five years; and at the end of that period he obtained his liberty only on the condition of living for the remainder of his life out of the king's dominions. Melville retired to Sedan, and was engaged in teaching till his death in 1620. James Melville was confined first to Newcastle, and afterwards to Berwick, but never permitted to return to his own country. The other six ministers were banished to separate and remote parts of Scotland. This treatment of some of the ablest and best men and ministers of the kingdom formed a part of the means which the king condescended to use, in order to subdue the opposition to his scheme of Church government in Scotland; how far it was calculated to secure success, the sequel will show.

James having thus disposed of the strongest and most energetic opponents of his scheme, summoned the clergy to meet at Linlithgow in December, 1606, there to consult with a number of the nobles concerning the order of the Church, and obedience to the royal authority. At the instance of the King, a proposal to appoint permanent moderators was brought before the meeting; also that this post should be always filled in the meetings of the Presbyteries and of the Synods, by the bishops. Some of the clergy were surprised at this proposal, but the royal influence prevailed, and the meeting adopted it. At the close of the proceedings the ministers were admonished to beware of expressing anything against his sacred Majesty. Several of the Synods and the Presbyteries protested against the constant moderators, and refused to accept them; but this opposition was broken, and the influence of the Crown for a time silenced all refractory members.4

The Government seemed ready to do everything to enhance the power of the bishops. Parliament in 1607 passed an act authorising the Archbishop of St. Andrews to choose the ministers of seven parishes within his diocese, to act as the

3 Melville's Diary, pp. 644-646, 654, 681, 708, 709; Calderwood, Vol. VI., pp. 586-589, 591, 596-600, et seq.

* Calderwood, Vol. VI., pp. 604-629.

chapter of the See, instead of the prior and the canons, whose dignities had become secularised. Another Parliament in 1609 restored the consistorial courts to the bishops, with all the causes of an ecclesiastical and quasi-civil description which formerly belonged to them. In the winter of 1610, new tribunals were introduced by the King, who in the exercise of his prerogative erected two courts of High Commission, one at St. Andrews and the other at Glasgow. Each court consisted of the archbishop with his suffragans and a few nobles. Five years later, the two courts were merged into one. One of the archbishops, as head of the court, and four others were to compose a quorum; and thus the head of the court could at any time summon four of the members devoted to his will. Their jurisdiction was comprehensive: they could cite any one on the ground of immorality or erroneous doctrine, and sentence them to be fined or imprisoned, and if necessary excommunicated. The ministers, the schoolmasters, and the professors in the Universities, who dared to speak against the established order of the Church or any of the recent conclusions concerning her, were to be cited before the commission and punished. Any minister who failed to obey the injunctions of the commission, could be censured, suspended, or deposed, according to the opinion of the court. In reality, this court had unlimited. powers; it rested upon no law, it was merely erected by a royal proclamation, and its sentence was final.5

Still the bishops felt that they lacked the confidence of the nation, and they were anxious to obtain the sanction of the

5 Calderwood, Vol. VII., pp. 57-62, 204-210. In short, the court of High Commission could fine and imprison any one at discretion. It has been stated by Dr. Burton in his History of Scotland (Vol. VI., pp. 242-243), that the Court of Session could review the decisions of this court, which in theory may be true. But when it is remembered what the Court of Session was then, and for long after, it is easily seen that protection from oppression and injustice was not likely to come very promptly from this quarter. Then the bishops themselves were lords of Parliament, some of them members of the Privy Council, constant moderators of Presbyteries and Synods, and patrons of benefices; and backed at every turn by the royal authority and prerogative of the king.

highest ecclesiastical authority recognised by the people. So the King summoned a General Assembly to meet at Glasgow in June, 1610, composed of members favourable to the organisation of Episcopacy; the influence of the Crown was openly and freely employed in directing the choice of members. In this Assembly, as in all those of the period, there was no fair and open discussion permitted, no disputed point was allowed to be debated at a full sitting of the members, but was settled at a private conference, and the result only presented to the Assembly to be recorded. In this way a number of articles were smuggled in and declared to be carried, which would not have passed if they had been debated in a regular form before a General Assembly. The chief points passed by this Assembly were, that the calling of General Assemblies belonged exclusively to the King as a prerogative of his Crown, and therefore the alleged Assembly held at Aberdeen in 1605 was unlawful and null; that Synods should be held in every diocese twice in the year, at which the bishops were to be moderators; that all presentations to benefices must be directed to the bishop of the diocese who, with the assistance of some of the ministers, should examine those presented, and if they found them qualified, should ordain them; that in deposing of ministers, the bishop should join with himself the ministry of the bounds where the delinquent served, and after a fair trial should pronounce sentence; that every minister at his admission should swear obedience to the King and his ordinary; that a bishop or a minister named by him should preside in all the meetings of the ministers; and finally, that none of the ministers, either in their pulpits or in any of their meetings, should speak or reason against the acts of this Assembly, or disobey them, under the penalty of deposition; and especially that the question of equality among the ministry should not be treated in the pulpit, under the same penalty.

The acts of this Assembly were confirmed and amplified by an act of Parliament in 1612, which at the same time repealed the act of 1592 that had sanctioned the Presbyterian polity.

In the autumn of 1610, three of the Scottish Bishops were consecrated in England, Spottiswood, Bishop of Glasgow; Lamb, Bishop of Brechin; and Hamilton, Bishop of Galloway; and when they returned home, they consecrated the rest of the Scottish Bishops. Thus the restoration of Episcopacy was completed.

Though Episcopacy was restored, yet in many of the congregations the Presbyterian form of worship was retained. But the King recommended more ceremonies to hasten on conformity to the Church of England. In the spring of 1614, he issued a proclamation commanding that all persons should partake of the communion on Easter Day; and the next year a royal proclamation ordered the celebration of the communion on Easter Day, in all time coming.7

A General Assembly met at Aberdeen in August, 1616, then and afterwards the famed centre of the opposition to Presbyterianism in Scotland. The King's party had a majority in the Assembly, and many proposals were made, among others, "that all the children in schools shall have and learn by heart the catechism entitled, God and the King, which, by an act of council, is already ordained to be read and taught in all schools". This Assembly authorised the preparation of a Liturgy and a new Confession of Faith. The communion was to be administered four times a year in towns, and twice in country parishes; and one of these times to be always on Easter Day.8

• Calderwood, Vol. VII., pp. 94-103, 150, 152, 154, 165-171; Acts Parl. Scot., Vol. IV.

7 Acts of the Privy Council, March 3rd, 1614; Calderwood, Vol. VII,, pp. 191, 196.

8 Calderwood, Vol. VII., pp. 222-242. The Presbyterian historian passed the following remarks on the Assembly-"Although it began with preaching and fasting, yet the Holy Ghost was enclosed in a packet of letters sent from the court whereby they were directed. The King ordained by his letter the Primate to rule the clergy, and his commissioner, the Earl of Montrose, to order the laity. So the Primate stepped into the moderator's place without election, against the practice and acts of our Church, not as yet repealed by the

.

But the resolutions of the Assembly did not satisfy the King, and he transmitted to the bishops five articles of his own, which he ordered them to adopt. These articles enjoined that the communion should always be received in a kneeling posture; that in cases of sickness the communion should be administered in private houses; that baptism in like circumstances should be administered in the same way; that holidays should be appointed for the commemoration of the birth, passion, and resurrection of Christ, and of the descent of the Holy Ghost; and that children should be brought to the bishop for a blessing. There was much and determined opposition among the Scots to these ceremonies, which in history are known as the "Five Articles of Perth". On the suggestion of Archbishop Spottiswood, the King was induced to refrain from issuing them by his royal authority for another year, till they received the assent of a General Assembly."

James turned his visit to Scotland into an occasion for an exhibition of his opinions and feelings on Church matters. He gave express commands and directions for fitting up and decorating the Chapel of Holyrood, for the celebration of worship in the English form. Organs were sent to Edinburgh for this purpose; the King himself was accompanied by several English bishops and divines. When he arrived in Scotland in May, and reached Edinburgh on the 16th of the month, 1617, he issued peremptory orders that all the nobles, the privy councillors, and the bishops then in Edinburgh should receive the communion on their knees in the chapel on Whitsunday. The most of those who were summoned at once complied; but those who Assembly of Glasgow or any other. The roll of the Presbyteries was not called, nor commissions considered, whether free or limited. A number of lords and barons decorated the Assembly with silks and satins, but without lawful commission to vote. Bishops had no commissions from Presbyteries as they ought to have had, according to the practice of our Church. The moderators of Presbyteries came by the bishop's missives, and a forged clause of an act made at a pretended Assembly held at Linlithgow in the year 1606." Vol. VII., pp. 222, 223.

9

9 Spottiswood's History of the Church of Scotland, pp. 528, 529.

1655.