempore prayer, and is succeeded by another minister, who preaches a
sermon. In the afternoon a different minister preaches, and this generaUy
concludes the religious observances of the Fast-Day. The next meeting is
on the afternoon of Saturday, which is designated the Day of Preparation,
when a different minister preaches, after which the " tolcens" or smaU
round pieces of lead or copper, about the size of a shilling, having the
initial letters of the town or parish engraved, are distributed by the
incumbent to all those of the congregation who intend to communicate
without which no one is aUowed to participate. On the Sunday the
incumbent himself commences the duties by praise, prayer, and a discourse
which is caUed in Scotland the Action Sermon, and is expected to be more
profound than the usual pulpit exhibitions throughout the year. Long
tables are placed in the centre of the parish church, the ordinary pews
being removed for their accommodation, and the communicants seat
themselves at these tables. After the Action Sermon is concluded and
24

370 THE ARTICLE.
insist how much they have receded, not only from the Rules
and practices of our Reformers, but even from the determi
nations of their own General Assembly, 1645 — not only
receded from them, but almost in every particular run quite
counter to them ; not to insist on what occasions may be
given to much scandal and many wickednesses by such
some preliminary exhortations are delivered, the minister of the congre
gation descends from the pulpit, places himself at the central head of
a table, and, after prayer and another address, which is caUed Fencing (lie
Tables, he consigns the bread (which is cut in large slices half an inch
thick) and the wine to the Elders, who stand beside him, and who, after
collecting the tokens, hand the bread and wine to the persons sitting at
each of the tables. Each person, after breaking off a smaU piece of the
bread, hands the rest to his or her neighbour. During this process the
minister continues speaking, and he then seats himself for a few minutes
till all at the tables have communicated, when he rises, commences some
admonitions as to what they have professed and their future conduct,
aud teUs them to " go in peace." Several verses of one of the metrical
Psalms authorized by the Kirk are then sung, untU the seats at the tables
are again filled. Different ministers succeed each other in addressing the
communicants, in precisely the same form as at the first Table, and this
is called Serving the Tables. The whole is concluded by^an admonitory
exhortation from the incumbent. In the evening another sermon is
delivered by one of those who had served the tables, who are generally
those who preached on the Fast-Day and Preparation^Day. On Monday
forenoon another sermon is deUvered by a different minister, though
formerly it was not uncommon to have two sermons. This Monday is
called in the Presbyterian phraseology the Thanksgiving-Day, and the
whole proceedings are terminated in the afternoon by a dinner in the
incumbent's house, given to his friends the assisting ministers, and to the
Elders, at which the wine not used at the Sacrament is produced — that
being his perquisite. In the Presbyterian Establishment the heritors or
proprietors of the parish, or the Town Council in a city or burgh, are
bound to proride the bread and wine, or allow a, certain sum to the
incumbent for Communion Elements. Many printed specimens of the
extraordinary length of the sermons formerly preached before and after
the Presbyterian Sacrament, are preserved. One, by Mr Ralph Erskine,
a founder of the Presbyterian Sect known as Seceders, preached at Dun
fermline on the 29th of September 1723, immediately after the " celebra
tion," from Psalm Ixxxv. 10, extends to seventy very closely printed
duodecimo pages of small type, and must have occupied nearly /oar hours
in the delivery. It is entitled — " The Harmony of the Dirine Attributes
Displayed in the Redemption and Salvation of Sinners by Jesus Christ,"
and was published at Edinburgh in 1724. Another, by the same Mr
Ralph Erskine, from Jeremiah xxx. 21, and entitled — " The Best Bond,
or Surest Engagement," pubUshed that year, is similai-ly printed, also
contains seventy pages, and must have occupied four hours in its delivery.
It purports to have been preached at Dunfermline, July 19, 1724, im
mediately before the " administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's
Supper."— E.]

THE ARTICLB.

371

indigested, disorderly, confused, and mixed convocations—
(for who knows not that hundreds, generally strangers to one
another, who have no sense of, no concern for, no care about,
serious religion, may meet on such occasions for novelty, for
curiosity, for intrigues not to be named, for a thousand such
sinister ends?)— not to insist on these things, I say, though
they are of no smaU consequence, what a vast difference
is there between such communions, and the orderly and
devout communions of the Primitive Church ? What would
the ancient lights and guides of the Christian Church, who
would suffer none to stay in the church but such as were to
participate, say, if they saw such promiscuous routs assembled,
and mostly for no other end than making a spectacle of such
a venerable mystery? Is not such unaccountable parade
much liker to the Popish processions than the devout per
formances of the purer times of genmne Christianity ? How
impossible were it, at this rate, to celebrate the Sacrament
once a month in every parish church ? How much more
impossible to restore it to its d/ue and proper frequency ?
How far is this from looking on this holy Sacrament as an
ordinary, though a very signal, part of Divine worship ? Or
rather is it not to make a prodigy of this Divine mystery ?
Certainly, when people observe how seldom, and, withal,
with what strange pomp — with what ordinarily impracticable
solemnity, such an holy ordinance is gone about, it cannot
but work differently upon their different dispositions. It
stands fair to be a scare-crow to the weak Christian ; he
dares not approach where there is so much frightening ad
dress. It stands as fair for being a scandal to the strong
and understanding Christian, when he sees so much vain
show, so much needless ostentation, so much odd, external
tricking about it. And the hypocrite can hardly wish any
thing more useful for him ; for who should doubt of his
being a saint, when he approaches amidst so much solemnity ?
Besides, every body may easily see what is aimed at by all
this. It is, as they think, a proper method for catching the
populace — it is to make them admire the devotion, the reli
gion, the abilities of the party ! How glorious and august
are their communions ! What singular preparations have
they ! How many powerful prayers ! How many soul-
searching sermons ! Who can compare with them ior fervour

372 THE ARTICLE.
and zeal, for graces and gifts, for special marks of God's
peculiar favour and assistance? Must not their way be
God's loay ? Must not those of their way be the true — the
only people of God ? I ask God and my Presbyterian
brethren pardon, if this is not at the bottom of the matter ;
but if it is, I wish they would consider from what principles
it proceeds. How easy is it to discern, in such arts and
methods, the clear symptoms — the lively signatures — of a
schismatical temper ? How easy to perceive the plain
features of faction, and the lineaments of a preposterous
fondness to have their way and party had in admiration ? How
easy were it more fully to expose such dangerous and
dreadful methods ? But I am afraid I have digressed too
much already.
9. There is another very considerable instance of their
deserting the principles of our Reformers in the matter of
this Sacrament— such an instance as may make another
strange figure when seriously considered. Our Reformers,
having once established the " Confession of Faith" as the
standard for this National Church, required no more for
qualifying private persons for the Sacrament of the Eucharist
than that they " could say the Lord's Prayer, the Articles
of the Belief, and the Sum of the Law, and understand the
use and virtue of this holy Sacrament." So it is expressly
delivered in the ninth Head of the " First Book of Disci
pline."! Supposing the person free from scandal, this was
certainly a genuine measure, and agreeable to the Rules and
prificiples oi Catholic unity ; for, however expedient it may
be, upon some emergent occasions or necessities, to require
suitable obligations of office-bearers in the Church, yet no
man, I think, who loves Christian simplicity and unity, but
will acknowledge it is proper and prudent to make the
terms of communion as catholic and comprehensive as
Christ's institutions will allow them to be made. Now, not
to insist on our brethren's separating from the communion
of those who keep by the terms oi communion required by
our Reformers, whereby they expressly condemn the com
munion of our Reformers — not to insist on this, I say,
though it might be more than enough to prove their
' Spottiswoode, 170.

THE ARTICLB.

373

recession :

. ...„„.„,. from the principles of our Reformers in this matter,
our Presbyterian brethren are bound, by an express Act of
the General Assembly, 1648, not to give the Sacrament of
the Lord's Supper to any who do not first swear the
Solemn League and Covenant. The occasion was this : —
In the beginning of that year 1648, most part of the
Nobihty and gentry of Scotiand, having come to a sense of
the miseries and calamities the kingdoms had been involved
in by the horrid rebeUion which had then prevaUed too long
and too successfully, and wiUing to acquit themselves for
once as dutiful subjects, for the relief of their suffering
sovereign, at that time most sadly oppressed, and kept in
prison by a prevaUing party of his most undutiful subjects,
entered into a most dutiful confederacy, commonly caUed
"Duke Hamilton's Engagement" — by the Presbyterians,
" the Unlawful Engagement" — and in pursuance thereof
made suitable preparations, provided arms, levied men, &c.,
to form an army. The Presbyterian preachers were gene
rally against it, preached and prayed damnation and ruin
to the undertakers, condemned the undertaking as unlawful
and perjurious — as traitorous to the cause of God, and a
breach of Solemn League and Covenant, and what not?
Particularly the Presbytery of Edinburgh — the leading Pres
bytery — ^the Presbytery which sat upon the watch-tower of
the nation, shewed, I must say, a remarkable, though I cannot
say, good example to the rest oi the Presbyteries in the
months of May and June. They racked their inventions
for falling on methods to crush and disappoint the designs
of the Engagers. For instance, they set on foot this politic
in the respective parishes within their district, that the
ministers and kirk-sessions should form supplications against
the Engagement, and give them in to the Presbytery, who
were to give them in to the Committee of Estates, and
thereby to represent to them how much their undertaking
was " contrary to the inclinations of the generality of the
people." The device took effect in some parishes. The
kirk-sessions of Edinburgh, Holyroodhouse, Duddingstone,
Liberton, Ratho, Ourrie, Cramond, gave in their supplica
tions, declaring that they could not be satisfied in their
consciences about the lawfulness of the Engagement. I have
instanced the forwardness of the Presbytery of Edinburgh,

374 THE ARTICLE.
to give my reader a taste of the humour of these times ;
nor is it to be imagined that others were asleep while they
were so dUigent.
The General Assembly met on the twelfth of July. They
justified the endeavours and diligence used before against
the Engagement with a witness ! They approved all the
declarations,! remonstrances, representations, petitions, &c.
against it, which had been made by the " Commission of
the Kirk." They declared there was no possibility of
securing religion, so long as this unlawful Engagement was
carried on. They made acts and declarations against Acts of
Parliament, and threatened all who should obey them with
the wrath of God and the censures of the Kirk. They gave
out their public warnings against it, and wrote to their
Covenamted brethren in England, showing their utter abhor
rence of it. They made their act declaring silence about it
a crime, and requiring all ministers to make " the main cur
rent of their applications in sermons against it, under the
pain of being censured by their Presbyteries." And to show
their sincerity and real zeal in all this, and for preventing
all such ungodly Engagements for the time to come, &c., they
made this Act — " That hereafter all persons whatsoever
should take the Covenant at their first receiving of the
Lord's Supper, requiring Provincial Assemblies and Presby
teries to be careful that this Act should be observed, and
account thereof taken, in the visitation of particular kirks
and the trial of Presbyteries." If this was not to straighten
Christian communion — if this was not to impose strange
terms on aU who desired this holy Sacrament, let the world
judge ; and it is very well known that for some years there
after this Act was observed. Perhaps it were no difficult
task to give an account of many strange things which hap
pened in pursuance of this Act. But I shall content myself
at present with one instance.
In pursuance of the politic of the Presbytery of Edinburgh
mentioned before, the ministers of South Leith proposed to
that kirk-session the overture of supplicating against the
Engagement. The plurality of the elders rejected it. This
was in May or Jime. The Engagement, as every body
' [See Preface, p. 94, note. — E.]

THE ARTICLE.

375

knows, was unsuccessful — the army was routed at Preston,!
&c., and the Kirk had opportunity to be avenged of Malig
nants. The Presbytery of Edinburgh, therefore, on the
sixth of December that same year, kept a visitation at the
church of South Leith— they made dUigent inqiyry who of
the elders refused to supplicate against the Engagement —
they deposed them from their office, and they ordered the
ministers to go about an election of a new session. But
this was not aU. Upon the Sth of December they met
again, to digest a method for renewing the Covenant, in
obedience to the Assembly's Act, and particularly they
ordained that " such seducers as dissuaded others from
petitioning against the Engagement should be debarred
from the COVENANT." Nay, upon the 24th of January
1648, it was ordered particularly, that " those in South
Leith who had accession to the paper drawn in Captain
Ramsay's house" — (which paper, so far as one can conjec
ture, from the depositions of the witnesses about it, was
nothing but an apologetick, for their not supplicating) — " as
also those who were sent from the Corporations" — (the
town, as I think, is divided into four Corporations)2 — " to
the ministers and session, to desire them to forbear suppli
cating against the Engagement, should make public acknow
ledgement of their offence, before they should have permission
to take the Covenant." So that at last, as is obvious, the
matter resulted in this — the elders of South Leith, and
those who came from the Corporations to the session to
dissuade from swppUeating, could not have the Sacrament
without first taking the Covenant, and they could not have
the benefit of the Covenant (as it was then deemed) tiU they
should make public acknowledgement of the heinous guilt of
not supplicating, and, as seducers, dissuading others from
^ [Preston in Lancashire, when the Scottish troops, under the Duke
of Hamilton, were routed by the English army under CromweU and
Lambert with great slaughter, and the Duke himself was taken prisoner,
and sent to Windsor Castle. — E.]
" [These Corporations, or properly Incorporations, built the present
parish church of South Leith, which is dedicated to St Mary, and have
the appointment of the second minister. The " Corporations" are under
stood to be, I. The Traffickers, or Merchant Company. 2. The Trinity
House. 3. The Maltmen. 4. The Convenery of the Trades.— E.]

376 THE ARTICLE.
supplicating, against the umlawful Engagement. For the
truth of this, I appeal to the faith of the public register of
that Presbytery.
I know our Presbyterian brethren will be ready to say
that this was only a deed of the particular Presbytery of
Edinburgh, so that, if there was any thing amiss in it, it
ought not to be imputed to the whole party. If this be
said, I have these things to reply : — 1. What did the Pres
bytery herein that was not in pursuance of the public spirit,
the times, and the Acts of the General Assembly ? But, then,
2. As extravagant as the Presbytery of Edinburgh was in
this matter, they came not up, it seems, to the full measures
of rigidity which the spirit of the Assembly required. For
whoso pleases to turn over in the Register! to the 31st
of January 1648-9, shall find that the Commission of the
Kirk (the authentic vehicle of the public spirit of the Kirk
during the interval between Assemblies) wrote a letter to
the Presbytery — " Requiring greater accuracy in the trial
of Malignants, and admitting people to the renovation of
the Covenant ; prohibiting kirk-sessions to meddle in such
matters, and ordering all to be done by the Presbyteries
themselves, except very difficult cases, which were to be
referred to the Commission of the Kirk." And to secure
this side also, let him turn over to the Acts of the General
Assembly, anno 1649, and he shall find first Act intituled
— " Approbation of the proceedings of the Commissioners
of the General Assembly," by which Act that Assembly,
acted by that same spirit with the former, found that the
Commissioners appointed, anno 1648, " had been zealous,
diligent, and faithful in the discharge of the trust com
mitted to them, and therefore did unanimously approve
and ratify the whole proceedings, acts, and conclusions
of the said Commission ; appointing Mr John Bell, Mo
derator, pro tempore, to return them hearty thanks in the
name of the Assembly for their great pains, travel, and
fidelity." If it be said, farther, that our present Presbyterians
1 [The register here referred to is not extant, haring been destroyed
by fire, and those registers now existing do not extend further back than
about the beginning of the eighteenth century. — E.J

THE ARTICLB.

377

require not now that condition of taking the Covenant of those
they admit to the Sacrament, I reply, 1. Do not the Came
ronians, who, in aU true logic, are to be reputed the truest
Presbyterians, observe it punctually? 2. How can our
present regnant Presbyterians justify their omission of it ?
By their own principles, the Act binds them, for it stands as
yet unrepealed by any subsequent General Assembly. By
the common principles of reason, they are bound either to
obey that Act, or reprobate the Assembly which made it.
This I am sure of, they can neither plead the desuetude oi
that Act, nor any peculiarity in the reason of it for their
neglecting it, more than many other Acts which they own
stiU to be in vigour. But I am afraid my reader has too
much of this. Thus I have shewed in part how much our
Presbyterian brethren have deserted the Rules and rites oi
our Reformers about the Sacraments. Proceed we now to
other Liturgical Offices.
10. Then, our Reformers not only appointed a form for the
celebration of marriage (to be seen in the old Liturgy), but
in that form some things agree word for word with the
English form, particularly " the charge to the persons to be
married, to declare if they know any impediment," &c. A
solemn blessing was also appointed to be pronounced on the
married persons, and after that, the 128th Psalm to be sung,
&c. Besides, it was expressly appointed by the " First
Book of Discipline" that " marriages should be only solem
nized on Sunday, in the forenoon, after sermon," cap. 9 ;!
and this was so universally observed, that the introduction
of marrying on other days is remarkable, for it was proposed
to the General Assembly holden at Edinburgh, July 7, anno
1579, as a " doubt whether it was lawful to marry on week
days, a sufficient number being present, and joining preach
ing thereunto ;" and the General Assembly resolved it was
lawful.^ But our present Presbyterians, if I mistake not
make it rather a doubt whether it be lawful to marry on
Sunday. Sure I am, it is inconsistent with their principles
to do it by a form, as sure I am though they were for a
form, they could not weU digest the form oi our Reformers,
which smelled so rankly of the English corruptions. I know
1 Spottiswoode, 169. » MS. Petrie, 400.

378 THE ARTICLE.
not if they use solemnly! to bless the married pair. If they do
not, I know they have deserted their own " Second Book of
Discipline." I think they will not deny but the singing of
the 128th Psalm in the church, immediately after the persons
are married is out of fashion with them.
11. They have also forsaken our Reformers in the burial
ofthe deadP- It is true, indeed, the "First Book of Disciphne"
seems to be against funeral sermons, neither doth it franldy
allow of reading suitable portions of Scripture and singing
Psalms at burials ; yet it was far from condemning these
offices. " We are not so precise in this" (say the compilers),
"but that we are content that particular churches, with
consent of the minister, do that which they shall find most
^ [In general they do not pronounce a solemn benediction upon the
married pair, but give them a very solemn lecture. At a Presbyterian
marriage, which the present Editor witnessed, and which was solemnized
by one of the most eminent of the parochial ministers of Edinburgh,
there was so close an imitation of the English Serrice, that one might
almost have imagined that the Prayer-Book had been the model according
to which the minister, above referred to, endeavoured to conform his
ministration. It is more likely, however, that he was guided by the old
Scottish Liturgy, for with the exception of the 128th Psalm, the whole
performance corresponded with the form here described. — E.]
^ [There is no defect in the Presbyterian system which its members
feel more acutely than the neglect of their Church towards those who
" die in the Lord " — the cheerless and irreverent manner in which she
permits the earthly tabernacles of her children, which an immortal soul
has just left for a period, to be consigned to the dust. As an illustration
of this feeling, the following note by Mr Cumming, appended to page 105
of his edition of Knox's Liturgy, seems peculiarly apposite : — " It is much
to be regretted that the Scottish Reformers were so afraid of the super
stitions of Romanism, that, in order to avoid them, they rushed, as in this
instance (the burial of the dead) to an opposite extreme. What can be
more scriptural or sublime than the Anglican Service for the dead !"
We may add — what a pity that this serrice should be hidden, as it is,
from the people of Scotland, by being performed in private chambers,
thus veiling, as it were, one of our most attractive offices, which, whUe
it would serve to keep the Presbyterians alive to their own wants, might
lead them to the Church, which watches over her children from the
cradle, and deserts them not until they are laid in the grave ! Whenever
the Burial Service is read publicly in the churchyards, the present writer,
speaking from experience, can testify that it meets with the deepest
respect from the multitude, and on more than one occasion, when he has
performed it at the grave of a soldier, he has seen Presbyterian ministers,
who have been attracted to the scene by the sound of the Dead March,
standing by, and paying the utmost attention while the prayers of our
Church were being offered to the " God of the spirits of aU flesh." — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 379
fitting, as they wiU answer to God and the Assembly of the
Universal Church within this Realm."! But the Old Liturgy,
which was authorized by two General Assemblies (which the
" First Book of Discipline" could never pretend to), has not
only a form for visiting the sick, (not observed, I am sure by
our present Presbyterians) but expressly allows of funeral
sermons. These are its very words about burial: — " The
corpse shall be reverently brought to the grave, accompanied
with the congregation without any further ceremonies, which
being buried, the minister, if he be present and required,
goeth to the church, if it be not too far off, and maketh some
comfortable exhortation to the people touching death and
the resurrection ; then blesseth the people, and dismisseth
them." To our present Presbyterians funeral sermons are
as the worshipping of relics. They are every whit as ill as
praying for the dead and the doctrine of Purgatory. One
thing more I shaU take notice of in the Old Liturgy.
12. It is the " Form and Order of the election of the
Superintendent, which may serve in election of all other
ministers." I shall not repeat what I have already observed
as to this point, concerning our Presbyterians condemning
the office of Superintendents, and their forsaking our Reform
ers as to the ceremony of imposition of hands in ordinations
— a point wherein our Reformers, I confess, were somewhat
unaccountable. That which I take notice of now is, that
that form continued at least for sixty years to be used in
ordinations. Particularly it was in use even with the Parity
men anno 1618, as is evident from Calderwood,2 and it was
insisted on by them then, as a form which was to be reputed
so venerable, and of such weight, that any recession from it
was an intolerable innovation ; and yet I refer it to our pre
sent Presbyterians themselves, if they can say that they have
not entirely deserted it. Because the designation of the
person to be ordained is prior, in order of nature, to his
ordination, I shall add, as an appendage to this head, the
discrepance between our Reformers and our present Presby
terians about patronages and popular elections of ministers.
Our present Presbyterians, every body knows, are zealous
for the divine right oi popular elections. The power of choosing
1 Spottiswoode, 173. " Calderwoode, 712.

380 THE ARTICLE.
their own ministers — " the persons who are to have the
charge of their souls," is a privilege which Christ by his
Testament hath bequeathed to his people. It is his legacy to
them — an unalienable part of their spiritual property. It
cannot be taken from them without a direct crossing of Christ's
institution, and the horrid sin of robbing his people of their
indisputable privilege. Patronages are an " intolerable
grievance and yoke of bondage on the Church ; they have
been always the cause of pestering the Church with a bad
ministry ; they came in amongst the latest antichristian
corruptions and usurpations," &c. This is their doctrine,
though it is obvious to all the world they put strange com
ments on it by their practice. Well ! What were the senti
ments of our Reformers in this matter ? The " First Book
of Discipline," indeed, affirms (Head 4,) that " it appertain
eth to the people, and to every several congregation, to elect
their own minister ;" but it has not so much as one syllable
of the divine institution of such a privilege. On the contrary,
in that same very breath it adds — "And in case they be found
negligent therein the space of forty days, the Superintend
ent with his Council may present a man," Sic. If this man
after trial, is found qualified, and the church can justly re
prehend nothing in his life, doctrine, or utterance, then " we
judge" (say our Reformers) " the church which before was
destitute unreasonable if they refuse him whom the Church
doth offer, and that they should be compelled, by the censure
of the Council and Church, to receive the person appointed
and approved by the judgment of the godly and learned,
unless that the same church hath presented a man better,
or as well qualified, to examination, before that the aforesaid
trial was taken of the person presented by the Council of
the whole Church; as, for example, the Council of the Church
presents a man unto a church to be their minister, not
knowing that they are otherwise provided : In the mean
time, the church hath another sufficient in their judgment
for that charge, whom they present to the learned ministers,
and next Reformed church to be examined : In this case,
the presentation of the people to whom he should be ap
pointed pastor must be preferred to the presentation of the
Council or greater Church, unless the person presented by
the inferior church be judged unable for the regiment by

THE ARTICLE.

381

the learned. For this is always to be avoided, that no man
be intruded or thrust in upon any congregation ; but this
liberty, with aU care, must be reserved for every several
church to have their voices and suffrages in election of their
ministers ; yet we do not caU that violent intrusion, when
the CouncU of the Church, in the fear of God, regarding only
the salvation of the people, offereth unto them a man suffi
cient to instruct them, whom they shaU not be forced to
admit before just examination." So that Book. Add, to
this this consideration, that at that time the Popish clergy
were in possession of all the benefices— the Reformed clergy
had not then so much as the prospect of the Thirds, which
I have discoursed of before. These things laid together, it is
obvious to perceive, 1. That it was only from prudential con
siderations our Reformers were inchned to give the people so
much power at that time — it was much for the conveniency
of the ministers who were to live by the benevolence of the
parish, &c. They did not grant them this power as of divine
right — no such thing so much as once insinuated as I have
said — it was plainly nothing but a liberty. And no injury,
no violence, was done to a parish even in these circumstances
of the Church, when the Council of the Church gave them a
minister without their own election. It is plain 2. That (so
far as can be collected from the whole period above) our
Reformers (the compilers of the Book, I mean), abstracting
from the then circumstances of the Church were more in
clined that the election of ministers should be in the hands
of the clergy than of the people, which I am much inclined
to think was not only then, but a long time after, the pre
vailing sentiment. And all the world sees, I am sure, it was a
sentiment utterly inconsistent with the opinion of the divine
right oi popular elections.
I have been at pains to set the "First Book of Discipline"
thus in its due light, that our brethren may not complain it
was neglected ; not that my cause required it, for that Book
was never law, either civil or ecclesiastical, and so I might
fairly have omitted it. Let us try, next, what were truly the
public and authoritative sentiments of our Reformers.
The first which I find of that nature is the sentiment of
the General Assembly, holden in September 1565. The
General Assembly holden in June immediately before had

382 THE ARTICLE.
complained, that " some vacant benefices had been bestowed
by the Queen on some Noblemen and Barons."! The
Queen answered — " She thought it not reasonable to deprive
her of the patronages belonging to her." And this General
Assembly, in September, answer thus — " Our mind is not
that her Majesty or any other person should be defrauded
of their just patronages, but we mean, whensoever her
Majesty, or any other patron, do present any person unto a
benefice, that the person presented should be tried and exa
mined by the judgment of learned men of the Church, such
as are for the present the Superintendents ; and as the pre
sentation of the benefice belongs to the patron, so the
collation, by law and reason, belongeth to the Church."2
Agreeably, we find by the 7th Act, 1 Pari. Jac. VI. , anno
1567 — the Parliament holden by Moray, Regent — it was
enacted, in pursuance, no doubt, of the agreement between
the Nobility and Barons, and the Clergy in the General As
sembly holden in July that year — " That the patron should
present a qualified person within six months to the Superin
tendent of these parts where the benefice lies." &c. ; and by
the Agreement at Leith, anno 1572, the right of patronages
was reserved to the respective patrons.^ And by the General
Assembly holden in March 1574, it was enacted — " that col
lations upon presentations to benefices should not be given
without consent of three qualified ministers," &c.* The
General Assembly, in August that same year, supplicated
the Regent " that Bishops might be presented to vacant
Bishopricks," as I have observed before. By the General
Assembly holden in October 1578, it was enacted — " That
presentations to benefices be directed to the Commissioners
of the countries where the benefice lies."5
It is true, indeed, the " Second Book of Discipline,"
cap. 12, § 10, condemns " Patronages, as having no ground
in the Word of God, as contrary to the same, and as con
trary to the liberty of the election of pastors, and that
which ought not to have place in the light of Reformation."^
But, then, it is as true, 1. That that same General Assembly,
holden in April 1581, which first ratified this " Second
^ MS. Petrie, 342. ' MS. Petrie, 344 ; Spottiswoode, 193.
3 Calderwood, 52. "¦ Ibid. 66. ^ ^g Petrie, 396 ; Calderwood, 84.
" MS. Spottiswoode, 301 ; Calderwood, 114.

THE ARTICLB.

383

Book of Discipline," statuted and ordained—" That laick
patronages should remain whole, unjointed and undivided,
unless with consent of the patron."! go that let them, who
can, reconcile the Acts of this Presbyterian Assembly ; for
to my skiU (which, I confess, is not very great) it seems, as
we use to say, to have both burnt and blown patronages —
blovm them by this Act, and burnt them by ratifying the
Book which condemned them. But whatever is of this, that
which I observe, 2. is far more considerable ; for, though
the Book condemned patronages, yet our Presbyterian
brethren of the modern cut have no great advantage by it,
for it had nothing less in its prospect than to condemn
them for making way for popular elections. Indeed, it gave
no countenance to such elections, far less did it suppose or
assert them to be of divine right. This is its determination
in the 9th section of that 12th chapter. — " The liberty of
electing persons to ecclesiastical functions, observed without
interruptions so long as the Church was not corrupted by
Antichrist, we desire to be restored and retained within
this realm ; so as none be intruded upon any congregation,
either by the Prince, or any other inferior person, "WITHOUT
LAWFUL ELECTION, and THE ASSENT OF THE PEOPLE, Over
whom the person is placed, according to the practice of the
Apostolic and Primitive Church." Now, 1. Considering that
it was the common talk of the Presbyterians of these times,
that antichristian corruptions began to pester the Church so
soon as Episcopacy was introduced, it is clear that that
which they call the uninterrupted practice of the Church
must have descended, according to themselves, but for a very
few years ; and I shall own myself their humble servant, if
our present Presbyterians shall prove that popular elections
were in universal iminterrupted practice during that interval
of their own making — the interval, I mean, which they
make between the Apostles' times and the first introduction
of Episcopacy. Indeed, 2. The Book plainly distinguishes
between lawful election and the assent of the people,
and all the world knows they are naturally distinguishable ;
and whosoever knows any thing of the monuments of these
1 MS. Petrie, 410 ; Calderwood, 99.

384 THE article.
Primitive times, knows they were actually distinguished, and
that all the people's privilege was to ASSENT, not to ELECT.
They were not in use of electing, if I mistake not, till
towards the end of the third century ; so that, if we can
believe the compilers of the Book, if they were for restoring
the Primitive practice, it is easy to understand that they
meant no such thing as to restore popular elections. Espe
cially, if, 3. It be considered that we have one very authentic
explication of this ninth Article of the 12th chapter of the
" Second Book of Discipline " handed down to us by
Calderwood himself.! The story is this.
King James VI., continually vext with the turbulency
of the Presbyterian temper, caused publish fifty-five Ques
tions, and proposed them to be sifted, thinking that clear
and distinct resolutions of them might contribute much for
ending many controversies agitated in those times between
the Kirk and the Crown. They were published in February
or January 1596-7 — they are to be seen both in Spottis
woode's and Calderwood's Histories.2 I am only concerned
at present for the third Question, which was this — " Is not
the consent of the most part of the flock, and also of the
patrons, necessary in the election of pastors ?" Now, Calder
wood says that " there were brethren delegated from every
Presbytery of Fife, who met at St Andrews upon the 21st
of February, and having tossed the King's Questions sundry
days," gave answers to every one of them, particularly to
the third. This was their answer — "The election of pastors
should be made by those who are pastors and doctors law
fully called, and who can try the gifts necessarily belonging
to pastors by the Word of God; and to such as are so
chosen, the flock and patron should give their consent and
protection.''^ Now this, I say, is a very authentic explication
of the words of the Book ; for these delegates meeting at St
Andrews, it is not to be doubted but Mr Andrew Melville,
at that time Principal of the New College, was with them.
Probably they met in that city that he might be with them,
for sure I am it was not otherwise the most convenient place
of the county for their meeting ; and having him with them,
1 Calderwood, 383. ^ Spottiswoode, 434 ; Calderwood, 382.
2 Calderwood, 383.

THE ARTICLE. 385
they had one, than whom none on earth! was capable of giving
a more authentic sense of the words of the Book.
It were very easy to adduce more Acts of General As
semblies to this purpose, but I am afraid I have insisted
too much on this subject already. In short, then, the
groundless fancy of the Divine right of popular elections is
more properly an Independent than a Presbyterian principle.
The Enghsh Presbyterians of the Provincial Assembly of
London wrote zealously against it in their "Jus Divinum
Ministerii Evangehci." It is truly inconsistent with the
old Presbyterian scheme — it obtained not generally amongst
our Scottish Presbyterians tUl some years after 1638 — it
was not adopted into their scheme tiU the General Assembly,
1649. Patronages were never taken away by Act of
Parliament tiU of late, i. e. in the year 1690. It is true,
G[Ubert] R[ule], in his " True Representation of Presby
terian Government,"2 says, " they were taken away by law,"
meaning, no doubt, by the Act of the pretended Parliament,s
anno 1649. But he had just as much reason for caUing
that Rout a Parliament, or its Acts, Laws, as he had for
making the suppressing of popular elections of ministers a
just cause for separating from the communion of a Church.
Thus I have insisted on the recessions of our present Pres
byterian brethren from the sentiments of our Reformers
about the public worship of the Church, and some of its
appendages. Perchance I have done it too tediously ; if
so, I shall endeavour to dispatch what remains more curtly.
III. They have also deserted our Reformers in the disci
pline of the Church. The particulars are too numerous to
be insisted on. Let any man compare the two " Books of
Discipline," the " First," compiled by our Reformers, anno
1560 — the " Second," by the Presbyterians of the first edi
tion, and ratified by Act of the General Assembly holden in
April, 1581, and he shall find no scarcity of differences ; he
shall find alterations, innovations, oppositions, contradic
tions, &c. Let him compare the Acts of Assemblies after

' [MelviUe was the chief instrument in compiling and drawing up the
Second Book of Discipline.— E.] ^ P. 15.
'^ [This was the Convention which met immediately after the murder of
Charles I., Lord Chancellor Loudon presiding.— E.] 25

386 THE ARTICLE.
the year 1580, with the Acts of Assemblies before, and he
shall find many more. Indeed, our present Presbyterians
have made not a few notorious recessions from the " Second"
— the Presbyterian Book oi Discipline. To instance in a few.
The third chapter of the " Second Book of Discipline" is
thus entituled — " How the persons that bear ecclesiastical
function are admitted to their offices." This chapter treats
of such persons in the general. The particular orders of
pastors, doctors, elders, &c. are particularly treated of in
subsequent chapters. This third chapter, treating thus of
ecclesiastical officers in the general, makes two things ne
cessary to the outward call, election, and ordination. Section 6.
It defines ordination to be " the separation and sanctifying
of the person appointed by God and his Church, after that
he is well tried, and found qualified." It enumerates " fast
ing, prayer, and imposition of hands of the eldership," as
the ceremonies oi ordination. Section 11, 12. Now, the whole
nation knows no such things as either trial, fasting, or impo
sition of hands, are used by our present Presbyterians in the
ordination of ruling elders.
The sixth chapter is particularly concerning ruling elders,
as contra-distinct from pastors or teaching elders. And it
determines thus concerning them, Section 3 — " Elders, once
lawfully called to the office, and having gifts of God fit to
exercise the same, may not leave it again." Yet nothing
more ordinary with our present Presbyterians than laying
aside ruling elders, and reducing them to a state of laicks ;
so that, sure I am, if ever they were presbyters, they come
under TertuUian's censure (De Prsescrip.) — " Hodie Pres
byter, qui eras laicus" — " A Presbyter to-day, and a porter
to-morrow .'"
By the ninth section of that same chapter — " It pertains
to them (these ruling elders) to assist the pastor in exa
mining those that come to the Lord's Table, and in visiting
the sick." This Canon is not much in use,! I think, as to the
last part of it. As to the first, it is entirely in desuetude.

1 [It is only fair to observe that, in the present day, at least in the large
towns, this canon is followed out, and the elders are of great assistance to
the parish minister in executing both of the duties here specified, more
especially the latter. — E.]

THE ARTICLE.

387

Indeed, some of them would be wondrously qualified for such
an office !
The seventh chapter is about Elderships and Assemblies.
By Section 2 — " Assembhes are of four sorts, viz. either of
a particular congregation, or of a province, or a whole nation,
or all Christian nations." Now, of aU these indefinitely it
is affirmed, Section 5—" In all Assemblies a Moderator
should be chosen by common consent of the whole brethren
convened ;" yet no such thing observed in our kirk-sessions,
which are the congregational assemblies spoken of, Section 2.
But Mas John takes the chair without election, and would
not be a little grated if the best laird in the parish should
be his competitor. Crawford! himself, the first Earl of the
kingdom, had never the honour to be Moderator in the kirk-
session of Ceres !
The fourteenth canon in the same seventh chapter is
this — " When we speak of elders of particular congrega
tions, we mean not that every particular parish church can
or may have their particular elderships, especially to land
ward, but we think three or four, more or fewer, particular
churches may have a common eldership to them all, to
judge their ecclesiastical causes." And Chapter 12, canon 5
— As to elders, there should be in every congregation, one or
more appointed for censuring of manners, but not an assem
bly of elders, except in towns and famous places where men
of judgment and abUity may be had ; and these to have a
common eldership placed amongst them, to treat of all
things that concern the congregations of whom they have
the oversight." But as the world goes now, every parish,
even in the country, must have its own eldership, and this
eldership must consist of such a number of the sincerer sort
as may be able to outvote all the Malignant heritors upon
occasion, as when a minister is to be chosen, &c. So long
as there is a precise ploughman, or a well-affected Webster 2
or a Covenanted cobbler, or so, to be found in the parish, such
a number must not be wanting. The standing of the sect
^ [WiUiam sixteenth Earl of Crawford, a zealous Presbyterian and
the instigator of much severity to the Episcopal incumbents, after the
Revolution. His mansion of Struthers, long the seat of the Crawford
Family, is situated in the parish of Ceres, near Cupar-Fife. The title is
now dormant, and the estates are possessed by the Earl of Glasgow  E 1
2 [Weaver.— E.J ' ¦-¦

388 THE ARTICLE.
is the supreme law — the good cause must not suffer, though
all the canons of the Kirk should be put to shift for them
selves. IV. The last thing I named, as that wherein our present
Presbyterians have forsaken the principles and sentiments
of our Reformers, was the government of the Church ; but I
have treated so fully of this already, that it is needless to
pursue it any farther. I shall only, therefore, as an ap
pendage to this, represent one very considerable right of the
Church, adhered to by our Reformers, but disclaimed by
our present Presbyterians. It is her being the first of the
three Estates of Parliament, and having vote in that great
council of the nation.
It is evident, from the most ancient records, and all the
authentic monuments of the nation, that the Church made
still the first of the three Estates in Scottish Parliaments,
since there were Parliaments in Scotland. This had ob
tained time out of mind, and was looked upon as funda
mental, in the constitution of Parliaments, in the days of
the Reformation. Our Reformers never so much as once
dreamed that this was a Popish corruption. What sophistry
can make it such ? They dreamed as little of its being
unseemly, or scandalous, or incongruous, or inconvenient, or
whatever, now-a-days, men are pleased to call it. On the
contrary, they were clear for its continuance as a very
important right of the Church. The " First Book of
Discipline," Head 8, allowed clergymen " to assist the
Parliament when the same is called." It is true, Calderwood
both corrupts the text here, and gives it a false gloss.
Instead of these words — " when the same is called," he
puts these — " if he be called" ;! and his gloss is — " meaning
with advice (says he), not by voice, or sitting as a member
of that Court." I say this is a false gloss. Indeed, it runs
quite counter to all the principles and practices of these
times ; for not only did the Ecclesiastical Estate sit actually
in the Reforming Parliament, anno 1560, and aU Parliaments
thereafter, for very many years, but such stress, in these
times, was laid on this Estate, that it was generally thought
that nothing of public concern could be legally done without
' Spottiswoode, 168 ; Calderwood, 28.

THE ARTICLE. '^"'^
it. The counsel of the Ecclesiastical Peers was judged
necessary in aU matters of national importance. Thus,
anno 1567, when the match was on foot between the Queen
and BothweU, that it might seem to be concluded with the
greater authority, pains were taken to get the consent of the
principal Nobility by their subscriptions. But this was not
aU. That aU might be made as sure as could be, " aU the
Bishops who were in the city were also convocated, and their
subscriptions required," as Buchanan tells us.! And, anno
1568, when the accusation was intented against the Queen
of Scotiand before the Queen of England's arbitrators,
that it might be done with the greater appearance of the
consent of the nation — ^that it might have the greater sem
blance of a national deed, as being a matter wherein all
Estates were concerned, the Bishop of Orkney and the
Abbot of Dunfermhne2 were appointed to represent the
Spiritual Estate.^ Again, anno 1571, when the two counter
Pariiaments were holden at Edinburgh, those of the Queen's
faction, as few as they were, had the votes oi two Bishops
in their Session, holden. July 12, as is clear from Buchanan
and Spottiswoode compared together.* In their next
Session, which was holden at Edinburgh, August 22, that
same year, though they were in all but five members, yet
two of them were Bishops, as Spottiswoode teUs.^ But
Buchanan's account is more considerable, ^ for, he says,
one of these two was there unwillingly ; so that it seems he
was forced by the rest to be there, out of a sense they had
of the necessity oi the Ecclesiastical Estate. Now, it is to
be remembered that those who appeared for the Queen were
Protestants, as well as these who were for her son.
No man, I think, will deny but the subsistence of the Eccle
siastical Estate, and their vote in Parliament was confirmed
and continued by the Agreement of Leith, anno 1572. In
deed, when the project for Parity amongst the officers of the

1 Postridie, quod in urbe fuit Episcoporum convocatur in aulam, ut
et ipsi quidem, subscriberent. Buchanan, 667.
^ [Robert Pitcairn, of whom Buchanan says that he was " homo non
minoris consUii quam fidei. — E.]
' Buchanan, 698 ; Spottiswoode, 219.
" Buchanan, 756 ; Spottiswoode, 254.
' Spottiswoode, 256. ' Buchanan, 760.

390 THE ARTICLE.
Church was set on foot by MelviUe, anno 1575, and some
of the clergy were gained to his side, and they were using
their utmost endeavours to have Episcopacy overturned, it
seems this was a main difficulty to them — a difficulty which
did very much entangle and retard their purpose ; this, I
say, that the overturning Prelacy was the overturning one of
the three Estates of Parliament. This is evident not only
from Boyd, Archbishop of Glasgow — his discourse to the
General Assembly, anno 1576, mentioned before, but also
from the two letters I have often named, which were written
to Mr Beza, the one by the Lord Glammis, anno 1576 or
1577, the other by Mr MelviUe, anno 1579. Because they
contribute so much light to the matter in hand, I shall once
more resume them. Glammis was then Chancellor of Scot
land. It is manifest he wrote not indeliberately, or without
advice. Undoubtedly he stated the question according to the
sense the generality of the people had then of it ; now he
states it thus — " Seeing every church hath its own pastor,
and the power of pastors in the Church of Christ seems to
be equal, the question is — Whether the office of Bishops be
necessary in the Church for convocating these pastors when
there is need for ordaining pastors, and for deposing them
for just causes ? Or — Whether it be better that the pastors,
acting in parity, and subject to no superior Bishop, should
choose qualified men for the ministry with consent of the
patron and the people, and censure, and depose, &o. ? For
retaining Bishops we have these two motives, one is — the
stubbornness and ungovernableness of the people, which
cannot possibly be kept within bounds,! if they are not over
awed by the authority of these Bishops in their visitations.
The other is, that such is the constitution of the Monarchy,2
which hath obtained time out of mind, that as often as the
Parliament meets for consulting about things pertaining to
the safety of the republic, nothing can be determined with
out the Bishops, who make the Third Estate of the kingdom,
which, to change or subvert, would be extremely perilous to
the kingdom." So he : from which we may learn two things
— the first is a farther confirmation of what I have before

' Qui vix ac ne vix quidem in officio contineri potest.
* Leges regni longo usu et inveterata consuetudine receptEe.

THE ARTICLE,

391

asserted to have been the sentiment of these times con
cerning the election of pastors, namely, that it was that they
should be elected by the clergy, and that the people should have
no other power than that of consenting — the other is pat in
relation to our present business, namely, that the Ecclesias
tical Estate was judged necessary by the constitution of the
Monarchy — it could not be wanting in Parliaments' — it was
to run the hazard of subverting the constitution to think of
altering it, or turning it out of doors. And Melville's letter
is clearly to the same purpose — " We have not ceased these
five years to fight against pseudo-Episcopacy, many of the
Nobility resisting us, and to press the severity of discipline ;
we have presented unto his royal Majesty and three Estates
of the Realm, both before and now in this Parliament, the
form of discipline to be insert amongst the Acts, and to be
confirmed by public authority. We have the King's mind
bended towards us" — (too far said, I am sure, if we may
take that King's own word for it) — " but many of the Peers
against us. For they aUege, if psuedo-Episcopacy be taken
away, one of the Estates is pulled down ; if Presbyteries
be erected, the royal Majesty is diminished," &c. It is true,
Melville himself here shows no great kindness for the Third
Estate, but that is no great matter; it was his humour to be
singular. All I am concerned for is the public sentiment of
the nation, especially the Nobility, which we have so plain
for the necessity oi the Ecclesiastical Estate, that nothing
can be plainer. Nay, so indisputable was it then, that this
Ecclesiastical Estate was absolutely necessary by the consti
tution, that the Presbyterians themselves never called it in
question — never offered to advance such a paradox as that it
might be abolished. After they had abohshed Episcopacy
by their Assembly, 1580, the King sent several times to
them, teUing them — " He could not want one oi his Three
Estates. How would they provide him with an Ecclesiastical
Estate, now that they had abolished Bishops?" Whoso
pleases to read Calderwood himself shall find this point fre
quently insisted on. What returns gave they ? Did they ever
in the least offer to return, that the having an Ecclesiastical
Estate in Parliament was a Popish corruption — that it was
an unwarrantable constitution — that it was not necessary —
or that the constitution might be entire enough without it ?

392 THE ARTICLE.
No such thing entered their thoughts. On the contrary,
they were stiU clear for maintaining it — they had no inchna-
tion to part with such a valuable right ofthe Church. Their
answer to the King's demands was stiU one and the same —
" They were not against Churchmen having vote in Parlia
ment, but none ought to vote in name of the Church with
out commission from the Church." And this their sentiment
they put in the very " Second Book of Discipline," for these
are, word for word, the seventeenth and eighteenth Articles
of the eleventh chapter.—" We deny not, in the mean time,
that ministers MAY and SHOULD assist their Princes when
they are required, in all things agreeable to the Word of
God, whether it be in Council or Parhament, or out of
Council; providing always they neither neglect their own
charges, nor through flattery of Princes, hurt the pubhc
estate of the Kirk." — " But generaUy we say that no pastor,
under whatsoever title, of the Kirk, and specially the abused
titles in Popery of Prelates, Chapters, and Convents, ought
to attempt any thing in the Church's name, either in Par
liament or out of Council, without the commission of the
Reformed Kirk within this Realm."! Audit was concluded
in the Assembly holden at Dundee, March 7, 1598 — " That
it was NECESSARY and expedient, for the well of the Kirk,
that the ministry, as the third Estate of this Realm, in name
of the Church have vote in Parliament."2 So indubitable
was it in these times that the Ecclesiastical Estate was
necessary, and that it could not be wanting without the
notorious subversion of the constitution of Parliaments. In
deed, it was not only the sentiment of General Assemblies,
whatever side, whether the Prelatical or the Presbyterian
prevailed ; but it was likewise the sentiment of all Parliob-
ments. It were easy to amass a great many Acts of a great
many Parliaments to this purpose. I shall only instance in
a few. Thus, the eighth Act, Parliament^ 1, Jac. VL, holden in
December 1567, appoints the Coronation Oath to be sworn
by the King. And it is one of the articles of that Oath —

1 Spottiswoode, 299 ; Calderwood, 112.
MS. Petrie, 545 ; Spottiswoode, 449 ; Calderwood, 420.
' [Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iii. p. 23, 24. — E.]

THE ARTICLE. 393
" That he shaU rule the people committed to his charge
according to the loveable laws and constitutions received in
this Realm, nowise repugnant to the Word of the eternal
God." Now, I think, this Pariiament made no question
but that " the fundamental law" of the " constitution of
Parliaments" was one of these " loveable laws and consti
tutions" received in this realm, nowise repugnant to the
Word of the eternal God. Indeed, the 24th Act of that
same Pariiament! is this, word for word—" Our Sovereign
Lord, with advice and consent of his Regent and the Three
Estates of Parhament, has ratified and ratifies aU civil
privUeges granted and given by our Sovereign Lord's prede
cessors to the Spiritual Estate of this Realm, in all points,
after the form and tenor thereof:" — ^than which there can
not be a more authentic commentary for finding the true
sense and meaning of the Coronation Oath in relation to
our present purpose. I shall only adduce two more, but
they are such two as are as good as two thousand.
The 130th Act,2 Parliament 8th, Jac. VL, anno 1584, is
this, word for word — " The King's Majesty, considering the
honour and the authority of his Supreme Court of Parlia
ment, continued past all memory of man unto these days as
constitute upon the free votes of the three Estates of this
ancient kingdom, by whom the same, under God, has ever
been upholden, rebellious and traitorous subjects punished,
the good and faithfuL preserved and maintained, and the
laws and acts of Parliament, by which all men are governed,
made and established ; and finding the power, dignity, and
authority of the said Court of Parliament of late years
called in some doubt, at least some" — such as Mr Andrew
MelviUe, &c. — " curiously travelling to have introduced some
innovations thereanent ; his Majesty's firm will and mind
always being, as it is yet, that the honour, authority, and
dignity of his said three Estates shall stand and continue
in their own integrity, according to the ancient and loveable
custom bygone, without any alteration or diminution :
THEREFORE it is statuted and ordained by our Sovereign
Lord, and his said three Estates in this present Parliament,
that none of his lieges and subjects presume, or take upon
'^ [Act 33, in Acta Pari. Scot. vol. iu. p. 32, 33.— E.]
' [Act 3, in Acta Pari. Scot. vol. in. p. 393.— E.]

394 THE ARTICLE.
hand, to impugn the dignity and the authority of the said
three Estates, or to seek or procure the innovation or dimi
nution of the power and authority of the same three
Estates, or any of them, in time coming, under the pain of
treason." Here, I think, the necessity of the three Estates,
whereof the Ecclesiastical was ever reckoned the first, is
asserted pretty fairly. Neither is this Act, so far as I know,
formally repealed by any subsequent Act ; and whosoever
knows any thing of the history of these times cannot but
know that it was to crush the designs set on foot then by
some, for innovating about the Spiritual Estate, that this
Act was formed. The other which I promised is, Act 2,
Parliament 18,! Jac. VL, holden anno 1606, intituled —
" Act anent the Restitution of the Estate of Bishops," in
the preamble of which Act we are told — " That of late,
during his Majesty's young years and unsettled estate, the
ancient and fundamental policy, consisting in the main
tenance of the Three Estates of Parliament, has been
greatly impaired, and almost subverted, specially by the
indirect abolishing of the Estate of Bishops, by the Act of
Annexation of the temporality of benefices to the Crown —
that the said Estate of Bishops is a necessary Estate of the
Parliament," &e.
Such were the sentiments of these times — so essential
was the Ecclesiastical Estate deemed in the constitution of
Scottish Parliaments. And no wonder, for no man can
doubt but it was as early, as positively, as incontestedly,
as fundamentally and unalterably, in the constitution, as
either the Estate of Nobles or the Estate of Boroughs. There
is no question, I think, about the Boroughs. As for the Estate
of Nobles, it is certain all Barons were still reckoned of
the Noblesse — the lesser Barons in ancient times were still
reckoned a part of the second — never a distinct Estate — of
Parhament ; and they must quit all pretensions to be of the
Noblesse when they set up for a distinct Estate. Setting up
for such, they are no more of the Nobility than the Boroughs ;
and then, if two Estates can vote out one, and make a Parlia
ment without it — if they can split one into two, and so make
up the three Estates, why may not one split itself as well
{} Acta Pai-1. Scot. vol. iv. p. 281-284.— E.]

TUE ARTICLE.

395

into three ? Why may not the two parts of the splitted Estate
join together, and vote out the Estate of Boroughs ? Why
may not the Nobility of the first magnitude join with the
Boroughs to vote out the smaller Barons ? Why may not the
smaller Barons and the Boroughs vote out the greater Nobility?
After two have voted out one, why may not one — the more
numerous — vote out the other — the less numerous ? When
the Parliament is reduced to one Estate, why may not that
one divide, and one-half vote out the other, and then sub
divide, and vote out, tiU the whole Parhament shall consist of
the Commissioner for Rutherglen,^ or the Laird of ,2 or
the Earl of Crawford ? Nay, why may not that one vote out
himself, and leave the King without a Parliament ? What
a dangerous thing is it to shake foundations ? How doth it
unhinge aU things ? How plainly doth it pave the way for
that which our brethren pretend to abhor so much, viz. a
despotic power, an absolute and unlimited monarchy ? But
enough of this.
To conclude this point, there is nothing more notorious
than that the Spiritual Estate was still judged fv/ndamental
in the constitution of Parliaments — was still called to Parlia
ments — did still sit, deliberate, and vote in Parliaments, till the
year 1640, that it was turned out by the then Presbyterians ;
and our present Presbyterians, following their footsteps,
have not only freely parted with, but forwardly rejected,
that ancient and valuable right of the Church. Nay, they
have not only rejected it, but they declaim constantly against
it as a Umb of antichrist, and what not. And have they
not herein manifestly deserted the undoubted principles and
sentiments of our Reformers ?
It had been easy to have enumerated a great many more
of their notorious recessions from the principles of the
Reformation, e. g. I might have insisted on their deserting
the principles and practices of our Reformers about the con
stitution of General Assemblies — about communion with the
Church of England — about the civil magistrate's power in
Church matters (justly or unjustly is not the present question)
— and many more things of considerable importance. Nay,
^ [John Scott, a noted partisan in his day, was member in the famous
Convention of Estates which established the Claim of Right. — E.]
^ [This blank is in the original edition. — E.]

396 THE ARTICLE.
which at first sight may seem a httle strange, as much as
they may seem to have swallowed down the principles of
rebellion and armed resistances against lawful sovereign
princes, maintained by our Reformers, yet even herein there
is difference — considerable difference.
Our Reformers, as much as they were inclined to rebel
against kings, did yet maintain that they held their crowns
immediately of God. John Knox, in his sermon preached
on the 19th of August 1565, and afterwards published,
hath this plain position — " That it is neither birth, in
fiuence of stars, ELECTION OP PEOPLE, force of arms, nor,
finally, whatsoever can be comprehended under the power
of nature, that maketh the distinction between the superior
power and the inferior, or that doth establish the royal
throne of kings ; but it is the only and perfect ordinance of
God, who will eth his terror, power, and majesty, in a part,
to shine in the thrones of kings and in the faces of judges,"
&c. Neither was this only his private sentiment. The
twenty-fourth Article of the " Confession of Faith," com
piled by our Reformers, and ratified by Act of Parliament,
is every whit as plain and decretory ; for there they " pro
fess to believe that empires, kingdoms, dominions, and
cities, are distincted and ordained by God — that the powers
and authorities therein are God's holy ordinance — that
persons placed in authority are to be loved, honoured,
feared, and holden in most reverend estimation, because
they are God's lieutenants, in whose session God sits as
judge, to whom by God is given the sword, &c. — that,
therefore, whosoever deny unto kings their aid, counsel, or
comfort, while they vigilantly travel in the executing of
their office, they deny their help, support, and counsel to
God, who, by the presence of his lieutenant, craveth it of
them." So it was professed by our Reformers. How this
principle could consist with their practices is none of my
present concerns — that is no more than to show how our
Presbyterian brethren have deserted them in this matter.
Now, our Presbyterian brethren make kings, as such, not
God's, but the people's creatures ; by consequence, not
God's, but the people's lieutenants — the people sets them on
their thrones — they have their power from the people — they
are the people's trustees — they are accountable to the people.

THE ARTICLB.

397

So that " whosoever denies his aid, counsel, or comfort to
them, whUe they vigUantly travel in executing their office,"
in true logic can be said to deny them only to the people !
Even here, then, there is this great difference — our Reformers
maintained one good principle in relation to sovereign powers
— our present Presbyterians have even rejected that one
good principle. It is true, indeed, our Reformers seem to
have been inconsequential in substituting rebellious practices
in the retinue of an orthodox principle ; and our Presbyterian
brethren seem to be consequential in having their principle
and their practice of a piece. But doth this mend the
matter ? Nothing, as I take it ; for all ends here — that our
Reformers believed right, though they practised wrong ; but
our Presbyterian brethren are altogether wrong — they
neither believe nor practise right. Thus, I say, it had been
no difficult task to have instanced in many more of our
Presbyterian innovations. But the taste I have given, I
think, is sufficient for my purpose. For, laying together so
many undeniable innovations — so many palpable and notorious
recessions from the principles and practices of our Reformers,
as I have adduced, and these in so weighty and important
matters as the doctrine, worship, discipline, government, an
rights of the Church, I may fairly leave it to the world to
judge if our brethren have just reason to insist so much upon
the principles of our Reformation, or to entitie themselves,
as on aU occasions they are so solicitous and forward to do,
the only real and genuine successors of our Reformers.
Neither is this all that may justly pinch them. They
have not only receded from our Scottish Reformers, but from
aU other Reformed Churches. What Reformed Church in
Christendom maintains aU the articles of the " Westminster
Confession?" What Reformed Church requires the pro
fession of so many articles, not mainly ior peace and unity,
but as a test of orthodoxy ? What Reformed Church except
our Kirk maintains the Divine institution of Parity among
the pastors of the Church, so as to make all kind of Prelacy
simply unlawful ? What Reformed Church, except the
Scottish, wants a Liturgy ? What party in Europe, that
assumes the name of a National Church, condemns Liturgies
set forms of Prayer, &c. as unlawful, except Scottish Pres
byterians ? What transmarine Reformed Church, that is not

398 THE ARTICLE.
Lutheran, condemns the communion of the Church of
England ? What Reformed Church maintains the Divine
institution and the indispensible necessity of ruling elders in
contradistinction to pastors ? What Reformed Church
maintains the Divine institution and the unalienable right of
popular elections of pastors ? What Reformed Church ever
offered to maintain that the government of the Church by
Bishops, or a public Liturgy, or want of ruling elders dis
tinct from pastors, or choosing pastors otherwise than by
the voices of the people, or using some innocent and unfor
bidden ceremonies, as circumstances or appendages of Divine
worship, or observing some days besides Sundays, were
sufficient grounds for breaking the peace of a Church,
and dividing her unity, and setting up altar against
altar ? What Reformed Church was ever bound, by her
Rules and Canons, to require of all such as she admitted
to the participation of the Lord's Supper, the subscription
of such terms as are contained in the Solemn League and
Covenant ? What Reformed Church doth not satisfy herself
with the profession of the Faith contained in the Apostles'
Creed at Baptism? What Reformed Church requires the
profession of such a vast, such a numberless, number of
articles and propositions as are contained in the " West
minster Confession" and the " Larger and Shorter Cate
chisms," of all those whom they receive into the Catholic
Church ? What is this less, than to make all these propo
sitions necessary terms of their Communion ? And how im
possible is it, at this rate, ever to think of a Catholic Com
munion among Christians ? Is not this needlessly, and, by
consequence, very criminally and unchristianly , to lay a
fund for unavoidable, unextinguishable, and everlasting
schisms ? Neither, yet, is this all the misery ; for, considering
the measures our brethren steer by, there is little ground to
hope that they shall ever turn weary of innovating. The
first brood of Presbyterians — the old Melvillians, inverted (as
I have told) almost the whole scheme of our Reformers. The
next birth — the thirty-eight-men, made innumerable recessions
from their progenitors the Melvillians ; the present production
have forsaken most of the measures of the thirty-eight-men,
and what hopes of their fixing ? When shall it be proper
foi- them to say — We have done innovating ? Hitherto we

THE ARTICLE.

399

have innovated, but we will innovate no farther. How dread
ful a thing is it for men to give loose reins to the spirit
of innovation ! But I shall not pursue this farther. I know
the temper of our brethren. It is but too too probable they
may impute it to malice, revenge, or an imbittered spirit, to
some ill thing or another, that I have pursued this matter
so far ; but if they shall, I pray God forgive them, for they
are injurious to me. The principle which prompted me to
represent these things was truly that oi fraternal correption.
My main design was to soften, not irritate them — not to
exasperate them, but to bring them to a more manageable
and considering temper. For I can, and do, sincerely pro
test, that it is daily the earnest desire of my soul that all
men may be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth. I
wish all men Christians, and I wish all Christians, Christians
indeed. In a special manner I wish our Presbyterian
brethren and we may yet be so much honoured and blessed
of God, that in the sincerity of brotherly kindess we may
be all united in one holy Communion. I wish we may
all earnestly contend, with all Christian forbearance, fellow-
feeling, and charity, as becometh the members of the one
Church, whereof Christ Jesus is the Head, to have the poor,
divided, desolated Church of Scotland, restored to that peace,
purity, and unity — that order, government, and stability,
which our blessed Master hath instituted and commanded.
May Almighty God inspire us all with the Spirit of his Son,
that our hearts being purified by an humble and a lively
faith — the faith that worketh by love, and our lives reformed
according to the laws and great purposes of our holy reli
gion, we may be all unanimously and dutifully disposed, for
so great, so glorious, so desirable a mercy ! And with this
I end this Fifth Inquiry.
And now, I think, I have competently answered the end
of my undertaking, which was to examine this Article
of our new " Claim of Right,'" and try its firmness and
solidity. I think I have comprised, in these Five Inquiries,
every thing that is material in it, considered either in
itself, or as it supports the great alterations which have
been lately made in the Church of Scotland. It might have
been more narrowly sifted ; and, sifted more narrowly, it

400 THE ARTICLB.
might have been found liable to many more exceptions.
For instance,
1. It may seem somewhat surprising that such an Article
should have been put into a Scottish "Claim of Right" — that
it should have been made so seemingly fundamental, at least
in the constitution of the Scottish Monarchy, which is so
famous, and has been so much renowned for its antiquity.
Was ever such an Article in a Scottish Claim of Right before ?
No man, I think, will say it was in the original contract
made with Fergus I. (if any original contract was made
with him), for if he was, he was advanced to the throne
three hundred and thirty years before our Saviour's birth, if
we may believe our historians ; and, I think, it was not an
article in the original contract then, that the Christian
Church should be so or so governed. Few men, I think,
will say it was part of the original contract made with any
Scottish King before the Reformation. No man can pro
duce any such article in any original contract made with
King James VI. , King Charles I., or King Charles IL,
unless it was the " Solemn League and Covenant," or the
" Act of the West Kirk."! Jt cannot be said that it was

1 [This famous document was drawn up for the special benefit of King
Charles II. after his first return from abroad, to assume what has been
weU styled " a kind of mock royalty among the Covenanters of Scotland ;"
and as it fairly Ulustrates the principles of the Covenanters, and their ideas
of obedience to the powers that be, it will not be uninteresting to our
readers to have it subjoined. It is dated " West Kirk, 13th August 1650,"
and proceeds thus — " The Commission of the General Assemblie, consi
dering there may be just ground of stumbling from the King's Majestie
refusing to subscribe and emitt the Declaration oflferd to him by the Com
mission of Estates, and the Commission of the General Assemblie, con
cerning his former carriage and resolutions for the future, in reference to
the cause of God and the enimies and frinds therof, doeth therfor declaire
that this Kirke and kingdome doe not awen nor espousse any Malignant
parties, quarrell, or intrest, but that they fight meii-ly upon their former
groundes aud principalis, and in defence of the causse of God and of the
kingdome, as they have done tliesse twelve yeires bygaine ; and therfor as
they disclaim all the sin and tlie gilte of tlie King and of his housse, so they will
not awen him or his intrest nowayes then with a subordination to God, and mafcure
as he aimes amd prosecuttes the causse of God, and disclqAmes his and his father's
opposition to the causse of God, and to the Covenant, and lykwayes all the enimies
therof; and that they will, with convenient speed, take in consideratione
the papers lately sent unto them from Cromwell, and vindicat themselves
from all the falshoods conteined therin, especially in these things quherin

THE ARTICLE.

401

in any original contract made with King James VII. ; for all
the nation knows it was declared by the Meeting of Estates,
that he forfeited his right to the crown for having made no
original contracts. These are all the real or pretended
Kings we have had since the Reformation till the late Re
volution. Is not this Article, therefore, a new fundamental
added to the constitution of the ancient Scottish monarchy ?
This is all upon the supposition that it is truly a part of
our new Claim of Right.
2. Though, indeed, it may be made a question, whether it
can be justly called a part of the " Claim of Right ?" It is
very possible for one thing to be in another, without being
part of that other ; and, one would think, this Article
looked very unlike a part of a Claim of Right. It seems
not to run in the style that is proper for Claims of Right.
It is certain, it runs not in the style ofthe rest ofthe Articles.
All the rest of the Articles tell us either what is contrary to
law, or what are the undoubted rights oi the people. This
Article imports nothing like either the one or the other — it
only declares Prelacy to be a grievance, &c. This doth not
say that it was contrary to law, for laws themselves may be,
and actuaUy were, declared to be grievances by the Meeting
of Estates in another paper ; and the Articles declaring that
Prelacy ought to be abolished, is an argument that it subsisted
by law, and it was abolished as subsisting by law, for the
Act which abolished it repealed the laws by which it subsisted.
Neither is Prelacy declared by the Article to be contrary to
the rights, but only to the inclinations, oi the people ; and, I
think, it requires no depth oi metaphysical precision to dis
tinguish between rights and inclinations. Indeed, it seems
obvious to any body that this Article had had its situation
more properly and naturally amongst the grievances which
the quarreU betwix us and that partie is misstaited, as if we awned the
late King's proceedinges, and were resolued to prossecute and mainteine
his present Majestie's intrest before and without acknowledgment of the
sine of his housse and former wayes, and satisfaction to God's people in
both kingdomes." It has been remarked by Skinner, in his Ecclesiastical
History, vol. ii. p. 420, that " in this artful paper we have an authentic
expUcation of their (the Covenanters') former views and future purposes,
and from the whole strain of it, may easily see what their sentiments were
of the late King's fate, and how indifferently they stood affected to the
young prince whom they had amongst them." — E.]
26

402 THE ARTICLE.
were digested in another paper ; and, therefore, I say, being
only preternaturally, and by apparent force, thrust into the
" Claim of Right," it may be made a question, whether its
being so there, be enough to make it part of the " Claim of
Right ;" or whether its nature should not be regarded
rather than its post. And it should be constructed to have
no more weight than if it had been regularly ranked in its
own category ? But such questions are too hard for me, and
more proper for lawyers to determine.
3. Neither shall I meddle with many other obvious
difficulties, which must necessarily result from this Article
being made truly a part of the original contract between
King and people, such as its making the settlement of the
Crown to depend, not on right of inheritance, or proximity
of blood, or any such ancient, legal, solid, hereditary title,
but on the every day changeable inclinations of the people ;
for these are the main fund of the Article, and, by the sup
position, the Article is intrinsical and fundamental to the
present settlement. This, I say, and many more such,
which might be easily named, seems a very considerable
difficulty that might be urged on such a supposition ; but I
shall not insist on them,
4. Farther, besides all these awkward exceptions, whether
it is or is not a part of the " Claim of Right," the style of
it might deserve to be considered, particularly that phrase
of " Prelacy being a great and insupportable grievance and
trouble to the nation." It is true, I have in my Third Inquiry
guessed at its meaning, but I do sincerely acknowledge it was
but guessing ; and even yet I can do no more but guess about
it. Doth it not at first sight appear a little too big and
swelling ? Is it not hard to find for it a certain and deter
mined sound ? To call a thing a " great and insupportable
grievance and trouble," seems a little too flashy and fanciful.
Is it not liker to the flights of the rhetoricians designed for
popular amusement, than to the plain, solid, significant stile
which is proper for the grand council of a nation — for
original-contract and claim-ofright-makers ?
5. Seeing it is plain the Article was formed for the abo
lition of Prelacy, and the introduction of Presbytery, it
seems a little strange that such an important revolution in
the Church should have been founded on such untheological

THE ARTICLB. 403
reasons. It seems to he at the bottom of this Article, that
the government of the Church is ambulatory and indifferent —
that there is nothing of Divine institution about it — that the
State may alter it when it pleases ; and, as it thinks expe
dient, set up alternatively either Prelacy or Parity, or
neither, but plain Erastianism, if it has a mind for it. These
are suppositions which, I think, ought not to be very rehshing
even to our Presbyterian brethren. Though hitherto they
only have got advantage by the Article, yet it seems not
honourable for their government to stand on such a foot, nor
can they be secure but that it may be very soon turned
down again.
6. Though, in consequence of this, by G[ilbertJ R[ule]'s
measures ihe framers of the Article were incapable of voting
about the establishment of any form oi government in the
Church; for they proceeded in voting this Article clearly
upon the principles oi indifferency.^ But, according to him,
as I have already observed, such, though they may be
persons both religious and learned, are not to be brought
into the reckoning with those who have right to vote about
Church-government. Indeed, according to his scheme, the
nation by this Article is brought to a very lamentable state ;
for thus an Article is imposed on it by such as had no right —
no power — to impose it, because they have fairly declared
themselves to be for the indifferency oi particular forms oi
Church-government. And yet, by another proposition in
his scheme, this Article cannot be altered ; ior this is one
of his positions, that the deed oi a Meeting oi Estates is to
be interpreted the deed of the whole nation. From which it
follows, by unavoidable consequence, that the whole nation
hereafter must be excluded from voting about the govern
ment of the Church ; for the whole nation (even Pres
byterians themselves not excepted), by establishing this
Article have declared themselves indifferent as to the species
oi Church-government. Now, as I said, is not this a lament
able state to which the nation is reduced ? It lies under
the burden of an ill-contrived Article, imposed by such as
were not competent — had no right to impose it ; and yet it
must lie remedilessly under this burden, because those who
imposed it, by imposing it while they were not competent
^ Second Vindication, ad Letter III. Section 4.

404 THE ARTICLE,
nor qualifled for imposing it, have rendered the whole nation
incompetent and imqualifled for altering it, or freeing itself
from such a burden. Was ever nation so miserably intri-
cated? But enough of G[ilbert] R[ule].
These, I say, and several other things, might have been
farther considered and insisted on, but having alreadv
answered the ends of my undertaking, I shall proceed no
farther. I conclude with this : — If these papers shall have
the fortune to come to the hand of any Scottish Noblemen or
gentlemen, and if they shall think it worth their while to
peruse them, I earnestly beg one piece of justice from them.
It is, that they would not apprehend I had the least in
tention or inclination to cast disgrace on such of them as
concurred either to the framing or the voting of this Article.
I love my native country— I honour all persons of true honour
in it — I have no where impugned the authority of those who
established this Article. I had no such purpose — my under-
dertaking required no such performance. All I designed was
to do service to my country according to my poor abilities.
I cannot think any ingenuous person — any person of true
honour — can deny that it is good service done to mankind
to tell them truth civilly, and endeavour dutifully to recover
them from mistakes, if they labour under any. We are all
fallible, and capable of taking things by the wrong handle ;
and a very mean person may be sometimes a seasonable
m.onitor. If I have said any thing false or amiss, I crave all
men pardon ; but if I have advanced nothing but truth  if
I have done nothing but justice to this Article — (and I pro
test seriously I think I have done no more) — I cannot think
it wUl be just or generous in any man to harbour picques
against me for doing what I have done. The genuine use (I
am sure it is genuine) I wish my countrymen, of whatever
station or character, may make of my examination of this
Article, is, to suffer themselves to be put to thinking by it,
and inquiring whether there may not be some other Articles,
every whit of as great importance to the nation, in our new
" Claim of Right " as ill founded as this ; and if any such
are found, to contribute their joint endeavours, as becometh
true Scottish men and good Christians, to have aU righted.

THE AUTHOK'S TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGE
[The Preface, - - !]
The Article, ... - 97
The Examination, comprized in Five Inquiries, 97, 98
First Inciuiry — Whether the Church of Scotland was reformed
solely by presbyters, - 98
Prelates concurred to our Reformation, - - 99
Our Reformation mostly performed by Laicks, 99, 100, 101
Second Inquiry — Whether our Reformers were Presbyterians, 102
The Importance of this Inquiry, ib.
Four Presumptions that our Reformers were not for the Dirine
Right of Parity, 102-123
Presumption I. — No such controversy agitated in the Protestant
Churches, wMle ours was a Reforming 102
Presumption II. — Our Reformers as little employed about such Con
troversies as any Reformers, - 105
Presumption III. — None of our Reformers can be proven to have
been for the Dirine Right of Parity, &c. - 106
Some, indeed, did not value Holy Orders, - 107
They declaimed generally against Popish Bishops, - 108
But as much against Presbyters, - - 109
The Earl of Moray no Presbyterian, - 111,112
Nor John Knox largely, II3-12I
Presumption IV. — Our Reformation cherished principally, under
God, by English Influences, - X23
Scotland naturaUy disposed to be influenced from England, - 124
How free of Foreign Influences m the time of the Reformation, 125
How much Kmg Henry VIII. of England earnest to have an interest
in Scottish affairs, . 226
Particularly to promote a Reformation in Scotland, I33
How zealous the Papists were of this, - 140
King Edward pursued the same design, 142
English Influences in Queen Mary's time, . I43
More rigorous in Queen EUzabeth's time, ^44
Our chief Reformers enlightened in England, I45
None of them enlightened elsewhere, 14g
Our Reformers in communion with the Church of England, - 147
Even Knox, ^ ' \l'^
The English aUowed of our Communion, . . 153
Both Churches then of one Constitution, - 154
Erident from Public Deeds, Treatises, &c. - 154 155 159
From the Scottish Public Prayers, ' ' igQ
Such an Unity of ReUgion then between the two Nations, that our
modern Presbyterians cannot be the Successors of our Reformers, 163
English Liturgy used for seven years in Scotland, 164-167
Our Reformers aUowed the same power to the Ciril Magistrate in
Religious Matters which the English Reformers did 168
Our Reformers agreed with the English Reformers in the me of
Reformation, ^^^^ ^^^

406 CONTENTS.

A Recapitulation representing the Force of these Presumptions, 170, 171
Direct Proofs that our Reformers were for Imparity, 1 72
And their Petitions for Reformation clearly for Imparity, 173
They established a Government which subsisted by Imparity among
Pastors, 180
The Pre-eminencies of Superintendents enumerated, 181-194
The Presbyterian Pleas dispatched, 195
Plea I. — That Superintendency was designed only to be temporary,
largely discussed, ib.
Gilbert Rule's strange Divinity considered, 205, 206
Plea II. — That Superintendents were not Bishops, largely discussed, 206
Plea III. — That Superintendency was never established by Act of
Parliament (being Gilbert Rule's Plea) discussed, 211
An Historical Introduction to the Settlement of Episcopacy, anno
1572, 213-224
The Ancient Method of preparing Jlatters for Scottish Parliaments, 225
The Settlement of Episcopacy, anno 1572, 225, 226
The Presbyterian Pleas against that Settlement, 227
Plea I. — Taken from the Incompetency of the Authority of the
Assembly at Leith, discussed, 227-232
Plea II. — That the Clergy were under force from the Court, largely
discussed, 232-241
Plea III. — The limitedness of the Episcopacy then settled, discussed, 241
Plea IV. — That that Episcopacy was never approven by the Church,
largely discussed, 242, 243
Bishops then Constant Moderators, 243
That Settlement approved by several Assemblies, 243, 244
Largely pursued, and GUbert Rule corrected, 245-254
The Rise and Progress of Presbyterianism in Scotland, 254
Mr Andrew jMelviUe, ib.
John Durie, 256
Episcopacy first quarreUed, August 6, 1575, 257
The Parity-Men at that time defeated, 258
Petrie exposed, 259
Parity-Men defeated also at the next Assembly, holden in April 1576, 262
Probable that Morton aud Queen Elizabeth were in the Plot for
introducing Presbytery into Scotland, 264-271
" Second Book of Discipline," when first projected, 271
The Prelatists very much ignorant then of true Ecclesiastical Anti
quity, &c. - 272
Erident from the instance of Adamson, 273
From their not challenging the unlearned Positions in the " Second
Book of Discipline," 274
Nor the unlearned Positions in Beza's Book — " De TripUci Episeo
patu," 275
Presbyterianism weak in the Assembly holden in October 1576, 279
Made no direct Progress in the Assembly holden in AprU 1577, 281
Nor iu the next Assembly, October 1577, 282
Got two advantages this year, 282 283
Morton directed the Regency, il,,
Beza's Book brought to Scotland, 283

CONTENTS. "^^^

page

Made considerable Progress in the Assembly, AprU 24, 1578, 284
More Progress in June 1578,
More yet in October 1578,
More in Jidy 1579, ."
Pres62/«mes first heard of in this Assembly, '•
GUbert Rule's impudent Ignorance exposed in the Rise of Presby-
tsriGS
The « Second Book of Disciphne" not sworn m the " Negative
Confession," ^^^' |^^
Episcopacy condemned in July 1580,
The Act of the Assembly condemning it, i^-
A Recapitulation of what hath been said on the Second Inqnii-y, 296, 297
A Demonstratimi that Presbyterians are not the Successors of our
Refoi-mers, 297,298
Third Inquiry— Whether Prelacy, &c. was a great and unsup-
portable grievance, &c. ever since the Reformation, 298
Demonstrated that it was not, 299
By Reason, ^''•
By Testimonies, ^°-
It was no such grievance for the fifteen years after Reformation, 300
Nor for forty after these Fifteen, 301
No, not to Presbyterians themselves, anno 1637, and downwards, 303
A ChaUenge to the Presbyterians to produce any Evidence that
Prelacy was such a grievance ever since the Reformation, 306
GUbert Rule's shameless Ignorance in his Attempt discovered, 306, 307
His ignorant Impudence again discovered, 307-311
Fourth Inquiry — Whether Prelacy was such a Grievance, &c.
WHEN THE Article was formed, : 311, 312
Probably the Rabbling Work the Fund of the Assertion in the
Article, 312
The Author of " Plain Dealing's'' Arguments about the Inclinations
of the People discussed, - - 315
The Author of the " Ten Questions" — his Arguments -vindicated
agamst GUbert Rule, 316-319
The "Farther Vindicator's" Arguments examined, 319-321
The Arguments insisted on by the Author of the " Third Letter"
vindicated against GUbert Rule, 321-326
GUbert Rule's ridiculous Limitations of the Inclinaiions of the People, 326
The Article represented with these Limitations, 329
GUbert Rule's Argument for his side of the Question considered, ib.
Some Questions proposed for the clearer Demonstration of this
Controversy, 330-333
Fifth Inquiry — Whether the premises in the Article, if true,
would be competent for inferring the conclusion, 333
Not the First, riz. — the " Inclinations of the People," ib.
. Not the Second, viz. — that " this Church was Reformed by Presby
ters," ib.
These Reasons probably chosen rather for their Popularity than
their SoUdity, 338
Especially the latter, to make the Prelatists odious for deserting our
Reformers, ¦ - ib.

408 CONTENTS. PAGE
Owned that in some Things they have deserted them, 339, 340, 341
A Specimen of the Principles espoused by our Reformers and rejected
by the Episcopal Clergy, - 341
Particularly Knox, - ib.
A Specimen of his EvangeUcal Prayers, 342
He was a Providentialist, 343
A Short Apology for our deserting our Reformers in these principles, 346
. The Presbyterians have more deserted them, ib.
I.— In Matters of Faith, 348
II. — In Matters of Worship, ib.
Our Reformers for, Presbyterians against. Liturgies, ib.
More particularly our modern Presbyterians have deserted our Re
formers, 350, 351
In the Prayers of the Church, 352
In the Lord's Prayer, - 353, 354
In the Creed in the ordinary Worship, 355
In the Reading of the Scriptures, - ib.
In the Of&ce of Public Praise, - 357
In the decent Circumstances of these OfSces, 360
In the Administration of Baptism, 362
In the Administration of the Eucharist, • 362, 363
How our Modern Presbyterians celebrate the Eucharist, 365-372
The Schismatical Conditions they are bound to require of Commu
nicants, - 372, 373
A Surprising Schismatical Measure taken by the " Presbytery of
Edinburgh," anno 1648 and 1649, ~ - 373-376
In the Celebration of Marriage, 377
In the Burial of the Dead, « 378
In the Matter of Ordinations, - 379
In the Way of Electing Pastors, 379-385
III. — In the Discipline of the Church, 385
Instances wherein they have deserted their own "Book of Disci-
plme," 385-387
IV. — In the Government of the Church, 397
A Recapitulation ofthe Presbyterian Recession, ib.
They have receded in many Things from all other Reformed
Churches, 397, 398
The Author's Design in insisting so much on these other Recessions
from our Reformers, 399
A Wish for Peace, - ib.
The Article Uable to many Expressions, 400
Some Instances, 400-403
The Conclusion, . 404

" THE FUNDAMENTAL CHARTER OF PRESBYTERY
EXAMINED."

MEMBERS
OF THE
SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.

AUGUST 1844.

Abebokomby, Lady, Airthrie, StirUng
Abercromby, Lady, of Bn-kenbog
Abeedeen, The Eight Rev. the Bishop
of, AND Primus — Patron
Adams, Kev. Charles, Cainham Vicarage,
near Ludlow, Salop
Adamson, Eev. E. H., St. Albans, He-
worth, Gateshead
Addison, Eev. Berkeley, M.A., St Jphn's,
Edinbui-gh
Addison, Kev. George, Curate of Cam,
near Dursley, Gloucestershire
Ainshe, P. B., Esq. St. Colme House,
Aberdour
Aitcheson, The Venerable David, Arch
deacon of Argyll
Alexander, Eev.^ John, Edinburgh
Alexander, Dr, 6, Sussex Terrace, Hyde
Park Gardens
Anderson, Francis, Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Anderson, Geo. Esq. Solicitor, Inverness
Anderson, Eev. J. S. M., Perpetual Curate
of St. George's, Brighton
Anderson, Eev. T. G. Tony, Dundee
Arbuthnot, Geo. Clerk, Esq. of Mavisbank
Arkley, Patrick, Esq. Advocate
Arnold, Eev. T. K., Rector of Lyndon
Audland, Eev. W. F., M. A. Fellow of
Queen's College, Oxford
Auld, Rev. Rob. T., Minister of Monedie
Austin, Edward, Esq. Lincoln CoUege,
Oxford
Aytoun, W. E., Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Baikie, W. Balfouk, Esq. Kirkwall
Baillie, W. E., Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Balfour, Darid, Esq. Younger of Trenaby
Bandinel, Eev. James, Woolpit, Suffolk
Banks, Richard, Esq. SpringhiU Terrace,
Birmingham
Bann, Geo., Esq. Tearmouth, Canada
West
Barrett, Eev. J. C, Incumbent of St
Mary's, Birmingham
Barton, Eev. Thomas, B. A. Salford,
Manchester
Barty, Thomas, Esq. Procurator-Fiscal,
Dunblane
Bayfield, Eev.B.jRipponden, near Hahfax
Bayley, Isaac, Esq. 13, Regent Terrace,
Edinburgh
Bayley, Mr W. G., Bookseller, Edinburgh
Bayley, Rev. W. H. Ricketts, Stapleton,
near Bristol
Beatson, Col., 11, George Square, Ediur.
Beatson, Mrs. 11, George Square, Edinr.
Beatson, Miss, 1 1, George Square, Edinr.
B|gck, Eev. James, Calne, Wilts

Beckett, Rev. H. F., Rawmarsh, Eother-
ham
Belcombe, Eev. H.M.B.
Bell, Rev. John, A.M. Vicar of Rothwell,
near Leeds
BeU, Thomas, Esq. Exeter College,
Oxford
Bennet, W. Esq. St. Peter's School, St
Albans
Bennett, Rev. W. J.
Besley, Rev. John, D.C.L., Long Benton,
Newcastle-on-Tyne
Bevan, Beckford, Esq. Christ Church,
Oxford
Bevan, J. Johnstone, Esq. B.A., Trinity
College, Cambridge, 16, Devonshire
Place, Cavendish Square, .London
Biber, Rev. Dr, Roehampton, Surrey
Black, James, Esq. Exchange Square,
Glasgow
Black, Mr. J. W. 286, GaUowgate Street,
Glasgow
Blakely, Very Eev. Theophilus, Dean of
Down
Blantyre, The Right Hon. Lord
BUss, Rev. William, Peebles
Boase, C.W., Esq. Meadow Place, Dundee
Borthwick, John, Esq. of Crookstone,
Advocate
Bosworth, Rev. Joseph, D. D., F. R. S.
Etwall, Derby, and 9, Southampton
Street, Bloomsbury Square, London
Botfield, Beriah, Esq. M. P.
Bowdler, Rev. Thomas, Sydenham, Kent
Boyd, Andrew, Esq. Writer, Peterhead
Boyle, Mr Charles Huntington, Glen-
truim House near Kingussie
Boyle, Rev. John, St Mark's Church,
Portobello
Bradley, Rev. C. R,, Ash, Canterbury
Bradshaw, Job, Esq. Secretary of the
Englishman's Library, Nottingham
Brand, WUUam, Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Brand, WUham, Esq. Queen Street,

Brasuell, Rev. H. 6., Crodenbrook, near
Motham, Cheshire
Brechin, The Right Rev. the Bishop
OF — Patron
Bridges, Eev. Alexander H., Horsham,
Sussex
Brlgstocke, G. A., Esq. Portobello
Brodie, WiUiam, Esq. Junr. of Brodie,
Forres
Bromehead, Rev. A. C, Junr. Eckington,
Derbyshire
Broughton, Miss, Eossend Castle, Burnt
island

MEMBERS OF THE

Broughton, Rev. B. S., Rector of Wash
ington, Durham
Brown, Rev. J. J., Beaumaris, Anglesea
Brown, John, Esq. Writer, Elgin
Brown, Mrs. Dr., Primrose Bank, Edinr.
Brown, Eev. A. W., Vicar of Pytchley,
near Kettering
Browne, E. G. Esq. St David's College,
Llampeter, Cardiganshire
Browne, Dr W. A. F., Crichton Institu
tion, Dumfries
Bruce, Mrs, Charlotte Square, Edinburgh
Bruce, Charles L. Cumming, Esq. M.P.
Buccleuch, His Grace the Duke of —
Patron
Bucban, John, Esq. Town Clerk, Port-
Glasgow
Buchanan, James, Esq. S.S.C. 39, George
Square, Edinburgh
Bunbury, Eev. John R., Curate of North
Marston, Aylesbury, Bucks
Burns, R. B., Esq. 2, Regent Terrace,
Edinburgh
Burton, John Hill, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Burtt, Rev. W. F., Ferry-Port-on-Craig,
near Dundee
Butterfield, Eev. John, Catterick, York
shire
Calman, j. j. Esq. Worcester College,
Oxford
Calvert, Rev. Thomas, St James' Church,
Norwich
Campbell, Miss, of Stonefield
Campbell, Alexander, Esq. of Auchin-
darroch, Lochgilphead
Campbell, Robert, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Campbell, Eev. Augustus, Rector of Liver
pool
Canterbury Clerical Book Society
Carnegie, James, Esq. of Finhaven
Carr, Rev. Edward, B.A. Minister of St
John's, Guernsey
Carter, Rev. John, Frenchay, Bristol
Cavendish, Hon. Richard, 1, Belgrave
Square, London
Cay, John, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh,
Sheritf of Linlithgowshire
Cay, Albert, Esq. George Street, Edinr.
Chambers, Eobert, Esq. Edinburgh
Chambers, J. D. Esq. No. 6, Old Square,
Lincoln s Inn, London
ChepraeU, E., Esq. M.D. 17, Hanover
Square, London
Chichester, The Lord Bishop of
Chichester, Very Rev. the Dean of
Christie, Rev. James, Turrifi^
Christie, Thomas Craig, Esq. Oakfield
Place, Blythswood Square, Glasgow
Christmas, Rev. Henry, Sion College,
London
Christopher, R. A., Esq. M.P. Bloxholm,
Sleaford, Lincolnshire
Churton, Rev. E. , Crayke Rectory, Easing-
wold, Yorkshire
Clare, Rev. George T., Bainton Rectory,
Great Driffield, Yorkshire
Clark, Rev. John, M.A. Hunslet, near
Leeds
Cleghorn, Mrs., Monaslerevan, Ireland

Cleghorn, Patrick, Esq. of Wakefield, near
St Andrews, Fifeshire
Chfford, Rev. F. C. A. Elvedon Rectory,
Thetford, Suffolk
Clive, Thk RieHT Honourable Lord
Clough, Miss, of Bromfoglfa, near St
Asaph, FMntshire
Coleridge, Rev. George May, Vicar of St
Mary's Church, Torquay, Devon
Colville, James, Esq. 32, Curzon Street,
London
Connolly, M. F. Esq. Anstruther, Fife
Cooper, Rev. Alexander, Parsonage,
Portsoy
Coster, 'The Ven. Archdeacon, Frederic-
ton, New Brunswick
Cornthwaite, Rev. Tullie, Forest, Wal
thamstow, Essex
Cox, Rev. J. E., M.A. London
Cox, Mr. Thomas, Alcester Street, Bir
mingham
Craig, James Gibson, Esq. W.S.
Crichton, Hew, Esq. 2, Park Place, Edinr.
Cripps, Eev. John M., Lewes, Sussex
Crofton, Sir Morgan G. , Bart. Leamington
Crosbie, George, Esq. Manager of National
Bank, Edinburgh
Crossley, James, Esq. 4, Booth Street,
PiccadiUy, Manchester
Crossthwaite, Rev. Charles, Lackaglh
Parsonage, Monasteraven, County Kil
dare, Ireland
Cumming, Rev. John, Scotch Church,
Crown Court, Covent Garden, London
Cuthbertson, W. Esq. George Street,
Edinburgh
Dalrymple, Charles Elphinstone, Esq.
Logic Elphinstone
Dansey, Eev. William, M.A. Rector of
Donhead-St Andrew, near Shaftes
bury, and Prebendary of Salisbury
Darling, Mr James, Clerical Library, 22,
Little Queen Street, Lincoln's-Inn-
Fields, London
Davidson, Rev. W., Cockpen Manse, Dal
housie
Deacon, Rev. J. E., Vicar of Ottery,
St Mary, Devon
Dick, WiUiam Douglas, Esq. Pitkerro,
Dundee
Dickenson, F. H. Esq. Kings- Weston,
Somerton, 6, Upper Harley Street,
Loudon
Dickinson, J. R. Esq. 67, Stephen Green,
Dublin
Disney, Rev. Henry P., A. M. Perpetual
Curate of Kildarton, Diocese of Armagh
Dobie, James, Esq. of Crummock, Beith,
Ayrshire
Dolben, Rev. C, Ipsley, Warwickshire
Dornford, Rev. J., Plymtree, Devon
D'Orsey, A. J. , Esq. High School, Glasgow
Douglas, Rev. A. B., Minister of Car-
nock, by Dunfermline
Douglas, Eobert Johnstone, Esq. of
Lockerby House, Lockerby
Douglas, James, Esq. Commercial Bank,
Kelso
Douie, Eobert, Esq. W.S. Edinburgh

SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.

Down and Connor, and Dromore, the
Lord Bishop of— Patron
Drummond, Eev. Eobert, Vicar of Peer
ing, Essex
Drummond, Colonel, Brighton
Dudgeon, WiUiam, Esq. 8, St John's
Place, Leith
Dnnbar, Sir Archibald, of Northfield,
Bart., Elgin
Dunbar, Sir WiUiam, of Mochrum, Bart.,
Advocate, Edinburgh
Dundas, T. G. Esq. Eossend Castle,
Burntisland
Dundas, William Pitt, Esq. Advocate,
Edinburgh
Dunkeld, Dunblane, and Fife, The
Eight Rev. the Bishop of — Patron
Eccleston, Mr, Friargate, Preston
Eden, Kev. Robert, Leigh Rectory, Roch-
ford, Essex
Edinburgh Diocesan Library
Edmonstone, Sir Archibald, Bart. Col-
zium, Kilsyth
Edouart, Rev. A. G., St Paul's Church,
Blackburn
Edwards, Rev. B. , Ashell Rectory, Norfolk
Elder, Rev. Edward, of Bishop Cosin's
School, Durham
EUison, Steney, Esq. University CoUege,
Oxford
Elridge, Rev. J. A., Sigglesthorne, near
HuU
Elrington, Rev. C. R., D.D. Trinity Col
lege, Dublin
Elwes, J. M. Esq. Bossington House,
Stockbridge, Hants
Esson, 0. A.,Esq. Accountant, Edinburgh
Ewing, Rev. A., Logic House, by Forres
Exeter CoUege, Oxford, Library of
Exley, Mr John, Customs, Aberdeen
Eyre, Charles, Esq. Welford Park, New
bury, Berks
Eyton, Joseph Walter King, Esq. Lea
mington

Fagan, Eev. G. H.
Fairhe, Mr. John, 27, Union Street,
Glasgow
Farebrother, Eev. Thomas, Aston, near
Birmingham
Fearon, Rev.W.C.,Grimstone, near Lynn,
Norfolk
Fenwicke, The Rev. G. 0., Vicar of
Aston, near Birmingham
Fergusson, Mr WiUiam, BookseUer, Bank
Street, Edinburgh
Field, A. G., Esq. Great King Street,
Edinburgh
Field, Eev.E.B., Dunfermline
Fisher, Frederick, Esq. 15, Forth Street,
Edinburgh
Forbes, George Hay, Esq. AinsUe Place,
Edinburgh
Forbes, The Hon. Lady, of Craigievar
Forbes, Sir John Stuart, Baronet, of
Pitsligo
Forbes, The Right Hon. Lord, Castle-
Fohbes, Aberdeenshire — Patron
Forbes, WiUiam, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.

Forman, James, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Formby, Rev. Henry, Ruerdean, near
Mitcheldeane, Gloucestershire
Foulkes, Eev. Henry Powell, M.A. Bal-
Uol CoUege, Oxford, Curate of St
Matthew's, Buckley Parsonage, Hawar-
den, Chester
Eraser, Edw., Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Fraser, William N., Esq. 23, York Place,
Edinburgh
Fyrie, Very Rev. Charles, Dean of Moray,
Ross, and Argyll

Gallie, Mr William, Bookseller, Edinr.
Galton, Rev. John Lincoln, Leamington
Gandy, Rev. James H., Oakington Vicar
age, near Cambridge
Gathercole, Rev. M. A., Great Ilford,
Essex
Geougia, The Right Rev. The Bishop
OF — Patron
Gibbings, Rev. Richard, DubUn
Gibson, Sir A. C. Maitland, Bart, of Clif-
tonhall
Giles, James, Esq. KaUzie, Peebles
GiUespie, David, Esq. of Mountquhanie,
Cupar Fife
Gillet, Eev. G. E., Rector of Waltham,
Melton Mowbray
Gladstone, The Right Hon. W. E.
Gladstone, John, Esq. of Fasque
Glasgow, The Right Rev. The Bishop
OF — Patron
Glasgow, Robert Robertson, Esq. Advo
cate, Edinburgh
Glynne, Sir Stephen, Bart, Hawarden
Castle, Chester
Goalen, Eev. Walter M., Laurencekirk
Goldie, WiUiam, Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Gordon, Charles M., Esq. of Esslemont
Gordon, George J. Robert, Esq. H. M. S.
of Legation at Stockholm
Gordon, Rev. J. F. S., St Andrew's
Church, Glasgow
Gordon, John, Esq. of Cairnbulg, Advo
cate, Edinburgh
Gordon, Eev. Osborne, Christ-Church,
Oxford
Gordon, William, Esq. Antigua
Gough, Rev. Henry, M. A. Master of
Grammar School, Carlisle
Graeme, Major, of Inchbraikie, Crieff
Grasme, Robert, Esq. The Ross, Hamilton
Graham, Dr, Professor of Botany, Edin
burgh
Graham, James Gillespie, Esq. of Orchill
Graham, William Thomas, Esq. 17,
Upper Buckingham Street, Dublin
Grant, Rev. J., Toronto, Canada West
Grant, Thomas Macpherson, Esq. Ballin-
dalloch, 17, Moray Place, Edinburgh
Grantham Clerical Society
Gray, Rev. John HamUton, Bolsover,
near Chesterfield
Green, John F., Esq. Aston, near Bir
mingham
Gregson, Henry, Esq. of Lowlynn
Greig, Rev. WiUiam, Drynockly, by
Broadford, Isle of Skye
Groves, Charles, Esq. Liverpool

MEMBERS OF THE

Haddon, Rev. Arthur W., Trinity Col
lege, Oxford
Haggard, W, M. R. Esq. of Bradenham
Hall, Norfolk
Hall, Eev. Henry Banks, L.L.B. Risley,
near Derby
Hallowes, Rev. B., Perpetual Curate of
St.- David's, Denbigh
Halls, Rev. George, Lewes, Sussex
Hamilton, Alexander, Esq. W.S. 29, Rut
land Square, Edinburgh
Hamilton, Rev. James, Camberwell,
London
Hamilton, Peter, Esq. King Edward VI.'s
School, Birmingham
Hamilton, Sir William, of Preston, Bart.
Hannaford, Mr P. A., Bookseller, Exeter
Handyside, Eobert, Esq. Advocate, Edin
burgh, Sheriff of Stirlingshire
Hargrove, Mr William, Yoi-k
Harper, Eev. A.,Inverury, Aberdeenshire
Harper, George, Esq. Commercial Bank,
Hamilton
Harrington, Rev. E. C, Exeter
Harrington, Robert, Esq.
Harrison, Edward M. Esq. Barrister,
Middle Temple
Hartley, Leonard L. Esq. Middleton
Lodge, Richmond, Yorkshire
Hartly, Rev. Richard Fleming, Incum
bent of Walesby and Thorp Salvin,
Worksop, Notts
Harvey, Miss, of Castle-Semple, Ren
frewshire
Hawkins, Rev.  , Foril
Hay, Adam, Esq. W.S. Maitland Street,
Edinburgh
Hay, J. Stewart, Esq. of Rockville, near
North Berwick
Hay, Eobert, Esq. of Limplum, Ormis-
ton Hall, "Tranent
Hay, William, Esq. of DunseCastle.Dunse
Hayes, Rev. J. W., Arborfield Rectory,
near Reading
Henderson, John, Esq. Architect, Edinr.
Henderson, Rev. Alexander, Hamilton
Henderson, Rev. Eobert, Messing, Essex
Henderson, Rev. William, Arbroath
Henderson, William S., Esq. 39, Albany
Street, Edinburgh
Herbert, The Hon. Algernon, Ickleton,
Saffron Walden
HiU, E., Esq. Christ Church, Oxford
Hine, Rev. H. T. C, Bury St. Edmunds
Hodgkinson, Eev. George C, Bury St
Edmunds
Home, The Right Honourable The Earl of
Hook, Rev. Walter Farquhar, D.D. Vicar
of Leeds
Hope, Hugh, Esq. Solicitor, Fludyer
Street, Westminster
Hope, A. J. B. Esq. Bridgebuiy Park,
Lamberhurst, Kent
Hope, John David, Esq. Warwick Street,
Leamington
Ilopkirk, J. G. Esq. W.S. of Meadow-
bank, Stirling
Horsburgh, Andrew, Esq. Pittenweem
Horsley, Very Rev. Heneage, Dean of
Brechin, Dundee

Hoskins, George, Esq. Brunstaine House,
Portobello
Houblon, John Archer, Esq. of Halling-
bury Place, Bishop's-Stortford
Houblon, Rev. 'T. Archer, Rector of Pease-
more, Newbury, Berks
Howard, Hon. and Rev. William, Rector
of Whiston, Yorkshire
Howell, Rev. Hinds, Shobrook Rectory,
Devon
Hudson, Very Rev. Edward G., Dean
of Armagh, Glenville, Watergrasshill,
County of Cork, Ireland
Huntington, Charles, Esq. of Branting-
ham, Hull
Hurst, Miss Harriet, Horsham, Sussex
Innes, Cosmo, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Innes, He v. John, Farnborough, Kent
Innes, Thomas, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Irvine, Alex. Forbes, Esq. of Drum,
Aberdeenshire
Irvine, Alexander Forbes, Esq. younger
of Drum, Aberdeenshire
Irving, George Vere, Esq. of Newton,
Lanarkshire
Irvine, Rev. J., Vicarage, Leigh, Man
chester
Ivory, Hon. Lord, Edinburgh
Ivory, W. Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
James, Eev. J. B., Knowbury
Jarratt, Rev. John, Vicar of North Cave,
Howden, Yorkshire
Jefferiss, Robert, Esq. M.D. Dalkeith
Jenkins, Eev. John, A. B. Curate of
Rothwell, near Leeds
Jerdan, George, Esq. Kelso
Johnson, Mr J. S., Preston
Johnston, Alexander, Esq. TuUos Bouse,
Aberdeen
Johnstone, James John, Esq. of Annan-
dale, M.P.
Johnstone, Mr John, Bookseller, Hunter
Square, Edinburgh
Johnstone, WilUam, Esq. Advocate, Edin
burgh
Jones, E. K., Esq. 28, Mark Lane, London
Jones, Rev. Robert, Branxton Rectory,
near Coldstream
Jones, Eev. T. H., Shandwick P]ace,Edinr.
Joyce, Rev. Robert L., Eden Terrace,
Carlisle
Keir, John, Esq. of Westfleld, 32, Ann
Street, Edinburgh
Kemper CoUege Library, St. Louis,
Missouri
Kenrick, Rev. Jarvis, Horsham, Sussex
Kerr, Christopher, Esq. of Kilcraig,
Dundee
Kerr, John,Esq. 26, Castle Street, Dundee
Kerr, WiUiam W., Esq. Oriel College,
Oxford
Kerr, The Rev. and Right Honourable
Lord Henry, Torquay
KhuU, Mr Edward, University Press,
Glasgow
Kidd, Darid, Esq. of Venables & Co.
London

SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.

Kildare, The Hon. and Right Rev. the
Lord Bishop of — Patron
Kilgour, Jas., Esq. Register Ofiice, Edinr.
Khjviorey, The Countess or, Leamington
King's College, London, Library of
Kinloch, Geo. K. Es,q. Hope Street, Edin.
Kinnear, James, Esq. W.S. Murrayfield
Kirkwood, Mr William, Edinburgh
Kitton, Rev. John, M.A. Perpetual Curate
of St. John's, Houghton, Carlisle
Kyle, Right Rev. Bishop, Preshome,
Baufi'shire
Lady, A, per R. Grant & Son, Edinburgh
Laidlaw, Misses, New Scone, Perth
Laing, Eobert, Esq. Writer, Jedburgh
Laird, Mr James, Sen., 4 Adelphi Place,
Hutchensontown, Glasgow
Landers, Mrs Col., Fenwicksteeds, near
Belford, Northumberland
Langhorne, Rev. Thomas, Musselburgh
Langley, Rev. Thomas, Landogo, Chep
stow, Monmouthshire
Laprimaudaye, Rev. C. J., Leyton, Essex
Laurie, Miss, 9, Ainslie Place
Laurie, W. A., Esq. 13, No. Bank Street,
12 copies
Lawson, Rev. John Parker, Edinburgh
Le Mesurier, Rev. John, Messing, Essex
Lee, Eev. J. P., M.A., King Edward VI.
School, Birmingham
Lee, Eev. Robert, D.D., Minister of Old
Greyfriars, Edinburgh
Leslie, Mr J., Bookseller, 52, Great Queen
Street, Lincoln's-Inn-Fields, London
Ligertwood, J., Esq. Advocate, Aberdeen
Lightfoot, Eev. N. F., Stockleigh, near
Crediton, Devon
Lindsay, Right Hon. Lord — Patron
Lindsay, Colonel, of Balcarras
Little, Rev. John, Minister of Mannor,
Peeblesshire
Little, W., Esq. High School, Liverpool
Loch, C. R. F. Esq. St Colme St., Edinr.
Loch, James, Esq. M.P. — Patron
Loch, Mrs W. 7, St Colme Street, Edin.
Logan, W. H. Esq. National Bank, Edinr.
London Library (The), 49, PaU MaU,
London
Long, The Lady Mary, Bath
Lothian, The Most Honourable the
Marchioness of, Newbattle Abbey
Low, Eev. A. Longside, by Mintlaw
Low, John F., Esq. University College,
Durham
Lowe, Very Rev. T., HUl, Dean of Exeter
Luke, Wm., Esq. Merchant, High Street,
Edinburgh
Lundy, Rev. Dr., M'GUl College, Mon
treal, Canada
Lusk, John, Esq. Buchanan Street, Glasg.
Lusk, Rev. V., Trinity Church, Over
Darwin
Lyon, Rev. C, J,, St Andrews
Lyons, T,, Esq, Hornsey Road, London
Lyttleton, Right Hon. Lord, Hagley,
Stourbridge, Worcestershire
M'CoNECHY, James, Esq. Courier Office,
Glasgow

Macdonald, James, Esq. of Dalness,
Advocate
Macdonald, William Bell,'Esq. of Ram-
merscales, Lochmaben
M'Gill, Rev. Jas., Skairfield, Lochmaben
M'Gregor, James, Esq. Writer, Fort-
William
Mackenzie, Sir James, Bart, of Scatwell
Mackenzie, John, Esq. Manager of the
Scottish Widows' Fund, Edinburgh
Mackenzie, J. D., Esq. Cobourg, Canada
Mackenzie, John Whiteford, Esq. W. S.
Edinburgh
Mackenzie, Kenneth, Esq. 36, Queen
Street, Edinburgh
Mackenzie, Thos., Esq. of Applecross,M. P.
Mackenzie, William, Esq. of Muirtown
Mackenzie, W.F., Esq. M.P. of Portmore,
2 copies
M'Lachlan, Rev. A. N. Campbell, Thow-
erton, near Cullompton, Devon
M'Laren, Major, Portobello
M'Lelland, George, Esq. 51, Abbotsford
Place, Glasgow
M'Lennan, Alexander, Esq. 10, Albany
Street, Edinburgh
Maclennan, Rev. Alexander,Fort- WilUam
Macleod, Rev. Nor., Minister of Dalkeith
Macmillan, Eev. J., Strathtay, Dunkeld
M-Murray, Rev. W., Dundas, Canada
M'Neil, Miss Catherine, Portobello
M'Neil, Alexander, Esq. Advocate
M'Phail, Mr ,Iohn, Edinburgh Printing
Company, 12, South St David Street
M'Queen, Eev, John, Kidderpore, near
Calcutta
M'Rae, Rev. J., Hawick
Madox, William, Esq. younger of Pit-
reavie, 154, Albany Street, Regent's
Park, London
Maidment, James, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Maitland, Thomas, Esq, Advocate, Edin
burgh
Makgill, George, Esq, of Kemback
Malcolm, Rev, H,, Dunblane
Malcolm, Robert, Esq, M, D, George
Street, Edinburgh
Malcolm, Niel, Esq. of Poltalloch, Loch
gilphead
Manning, Ven. Archdeacon, Laving-
ton, Petworth — Patron
Mapelton, H. M. Esq.
Mapleton, Rev. R. J., B.A. Berkswell,
near Meriden
Martin, Rev. George, Exeter
Maryland, The Right Rev. The Bishop
OF — Patron
Mason, Rev. H. B.,Brewood,Staffordshire
Matheson, Rev. Alexander, Rector of
Stiell's Hospital, Tranent
Meath, The Lord Bishop of — Patron
MelviUe, James M., Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Melville, John White, Esq. Mount-
Melville, St Andrews
Memes, Rev. Dr. Minister of Hamilton
Mercer, Graeme R., Esq. younger of
Gorthie
MUler, Miss, 11, Ainslie Place, Edinburgh
Milliken, Miss, 37, Charlotte Square,
Edinburgh

MEMBERS OF THE

MUls, Rev. Robert Twyford, B. A. St
Mary Magdalene CoUege, Oxford,
Curate of St James's, Gloucester
Milne, Rev. George Gordon, Cupar-Fife
Milne, Rev. George, New Carlisle, Upper
Canada
Moir, C. A., Esq. of Leckie, by Stirling
Monteith, Eobert, Esq. younger of Car-
stairs, Lanark
Montrose, His Grace the Duke of —
Patron
Moodie, W., Esq. PUrig Street, Edinr.
Moray, The Right Hon. the Earl of —
Patron
MoaAV, Eoss, and Argyll, The Right
Rev. the Bishop of — Patron
More, John Shank, Esq. Advocate, Edin.
Morrell, Frederick J., Esq. St Giles',
Oxford
Morrison, James, Esq. Banker, Stirling
Mowbray, John T., Esq. W. S.
Mowbray, Wm., Esq. 7, Hart St., Edinr.
M.S. Muir, J., Esq. 6, Royal Terrace, Edinr.
Muir, WUliam, Esq. S.S.C. Edinburgh
Munro, James, Esq. Malta Terrace, Edin.
Napier, C.H., Esq. Smith's Place, Leith
Walk, Edinburgh
Napier, Mark, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Neave, Eev. Henry L., Epping, Essex
Neeld, Joseph, Esq. M. P. Grittleton
House, Wilts
Newcastle-on-Tyne, Clerical Society
Nichol, Antony, Esq. Cardrona, Peebles
Nicoll, Lewis, Esq. Advocate, Aberdeen
Nixon, Charles H., Esq. of Lincoln Col
lege, Oxford, Castlegate, Nottingham
Norman, Eev. Hugh, Curate's Assistant
of Eillaghobegley, Dunfauaghy, County
Donegal
Northumberland, His Grace the Duke
OF, Alnwick
Oakey, Mr. H., Bookseller, Preston
Ogilvy, Sir John, Bart. Baldovan House,
Dundee — Patron
Oldknow, Eev. Joseph, Berdesley, Bir
mingham
Orred, George, Esq. Dunkeld
Oulton, Rev. Richard, Cookstown, County
of Tyrone, Moneymore, Ireland
Owen, Rev. R., Llanrhaiadr, near Denbigh
Page, Rev. Luke Flood, Rector of Wool-
pet, Bury St Edmunds
Paine, Cornelius, Esq. Jun. 2, Mountfort
House, Barnsbury Square, London
Palmer, Eev. W., St Mary Magdalene
College, Oxford
Parkinson, Rev. J. P., East Ravendale,
Great Grimsby
Paterson, George, Esq. M.D. 15, Dundas
Street, Edinburgh
Paton, Robert, Esq. W.S. Selkirk
Pattison, Eev. Mark, M.A. Lincoln Col
lege, Oxford
Patton, George, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Pedder, Richard, Esq. Broughton, near
Preston

Penny, Eev. Edward, Ash Vicarage,
Wingham, Kent
Perceval, Hon. and Rev. Arthur, East
Horsley, Ripley, Surrey
Peterborough, The Very Rev. the Dean of
Peterborough, The Dean and Chapter of
Petheram, Mr John, Bookseller, Chancery
Lane, London
PiUans, J. Wilson, Esq. Newington, Edin.
Pirie, Alexander, jun. Esq. Aberdeen
Pirie, Henry G.,Esq. 43, Watling Street,
London
Pitsligo, St. John's Chapel
Piatt, T. P., Esq. Bramshot Place, Lip-
hook, Hants
Pocock, Eev. Nicolas, Queen's College,
Oxford
Poole, Rev. George Ayliffe, Welford
Vicarage
Pope, Rev. Thomas A., Jesus College,
Cambridge, Littlebury, near Safl'ron-
Waldeu
Pott, Alfred, Esq. of Magdalene College,
Oxford
Powell, Rev. Richmond, M.A. Incum
bent of Bury, Arundel, Sussex
Pratt, Rev. J.B., Incumbent of St James's,
Cruden
Pressley, Rev. Charles, Fraserburgh
Prevost, Eev. Sir George, Bart. Stinch-
combe, Gloucestershire
Pridden, Eev. W., Broxted Vicarage,
Essex
Prideaux, Rev. WiUiam, Broxted, Dun-
more Vicarage, Essex
Price, Rev. Bartholomew, M.A. Pem
broke College, Oxford
Pyke, Rev. J., Paneli h. Cavaznal, Canada
Rait, D.C, Esq. Buchanan Street, Glasg.
Ramsay, Very Rev. E. B., Dean of Edinr.
Ramsay, Sir James, Bart, of Bamff —
Patron
Eanken, Eev. Arthur, Old Deer, Mintlaw
Reay, Rev. S., B.D. Laudian Professor of
Arabic, Oxford
Reid, Charles G., Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Reid, Archibald, Esq. City Clerk, Perth
Rhind, Mr John, Drumlithie, Stonehaven
Rhind, John, Esq. Accountant, National
Bank, Edinburgh
Richardson, Rev. Ralph, Gremfield, Holy
well
Ritchie, Alexander, Esq. Writer, Arbroath
Robb, Mr John, Builder, Royal Circus,
Edinburgh
Roberts, Rev. Lewis, Whitewell, Cli-
theroe, Lancashire
Robertson, David, Esq. Solicitor, London
Robertson, David, Esq. Merchant, Aber
deen
Robertson, Rev. J. C, Boxley, Maidstone
Robertson, Joseph, Esq. 64, Buccleuch
Street, Glasgow
Robertson, Hon. Lord, 32, Drummond
Place, Edinburgh
Robertson, Mrs. 16, Moray Place, Edinr.
Robertson, Miss, 16, Moray Place, Edinr.
Robertson, Rev. WiUiam, Old Meldrum,
Aberdeenshire

SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.

Robinson, Eev. Richard Barton, M.A.,
Lytham, near Preston, Lancashire
RoUo, Eobert, Esq. Advocate, Edinburgh
Rose, Nelson, Esq. Bonnington near Leith
Ross, J. Esq. Architect, Inverness
Eoss, William, Esq. Writer, Perth
Eouth, Rev. M. J., D.D. President of
Magdalene CoUege, Oxford
Russell, Jas., Esq. Aden House, Mintlaw
Bussell, J. E., Esq. 37, Dalhousie Street,
Glasgow
RusseU, Rev. M. W. Watts, Rector of
Benefield, near Oundle
Russell, J. Watts, Esq. Ham Hall, Ash-
bourn, Staffordshire, 2 copies
RusseU, Rev. Samuel H., 1, Printing
House Square, Blackfriars, London
Sandford, E. D., Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Sandilands, Hon. and Rev. John, Coston
Rectory, Melton Mowbray
Sands, Warren H. Esq. W.S. Edinburgh
Sandwith, MissE.M., 14, MelvUle Street,
Edinburgh
Scotland, John, Esq. Glen-Douglas, Jed
burgh
Scott, The Right Hon. Lady John
Scott, Rev. George, Leith
Scott, Rev. WUliam, Christ Church, Hox
ton, Middlesex
Seton, Mr Robert, BookseUer, Edinburgh,
12 copies
Seymour, Rev. Richard, Einwarton
Rectory, Alcester
ShackeU, WilUam, Esq. Hammersmith,
London
Shand, C. Farquhar, Esq. Advocate,
Edinburgh
Shand, John, Esq. W.S. Royal Grcus,
Edinburgh
Shand, Rev. George, Mendham, Harle-
ston, Norfolk
Sharpe, Henry, Esq. 56, Fenchurch
Street, London
Sharpe, Eev. Lancelot, M.A., F.S.A.
Prebendary of St Paul's
Sharpe, Eev. Samuel C, Newport, Barn
staple, North Devon
Sharpe, Mr Thomas Bowdler, Bookseller,
15, Skinner Street, Snowhill, London
Shaw, Rev. J. AUen, Arichat, Cape Breton
Shaw, Thomas, Esq. Writer, Cupar-Fife
Shea, Rev. Robert Francis, The Lea,
Chirton Heath, Chester
Shillitoe, Rev.  , Curate of Harthill,
Yorkshire
Shipton,Rev. John Noble, D.D., Vicar of
Ottery, near Bridgewater, Somerset
shire
Shirreff, Eev. S. B., BerksweU Rectory,
Meriden, Coventry
Short, Rev. Augustus, Vicar of Ravens
thorpe, Northampton
Signet Library, Edinburgh
Sim, George, Esq., Aberdeen Bank
Simpson, George, Esq. younger of Pitcor-
thie, CoUnsburgh
Skinner, Fitzowen, Esq. 25, Keppel
Street, London
Skinner, John R., Esq. W.S. Edinburgh

Sligo, Miss, SeacUff House, North Berwick
Smith, Rev. Charles F., St John's Par
sonage, Eccles, Manchester
Smith, David, Esq. 120, Brunswick
Street, Glasgow, '2 copies
Smith, Cunningham, Esq. 81, St Vincent
Street, Glasgow
Smith, Rev. Edwin Trevelyan, B.A. Wan-
stead, Essex
Smith, Rev. James, Forgue, Diocese of
Aberdeen
Smith, John, Esq. of Crutherland, LL.D.
Glasgow
Smith, John, Esq. Kelso
Smythe, Eev. P. M., Tanworth, Henley-
in-Arden, Warwickshire
Sommerville, Samuel, Esq. M.D. 17,
Hart Street, Edinburgh
Spencer, Rev. Peter, Ewell, near Dover
Spens, Nathaniel, Esq. of Craigsanquhar,
Walker Street, Edinburgh
Spens, Nathaniel, Esq. Drummond Place,
Edinburgh
Spottiswoode, Andrew, Esq. 17, Carlton
Terrace, London
Spottiswoode, Colonel, Gladswood, Melrose
Spottiswoode, James B. Esq. Muiresk
House, by Turriff
Spottiswoode, John, Esq. of Spottis
woode — Patron
Spottiswoode, Miss, 16, Moray Place,
Edinburgh
St Andrews Episcopal Church Library,
Aberdeen
St Andrews, University of
Stevenson, George John, Esq. Quay,
Great Yarmouth
Stevenson, Rev. James, Katerline, by
Stonehaven
Stevenson, Eev. Joseph, Durham
Stevenson, Rev. Robert, Paisley
Stevenson, Mr Thomas G., Bookseller,
Prince's Street, Edinburgh
Stewart, George, Esq. of Braco, Crieff
Stewart, John, Esq. 6, Marshall Place,
Perth
Stewart, Miss, 9, Brighton Creiscent, Por
tobello
Steuart, James, Esq. W. S. Doune Ter
race, Edinburgh
Steuart, Miss, 17, St Andrew's Square,
Edinburgh
StilUe, Mr James, Bookseller, Edinburgh
Stillingfleet, Rev. E. W., Hotham
StirUng, John, Esq. of Kippendarie,
Dunblane
Stirhng, J. P. Esq. Writer, Dunblane
Stirling, WiUiam, Esq. Younger of Keir
Storey, John, Esq. Merchant, Leith
Strathallan, Right Hon. Viscount —
Patron
Street, Joseph, Esq. of Lloyds, London
Street, William F. Esq. 13, Austin
Friars, City, London
Strong, Mr W., Bristol
Stuart, Charles, Esq. of Ballachelish
Stuart, John, Esq. Advocate, Aberdeen
Stuart, Miss, Carslogie, by Cupar-Fife
Stuart, Robert, Esq. Advocate, Edinr,
Stuart, Dr,, Kelso

MEMBERS OF THE SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETY.

Sturrock, John, Esq. Park Place, Dundee
Suther, Rev. T. G., Edinburgh
Sutherland, His Grace the Duke of
Swainson, Rev. C. A. Christ's CoUege,
Cambridge
Swinton, Archibald, Esq. Advocate, Pro
fessor of Civil Law, Edinburgh
Swire, Rev. John, Menfield, Yorkshire
Tainsh, David, Esq. 33, Ingram Street,
Glasgow
Tait, WilUam, Esq. Prince's Street, Edin.
Taylor, Rev. Anstruther, Minister of
Carnbee, by Pittenweem
Thom, Rev. Robert K., St John's,
Drumlithie, Stonehaven
Thomson, George, Esq. of Burnhouse,
Advocate
Thomson, WiUiam, Esq. Accountant, 48,
Queen Street, Glasgow
Thorverton Clerical Society
Tindall, John, Esq. Huddersfield
Tireman, Mrs. Nurton, Tintern, Mon
mouthshire
Todd, Eev. J. H., Trinity College, DubUn
Tordiff, Thomas, Esq. Borouh, Ilfracombe
Torry, Very Rev. John, Dean of Dunkeld
Toovey, Mr James, St James Street,
London
Tripp, Rev. H., M.A. College of St Co-
lumba, near Navan, Ireland
Tristram, H. B. Esq. Lincoln CoUege,
Oxford
Trollope, Rev. A., Curate of St Mary-le-
Bow, London
Trotter, Archibald, Esq. Ratho House
Trotter, John, Esq. of the Bush, Mid-
Lothian
Trotter, John P., Esq. Sheriff-Substitute,
Dumfries
Troughton, Rev. John Ellis, M.A. Curate
of St John Baptist's, Hawarden, Chester
TurnbuU, Rev. T. S., FeUow of Caius
CoUege, Cambridge
Turner, Angus, Esq. 14, Woodside Ter
race, Glasgow
Turner, Rev. George, Chelsfield
TweUs, Mr. P. M., 84, New Street,
Birmingham
Urquhart, Adam, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Vaux, William S. W., Esq. British
Museum, London
Wade, Very Rev. W. M. Dean of Glas
gow, Paisley
Wagstaff, Rev. Charles, St Andrew's
Church, Aberdeen
Walesby, Mr Thomas, Bookseller, Bridge
Street, Northampton
Walker, Wm., Esq. Provost-Marshal of
Antigua
Walker, Rev. Thomas, Blair-AthoU
Walker, William S., Esq. of Bowland,
Advocate, Edinburgh, 2 copies
Walpole, Hon. Henry, Wolterton Park,
Norfolk

Ward, Mrs., Grosvenor Square, South
ampton
Ward, Miss, Grosvenor Square, South
ampton
Warner, Patrick, Esq. of Ardeer, Ayrshire
Warre, Rev. F. Bishops- Lydiard, near
Taunton
Warren, Rev. R. P., Slapton, Dartmouth
Warwick Western Rural Deanery Society
Watson, Rev. George, Incumbent of
Etherley, Bishop-Auckland, Durham
Weguelin, Rev. W. A., South Stoke,
Arundel, Sussex
Wellings, Mrs, Richmond Lodge, Porto
bello
West, F. G., Esq. Pinner, near Watford,
Herts
Whigham, David, Esq. Dumfries
White, John, Esq. 7, North St David
Street, Edinburgh
White, Rev. Henry M., New CoUege,
Oxford
White, Rev. R., Ribby with Wrea, Lanca
shire
Wilkie, James, Esq., 10, Inverleith Row,
Edinburgh
WUliams, Eev. Edmund T., M.A.
Exeter College, Oxford, Mount BaUan,
Chepstow
Williams, John S., Esq. R. N. Campie
House, Musselburgh
Williams, Ven. Archdeacon, Edinburgh
Willis, Rev. Thomas, Rectory, Rayne,
near Braintree
Wilson, Archibald, Esq. Jun., Queen's
College, Cambridge
Wilson, J. H., Esq. Sutton Place, Hackney
Wilson, Mr John Jeffers, Kirkcaldy
Wilson, Robert, Esq. Magdalene Hall,
Oxford
Wilson, Eev. W. S., Ayr
Wilson, William, Esq. W.S. Melrille
Street, Edinburgh
Wood, John, Esq. Eosemount, Leith
Woodford, Edward, LL.D., Madras Col
lege, St Andrews
Woods, Rev. Richard, Dervor, Castle-
Bellingham
Woodcock, H. Esq. Wigan
Woolcombe, Rev. E. G., BaUiol College,
Oxford
Woolcombe, W. W., Esq. Exeter College,
Oxford
Wordsworth, Rev. Charles, The Col
lege, Winchester
Wordsworth, Rev. Christopher, D. D.
RectorofBuxted-with-Uckfield, Sussex
Worgan, Rev. John Hartland, Catthorpe,
Rugby
Wyatt, C. F., Esq. Christ Church, Oxford
Wylie, G. B., Esq. Canada, 2 copies
Yates, Thomas, Esq., II, George Square,
Glasgow
Young, Rev. A., Mochrum, Wigtonshire
Young, George, Esq. Advocate, Edinr.
Young, Mr WiUiam, 189, High Street,
Sunderland

Note. — The Publishing Committee regret extremely that the names ofthe American
Members have not been received in time for insertion in the foregoing List.

THE SPOTTISWOODE SOCIETV,
INSTITUTED AT EDINBURGH, JUNE 9, 1843.

^atrou0.
HIS GEACE THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY, K.G.
HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF MONTROSE. „„„„,^
THE RIGHT REV, THE BISHOP of ABERDEEN, and PRIMUS,
THE EIGHT REV, THE BISHOP of DUNKELD, DUNBLANE, and FIFE.
THE EIGHT REV. THE BISHOP of MORAY, ROSS, and ARGYLL.
THE RIGHT REV, THE BISHOP of GLASGOW.
THE EIGHT REV. THE BISHOP of BRECHIN.
THE MOST EEV, THE LORD BISHOP or MEATH.
THE HONOURABLE and RIGHT REV, THE LORD BISHOP of KILDARE.
THE RIGHT REV. THE LORD BISHOP of DOWN, CONNOR, and DROMORE.
THE RIGHT REV. THE BISHOP OF GEORGIA, U. S.
THE VENERABLE THE ARCHDEACON MANNING.
THE EIGHT HONOURABLE THE EARL OF MORAY.
THE EIGHT HONOURABLE THE VISCOUNT STRATHALLAN.
THE EIGHT HONOURABLE LORD FORBES.
THE EIGHT HONOURABLE LORD LINDSAY.
SIR JAMES RAMSAY, BARONET, of BAMFF.
SIR JOHN OGILVIE, BARONET, of INVEEQUHARITY.
JOHN SPOTTISWOODE, ESQ. of SPOTTISWOODE.
JAMES LOCH, ESQ. M.P.
The Very Rev. E. B. RAMSAY, M.A., F.R.S.E., Dean of Edinburgh.
'^ice^r^ve&Ufent.
The Rev. JOHN BOYLE, B.C.L., Incumbent of St. Mark's Church, Portobello..
Cottncfl.

The Very Kev. HENEAGE HOESLBY, M. A., Dean of
Brechin.
The Very Rev. CHARLES FYVIE, M.A., Dean of
Moray, Ross, and ArgyU.
The Very Rev. JOHN TORRY, M.A., Dean of Dunkeld,
Dnnhlane, and Fife.
The Very Rev. W. M. WADE, Dean of Glasgow.
The Rev. THOMAS HENSHAW JONES, M.A., Edin
burgh.
The Rev. THOMAS G. STJTHER, B. A., Edinburgh.
The Rev. JOHN ALEXANDER, Edinburgh.
The Rev. BERKELEY ADDISON, M.A., Edinburgh.
The Eev. JOHN PARKER LAWSON, M.A., Edin
burgh.
FRANCIS ANDERSON, Esq., W.S., Edinburgh.
WILLIAM E. AYTOUN, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
WILLIAM BRAND, Esq., W.S., Edinburgh.
JOHN CAY, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
WILLIAM PITT DUNDAS, Esq., Advocate, Edin
burgh. '
WILLIAM FORBES, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
BDWAED PEASES, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
ROBERT EOBERTSON GLASGOW, Esq., Advocate,
Edinburgh.
WILLIAM GOLDIE, Esq., W.S., Edinburgh.
JOHN GORDON, Esq., Cairnbulg.
JOHN DAVID HOPE, Esq., 37, Warwick Street, Lea
mington.

GEORGE HOSKINS, Esq., Brunstane House, Porta-
bello.
COSMO INNES, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
THOMAS INNES, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
ALEXANDER FOEBES IRVING, Esq., Advocate,
Edinburgh.
WILLIAM JOHNSTONE, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
JAMES MAIDMENT. Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
MAJOR M'LAREN, Portobello.
ROBERT B. MALCOLM, Esq., M.D. Edinburgh.
MARK NAPIEE, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
GEORGE PATERSON, Esq., M.D., Edinburgh.
CHARLES G. REID, Esq., W.S., Edinburgh.
NELSON EOSE, Esq., Bonnington, near Leith.
E. D. SANDFORD, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
CHARLES FARQUHAR SHAND, Esq., Advocate,
Edinburgh.
JOHN E. SKINNER, Esq., W.S., Edinburgh.
NATHANAEL SPENS, Esq. of Craigsanquhar.
NATHANAEL SPENS, Esq., 14, Drummond Place,
Edinburgh.
JOHN STIELING, Esq. of Kjppendavie, Dunblane.
JOHN STUAET, Esq., Advocate, Aberdeen.
ROBERT STUART, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
ADAM URQUHART, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
?.?S:J"^*''^'^ WALPOLE, AVolterton Park, Norfolk.
JOHN S. WILLIAMS, Esq., R.N., Campie House,
Musselburgh.

ROBERT CAMPBELL, Esq., Advocate, Edinburgh.
GEORGE A. ESSON, Esq., Accountant, 56, George Street, Edinburgh.
The foUowing Gentlemen have consented to act as Local Secretaries :—
The Rev. Henry Christmas, Sion CoUege, London ; The Rev. Henry M. Belcombe, B.A. Hon
duras ; The Rev. John Lincoln Galton, Leamington ; Rev. Joseph Bosworth, D.D. Derby ;' John
Lusk, Esq. Buchanan Street, Glasgow ; John Stuart, Esq. Advocate, Aberdeen ; J. Ross Esq Inver
ness ; William Eoss, Esq. Writer, Perth ; the Rev. T. G. Torry Anderson, Dundee ; David
Whigham, Esq. Dumfries; James Douglas, Esq. Commerdal Bank of Scotland, Kelso; Robert
Paton, Esq. W.S. Selkirk ; Robert Laing, Esq. Writer, Jedburgh ; Rev. Dr. Seabury, New York

I. The Society (taking its name from the first duly consecrated Scottish
Archbishop after the Reformation) shall have for its object the revival and
publication of the acknowledged Works of the Bishops, Clergy, and Laity of
the Episcopal Church of Scotland, and Rare, Authentic, and Curious MSS.,
Pamphlets, and other Works, illustrative of the Civil and Ecclesiastical state
of Scotland.
II. The Society shall consist of 1000 Members, or of such other number as
the Committee may afterwards determine, being subscribers of One Pound
annually, to be paid in advance on the first day of January in each year.
III. The Management of the Society shall be vested in the President, Vice-
President, Treasurer, Secretary, and Council, who shall together form the
Committee of the Society, with power to make Bye-laws, to supply all Vacan
cies, and to add to their number from among the body of Subscribers ; the
whole number of the Committee not to exceed fifty, seven of whom shall be a
quorum ; it being provided, that none shall be eligible as Members of the
Committee who are not in communion with the Scottish Episcopal Church.

IV. The Annual Subscriptions shall, in the first place, be applied in pub
lishing such Works as the Committee shall sanction, with Biographical
Sketches, Prefaces, Essays, and Notes, where these may be thought necessary.
V. The publications shall be edited by persons competent to the task, and
who shall be Members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, or of Churches in
communion with the same. The selection of Editors, and the terms to be
paid for editing the respective Works, with all other arrangements, shall be
left to the decision of the Committee.
VI. The accounts of the Receipt and Expenditure of the Society shall be
examined annually by two Auditors appointed by the Committee, and a
Statement circulated among the Subscribers.

Subscribers wishing to resign, must intimate their intention in writing to
the Secretary. Resignations will take effect from the 1st day of January
subsequent to such intimation.
Persons intending to become Subscribers, are requested to forward their names and addresses at their
earliest convenience, to the Treasurer, Secretary, any of the Local Secretaries, or Members of
Committee, or to any of the following Booksellers, at whose Shops the Society has estabhshed Depots :
— Messrs. John Smith & Son, 70, St. Vincent Street, Glasgow ; Messrs. A. Brown & Co.,
Union Street, Aberdeen ; Mr. Drummond, High Street, Perth ; Mr. Chalmers, Castle Street,
Dundee ; Mr. James Smith, Inverness ; Mr.. Sinclair, Dumfries ; Mr. H. Potts, Hamilton ; Mr.
James Darling, 22, Little Queen Street, Lincoln's Inn Fields, and Mb. John Leslie, 52,
Great Queen Street, London ; Mr. J. H. Parker, Oxford ; Mussrs. Deighton, Cambridge ;
Mr. Thomas Walesby, Northampton ; Mr. H. C. Langbridge, Birmingham ; Mr. E. J. Partridge,
Ludlow ; Mr. Charles Muskett, Norwich ; Mr. P. A. Hannaford, Exeter ; Mk. George Philip,
Liverpool ; Mr. Henry Oakey, Preston ; Mr. Strong, Bristol ; Mr. George Thompson, Bury St.
Edmunds j Messes. Currie & Bowman, Newcastle-on-Tyne ; Mr. Hargrove, York ; Messrs. Hale
& RowoRTH, 64 A, King Street, Manchester ; Mr. Wm. Young, 189, High Street, Sunderland ;
Mr. Harrison, 153, Briggate, Leeds ; aud Mr. S. J. Maoben, Westmoreland Street, Dublin.
Abroad ; — Mr. James R. Sparks, New York ; Messes. H. & W. Rowsell, Toronto ;
Mr. j. Walton, Montreal.
ROBERT GRANT, Jun., 82, Princess Street, Edinburgh.

The following are among the Works proposed to be Printed by the
Spottiswoode Society.
History of the Church and State of Scotland, in Seven Books, by Archbishop Spottiswoode ;
with a Life, Notes, &c. 2 vols.
History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, from the Reformation to 1568, by
Bishop Keith ; with Life, and Appendix of Illustrative Documents. 2 vols.
An Historical Catalogue of the Scottish Bishops, from the earhest times to 1688, by Bishop
Keith ; with a Continuation to the present time : Also,' an Account of all the Religious Houses
that were in Scotland at the time of the Reformation, by John Spottiswoode, Esq. 1 vol.
Letters, and other Original Papers, from the Balfour MSS. iu the Library of the Faculty of
Advocates, relative to Civil and Ecclesiastical Matters during the reign of James VL, including
the Letters of Archbishop Spottiswoode, with Notes. 2 vols.
Memorials of the Family of Spottiswoode, from Father Hay's MS. Collections in the Library of the
Faculty of Advocates ; with Appendix of Illustrative Matter. 1 vol.
The Works of Archbishop Leighton, with Life.
A Complete Collection of the Works of Bishop Sage, with Life. 3 vols.
The Spottiswoode Miscellany ; a Collection of Fugitive Pieces from MSS. and rare Tracts, chiefly
Illustrative of the Civil aud Ecclesiastica] History of Scotland. Among these will appear,
Notices of the Correspondence between the Bishops of the Scottish Episcopal Church, Bishops
CoUier, Brett, &c. in England, and the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, regarding a formal
union of their Churches.
The Ancient Ecclesiastical History of Scotland, by Thomas Innes, M. A. Author of », Critical
Essay on the Ancient Inhabitants of Scotland ; from a copy formerly in the possession of George
Chalmers, Esq., now in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates. 1 vol.
Sm James Dalrymple's Collections relating to Scottish History preceding the Reign of David I.
with Illustrative Pamphlets. 2 vols.
The Works of the Rev. Henry Scougall, successively Professor of Philosophy in King's College,
Aberdeen, and Minister of Auchterless ; including Bishop Burnet's Preface to the " Life of
God in the Soul of Man," the " Notes," on that Treatise pubUshed iu 1744 ; his " Nine Dis
courses," and his Funeral Sermon preached by Dr. Garden, with Life, &c. 2 vols.
Collection op Charters and other Documents illustrative of the Scottish Cathedral Churches.
1vol.
Bishop Wishart's Life of the Marquis of Montrose, with the Second Part, hitherto unpublished,
from a MS. belonging to the Faculty of Advocates ; with a Life of the Bishop. 1 vol.
History of the Church of Scotland from 1558 to 1625, by Archibald Symson, Pastor of Dal
keith, with the original text, translated from the Latin M.S. in the Library of the Faculty of
Advocates. 1 vol.
The Liturgy of St. James of Jerusalem, with Bishop Rattray's Translation and Introduction, Pre
liminary Essay on Liturgies, &c., with Selections from Bishop Rattray's other Works.
A Selection from the Writings of the Hon. and Right Reverend Bishop Archibald Camp
bell. 1 vol.
Letters and other Documents of Archbishop Sharp of St. Andrews. 1 vol.
Extracts from the Kirk Session Records of Perth, from a transcript made by the late Mr.
J. Scott, one of the Ministers of Perth, Author of a " History of the Earls of Gowrie." 1 vol.
Extracts from the " Buik of the Canongate," commencing 28th August 1564, from the
original MS. belonging to the Kii-k Session ofthe Canongate, Edinburgh. 1 vol.
The Funeral Sermons, Orations, and Epitaphs on the Right Reverend Patrick Forbes
Bishop of Aberdeen, from the only edition of 1635. 1 vol.
The Works of the Reverend John Forbes of Corse, Professor of Divinity in King's College
Aberdeen. 3 vols. '
Bishop Maxwell's (of Eoss, in Scotland, afterwards of Killala) " Burden op Is.sacher " and
" Episcopacy not abjured in His Majesty's Realm of Scotland." 1 vol.
Principal Monro's (of Edinburgh,) Thirteen Sermons preached on several Public Occasions,
with his " Letter to Sia Robert Howard, occasioned by the Twofold Vindication of
Archbishop Tillotson." I vol.
Bishop Gillan's Works. 1 vol.
Sir Robert Sibbald's Minor Works, including his Autobiography, and a Selection from his un-
pubUshed Manuscripts in the Library of the Faculty of Advocates. 1 vol.
The Works of the Rev. John Skinner, Presbyter of the Scottish Episcopal Church at Longside
Aberdeenshire, with Life. 3 vols. '
The Works op the Right Rev. John Skinner, Bishop of Aberdeen, with Biographical Sketch
1 vol.
Collection of the Tracts, Historical and Critical, occasioned by the publication of Bishop
Burnet's History of His Own Times. 1 vol.
Selections from the Wirings of the Rev. Robert Calder, M.A. in support of Episcopacy.
1 vol.
.Sermons by several Episcopal Clergymen of Eminence prior to the Union ; with Sketches
of their Lives. 1 vol.

A View of the Election of Bishops in the Primitive Church ; with the " Supplement" to the
" View," by the Rev. James Dundas, M.A., Presbyter of tbe Church of Scotland. Published in
1728 and 1730. 1 vol.
The Works of the Right Reverend William Cowpar, Bishop of Galloway. 3 vols.
The Master of Sinclair's Memoirs, connected with the Enterprize of 1715. 1 vol.
A Translation of Bishop William Forbes' (first Bishop of Edinburgh) " Considerationes Mo-
destse et Pacificte Controversiarum de Justificatione, Purgatorio, Invocatione Sanctorum, Christo
Mediatore, Eucharistia," with Life and Notes. 1 vol.
Catechisms of the Scottish Church. 1 vol.
Confessions of Faith and Canons of the Scottish Church, with Historical Introductions,
Notes, &c. 1 vol.
Bishop David Lindsay's (of Brechin) Works, including his " True Narration of the Proceedings
in the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland holden at Perth, 25th August 1618, with a
Just Defence of the Articles therein concluded against a seditious Pamphlet," with Biographi
cal Sketch, Notes, &c. 2 vols.
Bishop Guthrie's (of Dunkeld) " Memoirs, from 1637 to the Death of King Charles 1.,'' with
Biographical Sketch. 1 vol.
The Scottish Liturgy of 1637, and Scottish Communion Office, with Historical Introductions
and. Notes. 1 vol.
Charges delivered on Various Occasions by Scottish Bishops to the Clergy of their respective
Dioceses. 1 vol.
History of Scots Affairs from 1637 to 1641, by Mr. James Gordon, Parson of Rothiemay, in
Banffshire ; with Extracts from the Eirk-Session Register of Rothiemay. 3 vols.

The following Works have been selected as the Society's PubUcations for 1844 : —
1st Volume of Bishop Keith's History of the Affairs of Church and State in Scotland, from
the Reformation to 1568 ; with Life, and Appendix of Illustrative Documents.
1st Volume ofthe Works of Bishop Sage, with Life.
1st Volume ofthe Spottiswoode Miscellany.
Should the number of the Society's Subscribers permit, an additional Volume will be pubUshed.

The following Works are in the course of preparation, with a view to future publication : —
History of the Church and State of Scotland, by Ai-chbishop Spottiswoode ; with a Life, Notes, &c.
Collections for the Ancient Ecclesiastical Statistics of Scotland.
The Works of the Rev. Henry Scougall, successively Professor of Philosophy in King's College,
Aberdeen, and Minister of Auchterless ; including Bishop Burnet's Preface to the " Life of God
in the Soul of Man," the " Notes" on that Treatise pubUshed in 1744 ; his " Nine Discourses,"
and his Funeral Sermon preached by Dr. Garden, with Life, &c.
Memoirs of Archbishop Leighton, illustrated by documents hitherto unpublished.
The Liturgy of St. James op Jerusalem, with Bishop Rattray's Translation and Introduction, Pre
liminary Essay on Liturgies, &c.
" Considerationes Modest/e et Pacific^, &c." of Bishop WiUiam Forbes, (first Bishop of Edin
burgh), with a Translation, Life, and Notes.
Catechisms of the Scottish Church.
The Scottish Liturgy of 1637, and Scottish Communion Office, with Historical Introductions and
Notes.
The Funeral Sermons, Orations, and Epitaphs on the Right Reverend Patrick Forbes, Bishop
of Aberdeen, from the only edition of 1635.
The Works of the Right Reverend William Cowpar, Bishop of GaUoway.
Collections illustrative of the Life and Times of Montrose, from the FamUy Charter-Chest, and
other authentic sources.

EDINBURGH : ALEX. LAURIE AND CO. PRINTERS TO HER MATESTY.

3 9002

.--..SI ,if(vj!; ,*•
I'l-I. ¦* I M

A It* ." i * I