The first chapter contains a statement of the powers and prerogatives of the King in religious matters. The doctrine of the royal supremacy is laid down and enforced under the penalty of excommunication against all who dared to resist it; upon the ground that it had been exercised by the Jewish kings and by the early Christian emperors. To secure reverence for this divine supremacy of the King, it was stated that "none shall be permitted to teach in any college or school, either as principal, regent, or fellow, except he first take the oath of allegiance and supremacy. And having taken the charge upon them, they shall acquaint their scholars, and train them up according to their capacity, in the grounds contained in the book entitled 'Deus et Rex,' God and the King."

"22

"In

One of the canons was directed against the press. setting forth books, satirical libels, and other pamphlets, repugnant to the truth, or not agreeing with honesty and good manners. It is ordained that nothing hereafter be printed except the same be seen, and allowed, by the visitors appointed to that purpose."

These canons placed the whole internal life of the Church in the hands of the bishops. They alone were invested with the right of expounding the Bible, all private meetings of ministers for this were to be strictly prohibited; and no one was to be permitted to impugn the opinion of another minister in the same or in the neighbouring church without the permission of the bishop. The whole drift of the book of Canons is well expressed in its concluding sentences:-" In all this book of Canons, wherever there is no penalty expressly set down, it is to be understood that the punishment shall be arbitrary, as the ordinary shall think fittest".

The way in which these canons were introduced certainly was unusual, and it touched the national pride, as well as the religious sentiments of the Scots. The canons also made direct.

22 P. 28.

reference to a Liturgy which was not yet published. These canons had little resemblance to any Scottish ecclesiastical rules or acts subsequent to the Reformation; but such was the King's disregard for the feeling and the character of the Scots, and his blind confidence in the efficacy of the royal supremacy, that he imagined he had only to command what he pleased, and the people would obey him. Acting on this assumption, he signed a warrant to the Privy Council, on the 18th of October, 1636, containing his instructions concerning the introduction of the Liturgy. It was stated, that the King had several times recommended to the Scotch archbishops and bishops the publication of a regular form of service to be observed in the public worship; as this had now been definitely undertaken, he believed that all his Scottish subjects would receive it with becoming reverence. "Yet thinking it necessary to make known our pleasure concerning the authorising of the book, we require you to command, by open proclamation, all our subjects, both ecclesiastical and civil, to conform themselves to the practice thereof. It being the only form which we, having taken the counsel of our clergy, think fit to be used in God's public worship there. Also we require you to enjoin all archbishops and bishops, and other presbyters and churchmen, to take care that the same be duly obeyed, and the contraveners to be condignly censured and punished. And to see that every parish procure to themselves, within such a time as you shall think fit to appoint, two copies at least of the book of Common Prayer for the use of the parish." In compliance with his Majesty's command, the Privy Council passed an act on the 20th of December, and issued a proclamation ordering all the people to conform themselves to the new Liturgy.23

The nation was soon in a ferment. A suspicion arose among the people that Roman Catholicism was to be reintroduced.

23 Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 440-441

They had already yielded so far to the King, and restrained their feelings in deference to the royal authority; but the limit of their passive obedience was passed. They declared that the King had no right to impose a service-book upon them without the consent of Parliament and the General Assembly; they asserted that it was popish, that it taught popish doctrines, and was little better than a mass-book. Some attempted to defend it, but in vain.24 The royal proclamation ordered the new Liturgy to be observed in all the churches on Easter, 1637; but the authorities postponed it, which only heightened the feeling and the excitement against it. The bishops themselves were not unanimous regarding the expediency of enforcing the observance of the Liturgy; some of them brought the subject before their synods, but little progress was made. On the 13th of June, the Privy Council passed an act which declared that some of the ministers had perversely failed to obey the former proclamation: "Therefore the Lords ordain letters to be directed, charging the whole presbyteries and ministers within the kingdom, that they and every one of them provide themselves, for the use of their parishes, with two copies of the said Book of Common Prayers, within fifteen days after

24 In a note to the first volume of Baillie's Letters and Journals, it is stated that the Liturgy itself was not completed till May, 1637; but Dr. Grub says, "before Easter, copies of the book were ready for distribution". Eccles. Hist. Scot., Vol. II., p. 378

The Liturgy itself was framed upon the form of the English Book of Common Prayer, with some slight differences, especially in the office of the communion. After the proclamation commanding its use, and a preface, it began with remarks on ceremonies: how the psalter was appointed to be read; how the rest of the Scriptures was appointed to be read; a table of proper psalms and lessons for Sunday and other holidays; a table for the order of the psalms at daily prayers; an almanac; a table and calendar for the daily psalms and lessons; and a list of holidays which were to be observed.

The order for the administration of the Communion differed in some important points from the English office. This form was elaborate, and out of many points minutely stated, it may be mentioned that a commemoration of the faithful departed was inserted at the end of the prayer for the Church militant.

In the form of marriage, it was enjoined that the newly married persons should receive the communion on the day of their marriage.

this charge, under the penalty of rebellion, and being put to the horn." 25

At a meeting of the bishops it was agreed that the public reading of the new liturgy should begin in Edinburgh, on Sunday, the 23rd of July, 1637; and this was ordered to be intimated in all the churches of the city on the previous Sunday. The congregations listened to the intimation in silence: but in the following week speeches, declarations, and pamphlets were launched on every hand against the new liturgy; while no really vigorous efforts appeared in favour of its introduction.

On the appointed Sunday, preparations were made to celebrate the new service with the utmost solemnity, to give the occasion of its introduction in the capital an imposing character. In the historical Church of St. Giles, the two archbishops, the Bishop of Edinburgh, and several other bishops, the Lords of the Privy Council, the Judges of the Court of Session, and the Magistrates of the city, attended at ten in the forenoon to grace the proceedings. The Bishop of Edinburgh was to preach, and the Dean was to read the service. A large congregation had assembled, but they looked restless and wistful; and the dean had scarcely begun to read the new liturgy, when confused cries arose. As he proceeded, the clamour became louder, and the prayers could not be heard. The people started to their feet, and the church was a scene of hideous uproar. The voices of the women were loudest, some cried

woe, woe me," others shouted that "they were bringing in popery"; and the stools were thrown at the Dean and the Bishop of Edinburgh. The Archbishop of St. Andrews and the Lords of the Privy Council then interposed, but in vain; the tumult continued till the Magistrates came from their seats in the gallery, and with much difficulty thrust out the unruly members. The Dean read the service, and the Bishop preached, with barred doors; but the crowd stood around the church in a

25 Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., p. 4, et seq.; pp. 442, 447.

state of vehement excitement, rapping at the doors and throwing stones at the windows, and shouting "popery, popery," and calling the bishops the most abusive names. When the bishops came out of the church, the multitude attacked Bishop Lindsay on his way home, and he narrowly escaped with his life. Similar disturbances occurred in the other churches of the city, though less violent. In the Greyfriars Church, the Bishop of Argyle was obliged to stop reading the service. Between the hours of worship, the Lords and the Magistrates met, and made such arrangements that the evening service at St. Giles, and some of the other churches, passed without interruption; but the Bishop of Edinburgh was again attacked in company with the Earl of Roxburgh; and the armed servants of the latter enabled the former to escape without serious injury.26

The excitement was rapidly spreading and becoming more intense; and it was manifest that the actors in the tumults in Edinburgh could hardly be punished. Indeed, the liturgy was almost universally spurned; and in the face of this heated feeling, the authorities were comparatively powerless. On the 4th of August, the Privy Council received a letter from the King, commanding them to search out and to punish the persons concerned in the late disturbances, and to support the bishops and the clergy in establishing the new liturgy. The Council resolved that another attempt should be made to use the new service on Sunday, the 13th of August; but when this day came, it was not tried in the churches of Edinburgh, because,

26 Rothes' Relation. "So on Sunday morning when the bishop and his dean, in the great church, and the bishop of Argyle in the Greyfriars, began to officiate, as they spoke, immediately the serving maids began such a tumult as was never heard of since the Reformation in our nation. However, no wound given to any, yet such was the contumelies in words, in clamours, runnings and flinging of stones in the eyes of the magistrates, and the chancellor himself, that a little opposition would have infallibly moved that enraged people to have rent sundry of the bishops in pieces. The day after, I had occasion to be in the town, I found the people nothing settled; but, if that service had been presented to them again, resolved to have done some mischief." Baillie's Letters and Journals, Vol. I., pp. 18, 448.