\ ^ .^ ^ >\\ J Calderwood's Hist. iii. 621. 2 Public feeling seems to have been very adverse to him. After his excommunication, his appearance on the streets of Edinburgh caused great commotion. He was "onbeset" and "hued out by flinging of stones at him out at the Kirk of Field port.'' Even the King had no real respect for him. When James heard what had taken place " he lay down on the Inch at Perth not able to conteane himself for laughter, and said he was a seditious loun" (Calderwood's Hist. iii. 634; Chambers' Domestic Annals, i. 149). 3 Calderwood's Hist, iii, 688. 4 Ibid. iu. 631. 46 1567-1592. risk of his life, but he simply replied that he was not afraid. Accordingly, at the head of a deputation, he entered the royal presence, and brought the protest before the King and his Council.^ The courtiers were enraged, and Arran, the favourite, looking fiercely round, de manded, " Who dare sign these treasonable articles ? " " We dare," said Melville, and stepping forward he took the pen and affixed his signature, all the Commissioners following his example.^ For the moment the Council was reduced to silence. The whole liberties of Scotland, civil as well as ecclesi astical, were at that time in danger, and if the danger passed, it was due in no small degree to the Church, and her determined adherence to her own Spiritual Independ ence. The two Court favourites were bent on establishing O absolute government,* and were carrying all before them. As for Parliament and the Privy Council, they were tools in the hands of Lennox and Arran, but the Church stood in the breach, and she did so because her Spiritual Independence was at stake. In worldly politics men may give and take. Even in regard to national liberty, the liberty of the subject, there may be a question of compromise ; but when the secular arm would put down the sacred authority which the Church holds from Christ, she has no choice. Loyalty to Christ her Head is an absolute necessity. Hence that scene at Perth. In > M'Crie's Life of MelviUe, i. 272, 273. 2 The scene is best described in the words of James MelvUle : " When they cam before the Council, Arran begins to threaten with thrawn brow and boasting language. What! says he, wha daur subscryve thir treasonable articles. Mr Andrew answers, We daur, and withal starts to, and taks the pen fra the clerk, subscryves and calls to his brethren who all cam and subscryvit " (Melville's Diary, p. 133). ' 3 Esme Stewart, Duke of Lennox, could teU James how the French King was supreme and absolute, and instil into his mind the doctrines of divine right and passive obedience (Hill Burton, v. 427). Melville goes to England. 47 defence of the Headship of Christ Melville could look in the face all the powers of earth and say, " We dare." When nobles and statesmen were truckling to the influence which threatened to enslave the country the Church, in the consciousness of her Heaven-given responsibility, was fearless, and her example roused the nation to a sense of what was going on. The liberties of the people were saved, but it was the Church which led the' way, and the Church was firm because her Spiritual Independence and her fidelity to Christ were at stake. Our Scottish forefathers, it must be adnitted, were rough in their methods. The Eaid of Euthven took place. The nobles seized the King, held possession of him in the Castle of Euthven, drove Lennox, one of the favourites, away to France, where he died, and shut up Arran, the other favourite, for a time in confinement. After ten months, however, James regained his liberty, Arran was reinstated, the nobles concerned in seizing the King were declared traitors, and had to flee the kingdom. The weight of his displeasure fell on the Church, and especially on Melville, who was put on his trial for a sermon he had preached. He declined the civil jurisdiction of the Privy Council, claiming to be tried first by the Courts of the Church, to whom he was primarily responsible for any thing he said in the pulpit.^ After the decision of the Church was given, the civil court might try him for any * " The whUk [declinature] when the King and Captain James [Arran] with roarings of Uons and messages of death had taken so hot that ali the Council and Court of the palace were filled with fear. ... Mr Andro never jarging [flinching] nor dashed a whit . . . plainly told the King and CouncU that they presumed overboldly ... to tak on them to judge doctrine. And that ye may see your weakness and rashness in taking upon you what ye neither can nor ought to do, lowsing a little Hebrew Byble from his belt aud clanking it down on the burd, these, he said, are my instructions, see if any of you can judge of them" (Melville's Diary, 142). 48 1567-1592. supposed offence, political or civil.^ The result was that this declinature was itself made a crime. He was con demned and ordered to prison at Blackness. As that prison, however, was in the charge of an agent of Arran, his great enemy, the world knew well what that meant. Melville was in Edinburgh. His friends warned him — some of them using the expressive proverb, " Loose and living." Melville, in company with his brother Eoger, quietly " slipped out at the Port," and went off, but not to Blackness. He turned his course towards Berwick, where he put himself under the protection of Elizabeth.^ James and Arran now had their hands free, Melville and the leading nobles being in banishment. Parliament was called in May 1584, and the whole of the previous legislation in favour of the Church was overthrown. It was made treason henceforth to decline the King's juris diction in any question, however spiritual. No Church Court was to meet without his express permission. It was treason to speak against the Bishops as one of the Estates in Parliament. Presbyteries were abolished, and the Bishops were to have full authority in their dioceses. These were known as the Black Acts of 1584, which subverted the Presbyterian Church, and placed the liberties of the nation under the feet of the King. No wonder that Parliament, in passing them, met with closed doors. But though the ministers found themselves locked out, some hint had got abroad of what was intended, and three of their leading men, Pont, Balcanqual, and Lawson, went to the cross when the Acts were being proclaimed, and 1 This should be carefully noted. The Church never claimed that her decision should bar the civil authorities from trying the case before their own tribunals, as aff'ecting civil or political interests. Her only conten tion was that a minister was responsible in the first instance to the courts of the Church for what he said during divine service in the pulpit. ^ Melville's Diary, 144, The Black Acts. 49 having taken a formal public protest, so as to suspend their legal force, they instantly disappeared, going off to England.^ Arran was enraged, publicly stormed against the three protestors, and especially against Lawson, Knox's successor at Edinburgh, declaring that he would yet " make his head leap from his halse." It was going to be a life or death struggle, in which the courtiers were resolved to crush the Church and her spiritual independence. But here James' statecraft also came into action. All ministers must within forty days sign a bond engaging to carry out the Black Acts, on pain of losing their stipends. At first men generally refused. On the suggestion of Adamson, however, the King introduced a clause stating that they were only to agree to the Bond in so far as it was agreeable to the Word of God,^ and in this form not a few even of the most faithful signed it. The Church found it was a difficult time. It was ill contending for her spiritual independence against the hostility of James, the overbearing fierceness of Arran, and the unscrupulous craft of Adamson. But better times were at hand. Arran had overshot the mark. The country was weary of him.* The English Queen saw that the time had come. The banished Lords came back across the border, men flocked to their standard, and they presented themselves at Stirling before the King, at the head of eight thousand men. Arran fled, and disappeared from public life. The King welcomed the Lords, and the whole administration was changed. Melville and his friends were disappointed indeed. The noblemen 1 Pont thus lost his office as Lord of Session, which he had held. 2 "The clause added to sophisticate the bond was repugnant to the matter and argument of it" (Calderwood's Hist. iv. 247). 3 The English Ambassador writes, " It is incredible how universally the man is hated by all men of all degrees " (HiU Burton, v. 501). D 50 1567-1592. once more failed the Church, all except the Earl of Angus. They had their own ends to serve. The King, however, was got to recognise the jurisdiction of the Church. An explanation was issued professing to modify the Black Acts of 1584, but it took some time before they were repealed. It is important to observe that during these years the Church had been again and again trying to have the , two jurisdictions, the civil and the spiritual, defined, and she had often done this in circumstances which showed her determination. In 1571, for example, the whole country was in the uproar of civil war. The King's party had stormed Dumbarton Castle and hanged Archbishop Hamilton. The Queen's party, with their cannon thunder ing from Edinburgh Castle, kept the city in awe. They attacked the Court at Stirling, and killed the Eegent Lennox. Calmly amid the uproar the Church goes on with her purpose. Men might fight as they pleased, and take each other's lives, but here is the sacred question of the Church's jurisdiction, and it must be attended to come what may. Nor will she suffer any injury to be done which she can prevent. A book was published in Edinburgh, for example, in 1568, on the fall of the Eoman Kirk, in which the King was said to have been the Supreme Head of the primitive Church. This was not to be endured. The Assembly ordered the book to be suppressed. Not only must the printer call in every copy, but in all future time he must publish no book on any religious subject without the Church's permission.^ 1 Book of Univ. Kirk, p. 100. Another Book issued by the same printers was brought before the Assembly along with the above, and was found to be so objectionable that the Church had to interfere as the guardian of public morality. Hence the severity of the sentence. It should be remembered that there was then no freedom of the press in the modern sense. Civil War. 5I There were cases also in which the civil and ecclesias tical authorities came in contact with each other, and the Church held her own. In 1570, for example, Eobert Hamilton, minister of St Andrews, was brought before the Assembly and charged with preaching objectionable doc trine. Three Lords of Session appeared at the Assembly, and declared that the sermon was said to have been treasonable, and they claimed that the Church should leave him to be tried by the Courts of Law. To this the Assembly agreed, so far as the question of treason was concerned, but in regard to the charge of heresy the case belonged to them.^ Each of the authorities was to deal with^the case in its own sphere. It was an example of co-ordinate jurisdiction. Twenty years afterwards a similar case occurred, in which a similar solution was found. Simpson, one of the ministers of Stirling, was charged with fraud, and the Assembly took it up as a case affecting the character of a minister. The Lord President, however, and two Lords of Session, appeared at the Assembly, and stated that the case had been called in the Court of Session, and the Church ought to sist procedure till the judges had given their decision. The narrative tells that the Lords were removed till the Assembly should consider the point. Then they were called in and informed that, in so far as the character of a minister was concerned, the Assembly held themselves entitled to go on with the case, not interfering with the competency of the Court of Session in their own department. This, however, was not enough. The Assembly returned to the subject, and after reasoning, 1 This indeed was the view taken by the Judges themselves. Their statement to the Assembly, as reported by Petrie, was that "in such things as concern heresy, or properly belong to their jurisdiction, they [the Assembly] may proceed." The Court of Session expected them to do so (Petrie's Hist. Part iii. p. 368). 52 1567-1592. " they thought meet that the Lord Justice Clerk sould be demanded if he acknowledged the judgment of the Kirk or not, who being called, answered that he acknowledged with reverence the judgment of the Assembly in all causes pertaining to them, but in this case whilk is civil, whereunto the Lords are judges primario, they, the Assembly, can not be judges -primario. After whilk answers his Lordship was removed till the Assembly further adviset, after which they called him in again." This was the way in which the General Assembly dealt with the Judges of the Court of Session in those days, directing them to retire, and calling them back when they were ready for them. Accordingly they called iu the Lord Justice Clerk, and "pronounced that they fand themselves judges primario in this case, and instantly to proceed therein." ^ Here again was co-ordinate jurisdic tion, each Court dealing with the case in its own way, the one to ecclesiastical, and the other to civil effects, and neither interfering beyond its own province. Even in these incidental cases we see the great principle which the Church was determined to uphold. In 1588 the country was roused by the invasion of the Armada. The King at first seemed to hold back, but the General Assembly at a special meeting appealed to him. Then he joined the whole nation in signing a solemn bond of defence, and the result was that the King and the Church were drawn into more cordial relations to each other. One proof of this was seen when in 1589 he went to Norway and Denmark to bring home his bride. In his absence he named Eobert Bruce, minister of Edinburgh, one of the commissioners, to take charge of the govern- 1 Book of Univ. Kirk, pp. 354, 355. The King's Speech. 53 ment ; ^ and so well were affairs managed in his absence that he declared that Bruce was worth " a quarter of his kingdom." Next year James came back in great good- humour ; and when he attended the General Assembly of 1590, he made a speech which fairly carried the house by storm. Melville was Moderator, and had addressed him from the chair. James, in reply, brake forth praising God that he belonged to such a Kirk, the sincerest Kirk in the world. He condemned Geneva for keeping Pasch and Yule; and as for the Kirk of England, its service was nothing but an ill-said mass, wanting nothing of Popery but the liftings. So he ran on, charging his good people to stand by this purity ; and " I forsooth as long as I brook life shall maintain the same against all deadly." The Assembly were in raptures, and Calderwood says that for the next quarter of an hour nothing was heard but praying and praising.^ How far James was sincere it is difificult to say. He dearly loved to hear himself speak. He knew what would please the audience, and may have wished the luxury of a full tribute of applause. But it would be unfair to deny that in his life there are occasions — lucid intervals* — when his better feelings seemed to get the mastery. The true value of that glowing address, however, events were soon to show. In the meantime all went well. The younger Maitland of Lethington (John Maitland) was the King's trusted adviser.* He saw that the influence of the Church was ^ It was evidently on Bruce that he placed his chief reliance. Writing from Elsinore in April, the Chancellor says, ' ' I sail do what I can to haste me home to susteane my part lest ye be overcharged. I know since our departure ye susteane a great burthein " (Calderwood's Hist. v. 93). 2 Calderwood's Hist. v. 106. ^ See another example in the Assembly at Burntisland in 1601. One would be sorry to think that his appearance on that occasion was an act of hypocrisy. * Writing to the Privy Council, James complaius — more suo — of the reports that were spread abroad about Maitland. Men say he is " lead- 54 1567-1592. increasing. For seventeen years Melville had been in charge of the Universities of Glasgow and St Andrews. Young men of talent had flocked to his classes, and had been trained as students never were trained in Scotland before. The recently settled ministers were of this class, and were making their influence everywhere felt.^ Besides, it so happened that the support of the Church at that time was needed both by Maitland and the King. A nobleman had just been murdered — " the bonny Earl of Murray," as people called him. Suspicion feU both on Maitland and the King of having been concerned some how in it, and the leniency with which the murderers were punished raised no small indignation. It was needful to conciliate the Church, and to this in some measure may be ascribed the wonderful turn which affairs took in 1592. In May the Assembly met, with Bruce as Moderator, and resolved once more to lay their requests before the King and Parliament. At last they met with a favourable response. Under Maitland's guidance, Parliament passed the great Act of 1592.^ It ratified the leading portions of the Book of Discipline; it annulled the Black Acts of 1584 in regard to royal supremacy and episcopacy, and in doing so acknowledged the Spiritual Jurisdiction of the Church as already existing. It recognised the full power of Presbyteries and the other courts of the Church to settle ing me by the nose ... as giff I were an unreasonable creatur or a barne that could do nathing of myself" (Register Privy CouncU, vol. iv. p. xlviii.). 1 Principal Lee's Lectures, ii. 117. 2 The Act abrogates and annuls all previous Acts ' ' tending to the prejudice of the liberty of the true Kirk of God presently professed within this realm, jurisdiction and discipline thereof." These previous Acts "sail na wayes be prejudicial nor derogat to the privUege that God lias gevin to the spiritual office-bearers in the Kirk " {see Acts of Scot. Parliament in Compendium of the Laws of the Church of Scotland, pp. 13, 14). spiritual Independence. 5 5 all ecclesiastical affairs. Though it did not completely meet the views of the Church, it went very far in that direction — so far that it has been styled the Charter of the Church of Scotland. In regard to the Spiritual Independence of the Church it, is specially iniportant ; it acknowledged her jurisdiction as 1 already in force, not that she had held it or was henceforth to hold it on the ground of any civil enactment. It was already hers by divine right and by use and wont. An Act of Parliament was certainly needed to repel andi cancel the attack on her jurisdiction which previous Acts ! had made. But Parliament acknowledged the jurisdiction itself which she held and had already exercised as being her inherent right, derived from her Divine Head. How she had claimed this Independence and striven to make it good, we have seen during the preceding years. When the first time of conflict ended in 1567, the Confession of Faith was recognised, and firm ground seemed to have been reached. In this Lecture we have rapidly followed the course of events since 1567, till at last in the Act of 1592 firm ground was again reached — firmer and more advanced than in 1567. The passing of that Act was indeed an event of the utmost importance. Not that the Church took her constitution or derived her authority from any earthly source, she claimed that the Bible was her only rule, and that the jurisdiction which she wielded was the gift of her Divine Head. But that Act of Parliament was thus far the Charter of the Church's liberties, that it enabled her, without hindrance from adverse external influences, to exercise her inherent spiritual functions. These were benefits for which the Church might well be thankful. The fight had been hard, but God had crowned her efforts with success. She held a recognised position in view of the world, and could 56 1567-1592. go on her course unchallenged, exercising the spiritual authority and performing the sacred functions of a Scrip- turally constituted Church. The consciousness of having, under the providence of God, reached such a position might well fill her with gratitude, and make her feel in those days of trial, which were not far off', that if she only continued faithful to her Divine Head, He would he faithful to her in the future as He had been in the past. She thanked God and took courage. LECTUEE IIL 1592-1649. LECTUEE III. 1592-1649. npHE great Act of 1592, which did so much to place the Church in her right position, had unfortunately two serious defects. First, it retained the system of Patronage, with a binding and astricting clause, used long afterwards with fatal effect in the Ten Years' Conflict. It was one of the causes which led to the Disruption of 1843, owing to its being interpreted in a sense which there is good reason to believe it was never meant to bear at the time it was enacted. The second blemish was that the Act reserved to the King the power, under certain limitations, of calling the General Assembly, and this immediately proved a serious bone of contention. Ultimately, in the hands of James and Charles, it was found to involve the whole question of Eoyal Supremacy as against the Church's Spiritual Independence. The first struggle came in connection with Popery. Four years after the invasion of the Spanish Armada, Scotland was again startled with news of an impending assault. A conspiracy had been formed among the Scottish Eoman Catholics, with the Earls of Huntly, Errol, and Angus at their head, and they had such support from abroad as threatened real danger. Popery at that time was greatly dreaded. Not long before, the Massacre of St Bartholomew had sent a thrill of horror through Europe. The Scottish Church was resolved to meet the 6o 1592-1649. danger in earnest ; they excommunicated the Earls. ^ The King, on the other hand, seemed to be trifling with the subject, first condemning the Popish lords, then pardon ing, and then favouring them. At last the Church resolved to make common cause with an influential convention of the laity, who met in Fife, and determined to interview the King at Falkland. In this conference^ James assumed at first a haughty tone, and tried to browbeat the deputation, but Andrew MelviUe stepped forward. Seizing him by the sleeve, he called him "God's silly vassal." As they were now in private, they must let him know their minds, and before all else he is made to hear about the Spiritual Indepen dence of the Church. " Sir, I must tell you there are two kings and two kingdoms in Scotland. There is King James, the head of the commonwealth, and there is Christ Jesus, the Head of the Church, whose subject James the Sixth is, and in whose kingdom he is not a king nor a lord, nor a head, but a member. We will yield you your place, and give you all due obedience, but again I say you are not the head of the Church Sir, when you were in your swaddling clothes, Christ Jesus reigned freely in this land, in spite of all His enemies." James knew that it was time to yield, and he listened respectfully. These wholesome but unpleasant truths, fearlessly spoken, quelled him for the moment, and he promised to deal more strin gently with the Popish lords. Soon, however, his mood changed. At a second inter view, with another deputation, he told them there would never be peace in the land till the marches were " rid " ^ The sentence was pronounced by the Synod of Fife, but "God so blessed the work that the whole Kirk of Scotland approved the same, and it was a special means of preventing extreme danger" (Calderwood's Hist. V. 263). 2 October 1596. Melville's Diary, p. 370. Black of St Andrews. 6i between the two jurisdictions of Church and State. His idea of riding the marches was that these three points must be conceded to him : 1. The General Assembly must never meet without his permission ; 2. No act or law of the Church should be valid till ratified by himself, the same as if it were an Act of Parliament ; and 3. No minister must refer in the pulpit to any public affairs ^ or matters of State. Here was a frank and open declaration of Erastianism. He must have the Church placed under his feet. The conflict which followed we must briefly trace. On James's side, the fight began at once. David Black, minister at St Andrews, was put on trial before the Privy Council, owing to some reports of what he had said in the pulpit. Black declined their jurisdiction, denied the charges as false and calumnious, and claimed to be tried in the first instance by the Church.^ The Council went on, and found the charges of such a kind that the King admitted " he did not think much of that matter." They condemned him, however, for declining their jurisdiction, and sentenced him to banishment. He was charged " to enter his person in waird in a part by-north the North Water upon his own expenses." * We know what James's views were from a book which came to light three years later. "A principal part of a King's duty," he holds, lay in ruling the Church. Among other things, it belongs to the King to judge when preachers wander from their text, and those who refuse to submit to his judgment in such cases should be capitally ¦^ Calderwood's Hist. v. 451. 2 In that trial before the Privy Council, Petrie tells us "David was wonderfully assisted with courage and wisdom, and the brethren also who were appointed to assist him, especially Robert Bruce " (Petrie's Hist. Part in. 522 ; M'Crie's MelviUe, ii. 70-81). ' Calderwood's Hist. v. 498. 62 1592-1649. punished.^ The preacher was to stand in the pulpit on peril of his life, if he took a different view of his text from what pleased the King If these were his views, it is no wonder that the ministers took a firm stand. When Black's case came on, the Church through all her Presby teries was moved, and joined together to present a solemn protest, signed by upwards of 300 ministers.^ James, however, had the power of the sword. Black had to go into banishment, and the King was to fix what further punishment should be inflicted on him. Then it was that Bruce, one of the noblest men in the ranks of the ministry, standing side by side with his brethren, and speaking in their name with simple dignity, told James and his advisers that if it had concerned the life only of Mr Black, or of a dozen more of them, the matter would have been comparatively trifling ; but it was the liberty of the Gospel and the sover eignty of Christ which was assailed, and they must oppose all such proceedings at the hazard of their lives.* For a moment the King was arrested in his course. Black had indeed to yield to the sentence, but Bruce's words, and the resolute front presented by the ministers banded together, convinced James that such violence would not do. Changing his course, therefore, he set himself from that time to get the Church by her own act to place herself in his power. It is a study full of painful interest to mark the steps by which, unscrupulously and skilfully, he goes to work. ^ Basilikon Doron (M'Crie's Melville, ii. 161-62). 2 "Diligence was used in gathering subscriptions, so that in a short space the hands of about 400 were at it. None so diligent as John Spottiswood, afterwards Archbishop of Santander. Howbeit he even then revealed unto the King all their counsels and proceedings, either by him self, or sometimes by a courtier with whom he was famiUar. He was the only suspected Judas among the ministers at that time " (Petrie's Hist Part. iii. 521). * Calderwood's Hist. v. 482. James's Kingcraft. 63 never pushing matters so as to provoke an outbreak,^ but stealthily and steadily moving on towards the end he desired. First he would get Bishops appointed who would be subser vient to his will — through them he would get a subservient Church — then, by her own consent, he would break down her spiritual independence, and then all would follow as he wished. He would be as absolute a monarch in Scot land as Francis or Henry were in France. He began his operations in the Assembly which met at Perth in 1597. A large contingent of men favourable to his views were brought down from the North. The Eoyal Commissioner stirred their jealousy against their South-country brethren, and prevailed on the Assembly to lend the King so far a favourable ear. Soon after, the Assembly again met at Dundee, where he was personally present, and got a Committee appointed which proved a tool^ in his hands — "a wedge," as Calderwood says, " taken out of the Church to rend her with her own forces." The following year (1598) it was proposed to have some ministers in Parliament to represent the brethren. They need not be Bishops, he said — call them only Commisioners — no prelacy was to be thought of like that in the Church of Eome or Church of England. This was too plausible, however, some men said. An old minister, for example, in the Synod of Fife thought it was too like bringing in the Bishop after all, " Busk him, busk him as bonnilie as ye can, we see him weel eneuch. We can see the horns of his mitre." * Two years afterwards, when the Assembly met at 1 In some instances this was due to the Privy Council holding him back (M'Crie's Melville, ii. 207 ; see also Calderwood's Hist. vii. 607- 610). 2 "The King's led horse," people called it (Calderwood's Hist. v. 644). 3 Melville's "Diary," 437. 64 1592-1649. Montrose, 28th March 1600, a further step was taken.i Bishops were to be appointed ; restrictions were imposed indeed; they were to be called Commissioners, not Bishops, and there were other conditions which James promised to observe. These safeguards were stringent enough, but no sooner was the Assembly over than he broke his word, and three Bishops ^ were at once appointed unconditionally. It is strange to observe how skilfully he could avail himself of passing events to further his design. An instance of this was seen in regard to the Gowrie Con spiracy, a singular occurrence which took place in 1600. Because the ministers, like most other men, at first refused to believe the rather incredible story which James told, he made it an excuse for banishing some of the ablest and best of them, including Bruce. In 1603 he ascended the English throne, and a new scene opened. Before leaving for London, he went on Sabbath to the Church of St Giles, and addressed the people with many fair promises. In his first address, however, to the English Parliament he avowed his deep hatred to Puritans and Presbyterians, and certainly in Scotland it was soon seen what his promises were worth. At once a struggle began over the question as to the right of the King to call or dismiss the General' Assembly, and James fought the battle as if he were determined to subjugate the Church ; while the Church stood fast, under the conviction that her whole Spiritual Independence was at stake. A meeting of Assembly had been formally appointed to be held at Aberdeen in July 1604, but a royal mandate was issued proroguing it till the following year. The 1 "Force and falsehood prevailed " (Calderwood's Hist. vi. 20). 2 M'Crie's " Melville," ii. 144-151. The Assembly of 1602 is the last acknowledged by the Church as a free and lawful Assembly tUl that of 1638. The Aberdeen Assembly. 65 representatives from St Andrews, however, went north at the appointed time, and took a protest against what the King had done. This kindled a flame, and led to keen debates all over the Church. In 1605 the King took a still stronger step. He prorogued the Assembly, and named no day for the next meeting, as if determined to assume the power of suppressing the Court altogether. On the other side, the Church boldly faced the position, and resolved to meet at the appointed time. A body of ministers accordingly appeared.^ They found the King's Commissioner there, with a royal letter commanding them to disperse, but in order to receive the letter it was necessary for them first to constitute the meeting. This was done, and when the letter had been received and read, a messenger-at-arms entered, and in the King's name ordered them to retire, on pain of rebellion. They agreed to comply, asked the Commissioner to name a day for the next meeting, and on his refusal they appointed the Assembly to meet on the last Tuesday of September.^ Yielding so far to the King, they had yet vindicated the right of the Church to hold the meetings of her own Assembly. The King was furious. He was King of England, and resolved to trample down all resistance. Of the nineteen ministers who met at Aberdeen, fourteen of the most influential were cast into prison, and brought to trial at Linlithgow for high treason. In conducting the trial, the most shameful course was taken by the Government officials. The Lord- Advocate, writing to the King afterwards, says that if he had not packed the jury the ministers would have been acquitted. ' Only nineteen were present. The state of the weather made attend ance difficult. It was besides a perilous step they were taking. 2 M'Crie's MelvUle, ii. 201. E 66 1592-1649- When the jury retired, they were interfered with by the Justice Clerk. They had been warned that if they did not convict they would be tried themselves, and their lives and fortunes be at the mercy of the King. A verdict was thus extorted, condemning the accused by a majority of three. The result was that eight of the ministers were banished to the remote Highlands, where several of them soon sank into the grave ; six of the more eminent were banished to France. At this point the Independence of the Church was felt to be the question which overshadowed all else.^ In stating what that question involved, it would be difficult to find the matter put more clearly than by Welsh, one of the sufferers. He was in prison at Blackness, awaiting his sentence on a charge of treason, when he wrote his well-known letter to the Countess of Wigton. He and his fellow-sufferers, he tells, were witnesses to this truth, that "Jesus Christ is the King of saints, and that His Church is a most free Kingdom, not only to convene, hold, and keep her meetings and assemblies, but also to judge of all her affairs, in all her meetings and conventions, amongst her members and subjects. These two points — (1) that Christ is Head of His Church, and (2) that she is free in her government from all other jurisdictions except Christ's — these two points, I say, are the special cause of our imprisonment, being now convicted as traitors for the maintaining thereof. We have ever since been waiting ^ There was indeed another great constitutional principle for which they contended. By statute it was enacted that the General Assembly was to meet once a year. The q[uestion, then, was whether the King could by royal proclamation set the law aside. Could the King, in the exercise of his own arbitrary will, set himself above the law ? This was the battle which was afterwards fought out with the Stewart kings in England to the bitter end. The Scottish Churchmen were already standing in the breach, and bearing the first brunt of the conflict (M'Crie's MelviUe, n. 203). Welsh at Blackness. 6 J with joyfulness to give the last testimony of our blood in confirmation thereof." ^ Never were the principles of the Free Church more strongly held, or more strikingly expressed, than by Welsh when he wrote thus down in the dungeons of ' Blackness. The sacred powers with which Christ has invested His Church must be fearlessly upheld. Face to face with the King and all the terrors of persecution, they must be loyal to Christ and His cause on earth. Welsh and five of his friends, as we have seen, were banished to France. The next step was to summon to London eight of the leaders.^ The most formidable of all, Andrew Melville, was thrown into the Tower, and was afterwards allowed to retire to France, where he died. Thus by imprisonment and banishment James was cutting down the most influential men in the Church, and he could push forward his schemes more freely. In 1610 a bolder step was taken. The Assembly which met at Glasgow consisted very much of his nominees ; and he got two things settled — first, that he was to have the full power of calling and dissolving Assemblies; and, second, that the Bishops were to have complete control in their several dioceses. There was some difficulty in gaining over the Assembly, but at last actual bribery was brought to bear.* The gold coins called angels were found to be powerful auxiliaries ; the Commissioner was said to have a plentiful supply, and knew how to use them.* In the popular ^ Select Biographies, Wodrow Society, i. 23. 2 Calderwood's Hist,, vi. 480. ^ It was alleged that the money was given for travelling expenses, but Calderwood shows this was a pretext.; it was for votes (Calderwood's Hist. vii. 97, 98). ¦* The supply came to an end, however. "Johne Lawder, minister at Cockbumspeth, comming late when there was nothing resting to be dealt but ten pund fourtie penneis lesse, was content to take that small sowme " {Ibid. ). 68 1592-1649- speech of the day this was known as the "Angelical Assembly," those golden angels having had so much to do in guiding its decisions. Parliament, of course, subse quently ratified its Acts, making them even more strin gently prelatic. The great event of that period, however, was the Perth Assembly of 1618. Careful preparation had been made. The most subservient men were brought up, and Spottis wood acted as Moderator. The attack on the Presbyterian Church did not now concern merely questions of govern ment ; it had to do with the most sacred services of religion. Kneeling at the Lord's Supper, Episcopal confirmation, the keeping of holidays, and other obser vances were to be introduced — in short, the well-known five articles of Perth. A letter was read from the King unduly to influence the Assembly, and other extraordinary means were used.^ The question, for example, on some of the points, was put to the vote in this form, " Consent to the articles or disobey the King?" Even then Lord Ochiltree and forty-six members voted against the articles. Formally, however, they were adopted and passed. It was not till three years afterwards that Parliament ratified what had been done, and then, even in that subservient body, the minority was formidable. The day on which the royal assent was given was much observed. Men told how the heavens grew dark with portentous gloom; and when the royal sceptre touched the Acts, there came loud successive peals of thunder, followed by a deluge of such rain, with hail, as had hardly ever been seen in Scotland. The day was long remembered as the Black Saturday.^ 1 Calderwood's Hist. vii. 308-332. 2 Calderwood's Hist. vii. 505. The care with which such circumstances were noted shows the state of feeling in the country. Death of King fames. 69 Another of James's doings was the setting up of the Court of High Commission (Feb. 1610), a body of men chosen by him, and invested with arbitrary powers entitling them to set the law at defiance ; and with their aid the King and the prelates were soon hard at work breaking down the Presbyterian Church. The leading ministers were banished from their parishes; the Prin cipal of the University of Edinburgh and one of the professors at Glasgow were dismissed. Among the laity high-handed measures were taken. Some Edinburgh citizens had complained of the doctrine preached by William Forbes, one of James's favourite ministers, after wards a Bishop. They were tried, condemned, and fined or imprisoned, and in some cases banished.^ Criti cising a Court preacher was dangerous work. These things ran their course during the last seven years of James's reign. The Easter of 1625 was to have been celebrated with special pomp, according to the Perth Articles. All was ready, in obedience to the King's directions, but he died on the 27th of March, and there were few to mourn his departure. The character of James does not stand high with any party. George Buchanan had given him the best education to be had in those times, but the result was disappointing. All through life he had favourites on whom he leaned, creatures who flattered him. In his conversation there was a strange mixture of cleverness and silliness. He loved to talk, and went on freely saying smart and often shrewd things, but mixed with such pedantry and frivolous folly that men could not look upon him with respect. And yet he was a man of fixed ideas, wrong-headed, and morally a low, mean-minded man ; still he could lay his plans, and choose his agents, 1 Calderwood's Hist. ii. 596-610. 70 1592-1649. and bide his time. Lord Moncrieff, in a recent lecture, has ably sketched his character, and given prominence to this feature of it. James in a sense was only too success ful. He broke through the Church's Spiritual Independ ence. He imposed — so far as law could do it — the Episcopal system on his country. He was no weak man who could do this in the face of opposition such as he had to encounter. The change, indeed, was all on the surface; the Church and the country were unchanged. It was soon to be seen that Presbyterian Scotland stood where Scotland had always stood since the days of Knox.^ It shows James's power, however, that he could outwardly succeed even so far as he did. When he died, the whole Kingdom was fermenting with the elements of discord and resentment. The old nobles keenly felt the haughty airs which the upstart Bishops took on themselves. The people were still more bitter. Episcopacy was the badge of subjection to English power. The very name of Bishop was distasteful, and the men whom the King appointed were in many cases little fitted to win respect for themselves or for their office. In these circumstances, Charles came to the throne, with all his father's despotic principles, but without his father's skill in guiding affairs. He began with a proclamation, 1st August 1625, enforcing the Perth Articles, and when the Synod of Lothian afterwards petitioned to be released from their observance, he not only indignantly refused, but ordered the petitioners to be punished— the result being that there was no observance of the Lord's Supper that year in Edinburgh. 1 Even before James's death there were many evidences of this. In 1624 the conforming ministers of Edinburgh complained to the Privy Council that " they could have no peace with the people so long as other Charles I. 71 Similar mistakes were soon afterwards committed by him. It was a blunder in policy when, in November 1625, it seemed as if he were about to endow the Bishops by taking back from the nobles the lands granted to them. It was a blunder when he wanted to regulate the dress of the clergy in 1633. It was a blunder when he roused public indignation by the prosecution of Lord Balmerino, whom he got condemned in 1634, and yet had to pardon under the pressure of public opinion. But still more disastrous for Charles was his ill-fated attempt to introduce the Book of Canons and the Liturgy. It was done against the advice of Spottiswood, by the influence of the younger prelates, the followers of Arch bishop Laud.^ In May 1635 the Book of Canons was imposed, under the great seal. It subverted the Presbyterian system, overthrowing purity of worship. As for the Liturgy, they resolved to have a special book prepared for Scotland. It was submitted to Laud, who made numerous changes, bringing it nearer the Eomish service.^ Then, -in Decem ber 1636, an order was issued by the Privy Council enjoining its observance, and empowering the Bishops to require all the clergy to provide themselves with two copies, on pain of being declared rebels. Meantime a feeling of indignation had been rising. ^ The nation was more intensely Presbyterian than ever, and the condition of affairs had got to be almost intoler able. On the 23rd of July 1637 the crisis came, when in the Church of St Giles the Liturgy was attempted to be ministers, specially the deprived and silenced, resorted to the Town and keeped private Conventicles" (Calderwood's Hist. vii. 611). 1 Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury, "was the ruler of Scotland in so far as to control those large policies in which the vital interests and aspirations of the people centred" (HUl Burton, vii. 141). 2 Kirkton, p. 30. 72 1592-1649- read, and either Jenny Geddes or some one else flung the stool. The congregation broke up in confusion — the event sounded through the land like a call to arms. Scotland rose, and the reception of the Liturgy from that day was hopeless. Then it was that the right man came forth from his retirement to guide the national movement. Alexander Henderson was minister of Leuchars, a small parish in the county of Fife. He had been ordered by Archbishop Spottiswood to buy the Liturgy and use it in Divine worship. He was willing enough to buy it, but as to using it he took a decisive step. He came to Edinburgh, and, acting along with three of his brethren, he petitioned the Privy Council to arrest the orders of the Archbishop. They agreed, and issued their arrest. All that was required was the purchase, not the use, of the Liturgy. Henderson had thus checked the career of the prelates, and taken the first step in that course of action in which he proved himself a bom leader of men. Charles's own conduct made the matter worse. He sent a threatening letter from London, which exasperated the nation. They gathered from all quarters to Edinburgh. Various proceedings took place, till at last it was evident that some decisive step must be taken if the liberties of the country, both religious and civil, were not to be overborne.^ A solemn fast was observed, consultations were held, and a momentous resolution was adopted 26th February 1638. There must be a National Covenant. It was drawn up by Henderson and Johnston of Warriston on the old lines of that of 1581, and after being revised by the Earls of Eothes, Loudon, and Balmerino, a day was appointed for having it signed. At Edinburgh, accordingly, in the Greyfriars Church- 1 BaUlie's Letters, i. 25, 26. Signing the Covenant. 73 yard, on the memorable 28th of February 1638, this was done with great solemnity, in the midst of a vast assembly of people. The Earl of Sutherland led the way, and men of all ranks followed, some signing with their blood, and some adding the words " till death." This national covenant was more simple than the Solemn League and Covenant adopted five years after wards. It bound men to resist Popery, it vindicated the Presbyterians from the charge of rebellion, and contained a solemn engagement to continue in profession and obed ience to the true reformed religion, renewing at the same time their vows of allegiance to the King and in defence of the liberties and laws of the kingdom. All over the land, especially in the south and west, the signing of this Covenant was carried on till the end of April, The spectacle paralysed the Privy Council. It appalled Spottiswood, who exclaimed, " Our work of thirty years is overthrown at a single stroke.'' He left the country, went to London, and soon afterwards died.^ At first the prelates counselled war, but when news came from Inverness and the Highlands that the Covenant was finding support in the North, Charles was staggered. His English advisers were in favour of peace, for his relations with his own subjects at home were getting dangerous. Feeling that he must temporise, he sent the Marquis of Hamilton as Commissioner to hear the grievances of the Covenanters. His private instructions were to make fair promises, gain their confidence, find out their secrets, and overreach them. That was Charles's idea of statesmanship. It is pitiful to see such an attempt to deal with men of the calibre of Henderson and his friends, whose sagacity has never been surpassed. Behind it all, 1 Stevenson's History, p. 212. 74 1592-1649- however, Charles's object was to gain time.^ The Marquis accordingly came down, and on approaching Edinburgh, as he rode along from Musselburgh to Holyrood, he met with a royal reception. There was a long array of nobles, centry, and people, drawn out to do him honour, and as he passed through the lines he is said to have been deeply moved to see so many of the best of his countrymen grave, devout, earnest men, waiting to receive the message which he brought. The Conferences began, but the Covenanters cut the matter short. There were two things they must insist on as essential— a free meeting of the General Assembly, and a meeting of Parliament empowered to give redress. Unless both demands were agreed to, there was no need to confer further. Various negotiations took place. HamUton tried to shake them, but they were firm. Hints even began to be thrown out that they might hold an Assembly without asking the King's leave. When it came to this, it was time for the Commissioner to go back to London, and let Charles know the state of affairs. Warlike preparations he found were in full . progress in the South. He was sent back, with instruc tions to divide the Covenanters. He came, but the attempt failed. Then he agreed to the calling of an Assembly on certain conditions, but that also failed. The Covenanters would not be trifled with. At last matters came to a point. It was formally proposed to hold an Assembly whether Charles would or not. The Marquis asked a delay of twenty days, and again set off for London. In the meantime the Presby terians, in his absence, went on with their preparations 1 " I give you leave to flatter them with what hopes you please, your chief end being now to win time, until I be ready to suppress them," etc. (Instructions quoted by Hetherington, History, p. 292). The King yields. 75 as if the holding of the Assembly had been a foregone conclusion. The time wore on, and after some further procedure, the King gave in. The Marquis came back to say that the General Assembly would be held on the 20th of November, in Glasgow, and Parliament would meet at Edinburgh on the 15th of May 1639. The Five Articles of Perth, the Liturgy, and the Book of Canons were revoked, the Court of High Commission was abolished, and a free pardon granted for all offences during the late contentions. It must be admitted that, when Charles yielded, he did so with little reserve.^ But with all this, there was mischief in the air. He was busy with preparations for war ; and the Cove nanters, on their side, recalled General Leslie from the Continent, to be ready to act in self-defence. Meantime, on the day appointed, the Assembly met at Glasgow, and, by general consent, Alexander Henderson was chosen Moderator, as the leader best fitted to deal with such a crisis.^ Hardly less important was the clioice of a clerk so able as Johnston of Warriston. The Kii:g was again represented by the Marquis of Hamilton. There was much prayer before the Assembly met, and afterwards during the proceedings. Of these proceedings, no account can here be given, except in so far as they affected the question of Spiritual Independence. At the outset, the Eoyal Commissioner offered obstruction on various points, but the crisis came when the Bishops were put on trial. They declined the Assembly's jurisdiction, and the Commissioner interposed, ^ "The Bishops are to be handed over for trial to the Assembly. The King and his Court are virtually to become Covenanters" (HiU Burton, vi. 507). 2 He was "incomparably the ablest man of us all for all things " (Baillie's Letters, i. 122). 76 1592-1649. protesting against the Assembly as incompetent. He demanded that they should dissolve. Henderson and the Earls of Eothes and Loudon replied to his objections— they would much regret if the Commissioner should leave them, but the Church must do her duty. The Marquis answered that he stood on the King's prerogative, and he called on the Moderator to close the Assembly. Hender son refused. It was a case of direct conflict between the two jurisdictions. Hamilton, representing the King, and Henderson, representing the Church, stood face to face. The nobles, the barons, the gentry, as well as the clergy, were there; the whole country was looking on. The gauntlet had been thrown down. Is the civil power to put down the Assembly and close its doors, or is the Assembly to hold the field, and let the civil power do its worst ? The fatal thing for Charles was that the Assembly were conscious not only that they were within their rights, and were acting on Divine authority, but that they had the support of Scotland behind them. The resolute will of the nation was there. Fearlessly Henderson accepted the challenge. The Eoyal Commissioner did his part. In the King's name, he declared the Assembly dissolved, and retired. The Earl of Eothes stepped forward, and protested against his departure. Henderson rose to the occasion, addressing the Assembly in a speech f uU of encouragement. Others spoke, and then, by a vote all but unanimous, the Assembly resolved to continue till the Church's business was finished. The King had withdrawn his sanction, and professed to have dissolved the Assembly. The Assembly vindicated her own inherent right of jurisdiction, and went on with the work in hand. In the proceedings that followed there was no haste, but there was no delay. All Acts in favour of Prelacy The Walls of Jericho. yj and the royal supremacy were annulled, the Liturgy, the Book of Canons, the Five Articles of Perth, were swept away; and by an Act unanimously passed. Episcopacy was " abjured," as they express it, " in this Kirk, and cast out of it," and Presbyterianism again formally set up. No matter for the Acts of Parliament passed under James. The Assembly, acting for the nation, made a clean sweep of the whole. The trial of the individual Bishops went on,^ with the result that they were all deprived of their offices, and eight of them, against whom serious charges had been found proved, were deposed and excommunicated. Henderson, it is said, pronounced the sentence "in a very dreadful and grave manner." ^ Other proceedings took place, to which we cannot here refer, and at last the Assembly, one of the greatest in Scottish Church history, came to an end. It was closed by Henderson in a speech of singular power, and after formally dissolving the Court, and pronouncing the benediction, he is said to have uttered the memorable words, "We have now cast down the walls of Jericho ; let/ him who rebuildeth them beware of the curse of Hiel the! Bethelite." * Out of this great struggle, then, the Church had once more risen victorious; she had made good her claim to Spiritual Independence. It was not by any formal assertion of it, but by simply acting on it. She made men see it ; she made the King and the Court, and the Bishops, feel it, and she did so only that she might use it in doing what she believed to be her Master's work. 1 "Even under the Acts of 1600, the Assembly had the power" (M'Crie's Melville, ii. 151). 2 BaiUie's Letters, i. 168. ' Stevenson's History, p. 352. 78 1592-1649- No sooner was this Assembly over than the King resolved to precipitate the war, and put down by violence the men who had sworn the Covenant. It is not for us to follow the course of public events — the swearing of the Solemn League and Covenant, the calling of the West minster Assembly, and the adoption by the Scottish Church of the Westminster Standards. Tn these the Second Eeformation was completed, and in the Confession of Faith especially the Church's Spiritual Independence was affirmed, in terms so clear as to leave no ground for further question. " Christ as Head of the Church has therein appointed a government in the hands of church officers, distinct from the civil magistrate." There are indeed statements in the Confession which assign to the civil magistrate an important position in regard to religion, but there is nothing that really conflicts with the above. In his own sphere, and by his own methods, he is to give his aid, but it is the Church under Christ which holds the entire jurisdiction in things spiritual. This is by Christ's appointment. The details of the history we must not further trace, nor is it needful to go into the question at issue between the Eesolutioners and Protesters, that most sad of all controversies that ever rent asunder any Church of Christ. It is enough, in closing, if we cast a rapid glance at the result of these fifty years through which the Church has passed. We have seen how James was determined to have Episcopacy established, with a subservient bench of Bishops, and under them a subservient Church, and with the aid of the Church he would overthrow the liberties of the country. We have seen how he wrought on, till he made the Assembly the instrument of its own subjection. He used flattery, he used violence, he used deceit, he used Westminster Confession. 79 bribery, imprisonment, banishment — no weapon came amiss. And then Charles, his successor, imposed his Book of Canons and Liturgy, till Scottish endurance could stand it no longer — the country rose. Scottish principle asserted itself, and all outside show of Episcopacy, together with the whole fabric of supremacy and despotic authority, was swept away. The Presbyterian Church, free in her Spiritual Inde pendence to serve Christ, her only Head — the nation banded together as one man to contend for civil liberty as dearer than life — that was the outcome of the long conflict. For the time, the Church stood fast. But there was something higher and better than all this. The uphold ing of that principle of Spiritual Independence had gone hand in hand with times of spiritual blessing, and side by side with this contending for Christ's Headship there had been a great revival of vital religion in the land.^ One thing was obvious to all observers — the men whose ministry was most blessed were the men who were fore most in contending against the King for the spiritual jurisdiction of the Church under Christ, her Head. To some of the more distinguished of these, did time allow, we would gladly have referred more at length. There was Bruce of Edinburgh, for example, greatly distinguished among his brethren, banished from place to place, but carrying a blessing wherever he went. There was David son of Prestonpans, who led the Assembly of 1696, when ^ Thus in regard to the signing of the Covenant, it is said : ' ' All Presbyterians whose writings of that time we have seen bear witness that a great measure of the Divine presence did remarkably accompany that solemn action, and that its happy influence was everywhere felt and seen. .... The Lord from Heaven did testify His acceptance of that Coven ant, by the wonderful workings of His Spirit in the hearts both of pastors and people, to their great comfort and strengthening in every dutj', above any measure that ever hath been heard of in this land " (Stevenson's History, p. 210). 8o 1592-1649. amid prayers and tears they renewed the Covenant ; and Welsh of Ayr, and Dickson of Irvine, under whose awak ening ministry the religious life of Ayrshire was revived ; and Samuel Eutherford, and Livingston of Ancrum, and many another whose praise was, and still is, in all the Churches — on these we must not dwell. Of still deeper interest is the question as to the effect of all this on the religious condition of the Scottish people. There is a well-known passage in Kirkton's History,! which gives a wonderful picture of spiritual prosperity during the interval between the Second Eeformation and the Eestoration of Charles. "Over a great part of the country," he says, " you could hardly lodge in a family where there was not family worship. You could ride far without hearing the sound of an oath. I verily believe there were more souls converted to Christ in that short period of time than in any season since the Eeformation, though of treble its duration. Nobody complained of our Church Government more than the taverners, whose ordinary lamentation was that their trade was broken, the people were become so sober." This statement has been assailed by writers of various different ways of thinking. His own editor, Kirkpatrick Sharp, is utterly out of sympathy with Kirkton. Princi pal Lee, and Principal Cunningham of St Andrews, have recourse to the Kirk-Session records of the time, to show the reverse side of the picture. But no one surely would think of going to the records of Kirk-Sessions, or to the records of the criminal and police courts of any country, as if these could give a fair representation of the condition of society. Those old Kirk-Session records, as Dr Lee shows, are painful to read, but all they prove may simply be the ^ History, p. 65. Kirkton Corroborated. 8i vigilance and faithfulness of the Church in the exercise of discipline. Kirkton himself says (p. 49) that " no scandal could be concealed in all Scotland, so strict a correspondence was there betwixt ministers and congregations." In the Synod of Fife, we find it was enacted in 1650 that "every parish be divided into several quarters, and each elder to have his own for special inspection. . . . Every elder is to visit his quarter once a month at least, take notice of all that was wrong, and relate it to the Session " (Hill Burton, vii. 378). Similar vigilance was exercised in other dis tricts, and if all the immoralities of the country were thus put on record, it is little wonder if the minute books of the Kirk-Sessions had many a dark page. It should also be observed that during these years every care was taken to secure faithfulness and efficiency on the part of the ministers. Commissions of Assembly were sent out over the country, with power to depose any whom they found unfit. In September 1650, for example,- one of these Commissions went through Angus and Mearns to make trial of the ministers, hearing them preach, and examining the work they were doing. On that occasion. Lament reports, "in all 18 ministers were deposed." ^ Kirkton, in a good deal of what he says, professes to speak only of " a great part " of the country. His opinion is the result of his own observation, and of what he learned from those round him. Dr M'Crie quotes the testimony of a minister who lived through the period, and whose account goes to confirm that of Kirkton.^ But ^ Chambers' Dom. Ann. i. 181. 2 Old Mr Hutcheson of Kinellan said to Wodrow after the Revolution, " There was far more of the Spirit and grace of God went along with the sermons in those days than now, and for my part (all the glory be to God) I seldom set my foot in a pulpit in those times but I had, notice of some blessed effects of the Word " (Gillies' Hist. Collections, i. 315, quoted by Dr M'Crie, Sketches, ii. 60). F 82 1592-1649. what I wish to point out is the remarkable way in which his statements are corroborated by some of the most weighty authorities of that time. One of these is Wodrow, of whom it is enough to say that he stands conspicuous among our historical writers for the pains he took to secure accuracy, and the honesty with which Jie recorded the results of his enquiries. He pays the highest possible tribute to this statement of Kirkton's, for he simply lays his hands on it and embodies it almost verbatim in his History.^ For another testimony, I may be allowed to refer to a pamphlet published by my father, Dr Brown of Langton, in 1833, on the eve of the Ten Years' Conflict.^ He had access to the library at Marchmont House, Berwickshire, where he found a large collection of books on Church history, made by the well-known first Earl of Marchmont, a leading Covenanter. Among the rest was a manuscript copy of Kirkton's History, with a note in the Earl's own handwriting to the'following effect: — "This narrative is the production of Mr James Kirkton, minister of the gospel at Edinburgh, a person of great probity, an assiduous searcher of the things which, before his time, had come to pass in the Church of Scotland, and a close observer of what had passed in his time. The Earl of Marchmont, who had been a witness and partaker of what passed in his own time, gives his testimony to the truth of what is herein narrated. Marchmont." This is the estimate of the Earl, formerly Sir Patrick Hume, whose sufferings and adven tures, along with those of his daughter Grizzell, occupy so prominent a place in the romantic incidents of Covenant ing history. He was well known as one of the most trusted " Wodrow's Hist. i. 332. 2 Letter to Dr Chalmers on the settlement of Ministers, etc., p. 13, Edin. 1833. The Power of Religion, 83 counsellors of King William, both before and after the Eevolution. He was raised to the Chancellorship, the office of highest dignity in Scotland; but he knew all ranks of the people, and after living to a great age, he left behind him in Berwickshire not only the reputation of a most popular and esteemed country gentleman, but of a sincere Christian. The testimony of such a man, therefore, which he volunteers in favour of the truthfulness of Kirk ton's statement, deserves the utmost consideration. It may still be that the picture of Scotland's religious condition is drawn by Kirkton in colours too bright. He was an earnest and devout minister, and may have been anxious to look on things in the most favourable light. This may have led him too far ; but with such emphatic testimonies as those of Wodrow and the Earl of March mont, it is impossible to doubt that in its main features, at least, his account is substantially true. And if so — if that was the Scotland of former days, one can only regret that things are so different now. Where is the district of our country in which family worship is all but universal among the households ? Where is the locality in which our modern taverners are complaining that their trade is broken, the people are all becoming so sober ? The whole history of those times goes to show that the religious zeal which contended so stoutly for the Headship of Christ, and the Spiritual* Independence of His Church, was closely identified with the real life and power of religion in the land. And who can wonder that so it should have been ? When men were striving to uphold the honour of their Divine Master, and were oppressed, imprisoned, banished for His sake, it was no wonder that He should own their ministry, and crown their labours with those spiritual blessings which were more to them than all the world besides. To this the whole history of the Church 84 1592-1649. of Scotland bears witness. That great Free Church prin ciple of Spiritual Independence has ever brought its own blessing along with it. God came to refresh His heritage when it was weary. LECTUEE IV. 1660-1690. LECTUEE IV. 1660-1690. TT may well seem that between the Eestoration of 1660 and the Eevolution of 1688 there is little need to speak of the Church's Spiritual Independence ; the whole liberties of the country, civil and ecclesiastical, were over thrown. And yet, even at that time, there were certain important aspects of the question brought out, which are well deserving of notice. I make no attempt to sketch the history of the Covenanters during these years, or to estimate generally their position and character. My simple object is to deal with the question of Spiritual Independence, and with so much of the history as may cast light on that subject. When the King came back and mounted the throne, the Scottish people failed to take any security for their liberties, either in Church or State. The Presbyterians had put themselves into the hands of Sharp, afterwards Archbishop, whom they had sent to London to negotiate with General Monck. He lived on their pay, and there is too good reason to believe that he intentionally deceived and betrayed them. At home, in Scotland, men were carried away by the extravagant loyalty of the time. They had formerly stood by Charles, and, at sore cost to themselves, befriended him when he had no other friends, and now they might well have expected to receive favourable treatment at his hands. But what really para lysed them was the miserable division in their own ranks SS 1660-1690. between the two parties of Eesolutioners and Protesters. The Presbyterianism of Scotland was in a state of collapse, and the result was that Charles mounted the throne without condition or limit of any kind to his authority. The first meeting of the Scottish Parliament was held in January 1661, when the Eari of Middleton, a rough, unprincipled soldier, came as Eoyal Commissioner, and the Government at once set themselves to undo what the Second Eeformation had done. An oath of allegiance was framed, giving the King supremacy not only in all causes civil, but apparently ecclesiastical also. The Solemn League and Covenant was set aside, and by an Act rescissory, they annulled all the Parliaments held since 1633 — an extravagant Act, as Bishop Burnet calls it, "fit only to be concluded after a drunken bout. It shook all possible security for the future, and laid down a most pernicious precedent." ^ Charles soon asserted his power under these Acts of Parliament. On the 14th of August 1661, he wrote that he was resolved, by his own " royal authority," to restore Episcopacy.^ Acting on this. Sharp and three others got themselves ordained as Bishops in London, one of them being Leighton, who soon found how littie fitted he was for that company, or they for him. The following Parliament, in May 1662, not only formally restored Episcopacy, but abolished all Church jurisdiction other than that which acknowledged subordination to the King as supreme.* It was the complete overturn of the Spiritual Independence for which the Church had so long and earnestly contended What Charles's grandfather James had done by gradually getting the Church's own consent, Charles sought to do at a single stroke by the sheer force of an Act of Parliament, ' Burnet's Own Life and Time, i. 200-203. '¦ Wodrow's Hist. i. 230. » IbU. i. 258. Episcopacy Restored. 89 setting up Erastianism and Episcopacy on the ruins of the Church's Spiritual Independence. But there are things which an Act of Parliament cannot do, and this attempt by force of law to make a Presbyterian and spiritually independent Church Epis copalian and Erastian, led to that long, fierce struggle which has made the next twenty-six years one of the darkest and yet one of the most heroic periods of Scottish history. The Church's true position was not to be surren dered at the bidding of King or Parliament. Bishops were set up, however, and then the difficulty came that the Presbyterian ministers would not acknow ledge their authority or have anything to do with them. The Privy Council sought to correct this, and passed an Act ordering all ministers ordained since 1649 to give in their submission to the Bishops before the 1st of November,! on pain of losing their stipends, and if they continued preaching, the soldiers were to pull them out of the pulpit. Bishop Burnet tells, on good authority, that when that Act was passed the members of Council were all so drunk as hardly to know what they were doing. Government had been assured that not ten ministers in the Diocese of Glasgow, and few in all Scotland, would refuse ; ^ but the result was that, on the last Sabbath of October, from two to three hundred ministers preached their farewell sermons, the number being afterwards increased to nearly four hundred. It was a fatal step for the Govern ment; the outgoing ministers were so much respected,* ^ As in the case of St Bartholomew's Day in England, the date was chosen so as to make them lose the stipends of the whole year (Lee's Lectures, ii. 321-2, 325 ; Burnet's Own Time, i. 317). 2 Wodrow, i. 282. ' "Many of them were related to the first families in the country . . . and their piety and kindness to the people secured them universal esteem " (Lee's Lectures, ii. 322). 90 1660-1690. and the incoming men, the curates, so much the reverse. Of these curates, Bishop Burnet, " who lived among them and knew them well," says they were the "worst preachers I ever heard ; ignorant to a reproach, many of them openly vicious — a disgrace to their orders." ^ In the meantime these four hundred outgoing ministers, though a minority, were the true Presbyterian Church of Scotland. They upheld her principles before the country, and at great cost maintained her Spiritual Inde pendence. Charles might speak of his royal supremacy in things spiritual, he might put it in an Act of Parliament, but the Scottish people and that faithful band of four hundred would have none of it. They stood out for their Presbyterian principles and Spiritual Independence. The next point on which the struggle turned was the refusal of the people to attend the parish churches and hear the curates. On this all the power of Government was brought to bear. The King in his royal supremacy must have power to rule the Church, and compel people to worship where he ordered them. This was the point on which that long struggle arose, which was destined to last all Charles's time and on into the next reign, marked by many a dark scene of cruelty and blood. At the outset the parish churches were deserted, the people going off en masse to hear those ministers who had stood faithful. Then came an Act imposing a heavy fine, but it had little effect, and was followed in 1664 by a second Act, empowering the soldiers to plunder the people who attended the conventicles. Strange scenes are described when they waylaid congregations at the hour of dismissal, stripping them and going off laden with booty. But soon a more formidable step was taken. 1 Burnet's Own Time, i. 269. Sir James Turner. 91 The Court of High Commission was set up.^ It was a mere instrument of tyranny, bound by no rules of evidence, empowered to imprison at pleasure and impose ruinous fines — a court from whose bar, it was said, no innocent person was ever known to retire uncondemned — a fitting instrument to enforce Charles's royal supremacy, and crush all human rights, ecclesiastical or civil.^ For some years this went on, but when it was found that on no terms would the people go back to the curates, the Government resolved to try the effect of downright persecution. In 1666 Sir James Turner was let loose with his dragoons to lay waste the south and west of Scotland. For seven months the cruelties were so severe that it seemed as if on set purpose they were meant to drive men into rebellion. At last it came; the people rose in a wholly unexpected way. Some soldiers in the parish of Dairy had seized a defenceless old man ; the report got abroad that they had stripped off his clothes and were proceeding to apply red-hot iron, when his neighbours, unable to stand the sight of such cruelty, rose and rescued him,* one of the soldiers being wounded and another afterwards killed in the struggle. Knowing well the vengeance that would follow, the people kept together — a rising took place, but the country was wholly unpre- ^ "That institution abhorred and dreaded both iu England and Scot land" (HiU Burton, vii. 436). 2 Instances are given by Principal Lee (Lectures ii. 330, 331), as, for example, the following: — "Some parishioners of Ancrum . . . remon strated against the admission of a curate of infamous character, who at the same time enjoyed two other livings. They were brought before the High Commission, and confessed their dissatisfaction. . . . The Com mission immediately sentenced them ... to be scourged through the town, stigmatised [branded with a red-hot iron], and thereafter imprisoned, and with the first ship conveyed to the Barbadoes. For the same opposi tion to the entry of the curate two brothers were soon afterwards transported to the Barbadoes, and their sister barbarously scourged through the town of Jedburgh." s Wodrow, ii. 17, 18. 92 1660-1690. pared, and it led to the disastrous defeat of EuUion Green in the end of November. Of the severities that followed we need not speak. The Government, and, above all others. Archbishop Sharp seem to have taken advantage of the event as warrantmg the most cruel measures. There were fines, often ruinous, for those who had taken any part in the rising — fines even for giving food and shelter to the fugitives — and there were tortures ^ and executions, till at last the Government felt that things were going too far. Sharp was ordered to go home to mind his own diocese, leaving public affairs alone. It was in these circumstances that the first Indulgence was offered in 1669, bringing on again the question of the Church's Spiritual Independence. It arose in this way. Certain ministers were selected ^ as being the most peace able and pliable, and an offer was made that they might return to their parishes on certain conditions, one of which was submission to the Bishops, and another that they should never, in preaching, say a word against the ecclesiastical arrangements recently introduced.* On this understanding they would get back to church and manse ; and if in addition they applied and got collation from the Bishop, they would also get the stipend. Some accepted so far as to get church and manse.* Hardly any went so ^ These trials "were the first to become infamous by the free use of the torture" (Hill Burton, vii. 454). It was observed that from that date the influence of Prelacy declined aud the interests of Presbyterianism gained ground in Scotland (Wodrow, Hist. ii. 120). 2 Besides those selected men who "had lived peaceably," the offer of an income was made to all who would give assurance that they would live peaceably in the future {Ibid. ii. 130, 131). ^ This was called uttering "any seditious discourses or expressions in the pulpit or elsewhere " {Ibid. ii. 130). The meaning was well under stood — they must not preach against the King's supremacy in the Church. * About forty-two in all Scotland (Wodrow, Hist. 134). They lost caste among the people. First Indulgence. 93 far as to get the stipend, but the great majority utterly refused the offer. The grounds of that refusal must be specially noticed. The real point at issue was once more the question of Spiritual Independence. The terms of the Indulgence itself are explicit. The ministers are directed by the King to exercise their ecclesiastical functions " in our name and by our authority." ^ Still more was this seen when Parlia ment was asked to ratify the Indulgence. His Majesty, the Act says, "has authority and supremacy over all persons and in all causes ecclesiastical in this realm." It is an inherent right of the crown " to settle, enact, and emit constitutions, Acts, and orders . . . concerning all ecclesiastical meetings and matters to be proposed and determined therein." ^ This was what Charles had set his heart on — the complete control of the Church in all her doings. On the other hand, the ministers were no less resolute. The temptation to accept the offer was great, to escape from finings and barbarities such as followed the defeat of EuUion Green — still more to get back to church and manse — and above all to the work and to the people whom they loved. But not even for these things could they own Charles as head of the Church. Let us understand their position. Here was the King bent on being absolute and arbitrary ruler in Church and State. In civil affairs he has practically succeeded. Parliament and the Council of State do his bidding — to hear is to obey — the spirit of constitutional liberty is crushed out of them. The Church is the only power that can resist, and what impelled her was the sacredness of these interests which were at stake. When Charles ' Wodrow, Hist. p. 130. 2 Burnet's Own Time, i. 493. 94 1 660-1690. wanted to make himself head of the Church, and, as they believed, to take the place due only to Christ, they could not yield. For the fear of God they dared not. When asked to accept the Indulgence under an Act which put all the sacred authority of the Church under the feet of Charles, the great majority felt that they really had no choice. The Government might do its worst. All except a small minority refused. Failing in this, the Government for the next three years set themselves to put down by force the Conventicles, or field meetings, those great gatherings in which the people assembled to worship God in the open air. Severe laws were enacted, heavy fines were imposed — the Bass Eock was purchased as a prison, and every effort was made to suppress the meetings. But the more they were assailed the more they grew.^ Men came in greater numbers, and they began to come armed. The fines were getting heavier, .for Lauderdale, now a Duke, was the real head of the Government. He had married ; his Duchess was " a woman of most unscrupulous rapacity," and more money was required to support his dignity. At this point there appeared the Second Indulgence of 1672, wider in its scope and more favourable, as some thought, in its conditions. One of its stipulations, however, was strange enough. The ministers were to be coupled together, two and two keeping within the bounds of one parish, in this way confining their influence within narrower bounds. This, like the former Indulgence, met with small success, Blair, minister of Galston, expressing bluntly what many of his brethren felt. When the paper was put into his hands,^ in the presence of the Privy ^ The discourse up and down Scotland [in 1674] was the quality and success of last Sabbath's Conventicle (Chambers' Dom. Ann. ii 368) 2 8th July 1673 (Wodrow's Hist. ii. 216). Blair of Galston. 95 Council, "My Lord Chancellor," he said, "I cannot be so uncivil as to refuse a paper offered by your Lordship, but I can receive no instructions from you for regulating the exercise of my ministry, for if I should receive instructions from you I should be your ambassador'' [not Christ's].^ This was his testimony of allegiance to the Church's only Head. It was boldly spoken, but it cost him his life. The Chancellor "took it heinously ill;" Blair was cast into prison, and amid the sufferings of his confinement he soon died. The Indulgence professed to be an Act of clemency, but after all there were cases in which the refusal or acceptance was practically a matter of life or death. The next point where this question of Spiritual Inde pendence meets us is on the eve of the battle of Bothwell Bridge. But before speaking of that, it may be well briefly to recall the movements which led up to the crisis. The Government were more determined than ever to suppress field meetings. One way of it was that Lauderdale let loose on the country the Highland Host. Seven or eight thousand men came forth from the Popish Highlands with orders to piUage the western counties. For three months they had a rare time, knowing well that the more completely they laid waste the district,^ the better pleased the Government would be.* At last even Lauderdale got ashamed. They were ordered home, 1 Among the more strict Covenanters the ministers who accepted went by the name of the "King's curates." 2 Lauderdale declared "it were better that the West should bear nothing but windlestraws and sandy laverocks than rebels to the King," as he caUed the Covenanters (Sir W. Scott's Tales of a Grandfather, ii. 30). ^ They were instructed to spare the friends of the Government. "It is said, however, that this was a distinction too nice for their comprehen sion." They were "impartial in their marauding," dealing equally with friend and foe wherever plunder was to be had (Hill Burton, vii. 472). 96 1660-1690. and Kirkton the historian tells how sorely they were encumbered on their march by the household furniture, the pots and pans, the beds and bedding, and other booty which they carried off to the Highlands. A force of militia was next raised, and a tax imposed to support them. Garrisons were planted and soldiers quartered on suspected districts. Fines got heavier; a sum of thirty thousand pounds sterling, for example (£368,000 Scots), was exacted from eleven men in the county of Eenfrew, an enor mous amount, considering the value of money.^ A sum of four hundred pounds was set on the heads of Welsh and Semple, two of the outed ministers and leading field preachers. Everything, in short, was done to put down these field meetings. Still the meetings went on, the hearers came armed and in larger numbers, and the meeting places among the wild hills began to be chosen, not merely for the purposes of divine worship, but with an eye also to their fitness as a field of battle. It looked as if another outbreak could not be far off, but what decided the matter was that Claverhouse came on the scene. When Archbishop Sharp was put to death on Magus Moor in 1679, the act was felt by very many of the Covenanters to be both a crime and a blunder. The Government naturally were roused, and their proceedings became so cruel that a party of extreme men banded themselves together, and issued what was called the Eutherglen Declaration. On the anniversary of Charles's restoration, eighty of them fully armed rode into Eutherglen, with Eobert Hamilton of Preston at their head, cast into the bonfires the persecuting Acts of Parliament, and affixed a proclamation to the market-cross, declaring that they ^ See details in Wodrow, ii. 226. Severe Fines. 97 would no longer submit to this tyranny, denouncing at the same time the ministers who had taken the Indulgence. This was open rebellion, the Government held, and the signal was given for Claverhouse to do his worst. A great field meeting was being held at Loudon Hill, in Ayrshire, when the dragoons appeared. The people stood their ground at Drumclog, a position close at hand. Claverhouse gave the order to fire, the Covenanters charged ; the royal troops were broken, and fled, leaving about forty of their number killed or wounded. Claver house himself made a narrow escape. Once more this temporary success led to a rising, for which the country was not prepared. The defeated royal forces retired to Stirling, while the Covenanters, to the num ber of about 4000, gathered at Hamilton Muir, with Eobert Hamilton of Preston as their leader. Several weeks elapsed, but instead of drilling and getting ready for self-defence, they fell into disputes as to the allegiance due to the King, and as to Spiritual Independence, and what should be done about the Indulgence. These ill-timed debates were brought on by the proposal to issue a manifesto, and they fell out as to the terms of it. Never was anything more piteous. The great majority were loyal to the King, but Hamilton and some extreme men stood out. Keen debiates arose, the whole army was disorganised, officer against officer, soldier against soldier, denouncing each other, while the King's army was on the march. It was all very deplorable. The result, when the battle came, was what might have been expected. A small body of Covenanters made a gallant stand till overpowered by numbers, but the army as a whole was helpless, and yielded without striking a blow. Then it was that the real horrors of the persecution 98 1660-1690. began. Our business, however, is not with these cruel details further than to illustrate the great principle which carried our fathers through the ordeal, and to show how deep their convictions were. Of the army which surrendered at Hamilton Muir, some twelve hundred were driven on foot to Edinburgh, marched through the streets, and penned in the Greyfriars churchyard. For five months they were exposed to the weather night and day, with hardly any shelter. Many perished from exposure. Some were executed — five of them on Magus Moor. Two hundred were sent off to be sold as slaves, most of Whom perished by shipwreck ; but worse than all, Claverhouse was let loose, and went through the western counties, earning for himself a name of infamy as the cruellest persecutor of that cruel time. The Covenanters, however, were fearless. A band of their extreme men rode into Sanquhar, 22nd June 1680,^ and affixed a proclamation on the cross denouncing Charles, and casting off allegiance to him. It only added fuel to the flame. The country was overrun, and scenes of cruelty followed in quick succession. At Airsmoss, for example, Cameron fell after that memorable prayer, " Lord, spare the green and take the ripe." His head and hands were cut off; they carried them to his father in prison, and asked if he knew them. The old man took them up and kissed them, while the tears fell fast. "I know them, I know them," he said ; "my son's, my dear son's. It is the Lord. Good is the will of the Lord. He cannot wrong me or mine." ^ The head and hands were afterwards fixed up over one of the city gates of Edinburgh, where for many a day they were seen wasting in sun and shower, keeping alive the memory of the fearless martyr. It is ^ Wodrow's Hist. iii. 212. 2 Scots Worthies, 426. Airsmoss. 99 difficult to conceive of the fierce rage of the Government at the time. Hackston of Eathillet had been arrested when Cameron fell, and was publicly executed, but the atrocious barbarities of the execution are too terrible for description. It seemed as if the Government were thirsting for vengeance in its most outrageous form. li it was expected that this would strike terror into the Covenanters, there never was a greater mistake. A celebrated meeting was held soon after at Torwood, near Stirling. Cargill, the beloved friend of Cameron, preached, and solemnly pronounced sentence of excommunication against the King and six members of his Government mentioned by name. It was a strange irregular pro ceeding, not to be defended ; but the ominous thing was that the country generally responded to it. Even the excommunicated men themselves seem to have felt it; one of them — the Duke of Eothes — not long afterwards owning on his deathbed that he felt the sentence binding. Stronger steps followed, and were fearlessly replied to by the Covenanters. Cargill was arrested ; the price of five thousand merks had been set on his head. He was exe cuted at Edinburgh, and his head and hands fixed like Cameron's over one of the city gates. In 1681 the infamous Test Act^ was passed, one of its noblest victims being the Earl of Argyle.^ The reply to these proceedings was another of those blows which the Government felt so keenly. In the early days of January 1682, forty of the Covenanters, '' It was Erastian in principle, and taken along with the Act of Succes sion passed at the same time, it made the next king, a Papist, supreme over "all persons and in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil" (Hill Burton, vii. 534). 2 He made his escape from prison for the time through the address of his step-daughter, Lady Sophia Lindsay, disguised as her page. He was afterwards executed on this charge in 1685. loo 1660-1690. armed for self-defence, rode openly into Lanark, and, having publicly burned the Test Act, they read aloud a solemn declaration, affixed it on the cross, and left it there. It reiterated the proclamation of Eutherglen and Sanquhar, and asserted the right of the people to throw off the yoke of a Government so tyrannical. The Government were exasperated, but what they felt still more was the arrival of Eenwick from Holland. The field meetings at once revived. Cameron and Cargill were gone ; their boneS' were bleaching over the gates of Edinburgh ; the Govern ment seemed to have triumphed, when, all at once, Een wick appeared ready to take their place. The battle had to be fought over again, and now it was in dead earnest. It was the killing time, as men called it, which began in 1684, when the Government w-ere determined to " cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Commissions were given to the military to try any whom they suspected, and put them to death, with or without the aid of a magistrate. There was no court in the land to which men could appeal. The soldiers were judges and execu tioners all in one. The Covenanters were hunted from place to place, blood-hounds being employed, it is said, to track them, till the wildest retreats, amid mosses and caves, were unsafe. In these circumstances, the Covenanters stood at bay, Eenwick and his friends issued the Apologetical Declara tion,^ announcing that persecution had gone beyond what men could bear. Self-defence had become a duty — and, in order to protect themselves, they must retaliate. Especially must the Intelligencers, as they were called, be dealt with — the spies who made it their business to earn blood- money by deceiving and betraying the people, 1 Wodrow, iv. 148. Death of Charles. loi If after this warning they went on with their work, it was at their peril. It must be confessed that retaliation by private parties, taking the law into their own hands, is a step which in all ordinary circumstances it is impossible to justify. The only defence is, that the fountains of justice were polluted, and the sufferers were subject to cruel oppression enough to drive wise men mad. The threat, however, was enough. It was well known that the Covenanters were men who would keep their word. Not a single instance of retalia tion was ever needed. The informers and spies from that day let them alone. But the Government were worse than ever. What were known as the Bloody Acts were passed. A whole series of ensnaring questions was prepared, to be put by soldiers who scoured the country, at their own good-will, to inflict torture and death. The "machinery of exter mination,'' as it has been called, was complete, and with relentless rigour they were applying it, when suddenly word came that Charles had died, and James VII. mounted the throne, taking his brother's place of supremacy in Church and State. At first the whole aspect of affairs grew darker. Claverhouse was promoted to be member of Privy Council, and aided by Grierson of Lagg, went to work in the country districts. For the mere act of having heard sermons at a field meeting, the penalty was death. The cruelties that followed we need not describe. Who does not know the scene when Brown of Priesthill was shot down at his own door, in presence of his wife and children ? or that time when Andrew Hislop knelt with his Bible in his hand, and refused to draw down his blue bonnet to cover his face, gazing fearlessly at his murderers as he received the fatal volley? Who can forget Margaret 102 1660-1690. Maclachlan and Margaret Wilson, fixed to stakes below the tide-mark, and slowly drowned by the rising waters on the Wigtown shore ? It was cruel work, as case followed case, far more numerous than we can tell. There was one band of 160 persons, who must not be forgotten. Marched with their hands tied behind their backs from Edinburgh, they passed through Fife, Forfar, and the Mearns, on to the gloomy Whig's vault in the Castle of Dunottar. After leaving Brechin they were halted, during a " cold and stormy " night, guarded by soldiers, on the bridge that crosses the North Esk, and an unrecorded tradition tells how, in the dark hours, they were heard by the country people singing the well-known Psalm, "By Babel's streams we sat and wept." Under the privations and tortures which awaited them in the vaults of Dunottar, their numbers diminished. At last the survivors were sent to America as slaves, the men with their ears cut off, the women branded in the face, but the American authorities at once set them free, and all that care and kindness could do was done to give them relief. During these years we have given no details of the tortures that were inflicted — of the boot, for example, with wedges slowly hammered, stroke after stroke, till flesh and bones were crushed — of the matches kept burning between the fingers, inflicting excruciating torture — of the thumbikins,! where the screw was slowly turned till strong men fainted under the agony. It is a record from the details of which the mind gladly turns away. At last, in the second year of James's reign, the fires of persecution began to burn low. The country seemed as if worn out, though there was a gallant band who kept the ' The thumbikins were introduced " on the recommendation of Dalzell who had seen them in Russia" (Chambers' Dom. Ann. ii. 484). Hour of Deliverance. 103 banner flying. The King was a bigoted Papist, and now, he thought, the time had come to introduce Popery. By royal edict liberty was given to the Eoman Catholics, and he soon saw that liberty must also be given to his Pres byterian subjects. Concession after concession was made, till in June 1687 there came an Indulgence of which most of the Presbyterian ministers availed themselves, and some who had fled to Holland returned. The Cam- eronians stood out, and Eenwick, the last of the martyrs, died on the scaffold in February 1688, when Shells at once stepped into his place, and kept the field. But the hour of deliverance had struck ; the Prince of Orange landed, James fled, and the Great Eevolution had come. Here let us pause, and ask what was the meaning of all this. AVhy did our fathers face such an ordeal, and what was the motive that carried them through? In one respect it was a battle fought by them, as Presbyterians and Scotchmen, against Episcopacy in the Church and Despotism in the State. But in another and higher aspect it was a struggle for Christ as the Church's only Head, and for the Church as holding her spiritual freedom and authority direct from Him. The Presbyterians of that day were naturally the defenders of civil liberty. The Episcopalians, on the other hand, were the defenders of the arbitrary power of the Crown. Indeed, they could hardly help it ; they were dependent on the King, leaning upon him as against the nation, and therefore subservient to his will, while the Covenanters in opposing prelacy stood out for political and civil liberty. It is well known that the divine right of kings to absolute authority, and the duty of submissive obedience and non-resistance on the part of the subject, were favourite themes among the Divines of the Episcopal Church both in England and Scotland. On the other I04 1660-1690. hand, Knox and the Presbyterian leaders had imbued the Scottish people with the great principles of civil and religious liberty. The Covenanters in all their contendings were invariably found on the side of the rights and liberties of the subject. Even the extreme adherents of Cameron and Cargill were resolute in their attachment to the cause of law and order as against royal tyranny. They held it, indeed, as a sacred principle that the King must be obeyed in the exercise of all lawful authority, but if he set himself tyrannically above the law the nation was entitled to resist. Civil liberty then was one of the great objects for which our fathers embarked in that struggle, and if Scotland be this day a land of liberty and independence, let us never forget how much we owe to those who in the days of the Kings usurped authority, suffered and bled for the rights and liberties of the people. But great as this p:^inciple of civil liberty was, it may be questioned what would have become of it if it had stood alone. Parliament and the Council of State, who ought to have protected the rights of the nation against the tyranny of the Crown, showed nothing but obsequious ness. So far as they were concerned, the country might have been enslaved. Charles had them under his feet.^ It was the Church which resisted him, and she did so because of still more sacred interests which were involved. The great principle of Spiritual Independence came into action — the sacred truth that the Church has Christ for her only Head, and holds spiritual jurisdiction direct from Him. It was their love and loyalty to Christ therefore which compelled them. Along with this there was the feeling of loyalty to the Covenants which they had sworn, ' The King was "the absolute master of Parliament" (Lauderdale Papers quoted by HiU Burton, vii. 466). Loyalty to Christ. 105 and loyalty to the principles of the First and Second Eeformation, but at the root of it all there was the love and loyalty which they bore to Christ Himself. Zeal for His honour was the great motive which carried them through the struggle, and made them faithful unto death. We find this not only among the ministers, but among the people of all ranks — nothing can be clearer than the testimonies which the sufferers gave. In regard to the ministers, we have seen how far they carried this principle, when so many of them refused the various Indulgences with which they were tempted. It would have been a great thing to get back to their parishes, but those Eoyal Indulgences were all fatally vitiated. They were to be received on the authority of the King, and at his will and pleasure. On this footing the offer could not be listened to. Even though he had made the conditions far wider than they were, yet if men must submit to hold the position as from the King, and at his goodwill — on such a footing they will have none of it. The Spiritual Independence and jurisdiction of the Church was a thing which the King had no right to give as from himself, and they had no right to receive thus at his hands. Already they had it from Heaven as given them by Christ. In this lay the crucial point on which the whole confiict turned. To submit to Charles's claim of royal supremacy would be to deny Christ. They held that the King bringing his authority into things spiritual was thrusting himself into the place which belonged to none but Christ. He was a usurper. To yield to his claim would be to prove themselves unfaithful to their Saviour. The moment that this became plain, the Church had no choice. Men could suffer and die, but they could not surrender. They saw the powers of earth, and, as io6 1660-1690. they believed, all the powers of hell, banded together against them. No matter, Loyalty to Christ was involved in the cause of Spiritual Independence. The question of civil liberty also came in. In that crisis of our history the great Free Church principle proved its vital importance, and ultimately under God it had a decisive influence in securing the freedom both of the Scottish Church and of the Scottish nation." Thus it stood with the ministers, but the people of all ranks were not less resolute and clear in the testimonies which they gave. Wherever you open the " Scots Worthies," or any other of their publications, evidence of this meets you on every page. As the old preface ^ to the " Cloud of Witnesses " expresses it : " This is the most radiant pearl in the Church of Scotland's garland, that she hath been honoured valiantly to stand up for the headship and royal prerogative of her King and Husband Jesus Christ." But it will be best to let the sufferers speak for themselves, and to learn from their own lips what was the cause for which they died. Listen, for example, to James Skene, an Aberdeenshire gentleman of good family : " I lay down my life for owning Jesus Christ's despised interest, and for asserting that He is King and Head of His own Church, and has not deputed any other, Pope, King, or Council, to be His vicegerent on the Earth." ^ Here, again, Captain Paton, who had served with distinc tion under Gustavus Adolphus, and under General Leslie at Marston Moor, and had done all that man could do for the Covenanters at EuUion Green. Standing on the scaffold down in the Grassmarket, he speaks in strong, direct, soldier-like terms, " I leave my testimony as a dying ^ Cloud of Witnesses, p. xix. 2 Ibid. p. 92. Dying Testimonies. 107 man against the horrid usurpation of our Lord's prerogative and Crown right, I mean the Supremacy established by law in this land, which is a manifest usurpation of His crown." ^ Take along with this the statement of a servant girl, Isabel Alison. They brought her in before the Privy Council " a poor lass," as she calls herself, to be questioned and cross-questioned by lawyers and judges and Lords. She managed to let them know her mind, however. They sent her to the Grassmarket to die, and standing on the scaffold, she said, " I told them that they had declared war against Christ, and had usurped and taken His prerogative, and so carried the sword against Him and not for Him. So I think none can own them unless they disown Christ Jesus. Therefore, let the enemies and pretended friends say what they please, I could have my life on no easier terms than the denying of Christ's kingly office. So I lay down my life for owning and adhering to Jesus Christ, He being a free King in His own house, for which I bless the Lord that ever He called me to that." ^ It is needless to multiply such quotations and instances — these are the sentiments which are found to pervade state ments and dying testimonies innumerable. It is the same, with all ranks of the people — the man of culture — the landed proprietor — the gallant soldier — the poor servant girl, they know and can tell what it is they die for — Christ and His royal prerogatives, as King and Head of His Church. For that cause they mounted the ladder or laid down their necks under the axe. It was done in loyalty to Christ, the Church's only King and Head. The Eevolution Settlement we shall afterwards consider, but there is one thing which should be noticed here before we close. The ministers who were expelled in 1662 were ^ Scots Worthies, p. 492. 2 Cloud of Witnesses, p. 126. io8 1660-1690. recognised in 1690 as forming the National Church. These were the men who had stood faithful to her constitution and principles, and they had carried these principles with them outside the Establishment. All along, while scattered and persecuted, they had been the real Presby terian Church of Scotland, and when the storm had passed away it was round them that the nation rallied as the Church of their country. The entire ecclesiastical authority was left in their hands. It lay with them to say who should be admitted and who were to be excluded, Along with the laity who adhered to them, these were the men whom the Government and the people recognised as forming the Church of Scotland. They were sadly reduced in number ; a broken band of sixty survivors Were all who remained of the original four hundred. Before the fierceness of persecution they had been driven to the dens and caves of the earth, but now the storm had spent itself, and they came forth, few in ! number and worn with hardship, to re-unite their scattered forces. The Lord had turned their captivity, and when they met and looked each other in the face they were as men who dreamed. On the 16th October 1690, a meeting of the General Assembly was held — the first after an iinterval of thirty-seven years. A day was spent in humiliation and prayer, and we can conceive the feelings with which, they constituted that assembly in name and by authority of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Church's only King and Head, for whose sake they had borne the burden and heat of those terrible days. A great work was yet before them, the restoration of the Church and the re-building of her broken walls, but the faith which had carried them through the days of persecution was with them still. In the name of God they set up their banners, and strength was given to them in the time of need. LECTURE V. 1690-1800. LECTUEE V. 1690-1800. \ XTE are now to speak of the Eevolution Settlement and the difficulties which the Church had to encounter during the events that followed. In March 1689 the Convention of Estates had declared the throne of Scotland vacant, but it was not till a year and seven months afterwards — 16th October 1690 — that the General Assem bly met. During that interval William and Mary had mounted the throne, and Parliament had been busy. They had annulled all Acts in favour of Prelacy ; they had reinstated in their parishes the " outed " ministers of 1662 who still survived ; they had ratified the Westminster Confession of Faith, had restored the Act of 1592, and finally they had abolished patronage and the oath of supremacy. After all this, however, there was a large section of the Covenanters who refused to accept the Settlement mainly because the Solemn League and Covenant and other Acts connected with the Second Eeformation were not restored ; for such a step, however, the nation was not prepared. In modern times Dean Stanley and others have sought to fasten on the Eevolution Settlement the Charge of Erastianism. The question had been much debated. During the Ten Years' Conflict Mr Andrew Gray of Perth, one of the ablest of our writers on the side of the Free Church, discussed this point in full detail, and showed, I 111 112 1 690- 1 800. think successfully,^ that the charge of Erastianism is 1 founded on a mistake. In regard to our present subject, the Spiritual Independence of the Church, it is enough to say that the Westminster Confession of Faith was adopted and sanctioned ; and whatever view may be taken of that Confession in other respects, of this there can be no doubt, that in it the Church's Spiritual Jurisdiction is written as with a sunbeam. And, on the other hand, there is no real ground for the allegation which has sometimes been made, that the Confession was enacted by the State and imposed upon the Church as its creed. The Act of Parliament says that the Confession was approven by them " as the avowed Confession of this Church." Ever since 1647 that Confession had been the Church's avowed Confession, and Parliament merely recognised it for what it already was — the Church's Creed, which they were to " ratify and establish," giving it such sanction as was competent. But while the Eevolution Settlement as a whole cannot in fairness be charged with Erastianism, it had yet some serious defects. In abolishing patronage and cancelling the binding and astricting clause attached to it, they left the nomination of ministers in the hands of the Kirk Session and heritors. The heritors had only a civil qualification, and to give them Church power in such a case was wrong in principle. And there was another defect. In ratifying the Confession they failed to enact along with it one im portant proviso in the Act of Assembly of 1647, the effect of this omission being that the King might claim the power of calling and proroguing the General Assembly. 1 The Present Conflict between the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts, etc., by the Rev. A. Gray of Perth, 1839, pp. 80-92. The King and the Church. This soon proved a root of bitterness. With all these defects, however, the Eevolution Settlement was accepted by the great majority of the Church and the people of Scotland, not as a perfect measure, but as one which they might act under, while using all the means in their power to have it made better. If ever there was a time when some allowance must be made, it was amid the turmoil attending the close of that long cruel persecution. It was a great thing that the friends of the Church, surrounded as they were by Jacobite influence and intrigue, were able to secure so much as they did — especially that the Church was recognised as holding her spiritual jurisdiction according to the Confession of Faith, not from the State, but from Christ. Thanking God that so much had been made sure, the Church felt she must now set herself to the work which God had given her to do. King William was no sooner seated on the throne than he showed the cherished purpose on which his heart was set — the union of the Presbyterian and Prelatic clergy in one Church. As a statesman it was to him a matter of pressing importance to have them brought together. He seems to have had no particular belief in any form of Church Government ; at all events, a united Church and a united people were far more to him than any difference between Presbytery and Episcopacy. He soon saw, however, that the national Church must be Presbyterian. Both the ministers and the people believed in the Pres byterian system, and held its principles far too firmly to allow it to be interfered with. William acquiesced ; the people willed the Presbyterian form, and so it must be. Still, his favourite idea was to get the Episcopalians inside the Established Church— he would have a door left open for them, and would make it as wide as he could. Indeed, he would fain have gone so far as to bring in at 114 1690-1800. once with no questions asked all who would conform and sign the Standards of the Church. When he wrote to ask that this should be done, he never seems to have doubted that the Assembly would agree, and on finding that they stood out it gave him deep offence. As a mark of his displeasure, he issued a proclamation cancelling the meeting of Assembly in November 1691, and proroguing it till June 1692. To that meeting he wrote in still stronger terms to say that the Episcopalian clergy must be admitted, and he even set down the formula which they were to sign on being received. The Assembly held firmly, on the other hand, that it was their business, not his, to say who were to be admitted to the ranks of the ministry ,1 but they shrank from a collision, and allowed the matter to hang fire, till at last the Eoyal Commissioner interposed. They had delayed long .enough, and he dissolved the Assembly without naming a day for the next meeting, intimating that the King would let them know when it suited him. It seemed as if the old conflict had reappeared, and as if William wanted, like James and Charles, to have the Church under his control. But, once more, the Moderator, urged on by the Members of Assembly, rose to the occasion; he simply appointed the next meeting to be held in August 1693. Here was a direct challenge. The King was incensed against the Church for her obstinacy, while the Church was standing on her rights against the Erastian inter- ^ They had been taking steps to have this matter settled. Two Commissions had been appointed to visit the different parishes, one to the north, and the other south of the Tay. The incumbents were to be retained on two conditions — First, that they were doing their work faithfully as parish ministers ; and secondly, that they would sign the Confession of Faith and conform to the Presbyterian Church. It should be remembered that all along these Episcopalians had used the Pres byterian forms qf worship. A Collision avoided. 1 1 5 ference of the King. An actual collision was skilfully avoided bythe management of Secretary Johnston, son of the famous Johnston of Warriston. Parliament was got to address the King requesting him to call a meeting of Assembly, which he did, naming a day so near that named by the Church herself that there was no need to fight for the difference. The Church had substantially gained her object, the Assembly was to meet. That meeting did not take place till 1694, owing to the King's absence on the Continent. At last when it was held, it proved to be critical, and but for Carstares might have led to a disastrous explosion. An oath of assurance and allegiance to William as King de jure had been imposed as a condition to the holding of any office, lay or clerical. The Episcopalians who were Jacobites of course refused. The Presbyterians had no objection to the oath in itself, but to have it imposed and made a condition of spiritual office in the Church was an Erastian interference not to be endured. It shows how sensitive they were on such points. The ministers and people alike got excited over it, and that meeting of Assembly in 1694 brought matters to an issue. The King and Council were deter mined that all members must swear the oath before taking their seats. The ministers and elders were determined to refuse. They petitioned the Council to be relieved, and were denied. The Eoyal Commissioner sent an express to London stating the facts. It was considered on a day when Carstares happened to be absent from court, and he found on his return that orders had been issued to exact the oath. It is one of the most striking scenes in the history of the time when Carstares arrested the King's messenger, got possession of his despatches, and taking them in his hand, made his way into William's bed chamber late at night, woke him, fell on his knees at the 1 1 6 1 690- 1 800. bedside, and begged his life. The indignation which followed when the King knew of what he had done made him aware how dangerous a man William was to interfere with. But Carstares laid before him information which no one else possessed, showing that these despatches would set all Scot land in a flame and alienate his best friends. The result was that they were thrown into the fire. Other despatches in the opposite sense were written out and signed, the royal messenger was hurried off, and reached Edinburgh not a moment too soon, riding into the city on the morning of the day when the Assembly was to meet. There had been great anxiety, and such was the effect of William's timely compliance that very liberal concessions were made to meet his views, these concessions going further than many of the more faithful ministers afterwards approved of. Still, William was dissatisfied, and showed his dis pleasure by proroguing and again proroguing the Assembly. The Church, on the other hand, resolved to assert her Spiritual Independence and make her position clear. After consultation they issued in 1698 a " Seasonable Admonition," as they term it, in which the spiritual authority of the Church is set forth in all its length and breadth. " We do believe ^ and own," so the testimony states, " that Jesus Christ is the only Head and King of His Church, and that He has instituted in His Church officers and ordinances, order and government, and not left it to the will of man, magistrate, or Church to alter at their pleasure.'' They make it plain that equally after the Eevolution, as before it, the Church held fast by that great principle of her Spiritual Independence under Christ, her only Head. William's attempts to tamper with it did not involve serious practical conse- 1 Seasonable Admonition, etc., p. 5. Quoted by Hetherington, History, p. 576. Union with England. 1 1 7 quences, but they seemed to call for some emphatic testi mony on the part of the Church, and certainly it was given in no doubtful terms. The same zeal which thus showed itself in defence of her rights showed itself no less in the Church's efforts to spread the Gospel among the people. All along her history these two tilings go together. At this period the difficulties in the north of Scotland especially were very great. The preachers whom she sent forth had often to deliver their message amid scenes of turbulence and outrage. In spite of it all, however, the work went on. For the sake of the Master whom she served, she put forth her energies in proclaiming against all opposition the message of peace and goodwill. At last, in 1702, King William died. He had done much for the religion and the liberties of Scotland, and the Church honoured him for his services as an instrument in the hands of God. His attempts to interfere with her Spiritual Independence were, after all, on a small scale. She resisted him, but evidently it cost an effort to act in opposition to one to whom she owed so much. In 1702 Queen Anne ascended the throne, and the General Assembly at their first meeting voted an address full of loyalty ; but taking their stand firmly on the Claim of Eight, the foundation on which the Eevolution Settle ment rested.^ Soon, however, all other subjects were lost sight of in the negotiations that were going on for Union with England. The whole country was in a ferment, and the subject on which, above all others, the nation was deter mined, was to have the Church made safe. The Com missioners appointed to negotiate with those of England ' Acts of Assembly, p. 321. b ii8 1 690- 1 800. were stringently bound not to allow the doctrine, discipline, or worship of the Church of Scotland to be interfered with. They were to settle other matters as best they could, but the Church must be made secure ; every right and privilege belonging to her must remain intact. And very faithfully did the Commissioners carry out their instructions. The Act of Security was passed guarding the Church as far as human precautions and binding national engagements could avail. The English Commissioners agreed that in all time to come her Confession of Faith, her Presbyterian government, and her constitutional rights should remain intact. Every possible interference in the direction of Erastianism or Episcopacy was barred. Nothing could be more complete. We are now to enter on the history of the Church during the eighteenth century under Queen Anne and the Georges. We shall meet with the rise of Moderatism, leading to the formation of the Secession Church under the Erskines and of the Belief under Gillespie. It was not the State, however — it was the Church herself— which did what was then done. The one event which brought the Church into hostile contact with the civil magistrate was the re-enactment of the law of Patronage, but before speaking of this there are some minor references to Spiritual Independence which may be noticed. So early as March 1703 there occurred one of those slight attempts to encroach on the province of the Church^ with which we are so familiar. Towards the close of the Assembly some Synod Eecords came up for attestation in the usual way. These were found to contain strong state ments as to the right of Church courts to meet in virtue of their own inherent powers. While they were under ' Willison's Testimony, p. 31. Synod Records. 1 1 9 discussion, and the Assembly were about to record their approval, the Eoyal Commissioner suddenly interposed, and in the Queen's name dissolved the Assembly. The Assembly, however, refused to close until they ho.d appointed the time for holding the next meeting. The following year, accordingly, they were firm. The Synod Eecords were again brought up and formally approved. In 1712 an important Act was passed, depriving Church censures of all civil penalties in time to come. Under Popery the sentence of excommunication was equivalent to outlawry, and that was one of the things that the Eeformation failed to remove. Parliament had retained it against the wishes of some of the leading ministers, Calderwood the historian, for example. It was now enacted in 1712 that the sentences of the Church should be effectual only to spiritual results, and in this way the ground was cleared between the two jurisdictions — the temporal and the spiritual. The Episcopalians were to enjoy full toleration, but they must first take the oath of abjuration renouncing the Pretender. Unfortunately, this oath containing one objectionable proviso was imposed also on Presbyterians. To many it was intolerable, and the Church was split into two parties — the Jurants and Non- Jurants. Among the laity especially the oath was detested. At one time a complete schism seemed imminent. It required all the influence of Carstares to prevent an entire disruption, but a change was made in the terms of the oath, and ultimately the storm spent itself and passed away. Another example of these minor collisions occurred in 1737 in connection with the Porteous Eiot. The Govern ment were so incensed at that outbreak that they seem for the moment to have lost self-control. Among other extreme measures the clergy were ordered to read during I20 1 690-1800. divine service a proclamation calling on the people to aid in bringing the rioters to justice. This proclamation was ordered to be made on the first Sabbath of every month for a whole year, on pain of the ministers being expelled from the Church courts. It was too much, however. The more faithful of the ministers flatly refused such interfer ence with the services of the pulpit,^ and no steps were ever taken against the recusants. Thus there were signs from time to time that the old antagonism between the civil authorities and the Church was smouldering and ready to break out. The State gave orders, the Church refused the State's control. These matters, indeed, were of minor importance. All the time, however, the fatal root of bitterness was Patronage, the cause of continual jarrings, which ran on through the eighteenth century down into the nineteenth, and culmin ated in the Disruption of 1843. Patronage had been abolished, as we saw, at the Eevolution, and the patrons were to be compensated by receiving a sum which seems to us small enough, but it may have been approximately the market value of their patronage rights at the time. When the Union with England came, the national faith was pledged to retain this arrangement inviolate. In 1712, however, all this was forgotten. The Union ^ "It converted ministers of the Gospel into messengers-at-arms" (Cunningham's Hist. ii. 449). There was a still more serious objection. "The most part of the ministers in many Synods and Presbyterys . . . had not freedom to read the said Act, because they judged the penalty to be properly a. Church censure, seeing by it ministers would be divested of the power of Church government and discipline, which is given them by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Head of the Church, and is [as] essen tial to their office as preaching or dispensing the Sacraments. ... For ministers to become the magistrates' heralds to proclaim this law on the Lord's Day in such a solemn manner, would be an homologating of their encroachment, and a consenting to this Erastian power of the Magistrate " (Willison's Testimony, p, 94). ^ j h Patronage Act. 1 2 1 was but five years old— no more— when some Jacobite intriguers! misled the British Pariiament, and in the most shameless way Patronage was restored to the former holders. The Bill was hurried through Parliament in hot haste. They succeeded in getting it passed by the House of Commons before the Scottish Church could send a deputation to oppose it; and when the deputation had hurried up to London, those intriguers succeeded in getting the Bill read a second time in the House of Lords, passed through Committee, and read a third time in a single day. This indecent procedure was an insult to Scotland, and well became an Act destined to bring about such disastrous results. In regard to Patronage, it is a question whether in its own nature it be not a direct invasion of the Church's Spiritual Independence. In the month of July 1712, immediately after the Act was passed, there was a meet ing of the Commission of Assembly, and great resentment arose among the members. Some were opposed to Patron age out and out, holding it to be sinful ; others, including two Lords of Session, alleged that there might be a presen tation to the tithes or teinds. On this principle the Church all along sought to guard herself. Patronage only referred to the temporalities of the benefice. The patron presented to the living, but the Church held in her own hands the whole power as to the formation of the pastoral tie. None but those she had licensed could receive a presentation, and after it was received none but those whom she approved and whom the people called could be ordained. Thus the Church's position under Patronage was defended, but practically the influence of the patron was great, and was ultimately found to be ^ Lockhart's Papers, vol. i. p. 418. 122 1690-1800. indefensible. The great difficulty was to give the people by means of the call a really effective voice in the settle ment of their pastors. Of these two antagonistic elements, the presentation of the Patron aud the call of the people, it was clear one or other must give way — Patronage would prRctically suppress the call, or the call would limit Pat ronage. In fact, both of these results came to pass at two different stages of the history. During the eighteenth century Patronage gradually grew in power till it all but extinguished the call. During the nineteenth popular influence has asserted itself, and Patronage has been weak ened by successive steps till finally it has been abolished and become a thing of the past. A glance at this history is necessary if we would understand the Church's position. Taking the first twenty years after the restoration of Patronage in 1712, we find hardly a single case in which a preacher accepted a presentation simpliciter. In 1715, indeed, a Mr Duguid was presented by the Queen to the parish of Burntisland, and accepted the presentation, but his case served as a warning. They brought him before the Church Courts ; and when he stood upon his rights as a presentee, the General Assembly simply stripped him of his license.! Preachers found that their only safe course was to accept the presentation with a proviso that there must be a call from the people, and that they left them selves in the hands of the Presbytery. During those twenty years there were many settlements without a presentation, but no single settlement without a call. Whatever the law might say, the essential thing was the call. In about twenty years, however, Moderatism began to raise its head, and soon set itself to suppress the voice of the people, while the evangelical party strove to uphold it. 1 Patronage Report, pp. 365, 366. Cunningham Hist. ii. 418. Riding Committees. 123 Disputed settlements became the order of the day. When cases came before the Assembly, the decisions were often uncertain, sometimes favouring the patron, and sometimes the people, but gradually the friends of Patron age prevailed. One of the most serious results of this was the first Secession in 1733. The immediate occasion was a sermon preached by Ebenezer Erskine before the Synod of Perth and Stirling, in which he condemned what the Church had been doing in " trampling on the rights of the Christian people by intruding pastors on reclaiming congregations." There were other reasons which came into the case, but this was the immediate and outstanding occasion of the first Secession.! The result was that adherents in great numbers began to leave the Established Church, and in many cases they were the best of the people. Meantime, inside the Establishment there was no little disturbance. Instances began to occur in which the Pres byteries not only took the side of the people, but flatly refused to ordain the obnoxious presentees even though the Assembly ordered it. It went against their consciences to thrust a man on an unwilling people, and they would not do it. This was met by a special expedient. A Eiding Com mittee, as they called it, was appointed— a body of ministers who had no such scruples, ready at the bidding of the Assembly to settle any man anywhere. If there was a recusant congregation or a Presbytery absolutely declining to carry out a forced settlement, a moveable column of this kind was called into action to ride over the land and override the scruples both of Presbyteries and people. There was much work for them to do in those Dr M'Crie, Patronage Report, p. 370. 124 1690-1800. days. During the ten years between 1740 and 1750 more than fifty cases of disputed settlements came up before the Assembly.! ^he people fought gallantly, but they fought a losing battle ; the friends of Patronage went on steadily gaining ground. In 1751 the Moderate party took a step in advance. The case of Torphichen, where the people resolutely opposed the presentee, was before the Church Courts. On two successive years the Assembly had ordered the Pres bytery to go on with the settlement, and twice the Presbytery had refused. A Eiding Committee was sent, and the presentee was ordained amid great popular indignation. It was the last occasion on which that kind of Eiding Committee was appointed. When the case came before the Church Courts, Principal Eobertson, then a young man, distinguished himself in the debate,^ and afterwards a paper was issued, drawn, it is beheved, chiefly by him, with all his well-known ability, laying down the principles on which for many a day the Mod erate party acted under his leadership. Presbyteries were thenceforth to have no choice. It was their duty to carry out the decisions of the Supreme Court ; that duty they must themselves discharge, and not leave it to be done by others. They might retire from the Established Church if they had scruples, it was their only remedy ; if they stayed in, they must obey. The case of Inverkeithing which took place almost immediately afterwards showed in what way these principles were put in force. The people had resisted the settlement, the Assembly had ordered the Presbytery to carry it out — they refused, and the six recusant members — a majority of the Presbytery — were brought before the ^ Morren's Annals.'i. pp. 344-367. 2 Ibid. pp. 211, 231. Moderatism prevails. 125 bar of the Assembly. A resolution was passed that one of the number be deposed as a warning to all Presbyteries in the future. Mr Gillespie of Carnock was fixed on, who thus became famous as the leader of the Eelief Secession. The Moderates were carrying things with a high hand, as if resolved to crush the Evangelical minority, and yet the two parties up to that date seem to have been nearly equally balanced. A motion to restore Gillespie the following year was lost in the General Assembly only by three votes.! But the Moderate leaders were determined. In cases of disputed settlement the Assembly began invariably to decide against the people and in favour of the presentee, so that congregations ceased to resist; they simply left the Church and built a Secession meeting-house. The Presbyteries also took warning by the fate of Gillespie, and ceased to object. Moderatism was triumphantly doing its work. Presbyteries and congregations were subdued. Patronage was victorious. It came to be the established practice, confirmed by a long series of deci sions, that the secular influence of the patron with his civil rights must overbear the rights of the people in the settlement of their ministers. At last Principal Eobertson took yet another and a final step. The call of the people, he maintained, was super fluous. In form it was kept up, but was regarded as of no real value. It had never been recognised in any Act of Parliament. They must go by the Act, and consider the call as of no effect. The only thing needed was a valid presentation by the patron. A paper of concurrence by the people, if they were disposed to express their goodwill, might be proper enough, but not the call as if it were of Morren's Annals, i. p. 278. 126 1 690-1800. any avail, or as if the people had any right to express an opinion in regard to the minister to be ordained over them. The Church must do nothing more and nothing less than what the State ordered in the Act of Parliament'. No matter for the First or Second Book of Discipline ; no matter for the Church's immemorial practice, the Act of Parliament must be the Church's rule.! Thus the Eras tianism inherent in the whole system of Patronage was made to appear, but it was the Church herself that pushed it to this extreme. This fact should be carefully noted, because the civil courts of that day were disposed to leave the Church free in dealing with things ecclesiastical. Cases might be referred to as showing how the civil judges guarded the Church's jurisdiction — more alive to her rights and responsibilities than was the Church herself. It may be enough to take the case of Duns, which became vacant in 1749. The patron had issued his presentation, but the Presbytery, when resolving to moderate in a call, determined to make it a call at large, the effect being that the people were left free to choose either the nominee of the patron, or any other whom they might prefer. On this the patron applied to the Court of Session to have the Presbytery interdicted from that course, and compelled to confine the call only to the presentee. This conclusion, the Law Eeport says, the Lords " would not meddle with, because that was interfer ing with the power of ordination, or internal policy of the ' See Principal Hill's Sketch of Robertson's Ecclesiastical Policy. According to Dr Hill Burton, however (History of Scotland from the Revolution, ii. 55), this view of the law on which the Moderate leaders acted is more than questionable. " What seems chiefly to be overlooked is that it [the Patronage Act] left untouched the real popular element, whether of call or veto. Whatever privilege of this kind by the law of the Church the congregation possessed by the Act of 1692, was left uninjured by the Act of 1711." Violent Settlements. 127 Church, with which the Lords had nothing to do " ! It } was a wise decision. If the Lords of Session in 1838 had been like the judges in 1749, there would have been no \ Disruption. The case of Lanark ^ was not less clear. There were two rival patrons and two presentees. The Presbytery selected the one who seemed to them to have the best claim, and ordained him. The Court of Session decided that they had taken the wrong man, and they refused to give him the stipend although he had been ordained by the Presbytery. But the remarkable thing is that his position as parish minister was not touched. The Church had given him his standing, the Civil Court did not interfere; he was parish minister without stipend. This was the law of Scotland last century. In things ecclesias tical the jurisdiction of the Church was recognised by the civil judges. The Moderate party, however, went on their way. Cases came up, such as that at Biggar and Fenwick, in which not a single name of any member of the congrega tion was at the call. No matter, the ordination was ordered to go on. All opposition in the Church Courts was crushed, and Moderatism rode roughshod over the people. Meantime the people did not like it, and not un frequently these forced settlements led to scenes of violence, and sometimes of riot, when the military had to be called in. Not only ministers in their robes, but bands of armed men, were required to induct the presentee into his parish. One of the first cases of this kind, Dr Lee states, ' Hay V. Presbytery of Duns, February 26, 1749. See Claim of Right, 2 Patronage Report, p. 419, 128 1 690-1800. occurred at Linton, Peeblesshire, in 1731, where "very tumultuous proceedings " took place. It was necessary to have an armed force quartered in the parish to preserve order.! It is needless to multiply such instances, which were all too numerous over the land. One may be mentioned, however, which occurred at Alloa in 1750,^ where Mr Syme, the presentee, was obnoxious to the Congregation. The settlement had been fixed for the 28th of September, but was resisted by the people. The colliers of AUoa and two or three adjacent parishes assembled riotously to prevent it, rang the church bell from morning till night, and in the afternoon, when the Presbytery retired, displayed a flag from the steeple in token of victory. The November meeting of Commission appointed a Eiding Committee to carry out the ordination on the 21st of November, which they did successfully, with the aid of four companies of soldiers. This Mr Syme so ordained was afterwards married to the sister of Principal Eobert son, who accompanied the Eiding Committee on the occasion. Mr Syme's daughter, Miss Syme, the niece of Principal Eobertson, married in England, and was mother of Lord Brougham, who was thus grandnephew of the great leader of the Moderates. One might almost suppose that the principle of heredity is to be traced in the well- known speech of Lord Brougham in 1839, when the Auchterarder case was decided in the House of Lords, and when he spoke with scorn of the idea that any weight was due to the views or feelings of the people. The colliers of Alloa ringing the church bell, driving off the Presbytery, and waving the flag of victory from the steeple, showed well enough what the popular ^ Patronage Report, p. 419. 2 Morreu's Annals, i. pp. 185, 356, Parish of Shotts. 129 sentiment was on such occasions, but sometimes the people became still more demonstrative. ; In 1762 a Mr Wells had been presented to the parish of Shotts.! The whole of the congregation, with a single exception, were keenly opposed to him, but the Assembly ordered the settlement to go on, and every member of Presbytery must be present. When the Court met at the appointed time, the people mustered, and would not allow them to enter either the church or churchyard. A second attempt was made, but the people got hold of the presentee, carried him off, and made him sign an agree ment never to trouble them more. Then followed another meeting, when the military, a body of horse and foot, with the Sheriff at their head, appeared on the scene. Even this failed. The people, knowing well the roads by which the different members of Presbytery would travel, waylaid them, and carried them off in various directions, treating them with all possible respect and kindness. The result was that when the hour arrived, the military were there- at the church, horse and foot, the presentee was there, the Sheriff was there, but there was no Presbytery. At last a day came when the people were defeated. The Presbytery had had enough of going to Shotts, so they met quietly down at Hamilton, and ordained Mr Wells, " at the Presbytery table," the result being that the congregation went off and joined the Eelief Secession. But remarkable as all this was, far more impressive were some of the cases where the people, wearied out and oppressed, offered no resistance. A single example will show how this was carried out. At Nigg, near Inverness, the whole parish was opposed to the presentee, but the usual forms were gone through, ^ Patronage Report (Parliamentary) Appendix, p. 164. Scots Mag. xxvi-xxx. 1 130 1690-1800. and the Presbytery were to meet for his ordination. On entering the church, they were surprised to find the building empty, no one having appeared. While deliberat ing in some perplexity as to what should be done, a solitary man entered, and taking his place in the front gallery as representing the parishioners, he warned them solemnly against what they were about to do, and protested that the blood of the parish of Nigg would be required at their hands if they settled that man, ordaining him to the bare walls of the empty church. The startling effect of this solitary voice in the silent building arrested them. They referred the case to the Assembly with the usual result, and they were subjected to a rebuke for having hesitated. They must go home and carry out the ordination. The settlement at Muckhart in 1734 may be given as showing what were iu some cases the after effects of such procedure. A Mr Eennie had been presented by the patron, but the call was signed by only two resident parishioners, while the whole people were opposed to him. The Presbytery having refused to ordain him, the Assem bly appointed a Eiding Committee to carry out the settlement. When the day came, however, the parishioners waylaid the presentee, carried him off to Dollar, and kept him till the time was past. Another day was appointed, and the presentee appeared under a guard of soldiers. The people meantime had so effectually barricaded the doors of the church that one of the windows had to be broken open, and the ministers having in this fashion got entrance, went through with the ordination. The parish church was deserted. Mr Eennie never preached in it except once— on the Sabbath succeeding his ordination. He continued parish minister for fifty-two years, but he never had a Kirk-Session, not even a single elder, never spiritual Independence. 1 3 1 dispensed the Communion, never made a collection for the poor. He let the manse, reserving only the dining-room in which he preached. In the minutes of the Presbytery of Auchterarder it is stated that sometimes he had not more than three or four hearers.! He took on lease the farm of Boghall to the west of the parish, and proved so successful as a farmer that he bought the property of Ballilisk, and when he gave up the farm it brought to the landlord " triple the rent it had yielded when he took it." ^ It was a case in which Patronage and Moderatism had very completely done their work. In 1780-81 Principal Eobertson retired from the leader ship of the Moderate party. Dr Hill of St Andrews took the helm, and for three or four years an effort was made to have the call restored. But Hill nailed his colours to the mast ; he was all for Patronage, and so carried the Assembly with him that the Evangelical party gave up the fight, one result being that the Assembly no longer instructed the Commission to use every effort to get Patronage abolished. That had been done annually during the greater part of the century, but was now given up, as good reason there was. For many years it had been a sham. But what had all this to do with Spiritual Independence ? We formerly saw that lay patronage as it came to be enforced was practically an invasion of the Church's Spiritual Authority. There were some nine hundred patronages in the hands of the Crown and private patrons. These patronages were bought and sold. The holders were men of good character or of bad, as the case might be — members of the Church of Scotland, or of some other 1 Cunningham Hist. ii. 435. 2 See the details in "Historic Scenes in Perthshire,'' by Rev. W. MarshaU, D.D., p. 280. 132 1 690-1800. Church, or of no Church, or men hostile to all Churches. Why were such men to have a right to interfere and select the preacher for a Christian congregation, and why in such matters were the civil judges to interfere and enforce their rights ? The Church, like any other insti tution which is really independent, must have the inalienable right to appoint its own office-bearers. Besides, the very nature of the ministerial office stamps it as a spiritual office if anything on earth is spiritual. It is in the name and authority of Christ that any man is invested with it. The outward act which makes the appointment to the sacred office must be in the hands of the Church herself, and she must be free from secular control if she is a spiritually independent Church. How shall the lay patron who may be a man of no religion be allowed to take a part so important in these proceedings ? How is the civil court to be allowed authority to enforce his rights, setting aside the call of the people ? Was it not plain that Patronage when thus enforced involved the surrender of the Church's independence? It was an unwarrantable interference with the rights and liberties of Christ's spiritual kingdom. The only way in which the Evangelical party in the Church could bring themselves to submit to it was by giving force to the call of the congregation, making it all-important and decisive of the question whether the man should be ordained or not. It was on the call of the Christian people that the Church proceeded in the act of ordination, not on the presentation of the patron. All this seemed self-evident. It was so keenly felt in 1712 when Patronage was re-imposed that the Church rose almost as one man to resent the Act and resist it. It was detested as a yoke forced on them by the Erastian inter ference of the State. Practical Results. 133 But we have seen that the conduct of the Church) herself under the sway of Moderatism made the yoke of. Patronage worse than it needed to have been. In; extinguishing the call of the people and making the presentation of the patron all in all,! ^j^g Church with her own hands drew the chain of secular influence more closely round herself. The Evangelical party saved their position by protesting that all this was a violation of the Church's constitution. On that constitution they took their stand. But now let us look at the practical results of what was done. When the Church's independence was invaded, and the principle of the Free Church thrust into the back ground, what was the effect on the religious and spiritual life of the country ? Explain the matter how we may, the growth o: Moderatism and the high-handed enforcement of Patronage had a deadening effect on the Church. It went ill with the clergy when promotion depended on their gaining the favour of that class to which the patrons belonged, among many of whom loose irreligious opinions prevailed. From that day lax religious belief began to be common among the ministers themselves, and marked religious declension set in. Dr John Erskine, in writing to Bishop Warburton, had spoken of the paganized Christian divines who were found in the Church of Scotland under the name of latitudinarians, "but Socinus lies at the root." Among not a few indeed it was Deism which prevailed. Their sermons were mainly essays on moral duties,^ leaving out 1 Dr Cook, who in after days led the Moderate Party during the Ten Years' Conflict, gave it as his opinion that "a Call is inooinpatible with patronage, and therefore nugatory," "an empty form " (Cook's Life of HUl, pp. 144-156). , , , . ., r, 1 2 Even in 1734 the Synod of Perth and Stirling, addressing the General Assembly, complained of "the mere moral harangues" which were substituted for the doctrines of the Gospel (Cunningham's Hist. n. 446). 134 1 690-1800. of view the essential doctrines of the Christian faith. They aimed at literary polish and refinement, but they had little influence among the people. The remarkable fact was that while the Moderates were preaching mor ality without Christ, the morals of the people were sinking lower and lower. Theatre-going and other forms of worldliness prevailed, and Dr Erskine speaks of the great and growing depravity of manners in Edinburgh. There is evidence of this only too convincing. A contemporary pamphlet, for example, of high authority, by Creech, the well-known bookseller and publisher, sketches the state of the 'city of Edinburgh in 1783, as compared with what it had been in 1763, twenty years before.! It was at this time that the city began to break out beyond its old limits. Two millions of money during these years were laid out mainly in building the new town along Princes Street and the other neighbouring streets. The boys of the High School had increased from two hundred in 1763 to five hundred in 1783. The writer says that the quality of the sermons was wonderfully improved, referring evidently to their literary polish, Dr Blair eclipsing all others. Along with this he tells how the attendance at Church had greatly diminished. Formerly in 1763 Sunday had been observed by all ranks as a day of devotion. In 1783 the Church attendance had greatly fallen off, family worship that had been " frequent " was now " almost totally disused." ^ As to manners and ' Letters respecting the mode of living in Edinburgh, etc., by Theophrastus. Printed in 1788, afterwards published with the author's name in the Statistical Account of Scotland (see Edinburgh Fugitive Pieces, by W. Creech, Esq., 1815). 2 This is not the place to enter into details, but the foUowing may be added as showing the change that was going on : — "In 1763 the clergy visited, catechised, and instructed the famUies in their respective parishes." Secession Church. 135 conversation in company, he contrasts the modesty, decency, and reserve of 1763 with the looseness, forward ness, and freedom of 1783. In regard to morals, the change for the worse was sufficiently painful. One item it may be enough to mention. Sins against the seventh commandment were punished by a fine which went to the poor, and during these twenty years such had been the increase of immorality that the annual amount of fines had risen from £154 to £600. This was the time when Principal Eobertson had done his work, and the system of Moderatism which he had built up was in full force. The coincidence is remarkable. These clergymen had possession of the pulpits. In polished periods they were preaching moral duties, denouncing all such religious revivals as those at Carabuslang and Kilsyth, and stigmatising our godly forefathers as high-flyers and fanatics. Their own system was triumphant, and we see the result ; the increase of irreligion and immorality in the city was obvious to common observation. It should be remembered that ever since 1733 the Secession Church and the other Dissenting Churches had been rendering invaluable service to the religion of Scotland. In many parts of the country where Moderat ism and religious indifference prevailed, it was through their labours that vital godliness was maintained, and to their zealous efforts Scotland owes a deep debt of gratitude which should never be forgotten. In the meantime the Moderate system reached its full development under Principal HiU. To show what its "In 1783 visiting and catechising are disused except by one or two of the clergy " (Edition 1788, p. 15). „ „ , , . " In no respect was the sobriety and decorum of the lower ranks m 1763 more remarkable than by contrasting them with the riot and licentiousness of 1783, particularly on Sundays and holidays (J!ugitive Pieces, p. 107). 136 1 690-1800. influence really was, we may refer to two decisions passed by the General Assembly at the close of the century. In 1796 the subject of Missions to the Heathen was considered in a lengthened debate, and all such efforts to spread the Gospel were formally condemned. It was on this occasion that Dr John Erskine, the venerable leader of the Evangelical party, interposed with such striking effect. An elaborate speech had just been delivered in condemnation of Missionary effort, when the old man rose under deep feeling, and before beginning his reply, stretched out his hand, calling aloud, " Eax me that Bible," as he pointed to the copy lying before the Moderator. The scene was long remembered when he lifted the sacred volume, and with all his intellectual power and fervour confronted his opponents with the testimony of God's Word. But in that Assembly all such appeals were vain ; the objectors triumphed, and the Church took her place as an adversary to all Missionary efforts for the spread of the Gospel in heathen lands. Three years later there was a similar display at the Assembly of 1799. Simeon of Cambridge, Eowland Hill of London, and other men of kindred spirit had been preaching Evangelical truth with great power in various parts of Scotland, and had been allowed in some instances to enter the pulpits of the Established Church. This was brought under the notice of the Assembly, and an Act passed in which they "discharge and prohibit all the ministers of this Church " from employing " such persons " to preach, and " from holding ministerial communion with them." The Church of Scotland thus under the guidance of the Moderate leaders had cut herself off from ministerial intercourse with the Evangelical members of all the Churches of Christendom. The pulpits of the Establish ment were barred against the good men of every other Established Church Isolated. 137 denomination. The Established Church had isolated herself. Already in these Lectures we have seen how the principle of Spiritual Independence has been found to go hand-in-hand with religious earnestness. We have now seen how that principle was overborne by the system of Patronage, and we have seen the practical results. The Secession Church had been expelled, three hundred chapels had been built, many tens of thousands of the best of the people had left the Establishment, while in large portions of the country under the Moderate clergy religion itself was in a state of decay. Then it was that men were startled by the French Eevolution. The reign of terror set in, and amidst the crash of social institutions on the Continent the whole British people were roused. It was felt that the revival of earnest vital religion was the one hope of the Church and of the nation. That poor pale religion of Moderatism was helpless against the alarming powers of evil that were abroad. The minds of men were stirred. Society for a time was shaken to its foundations. Public opinion imperatively demanded a change. The friends of Evan gelical religion were rapidly gaining ground. The warmth and zeal of the Church in her better days began to return ; many were looking out for the dawn of a brighter time, and prayers were going up that God would visit with His favour the vine which His right hand had planted. The Evangelical revival was at hand. LECTURE VI. 1800-1843. LECTUEE VL 1800-1843. "T^UEING the first thirty years of the present century ^^^ there is little in the history of the Church which bears on the question of Spiritual Independence. A great religious change was taking place in society. The Evan gelical party, under the leadership of Sir Henrv Moncreiff (father of the first Lord Moncreiff), was year by year gaining ground in the Church Courts. In the pulpit, men of intellect and genius— Chalmers, Thomson, Gordon, Welsh, and others — were preaching evangelical truth with a power and fervour that made itself felt in all ranks of society. The historical works of Dr M'Crie made a deep impression in the same direction. The Christian Instructor appeared giving scope to Dr Thomson's rare controversial powers. Bible and Missionary Societies were rising up all over Scotland. It was a day of bright promise for those who had long been contending on the side of evangelical truth. At last, in the General Assembly of 1834, the Evan-( gelical party found themselves in a majority, and had to take the responsibility of guiding the Church. Previously as a minority their course had been easy ; they had only to argue against the Moderate party, and when outvoted they could protest and appeal to the Constitution which they believed to have been violated. But now they had the responsibility of deciding what should be done. The future of the Church was in their hands. During the years that followed there was a time of great 141 142 i8oo-i843- enterprise and energy iu all Christian work. The cause of Missions received a wonderful impulse. Without going into details, it may be enough to say that during the first five years after the Evangelical party rose into the ascen dant, the funds contributed annually for such objects increased more than tenfold.! At the same time, efforts were made to purify and strengthen ecclesiastical dis cipline, and through the Church Extension scheme to supply religious ordinances to the neglected portions of the community. It was a time when religious effort in many different directions began to be vigorously prose cuted. In the midst of this stir and movement, however, the Church was suddenly called to engage in a conflict in which her very existence as an Establishment was threatened, and this soon brought to the front the whole question of Spiritual Independence. The history of the Voluntary controversy has never been written, and no account of it can be given here except to show the influence which it had in preparing for the Disruption. What first raised the question was a sermon preached by Dr Marshall of Kirkintilloch before the Associate Secession Synod in April 1829. It was an elaborate attack on the whole principle of Church Establishments. Its publication was called for,^ and the sudden and wide acceptance which it met with showed how well the ground had been prepared, and how generally these opinions were held by all classes of Scottish Dissenters. But this was only a preliminary step. What really stirred the controversy was the passing of the Eeform Bill three years afterwards, in 1832. Scotland had just been ' Memoir of Dr Chalmers, by Dr Hanna, iv. 88-91. 2 Ecclesiastical Establishments considered, a Sermon by the Rev, A. Marshall, Glasgow, Lochhead, 1829. Church Extension. 143 roused by a political agitation, which at one time came very near to becoming a Eevolution. But the Eeform Bill became law ; the middle classes were enfranchised ; among these dissent was powerful ; and the political ascendency identified with Moderatism was overthrown. Old institu tions were threatened all round ; the advocates of Volun taryism naturally availed themselves of their opportunity ; the Edinburgh Voluntary Association was formed in September 1832, and similar Societies arose all over the country. Five months afterwards — 29th January 1833 — a great meeting was held in Edinburgh, which I well remember, for I was present, at which elaborate speeches were delivered by leading men belonging to all the Dissenting denominations. On the side of the Established Church this attack was met by a no less energetic reply, and all Scotland was soon involved in the turmoil of the conflict. But when Dr Chalmers stepped into the arena, the movement at once assumed more formidable proportions. Ever since his settlement in Glasgow long years before, he had set his heart on reclaiming the neglected masses of our large cities. This was far more to him than any victory in argument on the question of Voluntaryism. At the same time, he felt that the sight of the Church grappling with the lapsed population of poor localities would be the best proof of the value of an Establishment, and the best reply to the attacks of Voluntaryism. With these views, he set about the erection of new churches ; an appeal was made to Government for a modest endowment on their behalf, and at one time it seemed as if it were on the eve of success. Then it was that the controversy rose to its full height. Excited meetings and courses of lectures were everywhere held. The press teemed with pamphlets, speeches, magazine articles innumerable. The Central Board of 144 1800-1843- Scottish Dissenters was formed. Strong representations were addressed to Government, and strong appeals to the country. Deputation after deputation went up to London, and for several years all the machinery of a powerful agitation on both sides was kept actively at work. It is not for us, however, to trace the course of these discussions, our one object is to show how the question of Spiritual Independence was mixed up with them, and what effect this had in preparing for the events of 1843. Eeverting to Dr Marshall's Synod Sermon in 1829, we find him objecting to Church Establishments on ten different grounds. Of these he considers the 6th as specially important,! namely, that a Eeligious EstabHsh- ment has " a tendency to secularise the Church of Christ, to bring it into conformity with the kingdoms of this world, giving it much of the appearance, and what is worse, much of the spirit of a political institution." In another publication issued the following year,^ he states "that the office-bearers of such churches in conducting their affairs, even allowing them to be conscientious men, are not at liberty to consult their consciences." Such was the keynote struck at the outset, but soon it was sounded in yet bolder tones. At one of the earher meetings of the Edinburgh Voluntary Association, Andrew Coventry Dick, Esq., Advocate, a leading authority on the Voluntary side, undertook to prove that an eccles iastical Establishment "must he more or less Erastian; that is, that a Church which is endowed and established must give up a part at least of its native freedom and be subjected to the State." ^ ' Sermon, pp. 30-35. toL^*^"^"^ *° ^"^ ^- Thomson, D.D., p. 74. Glasgow, M. Lochhead, 3 Report of the Annual Meeting of the Voluntary Association, 1834, Charge of Erastianism. 145 This view was taken up and reiterated from many plat forms in all parts of the country, and was often expressed in more unguarded terms. To establish the Church they maintained was to place her in subjection to the State, and subordinate things spiritual to the civil power. On the other side the defenders of the Establishment at once replied by repudiating the allegation, at the same time admitting that if the objection could be made good it would be fatal ; if the Church by becoming established must give up her spiritual independence, it would be an unlawful compact. Never could the Church be war ranted in parting with the liberty with which Christ had made her free. On this point it soon appeared that the leading advocates on both sides were resolved to concentrate their strength. How this was done will be best seen if we take some of the representative men — Dr Inglis and Dr Chalmers, for example — as defenders of the Establishment, and Dr Marshall and Dr Wardlaw, two of their ablest opponents. First, let us notice how the matter is put by Dr Inglis.! He had been the leader of the Moderate party in the Church, but now near the end of his life his views seem to have been greatly modified. He was a man of clear intellect, and his treatise was on all hands admitted to be the ablest vindication of Establishments which appeared during the controversy. Eeplying to the above objection, his statement is.^ "The Kingdom of Christ is not only spiritual and! heavenly, but also independent. No earthly Government' has a right to overrule or control it. . . . If any civil Government under pretence of providing for the welfare 1 ' Father of Lord Glencorse, the late Lord Justice General. 2 Vindication of Ecclesiastical Establishments, by John Inglis, D.U., 1834. 2nd Edition, p. 90 seq. 146 1800-1843- of Christ's spiritual kingdom shall usurp its peculiar and appropriate jurisdiction ; if civil Government shall attempt to direct the appropriate concerns of the visible Church of Christ by either superseding or controlling its separate and independent power, that Government is so far an adver sary of Christ and of His cause in the world. But if the civil Government shall, on the contrary, abstain from intermeddling about such matters, and shall notwith standing contribute its outward aid towards the mainten ance of religious ordinances in the way which the office bearers of the Church have themselves approved and appointed ; if it shall so provide for the temporal wants of the ministers of Christ as to enable them to devote their whole time and labour to the exercise of their spiritua functions, and shall by the same means extend the benefit of religious ordinances more equally and effectually to all who are under their charge — shall these things be regarded as subversive of the independence of Christ's spiritual . kingdom ? " When Dr Inglis's vindication appeared it made a powerful impression ; a reply was naturally called for, and there stepped forth the original assailant, Dr Marshall, who, in the words of Dr Cairns, " then stood among the highest names in the Secession." ! His plan was to reply seriatim to every section of the book, but his answer to the above is far less elaborate than might have been expected. It consists mainly of a quotation from one of Dr Cook's speeches giving those views of the Church's constitution with which the Evangelical party were so familiar in the Assembly debates, and which they so firmly repudiated. Having done this, he dismisses the subject with an intimation that Dr Inglis's opinion as to spiritual independence was a mere bravado. 1 Memoir of John Brown, D.D., p. 171. Dr Chalmers's Lectures. 147 He should have remembered how often in the Church's former history it had been no bravado, but a principle held dearer than life. As time went on, this topic came more and more distinctly into the foreground, but its full importance is best seen in the London Lectures of Dr Chalmers, and in the reply by Dr Wardlaw. It was in April 1838 that Dr Chalmers, on the invita tion of an influential Society, delivered a short course of Lectures in the Hanover Square Eooms, London. The general question of Church Establishments was fully argued, and specially on the question of Spiritual In dependence he put forth all his strength. To a friend he remarked in private at the time: "It is the most important point in the whole discussion ; it is the basis and strength of my whole argument ; without it I could not have opened my moufh on ihe suhject ; and if there be any one of these Lectures on which my mind is clearer and more made up than another, it is on the Lecture I am going to deliver to-day." ! Proceeding accordingly to show that the Church might be established and yet abide " as spiritual, as holy, as independent as before," he began by referring to a conversation he had had with an American clergyman, who said to him, " If all you mean by an Establishment is an organised provision for the clergv, we should rejoice in it. The thing we deprecate is the authority of the civil magistrate in matters of religion. Now this," Dr Chalmers went on, " this organised provision is truly all that we contend for, ... an arrangement which might truly be gone into, and which actually is gone into without the slightest infringement on the spiritual prerogatives of the ^ Memoirs of Dr Chalmers, by Dr Hanna, vol. iv. p. 44. 148 1800-1843. Church, or the ecclesiastical independence of her clergy men. . . . We know of nothing more perfect in this respect than the constitution of the Church of Scotland. There is to each of its members an independent voice from within, and from without there is no power or authority whatever in matters ecclesiastical. . . . We have no other connection with the State than that of being maintained by it, after which we are left to regulate the proceedings of our great Home Mission [the Church] with all the purity and the piety and the independence of any Missionary Board. We are exposed to nothing from without which can violate the sanctity of the apostolical character if we ourselves do not violate it. And neither are we exposed to aught which can trench on the authority of the apostolical office if we ourselves make no surrender of it. In things ecclesiastical we decide all." It was on this footing, and on this alone, he stood forth to advocate the union of Church and State, and he goes on to expend his great powers of eloquent argument and striking illustration in making good his position. The impression which these Lectures made on the public mind was great — so much so that the London Nonconformists invited Dr Wardlaw to deliver a similar course in reply. Accordingly, in the same month of April of the following year 1839, he appeared in London, and lectured with all his well-known ability, unfolding the argument on the side of Voluntaryism in its utmost strength. On the question of the Church's spiritual freedom he meets the views of Dr Chalmers at great length.! " We charge it," he says, "on Establishment as one of their serious evils that they interfere with the spiritual and ^ National Establishmeots Examined, a course of Lectures by Ralph Wardlaw, D.D., pp. 346 S3q. London: Jackson & Walford, 1839, Reply by Dr Wardlaw. 149 divinely chartered independence of the Church." He quotes from Hallam to the effect that the Church has undoubtedly surrendered a part of her independence in return for ample endowments and temporal power. "Such surrender," Dr Wardlaw continues, "we regard as necessarily involved in the constitution of every Established — that is, of every nationally endowed — Church ; and while we consider the requisition of the surrender as, in the principle of it on the part of the State, perfectly fair, we denounce compliance with the requisition on the part of the Church ... as a shameless dereliction of her primary allegiance — a simoniacal sacrifice of the exclusive authority of her Lord for temporal benefits — a sacrifice unjustifiable even on the ground alleged on its behalf of these temporal benefits being sought for spiritual ends." Following up this general announcement of his views, he proceeds to consider the sacrifice of the Church's inde pendence from three points of view — her creed, the appointment of her ministers, and the power of her Courts. On each of these topics he presents an elaborate argument in which he puts forth all his strength. His own theory of the relation between Church and State is that there ought to be complete separation. " The true and legitimate province of the magistrate," he says, "in regard to religion is to have no province at all." He was the advocate thus of Voluntaryism in its extreme form, but his Lectures were received with admiration by the London Nonconformists, who, as they state, anticipated from their publication "a new and decisive victory to truth." We do not stay to go further into detail. This is not the place to give our own views as to the value of these arguments and replies. The single point on which we lay stress is that all these writers and speakers on both 150 1800-1843- sides consider the principle of spiritual independence to be vital. It is the Thermopylae of the debate. And this was the view not only of outstanding men like Dr Inglis and Dr Chalmers on the one side, or of Dr Marshall and Dr Wardlaw on the other, but the same thing meets us all through the controversy. Hardly any pamphlet appeared, hardly any public meeting was held in crowded city or rural district, but the cry on the one side was that the Church if established must even in things spiritual bend its neck under the yoke of State control ; and the reply on the other side was that the Established Church must have, and actually had, spiritual independence and free dom in all her ecclesiastical proceedings, owning no Lord or Master but Christ. The vital and essential importance of this principle indeed is obvious. Spiritual independence means allegi ance to Christ. Without that principle in the thick of the conflict it would have been impossible for the defenders of the Established Church to have stood their ground. If it were really true that in order to become established the Church must sacrifice her independence and her unfettered freedom to follow Christ, then the cause of the Establishment was lost. It was in this way that the Voluntary controversy prepared men for the Ten Years' Conflict and the Dis ruption. It brought home to their minds the importance of the great Free Church principle. Not for a moment, however, must it be supposed that the defenders of Establishment were driven by stress of argument to adopt the principle of spiritual independence in order to serve a purpose. That principle was hereditary with them. They had grown up in the belief of it. Many a time the Church had battled for it and upheld it in days gone by. Even in modern times, long before the Voluntary The Call Restored. 1 5 1 controversy was heard of, as, for example, in 1814 and 1816, we find Dr Chalmers insisting on it in its integrity.! But when the battle was at the gate threatening the existence of the Establishment, the conflict sharpened and deepened men's sense of its importance. If the Established Church is to be saved, spiritual independence is essential. Give us spiritual independence, and we shall have much to say in support of Establishments. Deprive us of spiritual independence, say that the Church is to be so controlled that she is no longer free to follow the mind of Christ according to her own judgment, let it be found that she must barter her spiritural jurisdiction in return for her emoluments, the very idea of such a surrender would be intolerable. This was the truth which the Voluntary controversy drove home on the minds of men. If the Establishment is to stand, the Church must be unfettered and free to follow Christ. And free she was in the estimation of all those who composed the Evan gelical party, the great majority in her ranks. While that controversy was being carried on to the end, not a man of us all had a doubt that the inheritance of spiritual inde pendence for which our forefathers contended was actually in possession of the Church. , The question, however, was soon to be put to the proof. How the trial came about and with what results must now be told as briefly and simply as the case admits of. In 1834, when the Evangelical party obtained the power, it became their duty to redress the grievances against which they had so long been protesting during the times of Moderate ascendency. Two of these accordingly received immediate attention. First they reversed the policy of the Moderate party in 1 Memoirs, vol. i. p. 397. Appendix L, p. 496. 152 1800-1843- regard to the settlement of ministers. The call of the people, which had been all but extinguished, must be revived, and the old law of the Church must be acted on, that "no minister be intruded on any congregation contrary to the will of the people." After much consul tation, a rule was adopted — the Veto Law — as being the mildest form in which to give effect to the call ; all who did not oppose the presentee were counted as his supporters. Some thought that the abolition of Patronage should have been sought, but that would have required an Act of Parliament, and the prospect of gaining the assent of the House of Lords at that time was hopeless. Here, on the other hand, was a thing which the Church might do, and had legally the power of doing, as the Crown lawyers of the day assured her. At the same time, men were free to advocate the abolition of Patronage if they saw fit, but this was a thing which could be done at once. A second step was that all chapel ministers were to have Kirk Sessions appointed to aid them in their work, and were admitted to a seat in the Courts of the Church, being thus put on the same footing with the rest of their brethren. This Act was carefully guarded — so far as the Church could do it — and confined to the spiritualities of the ministerial office. It seemed to be required in a rightly constituted Presbyterian Church, and it was essential if the Church were to meet the spiritual wants of an increasing population to the best advantage. These two Acts were passed in 1834, and the first led to a series of conflicts which ran on for ten years with ever- increasing severity. The conflict in regard to the second came later, but culminated in still more serious complica tions at the General Assembly of 1843. Under the first there arose a case at Auchterarder where the parishioners were all but unanimous in Marnoch. 1 5 ^ rejecting the presentee. Considering himself wronged, he along with the patron applied to the Civil Courts for redress. There was a long litigation, but ultimately the decision was to the effect that the Church was not at liberty to make the resistance of the congregation a ground for refusing to go on with the settlement. The rule of the Established Church must be that the judgment and the feelings of a Christian congregation were of no account. This decision, viewed by itself, was sufficiently damaging ; but taken in connection with the principles of law, laid down at the time by the majority of the Court of Session, and unanimously in the House of Lords, it was fatal to all claim on the part of the Church to any spiritually independent jurisdiction. The crucial point was that according to the principles of law thus laid down the only authority which the Church had — the only authority, at least, which the Courts could recognise her as having — was that derived from the State. Her only jurisdiction was what the law of the land conferred. The claim to inherent spiritual jurisdiction and independence was utterly crushed. All the freedom she had was that conceded by the State, and the civil judges would tell her | in each case how much or how little it was. Let us observe the position. A question has arisen as to what is required for the ordination of a minister. The Church decides that the nominee of the patron cannot be ordained against the conscientious opposition of the people. The old law of the Church forbad it, and morally and spirit ually she held it would be a grievous wrong inflicted on the parish. The Civil Court, on the other hand, decided that the Church must go forward as if the will of the people had never been expressed. Thus far they claimed authority to control the Church as to what was necessary or not 154 1800-1843- necessary in settling and ordaining men to the office of the ministry. If there had been any doubt as to what this meant, it was made plain at Marnoch, where the presentee was so obnoxious to the people that the only supporter in the parish who signed his call was the innkeeper. He applied to the Court of Session asking that the Presbytery " should be decerned and ordained," not only to examine him, but ' "forthwith to admit and receive him as minister of the Church and Parish." The Court granted his application ; it was merely a corollary to what they had already done in the Auchterarder case. The Court knew that if he were to be settled, he must be ordained ; and the order, therefore, that he should be forthwith "admitted and received " was in reality an order to ordain. They thus assumed the right to control the Church in the Act of Ordination.! j^qw, if there is one Act which more than another belongs exclusively to the Church, it is ordination to the sacred office of the ministry, and the conditions on which ordination should be conferred or refused. The office is spiritual, all its functions are spiritual. The true minister is he who is moved by the Holy Ghost. In the whole proceedings connected with ordination there is a sacredness and solemnity which belongs to no other appointment. The fatal thing, therefore, in those decisions of the Civil Courts was not merely that they overbore the conscientious opposition of the people, but they assumed ^ It is true that the Court was only ordering the Presbytery to do what of their own accord they were willing to do. But they were prohibited by the superior Ecclesiastical Courts to which they owed obedience, and when the Civil Judges decerned and ordained that the Presbytery must go on to "admit and receive," i.e. , to ordain the presentee, they obviously claimed to have authority over the Church in that part of her work — the ordaining of men to the office of the ministry. Marnoch. 155 the right to dictate to the Church as to what was or was not required in order to the solemn Act of Ordination. It was an interference by the Civil Courts with the rights and liberties of Christ's spiritual kingdom to which the Church could not submit. Here, then, was a decision which cut to the quick, wounding the conscientious convictions of those who had championed the cause of the Established Church and upheld her claim to independence. In the Marnoch case there soon arose still more serious complications. The majority of the Presbytery belonged to the Moderate party. They were willing to intrude. To protect the parish from the intrusion of the presentee, it was found necessary to put on trial seven ministers of the Presbytery who were resisting their ecclesiastical superiors and violating their ordination vows. On their continuing to resist, they were first suspended from all clerical functions, and ultimately they were deposed. On their own application, however, the Civil Court came to the rescue, and professedly annulled the sentence of the Church. The ministers accepted this as valid, and went on with their work as ministers under the authority of the judges. It was as if the Civil Court and these ministers had combined to trample in the dust the Church's spiritual jurisdiction. There was, however, the second great Act of 1834, which admitted^the chapel ministers, and here the results were, if possible, more formidable still. But before speaking of these, it may be well to notice the general principle which guided the Civil Courts in all these proceedings. There is no need to suppose that the judges had any hos tile feelings against the Church. It was their duty in the Civil Court to protect what they believed to be the civil rights of all parties, and to see that justice was done to them. And it is obvious that if in giving redress for any 156 1800-1843- supposed wrong they had confined themselves to things civil and temporal, they would have been within their rights. The stipend might have been taken away, manse and glebe forfeited, and if that were not enough, other penalties imposed — that would have been competent. The fatal error was, that in order to protect civil interests they considered it necessary that the Church should perform certain ecclesi astical acts, and they held they had a right to control the Church in the discharge of her own sacred functions. Unfortunately, they introduced a new reading of the old Scottish laws assimilating them to the Erastianised system of English law.! « j^ England the sovereign is supreme governor of the Church, and his Law Courts have a control over her corresponding to that supremacy. Not the Legislature only in making the law, but the judges in administering it, control the Church in what is undoubt edly her native and proper province." ^ Following some such model, the Scottish judges assumed similar control over the Scottish Church even in her own proper sphere. It is well that we clearly understand what this means. The general principle of the law as now established in Scotland is that the Church derives its whole jurisdiction from the State, and holds it as defined by the State. In all ecclesiastical affairs the Courts hold that the State can set limits to the Church, and if ever they are of opinion that she has gone over the limits so set, they will give redress not only by adjusting the civil interests involved, but by controlling the Church in her own proper functions. The Church is thus subordinate, for she is not at liberty to decide for her own guidance in her own work. ' The formerly received view on this subject was upheld by a powerful minority of the judges, among whom was the oldest and one of the ablest men on the bench, Lord Glenlee, who spoke for the judges of a past generation. 2 A. Taylor Innes, Esq., Advocate. Adverse Decisions. 157 This was manifest beyond all question in regard to the Chapel Act. The Church felt it to be her duty to meet the spiritual wants of a growing population. While planting new Churches, she felt it equally to be her duty to give them all the advantages of her Presbyterian constitution, assigning them Kirk Sessions, and making the ministers members of Presbytery. This she held herself bound to do for the cause of Christ and the spiritual good of the people. She did it in virtue of her inherent right as a Christian Church bound to obey Christ her Head. She did her utmost to see that no civil interest was interfered with ; they were churches only quoad sacra. It was an ecclesiastical arrangement intended solely for the edification of the people. At first the Act was welcomed, and for five years all went well, but at last the question was raised in the Law Courts, and they decided that the Church had no power to do what she was doing. These chapel ministers must be expelled, their Kirk Sessions and parochial arrange ments abolished, and interdicts were issued prohibiting them from sitting in the Church Courts, and prohibiting the Church Courts from allowing them to sit. But how could the Church submit to this ? If she is a spiritually independent Church, she must have the power to appoint her own office-bearers. Every indepen dent institution has that inherent right. But there is something still more important. In carrying on the affairs of Christ's House, and in providing for the edifica tion of the people, the Church is bound to listen to no voice but the voice of Christ. Freedom to 'fulfil the obligations laid on her by her Divine Master is essential. To be hampered and arrested in such work by the coer cion of civil judges was a yoke which the Church could not consent to bear. 158 1800-1843- But that was not all. When the interdicts began, the whole constitution bf Presbyteries, Synods, and Assemblies was affected, and in cases of Discipline especially the results were disastrous. There was a minister, for example, charged with several acts of fraud. The trial had gone on, the charges were found proved, he had confessed, and sentence had been passed. After all, he took refuge in the Court of Session, pleading that the chapel ministers had taken part in the proceedings. After what they had done already, the Court could not logically refuse. They issued a decree of suspension and interdict, and professed to shield the accused from his sentence. Unfortunately, this was no solitary instance. Two other ministers were before the Church Courts — one accused of theft, and the other of drunkenness — and in both cases the Civil Court could not help coming to their aid. But what position was this for a Church to occupy ? Was she so under control that she was not free to say who were to be members of her Courts in things spiritual, not free to protect her own purity ? Had the Civil Court a right to interfere and control the Church in such matters ? Then, surely, it was futile to speak any longer of the Church's spiritual independence. So far as the Establishment was concerned, the Civil Courts had made an end of it. One thing had all along been clear — the Church could submit on no terms to hold such a position. But the question remained. Did the State really mean it ? As yet these were merely the decisions of the Civil Courts. Did the State actually intend to impose such conditions ? It only remained to ascertain this by making a formal appeal 'to Parliament and to the Queen. , This was done in two forms. First, there was the Claim of Eight, in which the Church, addressing the Efforts to avert a Crisis. 159 Throne, set forth the grievances under which she suffered and craved redress. Next, a Convocation of Ministers met in November 1842 and forwarded a second appeal in similar terms, along with formal resolutions to the effect that if redress were refused they must abandon the Establishment. Then, finally, in March 1843 the Com mission of Assembly brought the whole subject by petition \ before the House of Commons. | Everything that man could do was done to avert the I crisis. But the crisis came. First, there was a reply from the Government, and next a vote by the House of Commons, and the result in both cases was decisive — every form of redress was directly refused, and in such terms as to preclude all hope for the future. It should be noted that if the question in the House of Commons had depended on the votes of the Scottish members of Parlia ment, the decision would have gone the other way. They were overborne by English influence. Here, then, we stand at an important crisis in the history of the Church of Scotland. It was the close of a long struggle which had gone on for nearly three hundred years. The Church ever since the days of Knox had claimed her spiritual independence and freedom to serve Christ, according to her own views of duty. She had fought for it against Mary and Lethington, against Morton with his Tulchan Bishops, against James and Charles with their kingcraft and violence. She had stood the storm of persecution through the blood-stained reign of the second Charles ; she had contended with King William ; and even through the long dead time of Moderatism a faithful band of noble witnesses had stood by her Constitution, over borne as it was in the interests of Patronage. It had been a gallant struggle all along for the liberty with which Christ had made His Church free. But now at last it i6o 1 800- 1 843. was over and done with. The Judges in our Civil Courts, the Government of Sir Eobert Peel and the Enghsh House of Commons, did what no statecraft and no arbi^ trary violence of former generations had ever been able permanently to do. The Constitution was broken down. The spiritual independence of the Church was overthrown. Would this, then, be submitted to ? Would the Church which had stood out in former days give way now ? The reply came on the 18th of May 1843 in the view of all the world. The true old Church of Scotland, adhering to her principles, had once more, as in 1662, to renounce her connection with the State, and leaving all emoluments behind her, go forth not only the Free Church of Scotland, I but THE Church of Scotland Free. The circumstances in which this was done, and the trials which it involved, I have been called on to narrate elsewhere, and need not here describe. But now what immediately concerns us is the question as to our present position. In this connection it should be carefully observed that the law of Church and State which was settled in 1843 remains the law still. Patron age has indeed been abolished. Unable as the Free Church was with all her efforts ever to wring one concession for herself from the State, her influence in the country has compelled Parliament at the instance of the Established Church herself to wipe out the law of Patronage from the Statute Book. But in regard to the question of spiritual jurisdiction and independence the Church stands where it stood before. The law this day knows of no inde pendent spiritual jurisdiction as held by the Church from Christ her Head. Her authority is from Caesar, and she must be content with what Caesar allows.! ^ It is sometimes alleged that the Free Church, after resigning her position, is still as much as ever under the control of the Civil Courts. This is unquestionably true in regard to the money and property of the Our Present Position. 1 6 1 It is not for us to say how it would fare with the present Established Church on the field of argument if the old Voluntary controversy were one day to break forth in its former keenness. On the general question of the union between Church and State, I hold the view which has been so generally held in the Free Church, that national religion in the form of an Establishment in certain circumstances is right and expedient, but all experience has shown how little likelihood there is of such circumstances arising in the present state of the country. In the meantime, one thing is clear, that Dr Chalmers and those who fought by his side in former days would ' have flatly refused the defence of Establishments on the present footing. It was spiritual independence, he says, which was " the basis and strength " of his whole argument. '' Without it I could not have opened my mouth on the subject." If the taint of Erastianism is to cleave to the Church, and if Voluntary assailants demand its Disestab lishment, there is and there can be no defence. Enough, I trust, has been said in these Lectures to show Church, as well as the liberty and the lives of the members. These, "the Church has always maintained, are and ought to be under the control of the Courts of Law. But the ecclesiastical :functions of the Church are under no such control." If the attempt were made to encroach on these functions, it would be an act of manifest inju.stice. We know well enough before the Disruption that we could have no security against such encroachments outside the Establishment (Annals of the Disruption, pp. 5, 6) any more than inside. Attempts might be made to deprive us of freedom of conscience, or subject us to persecution, which the Christian Church has often had to endure. In our ease it would be specially unjust for "no branch of the Christian Church has ever made spiritual inde pendence and freedom from all such encroachments so fundamental an article of its constitution as the Free Church has. " The entire Church, property, and the whole position of every member in the Church, is held explicitly on that condition. But, after all, whatever encroachments might be attempted, the freedom of the Church is safe so long as she refuses her consent to such encroachments, and is prepared to take all the consequences of her refusal. This was what she did in 1843 ; she refused her consent to the Erastian conditions of the Establishment. If the Free Church is only true to herself and her principles and her history— if she is only true to the Lord Jesus Christ, her Spiritual Independence is safe. i62 1800-1843. the importance of studying closely the history of our Scottish Presbyterian Church. No one can understand our present position without knowing how far it has its roots in the past. The place which we hold to-day is the result of forces which have been acting through former generations. The influence of one of these forces — the spiritual independence of the Church — I have endeavoured to trace and to show, so far as our limits would allow, what it has done to make our people and our Free Church what they now are. It would be a shallow way of looking at the Disruption to regard it merely as an isolated fact. We must take along with it those causes of which it is the result- The place which the Free Church holds to-day is, under God, the outcome of forces which have been at work ever since Scotland, in the days of Knox, awoke into national life. Of that great Eeformation movement, our whole country has ever since felt the benefit, and of that benefit our Free Church has had her full share. I remarked at the outset that the principle of spiritual independence which has done so much in the past may still have important work to do in the future. Of the problems now before us in Scotland, one of the most pressing is the question as to how our divided Presbyter ianism is to be united. It can hardly be that the present state of things can go on long as it is. Three large Presbyterian denominations with so much in common can hardly continue to oppose each other as they do all over the land. The cause of religion in our country and over the world seems to demand that ere long there shall be among us a reconstructed and truly national Presbyterian Church. No one can be blind to the fact that there are forces in the midst of us silently and surely working towards that end. In these circumstances it may be asked. What is the Union of Presbyterian Churches. 163 duty of the Free Church ? What are we naturally called on to do ? The practical question is not one on which I have here a right to speak. But in connection with the subject of these Lectures, this much may be safely said, that whatever shape the movement for Union may take, the principle of spiritual independence — come what may — will not be allowed to be put into the background. We know how completely our brethren of the United Presby terian Church hold this principle in common with the Free Church. The difficulty will lie with our brethren of the Established Church. In 1843 they submitted to the conditions which the State imposed. The Veto Law which the Church had solemnly enacted, they held, did not even need to be repealed, because the Civil Court had disallowed it. Ministers whom the Church had solemnly deposed did not need to be reponed, for the secular judges had annulled their deposition. In regard to the quoad sacra ministers, the Church owned herself powerless to give them Kirk-Sessions and a place in her Church Courts, and she owns herself powerless to-day, unless she gets permission from the civil judges. Thus it stood in 1843, the Church submitted to the Civil Courts, and the precedents then laid down are in force to this day. The law as to the union between Church and State is now defined and settled. Surely it is not for the Free Church to take such a position. Spiritual independence is a principle which rises far above all questions of Endowment or State connection. These are subordinate arrangements, incidents which may come or go, but the Church's undivided loyalty to her Divine Head must stand fast as a sacred duty for ever. Still the Union of the Presbyterianism of Scotland into one great national faithful Church is an object for which every lover of our country and of the cause of Christ in the world is bound to strive and pray. If it 164 I80C-1843- * shall be found that the great obstacle is the position which the Established Church now occupies, the question must arise — shall thait be allowed to continue as a dividing cause, keeping the Churches asunder ? The point may well be seriously considered by the Established Church herself. It is a question for the future, and possibly for the not distant future. In the course of these Lectures I have from time to time referred to the lessons which this History teaches. For nearly three hundred years our godly forefathers contended for the Headship of Christ and the spiritual independence of His Church. In days of trial they thought it was not too high a price to pay when for these principles they laid down their lives. In all their con tendings the leading motive was the deep feeling which they had of loyalty to Christ as their personal Saviour. It was this endeared to their hearts the cause for which they suffered, and made them in so many cases the faithful, humble, fearless men they were. May God grant to the Church of these latter days in all her branches something of the same spirit of devotedness to the Master whom she serves ! Only thus will she be enabled to fulfil her high commission, walking in the footsteps of the saints and martyrs who have gone before us, and, above all, in the footsteps of Him who is the Church's only King and Head. In the days that are to come the success of the Free Church must depend on the stedfastness with which she bears faithful testimony for God's truth in the world, and the zeal of her self-denying efforts in His service. Looking back on the past, we have good reason thankfully to say, " Hitherto hath the Lord helped us ; " and looking to the future, we may well go forward trusting in the promise bf our Divine Master, " Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET, EDINBURGH. APPENDIX. The Following is a List of the Principal Authorities with the Editions quoted or referred to in the Lectures. 1. Acts of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. Published by the Church Law Society. Edinburgh, 1843. 2. Biographies, Select, edited by the Rev. W. K. Tweedie. Wodrow Society. Edinburgh, 1845. 3. Baillie, Rev. Robert, Principal, Letters and Journals. 3 vols. Edited by David Laing, Esq. Edinburgh, 1841. 4. Brown, Rev. John, D.D., of Langton, Letter to Dr Chalmers on the Settlement of Ministers. Edinburgh, 1833. 5. Burnet, Gilbert Bishop, History of his own Times. 6 vols. Oxford, 1823. €. Burton, John Hill, Esq., Advocate, History of Scotland, from Agricola's Invasion, etc. 7 vols. Edinburgh, 1867-1870. 7. History of Scotland from the Revolution. 2 vols. London, 1854, 8. Calderwood, Eev. D., History of the Church of Scotland. 8 vols. Wodrow Society. Edinburgh, 1842-1849. 9. Chambers, Robert, Esq., Domestic Annals of Scotland. 3 vols. Edinburgh, 1858-1861. 10. Cloud of Witnesses for the Royal Prerogatives of Jesus Christ, edited by the Eev. John H. Thomson. Edinburgh, 1871. II. Cook, Rev. George, D.D., Professor, Life of the late George Hill, D.D. Edinburgh, 1815. 12. Creech, W., BookseUer, Edinburgh Fugitive Pieces. Edin burgh, 1815. 1 66 Appendix. 13. Cunningham, Rev. John, D.D., Principal, The Church History of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1859. 14. Hanna, Eev. W., D.D., Memoir of Dr Chalmers. 4 vols. Edinburgh, 1849-1852. 15. Hetherington, Rev. W. D. S., Professor, History of the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh, 1842. 16. Howie, John, of Lochgoin, The Scots Worthies, edited by the Rev. W. Carslaw. Edinburgh, 1871. 17. Gray, The Rev. A., of Perth, M.A., The Present Conflict be tween the Civil and Ecclesiastical Courts. Edinburgh, 1839. 18. Inglis, Rev. John, D.D., A Vindication of Ecclesiastical Estab lishments. Edinburgh, 1834. 2nd edition. 19. Kirkton, Rev. J., History of the Church of Scotland, edited by Charles K. Sharpe, Esq. Edinburgh, 1817. 20. John Knox, The Works of (History, etc.), collected and edited by David Laing, Esq., for Wodrow Society. Edinburgh, 1846, sej. 21. John Knox's Open Bible Readings, by the Eev. James Gall. Edinburgh, 1882. 22. Laws of the Church of Scotland, Compendium of the. 2nd edition. Edinburgh, 1837. 23. Lee, Eev. John, D.D., Principal, Lectures on the History of the Church of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1860. 24. Lockhart Papers, containing Memoirs and Commentaries on the Affairs of Scotland. 2 vols. 4to. London, 1817. 25. M'Crie, Eev. Thomas, D.D., Life of John Knox. 5th edition. Edinburgh, 1831. 26. Life of Andrew Melville. Edinburgh, 1819. 27. M'Crie, Rev. Thomas, D.D. {secundus). Sketches of Scottish Church History. 4th edition. 28. Melville, James, Minister of Kilrenny, The Autobiography and Diary of, edited by R. Pitcairn, Esq., for the Wodrow Society. Edinburgh, 1842. 29. Melville, Sir James, of Halhill, Memoirs. Edinburgh, 1735. 30. Morren, Rev. Nathanael, M.A., Annals of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. 2 vols. Edinburgh, 1838-1840. Appendix. 167 31. Moncreiff, Eev. Sir Henry, A Vindication of the Free Church Claim of Eight. Edinburgh, 1877. 32. Petrie, Alexander, History of the Catholic Church from a.d. 600 to A.D. 1600. Hague, 1662. Folio. 33. Eow, John, Minister of Carnock, History of the Kirk of Soot- land. Wodrow Society. Edinburgh, 1842. 34. Spotswood, John, Archbishop, History of the Church of Scot land. 3rd edition. London, 1668. 35. Stevenson, Andrew, History of the Church and State of Scotland from the Accession of King Charles I., etc. Edinburgh, 1844. 36. Scots Worthies. /Se« Howie. 37. Scott, Sir Walter, History of Scotland in Tales of a Grandfather. 21st edition. Edinburgh, 1856. 38. Tytler, Patrick Eraser, Esq., Advocate, History of Scotland. 9 vols. Edinburgh, 1828-1843. 39. Willison, J., Minister at Dundee, A Fair and Impartial Testi mony, etc. Glasgow, 1765. 40. Wodrow, Eobert, History of the Sufferings of the Church of Scotland, etc., edited by Eobert Burns, D.D., 4 vols. Glasgow, 1829-1830. 41. Patronage, Eeport of Select Committee on Church Patronage in Scotland. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 23rd July 1834. 42. Privy Council of Scotland, Eegister of, edited by J. Hill Burton and Professor Masson, 1545-1607. Edinburgh, 1877-1885. New Edition, now ready, XTbd Hnnals of the disruption. By the Rev. THOMAS BROTWN, D.D., F.R.S.E. Demy Svo, 5s, ©pfntons Of tbe press. ' ' Every reader of the volumes knew how interesting were the records, how fitted they were to perform the service he had described, and how admirable in point of tone, taste, and feeling. " — Principal Raint, Assembly 1883. "it would be difficult to present in a more graphic, tme, and impressive form the History of the Disruption and all that has succeeded it. . . . He was ex tremely thankful to Mr Brown for what he had done, and he was sure persons not only in Scotland, but outside of Scotland to the ends of the earth, would, in these volumes, obtain a more definite idea of what the Disruption was, and why it was, than in any other way. He strongly recommended these volumes to all who desired to know what the Disruption was, and what the men connected with tiie Disruption were." — Dr Beqg, Assembly 1883. " We cannot speak too warmly of the manner in which the editor has done his part of the work. He had succeeded ,in preparing a volume which is singularly fresh, interesting, and readable ; and any one with it in his hand can now form a distinct picture in his mind of that memorable period in our history, when the oppressions of the civil power disrupted the National Chmxh of Scotland." — Free Church Record. ' ' The narrative, being derived from those who were witnesses of, and who took part in, the exodus, is peculiarly vivid. It brings before the reader the scenes and incidents of a time of severe trial, which was converted into a time of signal triumph to those who proved faithful to the principles and traditions of the Kirk, and to the dictates of their own consciences. Mr Brown has admirably done his part in welding the separate portions together so as to form a connected narra tive." — British Quarterly Remew. " Something like fascination may well be felt as the pages are turned over, for they seem to lay bare the lives and thoughts of the men whose words are quoted, — their hopes, and fears, and resolutions. The work must have a high interest, not only for Free Churchmen, but for all who care to study ecclesiastical pheno mena. ... In many parts the narrative reads more like a romance than a veri table history ; and those who have least sympathy with the objects will most readily admit that the results afford most indubitable proof of the survival, in these prosaic and self-conscious times, of the perferoidum ingenium Scotorum. Such Annals as these undoubtedly form the best history of the Disruption, not merely as an ecclesiastical event, but also, and perhaps still more, as an illustra tion and outcome of the national character, in what some will consider its strength, and others its weakness." — Scotsman. " It has done our heart good to read this story of a brave deed. This volume is of goodly size, and contains countless anecdotes and memorials, and yet the price is only five shillings. Every Scotchman should read it, because he knows the great influence which the event had upon his country's spiritual life, and every Englishman should read it, because he ought to know what his northern brethren have done." — C. H. Spurgeon, in "Sword and Trowel." EDINBUEGH: MACJflVEN- & WALLACE. YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 3 9002 08561 8339 .if vl V'>W«s^-lW*f%'^ ^>^^ ^^^^^» n>^i?? .%^ i'S'H -^ .i*- s * S^ Sh>*'^sS^'^'.j\J5^s s\\^ \